Speaker
Description
The escalating challenges posed by resource depletion, urban sprawl, and socio-spatial fragmentation demand a rethinking of urban systems. While the circular economy (CE) has emerged as a paradigm to decouple economic growth from resource consumption, its urban applications often reduce circularity to technocratic resource management, neglecting the spatial and social intricacies of everyday life. This study critically synthesises the literature on local circularity, underutilised spaces, and circular design strategies, constructing a conceptual framework for understanding how underutilised spaces may serve as drivers of spatial circularity in cities, with a particular focus on London.
The review begins by interrogating the concept of local circularity, positioning it as a spatially grounded extension of CE. Local circularity represents a shift from macro-scale, resource-centric models to site-specific, community-embedded practices (Kocaturk and Hosseini, 2023). Unlike macro-level models dominated by material flows, local circularity emphasises neighbourhood-scale interventions that integrate spatial, material, and social dimensions. However, current scholarship and policy largely frame circularity through technical and systemic approaches, sidelining the socio-spatial and territorial implications critical to its realisation in everyday urban life. This review argues that local circularity is not merely an extension of CE principles but represents a profound reimagining of spatial resources at the local scale.
The second section interrogates the role of underutilised urban spaces as latent resources within the circular city. The second section focuses on underutilised spaces, conceptualising them not merely as voids or remnants of planning failures but as latent resources for enabling circular practices. Drawing on Carmona’s typology of urban spaces (Carmona, 2010) and subsequent studies, this research critically analyses how these spaces - negative, ambiguous, and residual - represent both the ‘dark side’ (Kevin Lynch, 1990) of urbanisation and an opportunity to renegotiate the spatial logic of cities (GLA, 2022). By integrating theories of latent potentiality and circular regeneration, the review underscores how these spaces could be leveraged to foster resource efficiency, social inclusion, and localised circularity.
The final section examines circular design strategies as an operational tool for reconfiguring urban space. Rooted in the principles of eliminate, regenerate, and circulate, circular design connects material flows with spatial configurations and social practices (EMF, 2021). Circular design is not merely an aesthetic or functional exercise; it is a boundary-spanning process that aligns socio-spatial practices with ecological imperatives. By advocating for a systemic, design-led approach, this research proposes that strategies such as adaptive reuse and temporary interventions can transform underutilised spaces into vibrant nodes of circularity.
Building on these reviews, this study proposes a conceptual framework for spatial circularity, structured around three interrelated components: (1) local circularity as the core, providing the socio-spatial foundation for integrating CE principles into urban contexts; (2) underutilised spaces as resources, reframing them as latent assets for circular practices; and (3) circular design as the operative mechanism, operationalising spatial circularity through tangible interventions. This framework synthesises diverse theoretical perspectives while offering a structured lens to guide future research and practice.
This study contributes to the discourse on circular cities by addressing the underexplored intersection of CE and urban spatiality. The proposed framework reconceptualises space as the critical interface linking material flows, governance systems, and everyday practices, embedding circularity within the socio-spatial fabric of urban environments (Williams, 2021). By addressing theoretical gaps, it provides a structured pathway for operationalising CE principles through spatial interventions, particularly in underutilised urban areas in London and beyond. Future research must critically engage with the empirical and contextual dimensions of this framework to validate its adaptability across diverse urban settings.
References
Carmona, M., 2010. Contemporary Public Space, Part Two: Classification. J. Urban Des. 15, 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574801003638111
EMF, 2021. Circular design: turning ambition into action [WWW Document]. Ellen MacArthur Found. URL https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-design/overview (accessed 7.16.24).
GLA, 2022. Circular Economy Statements. Greater London Authority.
Kocaturk, T., Hosseini, M.R., 2023. Towards a circular transition of the built environment: systemic and transdisciplinary models, methods and perspectives. Build. Res. Inf. 51, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2022.2155377
Lynch, K., 1990. Wasting away. San Francisco : Sierra Club Books.
Williams, J., 2021. Circular Cities: What Are the Benefits of Circular Development? Sustainability 13, 5725. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105725
| Keywords | Circular Economy; Local Circularity; Underutilised Spaces; Spatial Circularity |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
