ANNUAL CONGRESS 2025

Towards nature-based circularity in cities: addressing the research-policy gaps

Not scheduled

20m

Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul

Oral Track 01 | POSTGROWTH URBANISM

Speaker

Dr Sareh Moosavi (University of Melbourne)

Description

Cities are increasingly facing irreversible climate impacts. Meanwhile cities are responsible for a large share of global resource extraction and energy use, accounting for about 67–76% of global energy use (IPCC, 2023). The built environments, including materials, buildings, infrastructure and urban systems, drive a significant portion of this demand, consuming approximately 40% of raw materials globally. The predominant linear patterns of resource acquisition, consumption and the subsequent disposal of waste pose environmental and socio-economic challenges, accelerating negative climate impacts on cities. Circular Economy (CE) has gained momentum in recent years among built environment professionals, decision-makers and planning scholars (Lucertini and Musco, 2020; Miatto et al., 2024). Concurrently, the emergent concept of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) promotes efficient and sustainable use of resources by reducing water, energy and materials in urban systems through harnessing natural processes (Katsou et al., 2020). There is an emerging body of research focusing on the intersections of NBS and CE and how NBS can support the CE transition in cities. However, knowledge transfer gaps exist when it comes to mobilising nature-based circularity through effective planning and policy levers. This research aims to address this gap through identifying areas within CE policies where NBS can be leveraged to support actions for circular built environments.
To address this, national CE policies in two contexts are scrutinized in the Netherlands as one of the early adopters, and Australia as a recent adopter. The (Dutch) National Program for a Circular Economy (NPCE) 2023-2030, and Australia’s Circular Economy Framework (2024) (ACEF) were assessed against an integrated framework derived from the review of literature using: 1) the built environment policy setting across project life stages identified in Hurlimann et al. (2024); and 2) the seven circularity challenges addressed by NBS derived from Atanasova et al. (2021).
Results show that in both contexts CE policies are mainly characterised by a voluntary, non-binding nature. Achieving the national targets (i.e., 100% circular by 2050 in the Netherlands, and doubling the circularity rate in Australia by 2035) demands regulatory frames that mandate circularity in actions taken across all sectors, levels of government, and projects’ life stages (from strategic plans to end of life), with clear timeframes for enacting the regulations. While both policies identify the built environment as one of the priority sectors for the transition to a CE, references to nature-based circularity in the built environment take a different emphasis in each context. Areas that nature-based approaches are emphasised in the NPCE include restoration of natural cycles (e.g. water and nutrients), use of biobased materials, and nature regeneration. For example, the City of Amsterdam has adopted the Green Deal Timber Construction, committing to constructing all new buildings with materials that are at least 20% timber/biobased by 2025. The ACEF highlights the need to mitigate environmental impacts on natural resources across the life cycle of materials and products. The emphasis is on how CE can support nature positive and biodiversity outcomes, and less about how nature can support the CE transition. This suggests the need for more effective knowledge translation between research and policy. Areas for policy improvement are suggested, including considerations of landscape-led and nature-based approaches in infrastructure planning, adopting life cycle/circular thinking based on how nature functions in built environment projects and developments, and developing incentives that can evolve into regulations for the use of biobased materials in construction. The research contributes to informing future CE policy frameworks, bringing nature to the center of the circularity challenge in cities. Additionally, the developed assessment framework can be adapted and applied to other policy contexts, to enable effective translation of scientific knowledge into actionable circular urban policies.

References

Atanasova, N., Castellar, J. A. C., Pineda-Martos, R., Nika, C. E., Katsou, E., Istenič, D., Pucher, B., Andreucci, M. B. and Langergraber, G. (2021) Nature-Based Solutions and Circularity in Cities, Circular Economy and Sustainability, 1(1), 319-332.
Hurlimann, A., March, A., Bush, J., Moosavi, S., Browne, G. R. and Warren-Myers, G. (2024) Climate change transformation in built environments–A policy instrument framework, Urban Climate, 53, 101771.
IPCC (2023) Summary for Policy Makers: Synthesis Report of The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), United Nations Environment Program.
Katsou, E., Nika, C.-E., Buehler, D., Marić, B., Megyesi, B., Mino, E., Babí Almenar, J., Bas, B., Bećirović, D., Bokal, S., Đolić, M., Elginöz, N., Kalnis, G., Mateo, M.-C. G., Milousi, M., Mousavi, A., Rinčić, I., Rizzo, A., Rodriguez-Roda, I., Rugani, B., Šalaševičienė, A., Sari, R., Stanchev, P., Topuz, E. and Atanasova, N. (2020) Transformation tools enabling the implementation of nature-based solutions for creating a resourceful circular city, Blue-Green Systems, 2(1), 188-213.
Lucertini, G. and Musco, F. (2020) Circular Urban Metabolism Framework, One Earth, 2(2), 138-142.
Miatto, A., Emami, N., Goodwin, K., West, J., Taskhiri, M. S., Wiedmann, T. and Schandl, H. (2024) Australia's circular economy metrics and indicators, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 28(2), 216-231.