Abstract
While several studies have been undertaken to understand the circular economy (CE) in cities, there needs to be a comprehensive framework acknowledging why certain decisions related to the CE have been taken. This paper proposes a framework building on literature reviews on circular cities and engagements with cities. Our research objectives are to improve how the CE is understood at the city level; and support the planning, monitoring, evaluation, and learning on the CE at the city level. Our framework locates urban CE strategies and visions, biophysical and socio-economic urban stocks and flows, and institutional arrangements within the triple bottom line concept and conceptualises how they interact. Our case studies with two cities provide insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the cities’ CE approaches. It can help identify priority interventions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Globally, more than a hundred cities are adopting the circular economy (CE) to achieve planning goals of climate change mitigation, resource management, and societal welfare [1, 2]. The CE is an “economic system that replaces the ‘end-of-life’ concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling, and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption processes” [3, p. 229]. It focuses on “designing out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems” [4]. A common visualisation includes the butterfly diagram [5], which displays both a technical and biological cycle, with different methods to improve the material flows within society and reduce environmental impacts. Aside from the environmental benefits, the CE could contribute substantially to the economy in terms of job creation and lower costs for industry [6, 7].
The CE is a model for cities that can decouple urban development from resource consumption, thereby integrating economic welfare priorities with eradicating environmental pressures while addressing cities’ socio-economic challenges [8,9,10,11]. Notably, the CE can capitalise on the spatial and economic proximity between stakeholders and resources to close material loops at the city level [12].
Yet, while some have argued that the CE has significant sustainability potential [9, 13,14,15], others suggest that the link between the current interpretation and practice of the CE model results in weak sustainability practices making its contribution to the realisation of Agenda 2030 goals negligible [16]. For many decision-makers, understanding how policies and strategies contribute to creating more sustainable societies is paramount [17, 18], including policies related to the CE. Indeed, even if a circular model–based intervention is deliberately designed to achieve strong sustainability, greater circularity does not necessarily entail direct environmental and socio-economic benefits across multiple systems [19]. Scholars call for caution when advocating “circularity for circularity’s sake” when potential environmental and social trade-offs and rebound effects are not considered [12, 20, 21].
Therefore, to enhance overall circularity performance, there is a need to evaluate circular solutions, practices, and strategies to advance monitoring and governance of a complex transition towards a more CE [22, 23]. One methodology to do so is the Theory of Change (ToC), which “explains how a given intervention, or set of interventions, are expected to lead to a specific development change, drawing on a causal analysis based on available evidence” [24, p. 3]. It is widely used in the development sector, with aid agencies using it to clarify how change occurs and assumptions made. It describes how changes are expected to occur (ex ante) or how changes have occurred (ex post), allowing decision-makers to plan better and monitor and evaluate interventions [25]. Unlike the logical framework approach, ToCs are non-linear, with different pathways leading to impact; causal (explaining why a particular activity will cause a consequence); and explanatory in nature [26]. They entail understanding the organisation and the external environment and are strategic management tools. ToCs aim to improve learning, enhance accountability to local communities and funders, and clarify results and impacts [27].
This paper presents a framework to support the planning, monitoring, evaluation, and learning within cities on the CE. Our research objectives are to (1) improve how the CE is understood at the city level and (2) support the planning, monitoring, evaluation, and learning on the CE at the city level. Our research questions are:
-
RQ1) What components should a CE framework cover to assist the planning, monitoring, evaluation, and learning of the CE at the city level?
-
RQ2) What learnings arise from applying this framework in different contexts?
We do so as we have identified several knowledge gaps.
First, little research has managed to explain the causal links between the CE vision, stakeholder participation, strategies, urban stocks and flows, and the impacts of the CE on society. Current methods to measure the CE at the city level, such as urban metabolism (see, e.g. [28] for an application), have been found too narrow in scope, often focusing only on resource input and waste outputs [29]. The doughnut economy model [30], in turn, has been said to be too normative and not follow economic theory [31,32,33]. Our framework provides a systems perspective of the CE at the city level, linking with economy drivers and moving beyond materials and energy flows to understand the complexity of cities [34]. It moves beyond the waste and wastewater industry and recycling and recovering strategies to other sectors and R-strategies [1] and incorporates environmental impacts and socio-economic assessments [35,36,37]. Through the use of the ToC methodology (see, for instance, [38], who used it to evaluate circular business models), our framework allows to monitor the impacts of and link the CE to broader sustainability agendas and efforts [2, 23, 39].
Second, as noted by Carrière et al. [40], there are insufficient robust case studies on the CE at the city level. Basing our framework on the ToC implies an ability to use it for planning, monitoring, evaluation, and learning. Our case studies have provided learnings to the two cities in our sample but can also inform other practitioners and academia on how to design the CE within cities. To that end, a checklist was developed (see Supplementary material). It supports the challenge identified by several scholars in applying context-specific CE strategies [2, 35, 41, 42]. Our framework also provides insights into the data necessary to measure the CE at the city level [23, 39].
Our paper is structured as follows. The “Methods and Materials” section presents the methodology and materials used to arrive at our framework. Then, in the “The UCAF” section, we set out the framework and describe its components. The results of our analysis of the CE plans of the cities of Umeå and Stockholm against this framework are presented in the “Application of the UCAF to the Cities of Umeå and Stockholm, Sweden” section. The “Discussion” section contains a discussion, followed by a conclusion in the “Conclusion” section.
Materials and Methods
Our Urban Circularity Assessment Framework (UCAF) was developed iteratively over 3 years in the Urban Circularity Assessment Framework (UCAF) project.Footnote 1 Our research consortium involved two academic partners, two government actors (a municipal government and a municipally owned water and waste company), and two private sector companies. Below, we describe the methodology used to develop the UCAF, answering our first research question on the components of a CE framework to assist the planning, monitoring, evaluation, and learning of the CE at the city level. Then, we detail the aim and methods used in the case studies to capture the learnings from applying the UCAF in different contexts.
