Jump to content

Course:CONS200/2025FL1/as an Instrument for Natural Resources Conservation

From UBC Wiki

Introduction

The Circular Economy (CE) is a concept focused on resource efficiency, waste reduction and the increase in longevity of products. It contrasts with the linear “take-make-dispose” model, promoting strategies integral to CE such as recycling, reuse and upcycling[1]. This can act as an instrument for natural resources conservation as it would reduce waste, pollution and consumption as products would have a longer life span. These strategies can effectively slow down rates of production and resource extraction, allowing natural landscapes time to regenerate[2]. Studies have demonstrated that circular practices in waste management and recycling contribute to sustainable growth and therefore reduced environmental pressure[3]. Additionally, new technological innovations will strengthen the long-term sustainability and efficacy of CE. However, critics will highlight that CE’s practical implementation faces many constraints. Market incentives fail to promote true resource conservation as the linear model mentioned is significantly more profitable in the short term. Moreover, other challenges include social, practicality and policy restraints[4]. Despite these constraints, the circular economy remains a promising instrument for natural resources conservation, offering concepts that are far better at managing the balance between economic development and ecological responsibility.

History and Origins of The Circular Economy

Images from Wikimedia Commons can be embedded easily.

The first concepts tied to material circularity can be traced back to George Renner in 1947 through the term "industrial symbiosis"[1]. Industrial symbiosis is described as the process of transforming waste and by-products from one industry into the raw materials for another. In 1966, Kennet Boulding publishes the paper "The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth", presenting a reminder that Earth's materials are in a closed loop system, with finite raw materials [1]. Boulding discussed the necessity for a circular loop for materials, setting the stage for the CE. In 1982, Robert Frosh stated that industries should be reducing the production of waste and maximize the efficient use of materials and end-of-life products as an input for other production purposes[1]. Frosh's remarks build upon Renner's idea of industrial symbiosis, hinting at what is now a key concept of the CE. Throughout the following decades, more economists and environmentalists continued to build a foundation for the circular economy, steadily gaining more traction and academic interest. By 2015, the European Union officially introduced the term Circular Economy with five main priority sectors being selected to be re-thinked. The sectors being plastics, food waste, critical raw materials, construction and demolition waste and biomass and bio-based products[1].

Defining The Circular Economy

Kirchherr’s et al. (2017) analysis of 114 different CE definition studies and articles has condensed CE into a complete definition. Defining the CE as an economic system focused on reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption processes.[5]

It operates at 3 different levels; the micro level (companies and consumers), the meso level (eco-industrial parks) and macro level (region, nation and beyond).[5] All 3 levels are set with the aim to accomplish sustainable development, thus simultaneously creating environmental quality, economic prosperity and social equity, to the benefit of present and future generations. Interestingly, the definition of CE is often over-simplified to recycling without true systemic changes and no reference of waste hierarchy. CE is fundamentally focused on resource conservation through loop-closing strategies, which require complex waste management and policy change.[5]

Comparing the Circular Economy and the Linear Economy

The basic principles of the CE is based on maximizing the value of resources and reuse of waste products. This requires a shift to meticulously planning a product’s complete life cycle and considering a product at the end of its life cycle as a resource rather than waste.[6]

In contrast with the current dominant economic system, the linear economy sometimes referred to as the “take-make-waste" economy puts little to no thought in a product’s life cycle[7]. Products and resources are not used to their full potential resulting in mass resource extraction and short life cycles. As the name suggests, the direction of resources is linear, where raw materials become waste and then are stored in landfills. This practice came into fruition during the industrial revolution as mass production of goods began and many were pulled out of poverty.[7] However, it is reliant on the extraction of non-renewable resources and landscape degradation to create economic value. As resources are finite, the linear economy has an expiration date and cannot continue to operate indefinitely at the expense of natural landscapes.[7]

Diagram illustrating the differences between the circular economy and the linear economy.

Research comparing linear and circular systems shows that CE can significantly reduce demand for primary raw materials.[6] Didenko et al. (2018) propose ecological criteria such as energy intensity, emissions, and material throughput to evaluate the shift from linear to circular economic systems. Their findings indicate that CE strategies reduce environmental pressures by lowering the extraction of materials and decreasing the amount of waste products. [6]

Renewable and Non-Renewable Resources

Natural resources in circular-economy research are commonly grouped into renewable and non-renewable categories.

  • Renewable resources are biological materials capable of regenerating within human time scales; for example, paper fiber is treated as a renewable resource whose conservation depends on recovery and reuse rather than repeated harvesting.[8]
  • Non-renewable resources include materials such as metals and minerals, which cannot replenish naturally and retain value when circulated as secondary raw materials instead of being newly extracted. [3]

CE strategies act as instruments for natural resource conservation by reducing the demand for raw material through reuse and material-efficiency measures, lowering overall ecosystem pressures from extraction.[6]

Principles

Although interpretations vary across regions and industries, most circular economy (CE) frameworks are structured around three foundational principles. These principles emphasize systematic resource efficiency, long material lifespans and ecological restoration. [1][2]

Designing out Waste and Pollution

Garbage pollution in Nigeria

A central premise of the circular economy is that waste is not an inevitable outcome of production but a design flaw[1]. CE frameworks promote upstream interventions in product design, materials engineering, and manufacturing processes to prevent waste before it occurs[2].

