PurposeCircular economy (CE), as a new economic paradigm, has gained traction in recent years. Cities' role in driving CE forward has been perceived as being increasingly important to achieve sustainable development (SD). For this reason, there is an urgency to understand what a circular city is and how it might be composed. This research explores the ways in which the city-state of Singapore is transitioning to a CE.Design/methodology/approachA systematic literature review on CE and cities was carried out using a bibliometric review and a snowballing technique. This review was performed on academic and on non-academic papers.FindingsThis research has confirmed the lack of robust circular cities case studies. As Singapore has already begun its journey towards circularity, this article examines its current efforts and offers recommendations in the design and implementation of CE policies that may be valuable not just for Singapore but also for high-density and rapidly expanding cities around the world that require a new development pathway to emulate.Originality/valueThis manuscript is the first detailed, independent and comprehensive review of Singapore's approach to CE.

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.

While the Circular Economy (CE) is gaining traction as a new economic paradigm to overcome the linear economy, it has not yet developed an understanding on how to transition from the present into the future. What if the future is different from what the CE expects? We argue that the CE cannot answer this question adequately and therefore is not capable of developing this understanding alone. To address this shortcoming, we propose Futures Studies (FS) as a complementary discipline because it offers exactly what CE lacks: methods to explore alternative futures. Whilst both communities are working towards the same goal —a sustainable tomorrow— until now they show little to no interaction. This research represents a first step towards embedding realistic considerations of futures into the CE debate: it reviews literature in both fields and their theoretical background to highlight potential synergies, and lay a path on where and how to start.