The UCAF design was based on several literature studies and engagement with our project consortium. First, we catalogued scientific and grey literature on circular cities published between 2010 and 2020 using the systematic mapping methodology [43]. As a result, we mapped how 103 cities in 45 countries envisioned the CE, the sectors they focus on, and the strategies that have been applied [1]. We also used this systematic map to verify how the societal consequences of the CE had been understood [36], using the International Association of Impact Assessment’s Social Impact Assessment methodology [44]. Furthermore, we reviewed the validity of indicators and frameworks to measure the CE at the city level [23]. Throughout this literature review process, we engaged with our consortium partners to ensure the usability and completeness of the framework. During several workshops (June 2020, December 2020, May 2021, April 2022, and October 2022), we discussed different components, visualisations, and connections between the other components of our UCAF. For example, the first workshop in June 2020 focused on co-defining the scope and boundaries of the framework. This was facilitated through open discussions in break-out groups on the status of ongoing work, data availability, and essential aspects and features of the framework. In a third workshop in May 2021, preliminary visualisations of different frameworks were presented, followed by ranking and prioritisation of the relevance of other indicators. In a fourth workshop in April 2022, the UCAF (Fig. 1) was introduced and finalised. A supplementary literature review was conducted in July 2022 to capture recently published papers on circular cities (2021–2022) that provide evidence for the UCAF. Finally, the UCAF was presented at several conferences to get insight from academia and other conference participants into the framework’s robustness. This includes the European Cities and Regions Conference and the Circularity versus Sustainability Research Symposium, hosted by Greenhouse at the University of Stavanger, in collaboration with Stavanger Chamber of Commerce, Nordic Edge, and Grønn By in October 2022, and the UN’s High-Level Political Forum side event on circular cities, organised by the Stockholm Environment Institute and GiZ in July 2023.
To test the framework, we carried out case studies, one with the city of Umeå in Northern Sweden and one with the city of Stockholm, the capital of Sweden. From June 2021 to April 2022, we ran case studies with the city of Umeå, one focusing on the level of CE in the city and the other on how social impacts had been considered in the plans. Those studies’ data collection and analysis are detailed in [37, 45]. This research was supplemented with documents from the cities and initiatives they were involved in [46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53]. The document analysis was done inductively and iteratively [54]. All documents were read through several times, followed by a data extraction, organised according to the different components of the framework. Between April 2022 and October 2022, both case study cities confirmed the data extraction and analysis. In the next step, the case studies were compared against one another, allowing the addition of an evaluative element to the research using colour coding. A darker colour in the visualisation of the case study results indicated a stronger focus and better embeddedness of the component within the city’s CE approach. This final assessment and colour coding was presented at the last workshop in October 2022 for the consortium to sign off on the learnings from the case study applications. In addition, the checklist (see Supplementary material) was shared with a researcher working on the CE. She filled it in with a city in Norway and subsequently provided feedback on the checklist. As we did not collect further data from the Norwegian city, we did not include the assessment in this study.
The UCAF
Overall, we identified five components to analyse and evaluate the city-level CE. These components are connected, whereby the status of one component or how it has been perceived influences the other components. The UCAF involves connections with the ToC methodology, which entails visioning, impact, and strategies [55]. According to Forti [56], good ToCs should cover (1) the target population; (2) results; (3) the period; (4) activities, strategies, and resources; (5) context; and (6) assumptions. We also embedded a process component that allows to understand how the CE strategy came into effect. In the below, we describe each component. In the Supplementary material, we provide a checklist that can guide the application of the UCAF to other case studies. The checklist contains an overview of each component, guiding questions, some selected indicators for each component, and means of verification, which can show cities in filling in the framework. On the UCAF project website, an interactive web tool is available describing these components, with links to relevant publications and guidance on best practices.
The UCAF components are interconnected and can be read from left to right, right to left, or even starting in the middle (see Fig. 1). They each influence and are influenced by the components to their left and right. Below, we describe the components from left to right. For example, the stakeholders that are invited to design the CE strategy (component two) can strongly weigh in on the vision the city puts forward for the CE (component one), as well as shape the strategy that the city utilises for the CE (component three). Similarly, the urban stocks and flows (component four) are a result of the CE strategies that have been selected (component three) and direct the impacts under the triple bottom line (component five). The guiding questions for assessing each component (see at the end of each component and in our checklist in Supplementary material) evidence this interconnectedness.
The City’s Circular Vision
Our first component is the vision, which sets the scene for the CE at the city level [41, 57, 58]. It aims to assess the ambition level in the city related to the CE.
According to [57], there are four types of CE visions, depending on the stance on technological innovation and ecological collapse (sceptical or optimistic) and the approach to social, economic, environmental, and political considerations (holistic or segmented). Circular societies (reformist and transformational) take holistic approaches, considering the social and political environment integral, whereas the CE (technocentric and fortress) entertains only techno-economic aspects. Transformational circular societies and fortress CE do not consider eco-economic decoupling feasible and assume a break from capitalism. In contrast, reformist circular societies and technocentric CE deem technological innovations will suffice to solve the environmental and economic challenges [57]. The EU, for example, aligns with the technocentric reformist circular society due to its holistic vision yet limited social and political analysis [59]. Another typology of the CE vision is into two categories: (1) strong CE, which encompasses a shared responsibility of the state and producers, also incorporating social considerations and “fairness within planetary limits” [58, p. 1], whereas the (2) weak CE assumes the market will resolve the current challenges [58].
Guiding questions for assessing the CE vision component include is the CE strategy heavily focused on technology? Is it described as a win for the environment, the economy, and the people? Does it entail the whole city, or is it focusing on specific sectors? Who wrote and supported the CE vision?
The City’s CE Governance and Participation
Our second component is related to institutional arrangements, mapping how different departments within the municipalities, supraordinate government agencies, and non-municipal actors, organised along the quadruple helix model (i.e. industry, academia, civil society — see [60]) supplemented with transnational and supranational organisations, participate in the design, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and learning along the CE transition.
It aims to assess the capability (i.e. resource allocation and competence) and level of horizontal (social-technical and social-ecological) and vertical integration (top-down and bottom-up) of the CE within the city [61, 62]. This is particularly important as ample evidence shows that including the wrong or excluding the right stakeholders can lead to failed transitions, including CE transitions [63,64,65,66]. More specifically, transitioning to the CE at the city level can be classified as an “unstructured” problem, as there is low certainty around knowledge and low consensus around norms and values [67].
Guiding questions to understand the governance and participation in the CE process in the city, building on [68], include which organisations participate at which stage in the CE process (design, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, learning)? How representative are these stakeholders compared to the local context? What competencies do these stakeholders have, including about the CE? What resources do these stakeholders have to participate in the CE process? What impact and influence do they have over the CE approach? How are local stakeholders (from the different stakeholder categories) getting involved (informed, advocacy, decision-making)? What barriers do the local stakeholders face to governance and participation, and how have these been addressed?
Answers to these questions can be allocated according to the “ladder of participation” [69], ranging from non-participation (manipulation and therapy) to tokenism (informing, consultation, and placation) to citizen power (partnership, delegated authority, and citizen control). Another method of organising answers is by assessing whether the processes are just, i.e. in terms of distributional, procedural, and recognition justice [63, 70, 71].
