No abstract

In this paper, I outline the scope and the potential of a ‘circular economy’ in the future, one which goes beyond a concentration on recycling and waste management. I argue that three key elements are paramount. The first, and most widely discussed, is its ‘circularity by design’ characteristics. Secondly, but rarely discussed, the intimate relationship between the materials cycle and money and finance systems. Thirdly, encompassing both but often ignored: the way in which a more holistic interpretation of the concept is attached to a worldview or ‘framework for thinking’. This last element is a perspective that understands the economy as less like a machine and more like a nested living system. This worldview includes a stock maintenance emphasis placed in relation to feedback-rich flows. It extends, ineluctably, to the regeneration of natural capital and the restoration of social capital. A systems perspective includes a renewed focus on creating a refreshed industrial or productive economy at all scales as opposed to an expanded extractive or ‘rentier’ economy which is parasitical. This is quite unlike the current, linear, economy which not only extracts and runs down natural and social capitals (or exchanges it for financial capital), but also sees surplus financial reinvested largely in existing assets rather than creating new ones. The opportunity exists to create a ‘systems aware’ circular economy, one which is consistent with our contemporary understanding of ecosystemic relationships, the maintenance of capitals or stocks, the interdependence of different scales and the clear distinction between effective and efficient.

No abstract

PurposeThe circular economy (CE) has gained momentum in recent years as a new economic paradigm. While the CE sets a very defined vision for a sustainable future, it still operates in the present. As such, existing guidance on and research into the CE lack a necessary understanding of how to go from the present to the future. What if the future is different from what the CE expects? The CE cannot answer this question adequately and therefore is not capable of developing this understanding alone. To address this shortcoming, this paper proposes futures studies (FS) as a complementary discipline because it offers exactly what CE lacks: methods to explore alternative futures.Design/methodology/approachTo understand the level of interdisciplinary research in the built environment between CE and FS, a systematic literature review is carried out using a bibliometric review and a snowballing technique. This manuscript reviews seminal literature in both fields and their theoretical background.FindingsThis paper demonstrates the lack of collaboration between CE and FS and highlights a systemic failure within CE, which is to consider the future as unknowable. It further provides an initial understanding of where the synergy sits, recommendations on where to start and introduces some of the FS chief methods that could be used by CE in the built environment.Research limitations/implicationsThe authors’ bibliometric review and snowballing approach might have missed out on some literature that still falls within the scope. Such limitations are due, on one hand, to the authors’ bibliometric review approach by selecting publications based on matching keywords. On the other hand, the snowballing approach is affected by the authors’ subjective judgements on which of the publications are worth to explore based mainly just on the title and abstract of the paper.Practical implicationsThe inclusion of Futures Studies will allow a stronger focus on approaching possible futures to be integrated overtly into existing work, research and action within the CE community.Social implicationsIt is more reasonable to expect that by cooperatively creating and implementing constructed futures with FS methods and CE principles, a better future for the built environment be reached. This is why it is so relevant for humanity that these two communities start to interact as soon as possible and maintain and open and productive collaboration in transitioning towards a sustainable society.Originality/valueTo the authors’ knowledge, this research is the first of its kind by considering FS into the CE debate.

The division in approaches to education for sustainable development (ESD) as described by Vare and Scott is revisited. A strong bias in ESD towards personal behaviour change and aspirations to ‘making a difference’ (ESD1) is contrasted with systems level or more creative and critial approaches (ESD2). The lack of balance is further revealed when a critical eye is cast on familiar ideas such as recycling, efficiency saving (energy), ‘small steps add up’, reducing consumption, etc. Some ideas/contexts identified as central are identified as not discussed at all until very recently, e.g. the role of money created as debt. The suggestion is made that although exploring values is said to be of importance in ESD this does not extend to the underlying values represented by linear/mechanistic worldviews in contrast to a more contemporary systems worldview. The evidence is that teaching of many of the most familiar topics or themes is resolutely based on a linear worldview and thus fails badly and continually on a simple intellectual level. ESD is a prime candidate if ever there was one for what is essentially a systems perspective and an ESD which hardly touches this base is incomplete – being heavily biased towards social and environmental contexts to the downplaying of the economic – and is badly in need of review. The author%s personal journey away from ESD as commonly understood – despite 20 years of work in the arena – towards the broader discussion now described as the circular economy, is summarised.