Circular cities: planning for circular development in European cities

Figures & data

Figure 1. Circular development. Source: Williams (2021b).

Figure 2. Benefits of circular development. Source: Author's own figures produced by Draught Vision Ltd.

Figure 3. Challenges to implementation. Source: Author's own figures produced by Draught Vision Ltd.

Table 1. Framework for categorizing the planning tools used to deliver circular development.

Tools	Effect	Examples
Visionary	Sets out a normative agenda or goals for a desirable future – shapes the decision environment	National planning policy, development plans, spatial visions
Strategic	Provides an integrated and long-term frame of reference for decision-making	Regional/local spatial plan
Framework setting	Contains policies, proposals and other criteria that provide a non-binding reference for other plans	Regional/local spatial plan
Capacity building	Build actor’s ability to identify and/or develop more effective/desirable strategies – market capacity building	Arenas for interaction/networking Partnerships/partnering arrangements
Regulatory	Market regulating – legally binding commitments concerning land-use change and development – defines parameters of the decision environment	Planning/development controls Restrictive covenants attached to land transfers

Source: Combined frameworks from Nadin et al. (2018) and Tiesdell and Allmendinger (2005).

Table 2. Factors reducing the effectiveness of planning as a mechanism for circular transformation.

Factors reducing the effectiveness of planning	Reference
Lack of regulatory support at multiple levels	Measham et al. (2011) and Williams (2013, 2019b)
Short political cycles/ short-term policies	Bolger and Doyon (2019) and Williams (2013, 2019b)
Competing policy goals	Williams (2013, 2019b), Bolger and Doyon (2019) and Cortinovis and Geneletti (2018)
Lack of policy coherence	Williams (2013, 2019b) and Bolger and Doyon (2019)
Lack of municipal leadership	Williams (2013, 2019b) and Bolger and Doyon (2019)
Lack of municipal autonomy	Measham et al. (2011), Williams (2013) and Bolger and Doyon (2019)
Lack of municipal resources (land, funds, expertise)	Bolger and Doyon (2019), Measham et al. (2011) and Williams (2013)
Lack of municipal ownership of infrastructure and services	Williams (2013) and Bolger and Doyon (2019)
Time constraints of planning process	Measham et al. (2011) and Williams (2013)
Lack of information for decision-making	Measham et al. (2011), Cortinovis and Geneletti (2018) and Williams (2019b)
Socio-technical lock-in to existing systems of provision	Williams (2013, 2019b)
Lack of mechanisms for coordination of many actors	Williams (2013)
Difficulties engaging stakeholders	Williams (2013)
Lack of certainty for investors	Williams (2013, 2019b)
Vested interests in status quo	Williams (2013, 2019b)
Existing social practices	Bolger and Doyon (2019)

Source: Compiled using Bolger and Doyon (2019), Cortinovis and Geneletti (2018), Measham et al. (2011) and Williams (2013, 2019b).

Table 3. Circular development coding framework.

Circular Action (categories)	Codes	Subcodes
Loop	Reuse	Adaptive reuse, refurbishment, repair, food reuse
	Recycle	Composting, landfill mining, urban mining, grey water recycling, black water recycling, circular economy, circular construction
	Energy recovery	Waste-to-energy, bio-energy, biofuel, bio-digesters, heat recovery, waste-heat capture
Ecologically Regenerate	Infrastructure	Green infrastructure, blue infrastructure
	Ecosystem services	Ecosystem services, biodiversity, carbon sequestration flood management, pollution control, climate regulation; water and nutrient cycles
	Ecosystem management	Urban agriculture, urban forestry, conservation, water management, soil management, phytoremediation, bioremediation, land decontamination
Adapt	Infrastructure	Adapt, adaptable infrastructure, adaptive design, climate adaptive infrastructure
	Communities	Adaptive communities, community engagement, co-provision, cooperatives, transition towns, social enterprises
	Urban form	Pop-up spaces, meanwhile spaces, temporary urbanism, temporary uses, climate adaptation

Source: Author’s own.