The City’s Circular Strategies
The third component, i.e. the CE strategies, with accompanying work plans and budgets, is embedded within institutional arrangements (component two) and details how the CE vision at the city level (component one) will be carried out while capturing the anticipated impact on urban stocks and flows (component four). It aims to understand how holistic the CE has been designed through understanding which sectors and R-strategies it covers. We use the NACE classification system [72] for sectors, which organises industries into manufacturing, construction, energy, and waste categories. The R-strategies range from zero to nine, with the lowest being the highest environmental value (R0 refusing consumption) to R4 repairing, R6 remanufacturing, R8 recycling, and R9 recovery (waste to energy) [73].
The main instruments a municipal government can deploy CE strategies include public procurement, zoning laws, capacity building, and knowledge exchange [74]. The link with component two (institutional arrangements) is such that those designing the CE strategy will determine the primary focus. For example, municipal environment departments mainly focus on strategies related to waste management and maintenance of parks and green zones. In contrast, social welfare departments focus on strategies related to specialised disability and elderly care. Specific strategies, concentrating solely on CE, can also be developed across institutional arrangements, touching on, for example, procurement policies within the municipal government while sharing economic policies and information campaigns on recycling.
Guiding questions to understand component three are: what sectors are covered by the CE strategy? How representative are these sectors for the local context? What are vital facts and figures for these sectors? Are the connections between the different sectors understood? What R-strategies are in focus?
Urban “Stocks and Flows”
Our fourth component focuses on urban stocks and flows. It aims to holistically showcase the planning and policy implications of the CE strategies (component three) before moving into the broader societal implications for the planet, people, and profit (component five).
When assessing circularity at the city level, most studies focus primarily on material flows [75,76,77,78,79], energy flows [80], or a combination of both [81,82,83,84]. Most non-academic research on circular cities also uses material flow analysis as the departing point for the CE assessment in the city (see, for instance, [85,86,87]).
However, aside from material flows (goods and products including waste and water) and energy, a city’s other stocks and flows interact with one another, which needs to be considered when designing CE strategies. These include information flows (see, for instance [88, 89]), showing who has (and has not) been privy to information and processes (linking here with component 2 — institutional and governance arrangements), monetary flows [90,91,92], and services (transportation and storage), as consequences of, for example, the sharing economy, as in [93,94,95].
Therefore, our fourth component incorporates five urban stocks and flows that must be considered and assessed simultaneously (Table 1).
Guiding questions relate to the kind and type of stocks and flows considered. What data is being collected on these different stocks and flows? What methods are being used to measure and monitor these stocks and flows? To what extent are connections between different stocks and flows understood and made explicit? What policies have been designed to support the CE transition across these five stocks and flows? The latter questions aim at understanding the level of embeddedness of the thinking around stocks and flows in the strategies and their connection to the triple bottom line, or component five.
Societal Consequences for the Planet, People, and Profit
Our framework’s fifth and final component provides structure surrounding societal impacts, particularly organised along the triple bottom line of people, planet, and profit [96]. It displays the ultimate effect the CE approach will or could have. With this framing, we move beyond the environmental impact and incorporate the social and economic consequences, which have been overlooked in the discourse [36, 97].
Table 2 provides some indicators for measuring these societal impacts, building on a review of urban sustainability metrics [98]. For the planet, we adhere to the doughnut economy model [30] and use the nine planetary boundaries [99], some of which can be applied at the city level [100,101,102,103]. For people, we use the International Association for Impact Assessment’s Social Impact Guidance, which breaks down social impacts into eight categories [44]. The fifth social impact category relates to people’s environment and is omitted as this is covered within the planetary bottom line. We utilise economic performance indicators for the profit section, such as GDP growth and innovation, as other scholars use [14, 91, 104,105,106,107].
Guiding questions here focus on what types of impacts are being considered. How extensive are these impacts covered in the CE approach? How much thought is there for negative, at times unintended consequences of transition processes? How differentiated are the implications for different societal groups?
Summary
Practitioners, decision-makers, and academia can use the UCAF to visualise the approach to the CE at the city level, as shown in the next section. Through the application of the UCAF, the robustness of the CE approach in the city should become easier to understand, as it makes explicit assumptions, visualises gaps in the CE approach (across the five components), and shows whether the interconnectedness of the different components is well understood with the city (Table 3).
Application of the UCAF to the Cities of Umeå and Stockholm, Sweden
To test the usefulness of the UCAF, we applied it to two case studies: the city of Umeå and the city of Stockholm. Umeå city is located in Northern Sweden, with a population of 130,997 [113]. It has a university which has close to 38,000 students [114], and on average, its population is highly educated, and unemployment is low (less than 5%) [115]. Most people work in industry (close to 38,000), and about 20,000 work for either the municipal or regional government [115]. About one in six citizens have low economic standards, defined as having a disposable income that is less than 60% of the median income in Umeå [116]. Yet, 45% are younger than 25 years old [116]. Sweden’s capital, Stockholm, has a population of 978,770 [113]. It has several universities, research centres (e.g. Stockholm University, the Royal Institute of Technology KTH, Karolinska Institute), and an extensive service industry, including banking [113]. It also has the second largest port in Sweden after Gothenburg and is a logistics hub [113]. In Stockholm, 12% of the population is classified as having low economic standards, with 34% of them younger than 25 years old [116].
Our analysis of the CE approach in Umeå and Stockholm using the UCAF shows different priorities and nuances (Fig. 2). In the Supplementary material, we provided more detail on each city for each component.
Both cities appear to adhere to an optimistic viewpoint of the CE, relying on technological innovation to achieve the CE. In both cities, we note challenges around the involvement of civil society in the process (component two), a narrow focus on the reduction of consumption and recycling of materials to reduce overall waste (component three), and limited societal consequence analysis around the impacts on people and the economy (component five). As both cities recently started their CE journey, it is understandable that there are gaps in their plans. Indeed, research has shown that civil society and social impacts have been little considered [10, 36, 66, 97, 117,118,119]. Similarly, most cities’ circular economy strategies cover mainly construction, waste, energy, recycling, and the incineration of waste for power [1].
Contrary to studies on CE approaches in other cities, Umeå and Stockholm have a strong CE vision and political will (component one), which could help overcome barriers related to institutional capacity and regulatory obstacles [42]. In its survey on circular cities, the OECD [47] reported that over two-thirds of its survey respondents found a holistic CE vision “a major obstacle …, often due to poor leadership and coordination, and the lack of political will”. Quite a few cities lack personnel skills and have a fragmented management structure, leading to difficulties in carrying out the circular city vision [47, 120, 121]. This does not seem to be the case in Umeå or Stockholm.