This includes:

  • Selecting renewable, non-toxic or easily recyclable materials, which improves the potential for multiple high-value use cycles[8]. Ozola et al. (2019) show that paper quality, fibre durability, and chemical additives strongly influence whether materials can be recycled effectively, highlighting the importance of design decisions in determining recyclability.[8]
  • Reducing unnecessary packaging, improving modularity and designing components for repair or remanufacturing. These are all identified as necessary strategies for minimizing waste flows across industrial systems.[2]
  • Eliminating pollutants that interfere with recycling processes or damage natural systems.[1] Rada (2023) argues that many MSW challenges arise not only from disposal practices but from design-stage inclusion of complex, contaminated, or hazardous materials that hinder circular processing[1]

Keeping Products and Materials in Use

The second core principle of the circular economy focuses on retaining the value of products, components, and materials for as long as possible.[2] CE frameworks argue that most material losses occur because products are discarded prematurely, poorly designed for longevity, or processed through low-value waste systems[3][1].

CE promotes strategies such as:

  • Reuse and repair, this extends product lifespan and reduces the demand for virgin materials and lowers waste generation[1]. Environmental management models show that maintaining materials in circulation longer is one of the most effective ways to reduce total system impacts[2].
  • Remanufacturing and refurbishing, restores components to near-original quality, enabling high-value recirculation[2]. Studies of industrial waste flows indicate that remanufacturing can substantially reduce extraction pressure and energy demand, particularly in material-intensive sectors[1].
  • Recycling that preserves material quality, is central to CE, but only if materials retain their functional value[8]. Ozola et al. (2019) demonstrate that high-quality recycling of paper fibres significantly reduces the need for virgin pulp, lowers energy use, and maintains material quality over multiple cycles[8]. Their findings show that material durability and contamination levels strongly shape recycling performance, reinforcing the need for quality-preserving reuse loops[8].
  • Industrial symbiosis, refers to when the waste of one industry becomes a resource for another, this helps close loops and minimizes disposal[2]. Examples from municipal solid waste (MSW) systems show how organic, paper, and biomass by-products can enter secondary industries when supported by CE-aligned governance structures. Examples from municipal solid waste (MSW) systems show how organic, paper, and biomass by-products can enter secondary industries when supported by CE-aligned governance structures[1].

Regenerating Natural Systems

Beyond minimizing environmental harm, circular economy frameworks aim to actively restore and regenerate ecosystems[2]. This principle aligns CE with ecological sustainability by returning biological materials safely to natural cycles, reducing extraction pressures, and supporting long-term ecosystem health[1][8].

Key regenerative strategies include:

  • Composting and nutrient cycling - Returning nutrients to soils, while reducing landfill burdens[1].
  • Agroforestry and sustainable biomass production - Offer renewable resource cycles and reduce pressure on non-renewable inputs[8].
  • Reducing extraction pressure - High-value recycling and renewable material inputs decrease the need for raw material extraction, which is a major driver of ecosystem degradation.[1]
  • Ecosystem-based urban planning - Urban regions increasingly apply CE strategies to address waste accumulation, pollution, and resource inefficiency. Paes et al. (2021) show that integrating CE into Amazonian cities supports environmental regeneration by improving waste governance, enhancing local recycling loops, and reducing ecological pressures associated with rapid urbanization[9].

Circular Economy and Waste Management

Classic recycling closeup

Waste management is one of the most extensively studied application areas of the circular economy (CE), because material recovery and waste prevention are central to closing resource loops[1]. CE frameworks argue that municipal solid waste (MSW) systems must transition from disposal-oriented models to integrated, circular systems that prioritize high-value reuse, recycling, and recovery[1].

Rada (2023) emphasizes that landfilling remains one of the greatest obstacles to CE implementation, particularly in regions where waste infrastructure is outdated or lacks regulatory pressure[1]. Environmental management science and techniques (sorting, biological treatment, recycling, energy recovery and material quality control) support the shift toward closed-loop waste governance, noting that improved system modeling, material flow tracking, and waste-reduction strategies are critical for reducing environmental burdens while retaining material value[2].

Paper and Biomass Cycles

Paper recycling transport in shanghai

Recycling paper waste remains a key challenge and opportunity in CE transitions[1]. Ozola et al. (2019) outline how paper recycling reduces energy demand, supports renewable resource loops, and decreases dependency on virgin materials[8].

CE strategies for paper and biomass emphasize:

  • Improving separation at source - increased fibre purity[8].
  • Reducing chemical additives - hinder recycling[8].
  • Designing paper products for recyclability - designing out waste[2].