Table 4. Key stakeholder interviews.

Type	Number stakeholders interviewed	London	Stockholm	Amsterdam	Paris
Developer	4	X	X	X
Construction manager	2	X		X
Engineering/planning consultant	3	X	X	X
Water and waste water engineer	3	X		X	X
Temporary use consultant	2	X			X
Strategic planner	8	X	X	X	X
Economic development officer	2	X		X
Social enterprises	2	X			X
	26	8	6	6	4

Source: Author’s own.

Table 5. Planning tools for delivering circular development.

Tool		How the tools assist in the delivery of circular development	London	Paris	Amsterdam	Stockholm
Strategies/visions	Spatial plan		X	X	X	X
		Identifies space for circular activities	X	X	X
		Encourages the integration of circular infrastructure into new and existing development	X	X		X
		Encourages adaptive reuse of space	X	X	X
		Ensures future development supports circular activities, infrastructure and systems				X
		Creates strategies to encourage regional resource looping	X	X	X
		Co-location symbiotic activities		X	X
Capacity building	Collaborative planning/co-design process		X	X	X	X
		Engages urban stakeholders and increases support for circular systems	X	X	X	X
		Produces appropriate circular socio-technical systems			X
		Encourages circular practices to emerge.			X
		Builds expertise and supply chains supporting circular systems	X			X
Regulatory	Planning conditions and land release (circular tendering and land issue; environmental performance programmes)		X	X	X	X
		Creates circular development experiments	X	X	X	X
		Engages urban stakeholders and increases support for circular systems	X	X	X	X
		Produces appropriate circular socio-technical systems			X	X
		Encourages circular practices to emerge			X
		Builds expertise and supply chains supporting circular systems	X	X	X	X
	Temporary permissions		X	X	X
		Provides space to adapt to new demands placed on cities	X	X
		Provides opportunities for circular experiments in cities	X	X	X
		Creates a demand for circular products, services and infrastructure	X	X	X

Source: Author’s own.

Table 6. Environmental performance programmes.

	Description	Conditions targets, specifications relevant to circular development
Stockholm Royal Seaport (Stockholm)	236 hectares contaminated brownfield site 12,000 homes/30,000 jobs	• Fossil fuel-free by 2030 • Zero-waste to landfill • Integration of ecocycles • Climate adapted to rising temperatures, sea/groundwater levels and increased precipitation • Optimal planting regimes for: regulating ecosystem services; storm-water management; biodiversity and recreational purpose.
Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park (London)	226 hectares contaminated brownfield site 24,000 homes/40,000 jobs	• All new homes code-level 4 and LLDC-led developments zero carbon. • 15% reduction in embodied carbon in new construction. • 100% homes have smart meters. • Educational programmes to reduce household emissions by 15% over 5 years. • Reuse/recycle 90% of demolition and construction waste. • 25% recycled content of aggregate in new buildings. • 20% of construction materials from reclaimed or recycled source. • Materials should be locally resourced. • Promote on-site compost facilities and provide storage space for recyclables in new development. • Temporary buildings made for reuse elsewhere. • Install rainwater harvesting and grey water recycling in new developments. • Incorporate SUDS into the public realm. • Public areas to contribute to biodiversity action plan. • Design buildings with public space to reduce heat island effect.
Clichy Batignolles (Paris)	54 ha contaminated brownfield site 7500 homes/1200 jobs	• Reduce storm-water discharges by 50% into the network. • Space and water heating from 85% renewable energy sources. • Use recyclable or recycled materials in construction. • 30% of construction waste recovered or recycled. • A 10-hectare park and 16,000 m^2 of green roofs increase biodiversity help with climate adaptation and reduce runoff. 30% of the rooftop surface covered with plants. • Rainwater used for 40% of the park’s watering needs.