Therefore, to ensure solid CE transition approaches, recommendations include (1) a mapping of the local ecosystem within each city and their power, interest, and capability to inform a stakeholder engagement strategy (component two); (2) a more thorough assessment of the urban stocks and flows, including the funds needed to support these CE initiatives, and information campaigns to motivate and regulate households and businesses to adhere to the CE strategies (component four); and (3) a more systematic coverage around the stance on the CE in the city, by embedding impact assessments and critical reflections on who wins and who loses from a transition to the CE (component five). The urban stocks and flows assessment should improve the CE’s spatial planning [122,123,124,125]. Some of the questions described in the checklist (see Supplementary material) could help improve the planning, monitoring, evaluation, and learning of the CE approach.
Discussion
In this paper, we aimed to answer two research questions: RQ1) What components should a CE framework cover to assist the planning, monitoring, evaluation, and learning of the CE at the city level? And RQ2) what learnings arise from applying this framework in different contexts?
The five components in our framework allow us to understand the bigger picture in which the CE is approached by the cities [55]. The structure of the framework seems logical, and the interconnection between the different components sensible: the case studies showed that the vision influenced who participated in the design of the CE strategy, leading to a focus on a few sectors and strategies, material flows and energy flows, and climate change mitigation in terms of environmental impact. Our framework also allowed us to make explicit the stance that both cities hold towards the CE, classifying them as weak CE [58, 59]. Compared to other frameworks, it goes beyond resource management [29] but views cities as complex systems [34, 62].
Applying the UCAF to two case studies and presenting it at multiple conferences provided insight into the framework’s applicability. We noted it was easy to engage quickly to make a first draft, and a great conversation started around whether the CE approach in the city was comprehensive. Some of the challenges and learnings from [55] resonate, including tensions around the focus and core of the CE transition [126], fulfilling both service and science roles [55, referring to [127,128,129]. However, it is essential that the UCAF, like other ToCs, are not used as a tick-box exercise [130].
Further work on the UCAF could entail selecting indicators for each component and putting forward more comprehensive means of verification to assess the components [23]. It is also necessary to clarify the relationship between various urban flows, their environmental footprints, and socio-economic impacts to understand the overall circularity performance and to aid decision-makers in designing interventions considering their interactions and potential rebound effects [12, 28, 131].
A limitation is that both cities are at the start of their CE transition journey, and hence, we have yet to be able to test the robustness of the framework over time. A reflection on the case studies is also that we must ask why specific approaches were chosen. This would have allowed us to embed our findings within the local context and deepen our understanding of the planning and learning processes around the CE in both cities. To understand how learning on the CE occurs, the UCAF case study could be carried out again in the future, thereby shedding light on whether changes have been made to the CE approach in the cities, what they have learned during the CE transition, and whether the UCAF supported this reflection and learning journey.
Conclusion
With this paper, we have put forward an urban circularity assessment framework which will allow city governments and other stakeholders to develop a CE strategy that bridges all scales, from local to global levels of concern. It builds on a comprehensive hierarchical approach with a strategic CE vision and sustainability targets at the top, which lead to institutional arrangements, CE strategies, urban stocks and flows, and links to the triple bottom line. Our framework is based on extensive literature reviews, case studies, and discussions with CE experts and practitioners in Sweden and elsewhere.
Our case studies signal the comprehensiveness of the framework. It has been found easy to understand and fill in. It also has proven to be a conversation starter around the strengths and weaknesses of the CE approaches in cities. It can stimulate different stakeholders to get involved in the CE transition.
Details on the UCAF Application for the City of Umeå and Stockholm
The Circular City Vision
The vision of Umeå is to be “a leader in circular economy” [46, p. 4]. Umeå sees CE as “a means to achieve its goal to be fossil fuel-free by 2040 while enhancing innovation and creating the enabling environment for new business models. Transitioning towards a CE has been a political priority for the city since the Strategic Plan 2016–28” [46, p. 4]. Stockholm’s vision centres on becoming resource-smart within the solid and liquid waste and energy sectors [51].
Governance and Participation
Municipal governments carry out various functions related to urban planning and housing, social welfare and health care, education, environmental services, transportation, and economic development activities [132]. For Sweden, for example, the mandatory functions include social services, childcare and preschool, primary and secondary education, care for older people, support for the physically and intellectually disabled, primary healthcare, environmental protection, urban planning, refuse collection and waste disposal, rescue and emergency services, water supply, and sewerage and road maintenance [132, p. 77]. Optional functions include culture, housing, energy supply, employment, and industrial and commercial services [132, p. 78]. In addition, city governments have functions linked with governance and fiscal and financial compliance (the “enablers” in the urban sustainability framework [133]).
In Umeå, the CE work in Umeå is led by the Department of Strategic Business Development, supported by the Departments of Environment and Waste Management and Urban Planning [48]. It designed its CE strategy after consultation with eight government entities such as the municipal government of Umeå and Lycksele, the regional government of Västerbotten, the Swedish Public Transport Authority, and the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (35 people in total); 6 academic institutions (18 people); 2 civil society organisations (2 persons); and 31 industry partners (44 people) [47, pp. 81–83]. Civil society indicated limited involvement in setting the CE strategy in the city [134].
In Stockholm, designing the CE is a shared responsibility between, among others, the city’s Environmental Management Department and the Department for Strategic City Development, supported by, among others, the water and waste company Stockholm Vatten och Avfall and waste sorting and treatment depots. There are also connections with the city’s back-office functions related to green procurement. The city has an internal recycling centre (Stocket) that refurbishes, among other items, office furniture for reuse [51].
Circular Strategies
In Umeå, while the CE strategy is in its early stages, it focuses on promoting circularity among businesses and start-ups, collaborations with universities, and implementing green public procurement [46]. Sectors that are targeted in Umeå are waste management (NACE code E), retail trade (NACE code G), and restaurants (NACE code I), the latter two entailing support for small businesses to tackle food waste, sustainable mobility, and the sharing economy. Umeå will develop a plan for circular construction by 2025 [53].
For Stockholm, the CE strategies entail minimising the use of resources and waste production (e.g. food waste and support for the sharing economy) and increasing material recycling before it ends up being incinerated in the district heating plant (e.g. plastics, textiles, and food waste); and increasing resource efficiency in construction. The sectors targeted in Stockholm are heat generation (NACE code D), waste management (NACE Code E), construction (NACE code F), and household consumption and production of waste (allocated to NACE Code G, wholesale and retail trade given reduced purchasing). Aside from its overarching resource-smart strategy [51], the city has a specific plan for plastics and one to increase the CE in the construction sector [50, 52].
Each city also plans to increase the CE in their operations by assessing procurement practises, reducing waste, and purchasing second-hand furniture (in 2025 in Umeå [53]).
Urban Stocks and Flows
There needs to be more description of the urban stocks and flows in the strategies of both cities. Yet, given the selected strategies, we infer that goods, services, and energy flows are the key stocks and flows under consideration. The Swedish Statistical Agency collects data on some indicators related to stocks and flows (such as material flow accounts [135]). Yet, most data is not downscaled to the urban level, as also discussed in our case study on Umeå [45].
