A review of micro level indicators for a circular economy – moving away from the three dimensions of sustainability?

Kristensen, Heidi Simone; Mosgaard, Mette

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118531

Cited by 526 publications

(388 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

372

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the development of indicators has progressed in recent years, there is currently no standardized way to measure the circularity at a micro-level [33]. According to Kristensen and Mosgaard [34], a detailed understanding of how to measure and document progress toward a circular economy is lacking, especially on a micro-level. This is a barrier for both producers who want to provide circular products and services and for the consumers who want to know how to compare products.…”

Section: Lack Of Innovative Circular Technologies and Indicators Formentioning

confidence: 99%

Reversibility and Durability as Potential Indicators for Circular Building Technologies

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the Circularity Gap Report 2020, a mere 8.6% of the global economy wascircular in 2019. The Global Status Report 2018 declares that building construction and operationsaccounted for 36% of global final energy use and 39% of energy–related carbon dioxide (CO2)emissions. The Paris Agreement demands that the building and construction sector decarbonizesglobally by 2050. This requires strategies that minimize the environmental impact of buildingsand practices extending the lifecycle of their constituents within a circular resource flow. To ensurethat eective measures are applied, a suitable method is needed to assess compliance in materials,processes, and design strategies within circular economy principles. The study’s assumption is thatsynthetic and reliable indicators for that purpose could be based on reversibility and durabilityfeatures. The paper provides an overview of building design issues within the circular economyperspective, highlighting the diculty in finding circular technologies which are suitable to enhancebuildings’ service life while closing material loops. The results identify reversibility and durability aspotential indicators for assessing circular building technologies. The next research stage aims to furtherdevelop the rating of circularity requirements for both building technologies and entire buildings.

show abstract

Section: Lack Of Innovative Circular Technologies and Indicators Formentioning

confidence: 99%

Reversibility and Durability as Potential Indicators for Circular Building Technologies

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evaluation of circularity strategies is crucial to select appropriate strategies and move towards a CE. Even though various methods and indicators have been developed by academics to measure the progress towards CE, there is a lack of circularity strategies' evaluation methods at the product level [13,21]. Therefore, in this article, a multi-criteria evaluation method of product-level circularity strategies is developed.…”

Section: Conclusion and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, widespread adoption of circularity strategies still has not taken place [11] and companies are struggling to implement and operationalize CE. This means that CE research is focusing on understanding the barriers and challenges that companies face (e.g., [11,12]) as well as developing decision-making support in the form of tools, metrics, and methods for companies to implement circularity strategies [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Multi-Criteria Evaluation Method of Product-Level Circularity Strategies

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The circular economy (CE) can drive sustainability. For companies to select and implement circularity strategies, they need to evaluate and compare the performance of these strategies both in terms of progress towards CE but also based on their feasibility and business outcomes. However, evaluation methods for circularity strategies at the product level are lacking. Therefore, this research proposes a multi-criteria evaluation method of circularity strategies at the product level which can be used by business decision-makers to evaluate and compare the initial business of the company, transformative and future circularity strategies. This multi-criteria evaluation method aims to assist business decision-makers to identify a preferred strategy by linking together a wide variety of criteria, i.e., environmental, economic, social, legislative, technical, and business, as well as by proposing relevant indicators that take into consideration, where possible, the life cycle perspective. It also allows for flexibility so that criteria, sub-criteria, and weighing factors can be altered by the business decision-makers to fit the needs of their specific case or product. Two illustrative examples based on case companies are presented to verify and illustrate the proposed method.

show abstract

“…However, when it comes to the construction industry, and to CDW management, it is necessary to define more tailored indicators. Furthermore, the introduced indicators should be able to assess the five CE requirements to be measured, in line with the new EU policy: [32], discussing three types of indicators: single quantitative, analytical tools and composite indicators. This review analyzes recycling, end-of-life management, remanufacturing, resource-efficiency, disassembly, lifetime extension, reuse, and, finally, the overall waste management procedures.…”

Section: New Indicators For Assessing the Efficiency And Sustainabilimentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploratory Data Analysis and Data Envelopment Analysis of Construction and Demolition Waste Management in the European Economic Area

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper deals with the efficiency and sustainability of Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) management in 30 Member States of the European Economic Area (EEA) (the 28 European Union countries plus Norway and Iceland) for the period 2010–2016 using Exploratory Data Analytics (EDA) and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). The first stage of the proposed methodology is EDA with already available (the CDW recovery rate) and suggested indicators (e.g., building stock characterization, dwelling occupancy ratio, macroeconomic ratios and CDW breakdown) to characterize the efficiency and sustainability of CDW management. The second stage is to assess the efficiency of countries using DEA through two original CDW production models, one for sustainability, measuring the efficiency of the construction sector for reducing its CDW, and the second a model to score the efficiency of maximizing the CDW recovery rate. The main outcome of the paper is the proposed methodology, which is a candidate for replacing current indicators in order to evaluate the performance of CDW policy, due to is adaptive nature, promoting the continuous improvement and overcoming the limitations of the poor quality of metrics, data and parametric indicators. The methodology has been experimentally validated using Eurostat data for 30 Member States of EEA, ranking them according to the two DEA model scores, to point out the countries considered efficient among those of their scale, as a reference for sustainable and efficient practices.

show abstract

A review of micro level indicators for a circular economy – moving away from the three dimensions of sustainability?

Cited by 526 publications

References 72 publications

Reversibility and Durability as Potential Indicators for Circular Building Technologies

Reversibility and Durability as Potential Indicators for Circular Building Technologies

A Multi-Criteria Evaluation Method of Product-Level Circularity Strategies

Exploratory Data Analysis and Data Envelopment Analysis of Construction and Demolition Waste Management in the European Economic Area

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About