The territorial dimension in CE debates receives little attention compared to the technological and economic discussion on the topic. One explanation could be that the concept of circular economy comes from the fields of industrial ecology, business and product design, which include the study of “people”, such as management and business models for circular enterprises, and “flows”, such as secondary materials and reuse methods for circular production.
Another explanation could be related to the difficulty of defining a territory. While “local” refers to a specific geographic scale, “territory” encompasses a physically delimited and socially organized space. Territories are not simply physical spaces, but are shaped by specific organizational structures and are the result of social constructs. They represent the collective effort of a group of actors working towards a common project, with its own rules of governance and cultural heritage. They may not conform to administrative boundaries.
It remains that circular economy strategies are highly context-specific. Local authorities choose a specific circular initiative depending on the characteristics and key assets of their territories. Early identification of local enabling factors and adopting a territorial perspective are key to designing successful place-based circular economy strategies. contexts. Building on the experience gained in the CIRCTER project, the EPSON policy brief (link) has proposed the model to illustrate the interlinkages between different territorial factors, including land-based factors such as the availability of natural resources, and agglomeration factors related to both the concentration of people (e.g. urban areas or cities) and the concentration of businesses (e.g. industrial areas, clusters). Soft factors include governance, institutions and planning, while hard factors (represented by <=>) include technologies and infrastructure.
These above considerations must be viewed in conjunction with 2 other observations::
- Regions are often recognized as engines of economic growth and as productive places for experimenting with alternative forms of service delivery and public governance.
- The principle of self-sufficiency, as enshrined in Article 16 of the Waste Framework Directive 2008/requires that most waste should be treated or disposed of within the region in which it is produced.
As illustrated by a recent article “Towards a territorialisation of the circular economy: The proximity of stakeholders and resources matters” (link), attention is often focused on material assets (natural resources, infrastructure, equipment or waste) that can be used to implement CE projects, which then rely on the effective use of local resources, limiting their transportation and thus the carbon footprint of production, while guaranteeing local employment. However, experience has shown that a critical factor for such projects is intangible resources, i.e. the ability of stakeholders to work together, supported by both geographical proximity and structured relationships. Local authorities are expected to promote multi-stakeholder CE initiatives and guide project stakeholders in identifying and mobilizing available and existing resources.
An integrated approach to CE, taking into account not only the technical aspects of circularity but also the social, institutional and territorial aspects, is obviously important. The dynamics of the system is generated by the combination of 2 types of logics:
- Rationale of belonging: it refers to the ability of individuals to exchange and network, as well as to organize their activities. Therefore, CE depends on the ability of territorial actors to activate and benefit from their spatial relations.
- Logic of similarity: it illustrates the importance of mechanisms and rules for resolving different conflicts or problems in local CE experiments, as well as the acceptance and sharing of common rules and objectives by local people within a territory.
One should also take into account the fact that cities and territories are constantly adapting complex systems and that the physical structures are artefacts resulting from past interaction of multiple relational systems also influence future systemic relations. It means that circularity is a driver for change amongst many others. In addition, the local nature of CE projects cannot be considered a static or closed system considering that:
- In certain cases, organizing production and consumption patterns on a larger scale may be more preferable for environmental rationality.
- Knowledge exchanges can take place on a remote basis and can be transferred (e.g. internet communities)
The city of Amsterdam (link) provides a good example, supported by a robust data set, to illustrate the possible role of territory in circular economy debates.
In conclusion, a lot of research is still needed in order to elaborate a concept to leverage territorial factors for the achievement of circular economy goals. In this context, it may be of interest to develop a cross-cutting vision of exchange flows and processes, as illustrated in the table below.
| MATERIALS | KNOWLEDGE | |
| FRAMING | Reaching a critical mass while maintaining enough diversity | Organising the proximity between the different actors in order to facilitate the exchanges |
| REGULATING | Monitoring the resource shed based on the analysis of stocks & and flows | Sharing the benefits in a fair and equitable way without undermining the replenishment of natural resources |