Societal Consequences
Both cities are part of the Strategic Innovation Programme Viable Cities [136] and the EU Mission for Climate Neutral and Smart Cities [137], which entail developing climate action plans that will lead to climate-neutral cities by 2030. However, targets set by both cities differ somewhat, with Umeå aiming for 2 tonnes of CO2-e per capita by 2040 [53] and Stockholm city for 1.5 tonnes of CO2-e per capita [51]. In addition, the plan of Stockholm also entails targets for reductions in phosphorus effluent and freshwater use [51].
Assessments of the social and economic consequences of transitioning to the CE in both cities need to be documented. However, our research indicated a positive view of how the CE would impact people and businesses [37].
Data Availability
The data used for this paper is available on the UCAF project website: https://www.sei.org/projects/urban-circularity-assessment-framework/.
Notes
The UCAF project: https://www.sei.org/projects/urban-circularity-assessment-framework/.
Abbreviations
- CE:
-
Circular economy
- CO2-e:
-
Carbon dioxide equivalent
- MEL:
-
Monitoring, evaluation, and learning
- NACE:
-
Nomenclature of Economic Activities
- SDG:
-
Sustainable Development Goal
- UCAF:
-
Urban Circularity Assessment Framework
References
Vanhuyse F, Haddaway NR, Henrysson M (2021) Circular cities: an evidence map of research between 2010 and 2020. Discov Sustain 2:50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-021-00059-2
Petit-Boix A, Leipold S (2018) Circular economy in cities: reviewing how environmental research aligns with local practices. J Clean Prod 195:1270–1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.281
Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl 127:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005
MacArthur E (2015) Foundation, “Growth within a circular economy vision for a competitive Europe,” Accessed: Jun. 07, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/EllenMacArthurFoundation_Growth-Within_July15.pdf
MacArthur E (2019) Foundation, “The butterfly diagram: visualising the circular economy,”. https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy-diagram (accessed Sep. 21, 2023).
Chateau J, Mavroeidi E (2020) The jobs potential of a transition towards a resource efficient and circular economy. oecd-ilibrary.org, [Online]. Available: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/paper/28e768df-en
Jonker J, Faber N (2021) Organizing for sustainability: a guide to developing new business models. Springer International Publishing, Cham, p 242. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78157-6
Gravagnuolo A, Angrisano M, Girard LF (2019) Circular economy strategies in eight historic port cities: criteria and indicators towards a circular city assessment framework. Sustainability 11(13):3512. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133512
Sánchez Levoso A, Gasol CM, Martínez-Blanco J, Durany XG, Lehmann M, Gaya RF (2020) Methodological framework for implementing circular economy in urban systems. J Clean Prod 248:119227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119227
Murray A, Skene K, Haynes K (2017) The circular economy: an interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context. J Bus Ethics 140(3):369–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2
Marchesi M, Tweed C (2021) Social innovation for a circular economy in social housing. Sustain Cities Soc 71:102925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102925
Chen C-W (2021) Clarifying rebound effects of the circular economy in the context of sustainable cities. Sustain Cities Soc 66:102622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102622
Chizaryfard A, Trucco P, Nuur C (2021) The transformation to a circular economy: framing an evolutionary view. J Evol Econ 31(2):475–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-020-00709-0
Kravchenko M, Pigosso DCA, McAloone TC (2019) Towards the ex-ante sustainability screening of circular economy initiatives in manufacturing companies: consolidation of leading sustainability-related performance indicators. J Clean Prod 241:118318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118318
Kristensen HS, Mosgaard MA (2020) A review of micro-level indicators for a circular economy – moving away from the three dimensions of sustainability? J Clean Prod 243:118531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118531
Velenturf APM, Purnell P (2021) Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustain Prod Consum 27:1437–1457 Accessed: Aug. 15, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/171262/
Sanderson I (2002) Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Adm 80(1):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00292
Cairney P (2016) The politics of evidence-based policy making. Springer
Huamao X, Fengqi W (2007) Circular economy development mode based on system theory. Chin J Popul Resour Environ 5(4):92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10042857.2007.10677537
Harris S, Martin M, Diener D (2021) Circularity for circularity’s sake? Scoping review of assessment methods for environmental performance in the circular economy. Sustain Prod Consum 26:172–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.018
Niero M, Jensen CL, Fratini CF, Dorland J, Jørgensen MS, Georg S (2021) Is life cycle assessment enough to address unintended side effects from circular economy initiatives? J Ind Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13134
Corona B, Shen L, Reike D, Rosales Carreón J, Worrell E (2019) Towards sustainable development through the circular economy—a review and critical assessment on current circularity metrics. Resour Conserv Recycl 151:104498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104498
Papageorgiou A, Henrysson M, Nuur C, Sinha R, Sundberg C, Vanhuyse F (2021) Mapping and assessing indicator-based frameworks for monitoring circular economy development at the city-level. Sustain Cities Soc 75:103378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103378
UNDAF (2017) Theory of Change. [Online]. Available: https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/UNDG-UNDAF-Companion-Pieces-7-Theory-of-Change.pdf
Centre for Theory of Change. What is theory of change? Theory of Change Community. https://www.theoryofchange.org/what-is-theory-of-change/ (accessed Sep. 20, 2023)
Grantcraft (2006) Theory of Change https://learningforfunders.candid.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/theory_change.pdf (accessed Sep. 20, 2023)
Funnell SC, Rogers PJ (2011) Purposeful program theory: effective use of theories of change and logic models. John Wiley & Sons
Christis M, Athanassiadis A, Vercalsteren A (2019) Implementation at a city level of circular economy strategies and climate change mitigation – the case of Brussels. J Clean Prod 218:511–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.180
Cui X (2018) How can cities support sustainability: a bibliometric analysis of urban metabolism. Ecol Indic 93:704–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.056
Raworth K (2017) Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing
Schokkaert E (2019). Review of Kate Raworth’s doughnut economics. london: random house, 2017, 373 pp. Erasmus J Philos Econ 12(1):125–132. https://doi.org/10.23941/ejpe.v12i1.412
Milanovic B (2018) Book review: doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist by Kate Raworth. Brave New Europe https://braveneweurope.com/doughnut-economics-seven-ways-to-think-like-a-21st-century-economist-by-kate-raworth (accessed Sep. 20, 2023)
Raworth K (2018) Are there holes in ‘doughnut economics’? Kate Raworth takes on a major critic,” The Alternative —https://www.thealternative.org.uk/dailyalternative/2018/6/28/raworth-doughnuts-critics (accessed Sep. 20, 2023)
Sterman J (2002) System dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division, ESD Working Papers; ESD-WP-2003–01.13-ESD Internal Symposium, [Online]. Available: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/102741