Source: Author’s own compiled from Marie de Paris (2015) and City of Stockholm (2015); London Legacy.

Table 7. Factors reducing the effectiveness of planning in circular transformations identified by interviews.

Factors reducing the effectiveness of planning in circular transformations	London	Stockholm	Amsterdam	Paris	Total no. interviews mentioning limitation	Type of interviewees who mentioned limitation
Lack of regulatory support at multiple levels	3				3	Strategic planner, developer, construction manager
Short political cycles/short-term policies	4	1			5	Strategic planners, politician, economic development officer, engineering consultant
Competing policy goals	3	1	2	1	7	Strategic planners, developers, engineering consultant
Lack of policy coherence	3	1	2	1	7	Strategic planners, developers, engineering consultant
Lack of municipal resources (land, funds, expertise)	3				3	Strategic planners, politicians, economic development officer, sustainable development officer, circular economy officer
Municipal ownership of infrastructure and services	3	3		1	7	Strategic planners, sustainable development officer, circular economy officer, water and waste water engineers
Time constraints of the planning process	2	2	2	1	7	Strategic planners, developers, construction manager
Lack of information for decision-making	2	1	3	2	8	Strategic planners, developers
Socio-technical lock-in to existing systems of provision	1	2	1	1	5	Strategic planner, Engineering/planning consultant, water and waste water engineers
Limited by lack of new development	3	1	2	1	7	Strategic planners, engineering consultant, developers
Temporary permissions don’t disrupt development regime	3				3	Economic development officer, temporary use consultant, social enterprise
Limited by who is engaged in capacity building	2	2	2		6	Strategic planners, social enterprises
Existing planning regulations prevent circular development			1		1	Strategic planner
Lack of enforcement		2			2	Strategic planners

Source: author’s own compiled from interview results.

Williams, J. 2021a. Circular Cities: A Revolution in Urban Sustainability. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429490613.

 Google Scholar

Nadin, V., M. Ferńandez Maldonado, W. Zonneveld, D. Stead, M. abrowski, K. Piskorek, A. Sarkar, and A. Munter. 2018. COMPASS—Comparative Analysis of Territorial Governance and Spatial Planning Systems in Europe. Final Report. Luxembourg, Europe: ESPON.

 Google Scholar

Tiesdell, S., and P. Allmendinger. 2005. “Planning Tools and Markets: Towards an Extended Conceptualisation.” In Planning, Public Policy and Property Markets, edited by D. Adams, C. Watkins, and M. White, 56–76. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

 Google Scholar

Measham, T., B. Preston, T. Smith, C. Brooke, R. Gorddard, G. Withycombe, and C. Morrison. 2011. “Adapting to Climate Change Through Local Municipal Planning: Barriers and Challenges.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 16 (8): 889–909. doi:10.1007/s11027-011-9301-2.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Williams, J. 2013. “The Role of Planning in Delivering Low-Carbon Urban Infrastructure.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 40 (4): 683–706. doi:10.1068/b38180.

 Google Scholar

Williams, J. 2019b. “Circular Cities: Challenges to Implementing Looping Actions.” Sustainability 11 (2): 423. doi:10.3390/su11020423.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bolger, K., and A. Doyon. 2019. “Circular Cities: Exploring Local Government Strategies to Facilitate a Circular Economy.” European Planning Studies 27 (11): 2184–2205. doi:10.1080/09654313.2019.1642854.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cortinovis, C., and D. Geneletti. 2018. “Ecosystem Services in Urban Plans: What Is There, and What Is Still Needed for Better Decisions.” Land Use Policy 70: 298–312. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.017.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Marie de Paris. 2015. Clichy - Batignolles. Paris: Marie de Paris.

 Google Scholar

City of Stockholm. 2015. “Stockholm Royal Seaport: Leading the Way towards a Sustainable Future.” Sustainability Report.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Data was obtained from third parties on the proviso the data was anonymized.