ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Incentivising the recovery of ‘pollutants’ for recycling (and re- categorising them as resources)

TRANSPORT PLANNING Planning for infrastructure using waste-derived fuel

PUBLIC HEALTH Reducing pollutants can provide an opportunity if those pollutants are recovered

EDUCATION & SKILLS Skills to describe, analyse, design and implement resource recovery are needed in a range of roles.

ENERGY AND CARBON Carbon reduction targets help to drive Type C circular economy actions

140

regulatory requirements and waste handling, as well as engaging the regulator in a discussion about appropriate designation of materials.

The foundation data sets and governance actions place the city at the top of the spiral in figure 1, moving towards a city-scale circular economy is feasible, so the next challenge is to move down the spiral following the steps in Box 1.

Once these ‘foundation’ aspects of city resource flows and capacity are understood, a further five types of dataset can be helpful in using the framework i.e. to select options for re-use, recycling or transformation, and to indicate the types of technologies or infrastructure needed in the city to implement those options. These five “implementation” datasets are:

- Calorific value: the amount of energy which it could release, usually when combusted. Calorific value determines viability of some transformation activities at the bottom of the spiral e.g. energy from waste.

- Financial value: on the cost of the component materials (less cost of recovery) or the potential value of the material after recovery/re-use. Some materials have market value (e.g. metals). Other materials will have a value based on the opportunity cost of not disposing of them. This is where the financial viability of the options identified from the ‘foundation’ datasets can be evaluated.

- Sources: Spatial mapping of locations where resource is produced

- Collection points: Spatial mapping of infrastructure or sites which serve to collect resources. - Regulatory constraints: Clear assessment of material flows subject to regulatory constraints in their re-use, recovery or treatment because they are designated “pollutants”, “hazards”, “controlled” or “waste”. Designation may be context specific.

In addition there are two further governance factors which will affect how well the city is able to follow up on the opportunities identified and described through these datasets. These two factors are whether there are:

- institutions in the city to collect, process and distribute resources,

- sufficient skills and knowledge in the city to implement the actions that technology enables. In our Leeds case study, institutions to collect and process resources safely and legally were not well documented or understood outside of conventional waste management and disposal processes covered by “Duty of Care” regulations (Environment Act, 1990). Equally, while there may be skills that could support a city-scale circular economy, the lack of policy focus in this area meant that it was impossible to assess the availability and level of these skills.

CONCLUSIONS

When charged with exploring how a city-scale circular economy might be developed, without pre- judging the necessity of a specific technology, we found there was a need to develop a framework for assessing the many options for closing resource loops. Combining aspects of the established waste hierarchy with circular economy concepts and placing these within the spatial constraints of a city provides a novel framework which allows city-specific opportunities to be identified systematically.

141

In reviewing current activity and research on developing a circular economy, we found limited attention to how spatial constraints, or the city as a dynamic context, might affect circular economic activity. There is much more focus on technological innovation to close resource loops, and how implementing technologies at city scale can drive further innovations. The framework proposed in this paper is intended to be complementary to these technology-driven approaches. We suggest that by starting with an understanding of resource flows and existing assets (including social and economic assets, as well as environmental assets) in a city, a plan can be developed which uses more of the distinctive aspects of the city, includes more actors in the development of the circular economy, and therefore delivers benefits across a range of policy domains.

Following the spiral presented in this framework from top to bottom, retaining resources (and value) within the spatial limits of the city supports a variety of city-specific responses. A diverse economy, whether circular or not, with activity across many sectors with many forms of enterprise is more resilient to changes (Rockefeller Foundation, 2015), which could be an important co-benefit of developing a city-scale circular economy in this way.

Clearly this framework, and particularly the data and governance factors that we have identified, have emerged from in depth analysis of only one city’s data and institutions. Further research examining how the framework might be applied in other city contexts would be very helpful in improving the robustness of the proposed framework. In particular, there is a need to explore the potential of the framework in cities where patterns of governance are different i.e. where utilities are publicly owned / managed or where a city authority’s economic and environmental powers are more devolved than in the UK. In addition, it would be useful to compare the Leeds analysis with the use of the framework in a city in a developing or middle income economy, where the informal economy related to waste management may already be substantial, and where spatial planning may not be rigorously undertaken or enforced. As well as identifying that the governance and regulation of utilities varies between cities, and that developing country cities are likely to have very different issues and potentially more capacity to keep circular economy activity nearer the top of the framework, we also recognise that global cities have distinctive patterns of governance, developed from a heady mix of culture, economic power, urban design and political ecology. The framework is not offered as a recipe, rather a guide to approaching circular economy activity at the city scale. Despite these limitations, this paper demonstrates that it is possible to think about, and develop, a city-scale circular economy without committing to particular technology options or infrastructure as the starting point. Pursuing a city-scale circular economy through systematic consideration of the waste hierarchy, and including the range of stakeholders who can contribute to that circular economy, could deliver multiple benefits in terms of resource efficiency, waste reduction, employment and resilience.