Prendeville S, Cherim E, Bocken N (2018) Circular cities: mapping six cities in transition. Environ Innov Soc Transit 26:171–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.03.002
Vanhuyse F, Fejzić E, Ddiba D, Henrysson M (2021) The lack of social impact considerations in transitioning towards urban circular economies: a scoping review. Sustain Cities Soc 75:103394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103394
Vanhuyse F, Rezaie S, Englund M, Jokiaho J, Henrysson M, André K (2022) Including the social in the circular: a mapping of the consequences of a circular economy transition in the city of Umeå, Sweden. J Clean Prod 380:134893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134893
Mattos CA, Scur G, Albuquerque TLM (2022) Evaluation of circular business model: Theory of Change approach. Eval Program Plann 92:102069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102069
Marin J, Alaerts L, Van Acker K (2020) A materials bank for circular Leuven: how to monitor ‘messy’ circular city transition projects. Sustainability 12(24):10351. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410351
Carrière S, Weigend Rodríguez R, Pey P, Pomponi F, Ramakrishna S (2020) Circular cities: the case of Singapore. Built Environ Proj Asset Manag 10(4):491–507. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-12-2019-0137
Paiho S et al (2020) Towards circular cities—conceptualizing core aspects. Sustain Cities Soc 59:102143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102143
Williams J (2019) Circular cities: challenges to implementing looping actions. Sustainability 11(2):2. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020423
James KL, Randall NP, Haddaway NR (2016) A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environ Evid 5(1):7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016-0059-6
Vanclay F, Esteves AM, Aucamp I, Franks DM (2015) Social impact assessment: guidance for assessing and managing the social impact of projects,” International Association for Impact Assessment, [Online]. Available: https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/SIA_Guidance_Document_IAIA.pdf
Henrysson M, Papageorgiou A, Björklund A, Vanhuyse F, Sinha R (2022) Monitoring progress towards a circular economy in urban areas: an application of the European Union circular economy monitoring framework in Umeå municipality. Sustain Cities Soc 87:104245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104245
OECD (2020) The circular economy in Umeå, Sweden https://www.oecd.org/sweden/the-circular-economy-in-umea-sweden-4ec5dbcd-en.htm (accessed Apr. 28, 2021)
OECD (2020) The circular economy in cities and regions: synthesis report, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/urban-rural-and-regional-development/the-circular-economy-in-cities-and-regions_10ac6ae4-en (accessed Apr. 28, 2021)
Umeå kommun (2022) Umeå kommun https://xn--ume-wla.se/2.6fa619ad16f3087d4d517b2c.html (accessed May 05, 2021)
Axelsson K, Vanhuyse F, Dawkins E (2018) Konsumtionsbaserade utsläpp i Umeå kommun. Resultat av Konsumtionsvaneundersökningen 2018.” Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm
Stad S (2021) Handlingsplan för cirkulärt byggande 2021–2024,” Stockholm Stad, Stockholm, Sweden, Accessed: Jan. 12, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://miljobarometern.stockholm.se/miljomal/handlingsplan-for-cirkulart-byggande/
Stockholm Stad 2020 Miljöprogram 2020–2023,” Stockholm, Sweden Accessed: May 05, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://miljobarometern.stockholm.se/miljomal/miljoprogram-2020-2023/
Stad S (2022) Handlingsplan för hållbar plastanvändning 2022–2026 Stockholm Stad, Stockholm, Sweden Accessed: Jan. 12, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://miljobarometern.stockholm.se/miljomal/hp-plast/
Umeå kommun (2022) Åtgärdsprogram för Umeå kommuns miljömål 2022–2025,” Umeå kommun, Umeå, Sweden, Accessed: Jan. 12, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.umea.se/download/18.21945c9b183e8c21b10802/1666275031165/_%20KS-2021_01098-94%20%C3%85tg%C3%A4rdsprogram%20f%C3%B6r%20Ume%C3%A5%20kommuns%20milj%C3%B6m%C3%A5l%202022-2025%20-%20beslutsversion%20okt%202022%202070924_1_1.PDF
Boyatzis RE (1998) Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage
Deutsch L, Belcher B, Claus R, Hoffmann S (2021) Leading inter- and transdisciplinary research: lessons from applying theories of change to a strategic research program. Environ Sci Policy 120:29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.02.009
Forti M (2012) Six theory of change pitfalls to avoid (SSIR), Stanford Social Innovation Review. Accessed: Sep. 20, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/six_theory_of_change_pitfalls_to_avoid
Calisto Friant M, Salome R, Vermeulen WJV (2020) A typology of circular economy discourses: navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. Resour Conserv Recycl 161:104917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104917
Johansson N, Henriksson M (2020) Circular economy running in circles? A discourse analysis of shifts in ideas of circularity in Swedish environmental policy. Sustain Prod Consum 23:148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.05.005
Calisto Friant M, Vermeulen WJV, Salomone R (2021) Analysing European Union circular economy policies: words versus actions”. Sustain Prod Consum 27:337–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.11.001
Leydesdorff L (2012) The triple helix, quadruple helix, …, and an N-tuple of helices: explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? J Knowl Econ 3(1):25–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0049-4
Domenech T, Bahn-Walkowiak B (2019) Transition towards a resource efficient circular economy in Europe: policy lessons from the EU and the member states. Ecol Econ 155:7–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.001
van der Leer J, Van Timmeren A, Wandl A (2018) Social-ecological-technical systems in urban planning for a circular economy: an opportunity for horizontal integration. Archit Sci Rev 61(5):298–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2018.1505598
Urban A (2020) Drivers of injustice in the context of urban sustainability. Preparation material for the 2nd UrbanA Arena, June 4–5 2020. Accessed: Jul. 07, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://urban-arena.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Booklet-of-summaries_Arena_with-contacts.pdf
Ashton WS, Fratini CF, Isenhour C, Krueger R (2022) Justice, equity, and the circular economy: introduction to the special double issue. Local Environ 27(10–11):1173–1181. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2022.2118247
Berry B et al (2022) Just by design: exploring justice as a multidimensional concept in US circular economy discourse. Local Environ 27(10–11):1225–1241. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2021.1994535
Wuyts W, Marin J (2022) Nobody’ matters in circular landscapes. Local Environ 0(0):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2022.2040465
Hisschemöller M, Hoppe R (2001) Coping with intractable controversies: the case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis 1”, in Knowledge, Power, and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis. Routledge
Hage M, Leroy P, Petersen AC (2010) Stakeholder participation in environmental knowledge production. Futures 42(3):254–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.011
Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4):216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Sovacool BK, Martiskainen M, Hook A, Baker L (2019) Decarbonization and its discontents: a critical energy justice perspective on four low-carbon transitions. Clim Change 155(4):581–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02521-7
Urban A (2022) Can sustainability and justice go hand-in-hand? Handbook for sustainable and just cities,” ICLEI Europe. [Online]. Available: https://sustainablejustcities.eu/sites/default/files/media/Handbook%20for%20sustainable%20and%20just%20cities_ONLINE_0.pdf
European Commission (2010) List of NACE codes,” European Commission, Brussels. Accessed: May 05, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/index/nace_all.html
Potting J, Hekkert M, Worrell E, Hanemaaijer A (2017) Circular economy: measuring innovation in the product chain, 2544. PBL Publishers
Campbell-Johnston K, Cate JT, Elfering-Petrovic M, Gupta J (2019) City level circular transitions: barriers and limits in Amsterdam, Utrecht and The Hague. J Clean Prod 235:1232–1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.106
Bellstedt CH (2015) Material flow analysis for a circular economy development: a material stock quantification method of urban civil infrastructures with a case study of PVC in an Amsterdam neighbourhood. Accessed: Mar. 23, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3Ae6007004-f209-4932-b84b-432443d1fac5
Globa SB, Arnold VV, Ashkerov MA (2020) Strategic planning of urban mining material flows as an element of circular economy. In: Popkova EG, Bogoviz AV (eds) Circular economy in developed and developing countries: perspective, methods and examples. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78973-981-720201019
Lehmann S (2011) Resource recovery and materials flow in the city: zero waste and sustainable consumption as paradigm in urban development. J Green Build 6(3):88–105
Czapiewski K, Mazurek D, Traczyk A, Wójcik M (2020) Waste material flow analysis in the Łódź Metropolitan Area. Eur Spat Res Policy 27(2):2. https://doi.org/10.18778/1231-1952.27.2.07
Fischer A, Pascucci S (2017) Institutional incentives in circular economy transition: the case of material use in the Dutch textile industry. J Clean Prod 155:17–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.038
Chen S, Chen B (2015) Urban energy consumption: different insights from energy flow analysis, input–output analysis and ecological network analysis. Appl Energy 138:99–107
Lee SE, Quinn AD, Rogers CDF (2016) Advancing city sustainability via its systems of flows: the urban metabolism of Birmingham and its Hinterland. Sustainability 8(3):3. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8030220
Kennedy CA et al (2015) Energy and material flows of megacities. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(19):5985–5990
Weisz H, Steinberger JK (2010) Reducing energy and material flows in cities. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2(3):185–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.05.010
Jiménez Rivero A, Sathre R, García Navarro J (2016) Life cycle energy and material flow implications of gypsum plasterboard recycling in the European Union. Resour Conserv Recycl 108:171–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.01.014
CityLoops (2022) Urban Circularity Assessment Method. Accessed: Jul. 11, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://cityloops.metabolismofcities.org/library/1010979/
Metabolic (2017) Circular Amsterdam. [Online]. Available: https://www.metabolic.nl/publications/circular-amsterdam-spatial-implications/
Circle Economy (2021) The Circularity Gap Report 2021 Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy (PACE), Amsterdam [Online]. Available: https://www.circularity-gap.world/2021
Knox H (2010) Cities and organisation: the information city and urban form. Cult Organ 16(3):185–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2010.503496
Hepworth ME (1990) Planning for the Information City: the Challenge and Response. Urban Stud 27(4):537–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420989020080501
Aalbers MB (2020) Financial geography III: the financialization of the city. Prog Hum Geogr 44(3):595–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132519853922
Dewick P, Bengtsson M, Cohen MJ, Sarkis J, Schröder P (2020) Circular economy finance: clear winner or risky proposition? J Ind Ecol 24(6):1192–1200. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13025
Vanhuyse F, Piseddu T, Arra V (2022) Financial instruments for investing in sustainable cities, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, Factsheet, [Online]. Available: https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/factsheet-financial-instruments-for-sustainable-cities.pdf
Frenken K, Schor J (2017) Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environ Innov Soc Transit 23:3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.01.003
Mont O, Palgan YV, Bradley K, Zvolska L (2020) A decade of the sharing economy: concepts, users, business and governance perspectives. J Clean Prod 269:122215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122215
Palm J, Södergren K, Bocken N (2019) The role of cities in the sharing economy: exploring modes of governance in urban sharing practices”. Energies 12(24):24. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12244737
Brundtland G (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future, united nations, united nations general assembly document A/42/427. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf
Pitkänen K, Karppinen TKM, Kautto P, Turunen S, Judl J, Myllymaa T (2020) Sex, drugs and the circular economy: the social impacts of the circular economy and how to measure them, in Handbook of the Circular Economy, 1st edn. Edward Elgar Publishing
Requena Carrion A, Vanhuyse F (2022) Urban sustainability metrics (Factsheet), Stockholm Environment Institute and Cleantech Scandinavia Accessed: Oct. 19, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.sei.org/publications/urban-sustainability-metrics/
Steffen W et al (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223):1259855–1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
Fang K, Dong L, Ren J, Zhang Q, Han L, Fu H (2017) Carbon footprints of urban transition: tracking circular economy promotions in Guiyang, China. Ecol Model 365:30–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.09.024
Minx J et al (2013) Carbon footprints of cities and other human settlements in the UK. Environ Res Lett 8(3):035039
Sovacool BK, Brown MA (2010) Twelve metropolitan carbon footprints: a preliminary comparative global assessment. Energy Policy 38(9):4856–4869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.001
Moran D, Kanemoto K, Jiborn M, Wood R, Többen J, Seto KC (2018) Carbon footprints of 13000 cities. Environ Res Lett 13(6):064041. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aac72a
Krupoderova A, Portnov BA (2020) Eco-innovations and economic performance of regions: a systematic literature survey. Reg Stud Reg Sci 7(1):571–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2020.1848613
Geissdoerfer M, Pieroni MPP, Pigosso DCA, Soufani K (2020) Circular business models: a review. J Clean Prod 277:123741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123741
Gupta H, Kumar A, Wasan P (2021) Industry 4.0, cleaner production and circular economy: an integrative framework for evaluating ethical and sustainable business performance of manufacturing organizations. J Clean Prod 295:126253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126253
Gusmerotti NM, Testa F, Corsini F, Pretner G, Iraldo F (2019) Drivers and approaches to the circular economy in manufacturing firms. J Clean Prod 230:314–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.044
Hoornweg D, Hosseini M, Kennedy C, Behdadi A (2016) An urban approach to planetary boundaries. Ambio 45(5):567–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0764-y
Van Broekhoven S, Vernay AL (2018) Integrating functions for a sustainable urban system: a review of multifunctional land use and circular urban metabolism. Sustainability 10(6):6. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061875
Sahimaa O et al (2017) Towards zero climate emissions, zero waste, and one planet living — testing the applicability of three indicators in Finnish cities. Sustain Prod Consum 10:121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.02.004
Scholes RJ, Biggs R (2005) A biodiversity intactness index. Nature 434(7029):45–49. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03289
Pimm S (2007) The extinction puzzle | by Stuart Pimm Project Syndicate. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-extinction-puzzle (accessed May 11, 2021).
RKA (2022) “Kolada” https://www.kolada.se/ (accessed Jan. 11, 2022).
Umeå Universitet (2021) Umeå Universitet Siffror. https://www.umu.se/om-umea-universitet/fakta-och-historik/siffror/
SCB (2021) Antal förvärvsarbetande (dagbefolkning) efter sektor och kommun, 2020,” Statistiska Centralbyrån. https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/arbetsmarknad/sysselsattning-forvarvsarbete-och-arbetstider/registerbaserad-arbetsmarknadsstatistik-rams/pong/tabell-och-diagram/antal-forvarvsarbetande-dagbefolkning-efter-sektor-och-kommun/ (accessed Jul. 25, 2022)
Delmos (2021) Segregationsbarometern – Ett digitalt verktyg, Segregationsbarometern. https://segregationsbarometern.delmos.se/ (accessed Nov. 26, 2021)
Hobson K, Lynch N (2016) Diversifying and de-growing the circular economy: radical social transformation in a resource-scarce world. Futures 82:15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.012
Homrich AS, Galvão G, Abadia LG, Carvalho MM (2018) The circular economy umbrella: trends and gaps on integrating pathways. J Clean Prod 175:525–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.064
Berry B (2022) Glut: affective labor and the burden of abundance in secondhand economies. Anthropol Work Rev 43(1):26–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/awr.12233
Xue J, Liu G, Casazza M, Ulgiati S (2018) Development of an urban FEW nexus online analyzer to support urban circular economy strategy planning. Energy 164:475–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.198
Wang X, Geng Y (2012) Municipal solid waste management in Dalian: practices and challenges. Front Environ Sci Eng 6(4):540–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-011-0361-z
Soto C (2020) Circularity in cities: socio-spatial dimension of the circular economy as a step towards climate-sensitive urban planning. MSc Thesis, School of Engineering and Built Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow. Accessed: Mar. 23, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/349332
Wuyts W, Marjanović M (2022) The development of spatial circularity discourse in Japan: ecomodernist, territorialised, or both? The story of Onomichi’s wastescapes. Circ Econ Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00146-6
Williams J (2020) The role of spatial planning in transitioning to circular urban development. Urban Geogr 41(6):915–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2020.1796042
Stead D (2021) Conceptualizing the policy tools of spatial planning. J Plan Lit 36(3):297–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412221992283
Turner VK, Benessaiah K, Warren S, Iwaniec D (2015) Essential tensions in interdisciplinary scholarship: navigating challenges in affect, epistemologies, and structure in environment–society research centers. High Educ 70(4):649–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9859-9
Bammer G et al (2020) Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: when is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened? Palgrave Commun 6(1):1–16
Hendren CO, Ku ST (2019) The Interdisciplinary Executive Scientist: connecting scientific ideas, resources and people. Strateg Team Sci Success Handb Evid-Based Princ Cross-Discip Sci Pract Lessons Learn Health Res 363–373
Salazar MR, Widmer K, Doiron K, Lant TK (2019) Leader integrative capabilities: a catalyst for effective interdisciplinary teams. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT (eds) Strategies for team science success. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, pp 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20992-6_24
Hamdy MK (2020) Theory of Change and Logical Framework a comparative measure for monitoring and evaluation practices. EMPATI J Ilmu Kesejaht Sos 8(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.15408/empati.v8i1.14331
Zink T, Geyer R (2017) Circular economy rebound. J Ind Ecol 21(3):593–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12545
European Committee of the Regions (2019) Division of powers https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/Pages/default.aspx (accessed Feb. 05, 2021)
Global Platform for Sustainable Cities and The World Bank (2018) Urban Sustainability Framework, 1st edn. The World Bank, Washington, DC. Available: https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/339851517836894370/pdf/123149-Urban-Sustainability-Framework.pdf
Rezaie S, Vanhuyse F, André K (2022) Beyond closing the loop – integrating social considerations into circular economy transitions in cities, presented at the Regions in Recovery conference, Stockholm Environment Institute [Online]. Available: https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/rezaie-et-al.-2022-beyond-closing-the-loop.pdf
SCB (2023) Material flows by material categories. Year 1998 - 2021, Statistikdatabasen. http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/en/ssd/START__MI__MI1301__MI1301C/MI1301MFTA01N/ (accessed Feb. 05, 2023)
Viable Cities SIP (2022) Tillsammans för klimatneutrala städer. https://www.viablecities.se
European Commission (2022) 100 Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities by 2030. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/commission-invites-cities-express-their-interest-become-part-european-mission-100-climate-neutral-and-smart-cities-2030-2021-nov-25_en
Acknowledgements
I thank the partners in the UCAF project for their collaboration and Wendy Wuyts for testing the checklist with a city in Norway. I thank Mahboubeh Rahmati-Abkenar for building a web-based version of the UCAF. I also thank the participants of the following conferences for providing feedback on the framework: the European Cities and Regions Conference and the Circularity versus Sustainability Research Symposium, hosted by Greenhouse at the University of Stavanger, in collaboration with Stavanger Chamber of Commerce, Nordic Edge, and Grønn By in October 2022; and the UN’s High-Level Political Forum side event on circular cities, organised by SEI and GIZ in July 2023.
Funding
This work was funded by the Swedish Innovation Agency, Vinnova under grant [2019-03237].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
Not applicable.
Consent for Publication
The author consents to publication.
Competing Interests
The author declares no competing interests.
Additional information
Highlights
• As many cities embark on a circular economy (CE) transition, designing solid CE approaches is essential. The Theory of Change (ToC) methodology could be a valuable tool as it makes explicit the anticipated transition trajectory and provides clarity over assumptions.
• In this paper, we present the Urban Circularity Assessment Framework (UCAF), building on the ToC methodology to support cities with a practical tool visualising how they approach the CE. It consists of five components: (1) the vision related to the CE in the city; (2) the institutional arrangements and participation in the CE processes; (3) the CE strategies selected; (4) urban stocks and flows; and (5) societal impacts, measured through the triple bottom line.
• Our case studies in the cities of Umeå and Stockholm point to the framework’s robustness and can assist municipalities in reflecting, learning, and improving their CE approach.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Vanhuyse, F. The Urban Circularity Assessment Framework (UCAF): a Framework for Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning from CE Transitions in Cities. Circ.Econ.Sust. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-023-00314-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-023-00314-w