Combined, these strategies demonstrate how biomass and paper cycles serve as practical examples of CE principles applied at large scale[2].

Food Waste Governance

Food waste represents a major barrier to CE implementation. European food-waste legislation contains gaps in economic incentives, enforcement, and harmonization across member states[10]. Researchers recommend stronger policy instruments, such as economic penalties, extended producer responsibility (EPR), and targeted subsidies to improve waste prevention behaviours [10].

Urban Waste Systems

Urban settings are particularly important to advancing CE waste management practices due to their large populations, and the high volume of waste they generate.[11] Their concentrated and diverse waste streams make cities strategic sites for CE intervention.[11] Sanchez et al. (2020) emphasizes that urban systems offer unique leverage points for CE due to their dense populations, established infrastructure, and capacity for coordinated planning. Their framework demonstrates that urban CE initiatives such as improved source separation, infrastructure redesign and economic incentives can quickly scale material recovery and reduce overall waste generation at a municipal level.[11]

Paes et al. (2021) describes that cities can serve as nodes where waste streams from both urban and surrounding non-urban areas can be organized and more effectively recycled. In the Amazonian setting, redesigning waste flow systems, and improving local recycling systems, helps to mitigate the pollution impacts of surrounding ecosystems, which is particularly important to sensitive areas such as the Amazon Basin.[9] Their findings also highlight the importance of institutional coordination and local governance, as CE implementation is dependent on social, economic and environmental considerations into waste management planning.[9]

Critiques & Criticisms of Circular Economics

Although the circular economy (CE) has become a widely endorsed framework in policy, industry, and sustainability research, scholars argue that it faces significant conceptual and practical limitations[4]. Corvellec et al. (2021) emphasize that CE discourse is often overly optimistic about technological solutions, insufficiently critical of economic growth assumptions, and prone to oversimplifying complex social and political dynamics[4].

Limits of Recycling

A major critique concerns the physical limits of recycling. Many materials degrade with each cycle, making “closed loops” technically difficult to achieve[4]. This is supported by evidence from paper recycling, where fibre quality declines over repeated loops and requires supplementation with virgin materials[8]. Energy losses, contamination, and down-cycling further restrict the ability to circulate materials indefinitely[1]. Furthermore, Experts observe the existence of "energy limits" beyond which recycling becomes ecologically unhelpful, if not downright impossible[12].

Lack of Focus on Reducing Consumption

Critics argue that circular economy strategies often prioritize recycling and innovation over reducing demand and material throughout[4]. Garske et al. (2020) show this clearly in food systems, where governance gaps and behavioural patterns limit waste prevention despite CE policies[10].

Circular "Washing"

Because circular economy has become a popular sustainability concept, some companies adopt CE language without significant structural change[4]. This can obscure ongoing resource extraction and reinforce business-as-usual practices. This practice is especially common among so-called "fast fashion" brands, who commonly lean into the use of buzzwords such as "sustainably sourced" or "100% recyclable packaging" to mislead consumers as to the re-usability of their products[13].

Governance and Legal Implementation Barriers

Effective circularity requires strong public policy, infrastructure, and regulatory coordination[1]. Studies note that MSW systems still struggle with landfilling, weak enforcement, and limited investment in high-value recycling, slowing CE progress[10]. While researchers also note areas for opportunity regarding the legal ramifications of CE conceptual implementation, they acknowledge the "complex web" of legal challenges present in this arena of legislation locally, nationally, and internationally[14]. Some restrictions include conflicting regulations, unclear liability frameworks, and intellectual property complexities[14].

Over-reliance on Technology & Techno-centrism

While innovations such as digital tracking and automation can improve circularity, Koval et al. (2025) caution that technological adoption alone cannot overcome systemic barriers like market incentives and regulatory gaps[15]. They also observe that a significant gap in research exists within the space of technology adoption as a cornerstone factor of the CE, as it relates to eco-technological innovation and actual, quantifiable improvements in sustainability[15]. Overall, critics suggest that CE must be accompanied by broader social and political transformation to achieve its intended environmental benefits[4].

Related Concepts & Synergistic Practices

As circular economics resides within larger groupings of sustainable practice philosophy, there exist a number of connections to other schools of thought, economic & business principles, and cultural knowledge systems[16]. Examples of systems analogous and synergistic to CE are listed below.

Indigenous knowledge systems

Multiple Indigenous knowledge systems have for millennia contained practices and ways of life analogous to CE tenets[17]. As decolonisation occurs on ever broader scales worldwide[18], CE scholars have begun to incorporate Indigenous teachings and world understandings into their work[17]. This influence is most notable on smaller scales in local environments, where intimate & generational understandings of both locally and globally critical earth systems is needed most sorely. However, scholars also note that non-western indigenous knowledge systems have been the victim of under representation in rings such as Circular Economics, and further research into the subject is needed[17]

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals

The United Nations' creation and adoption of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 created a major opportunity for the implementation of CE concepts and practices[19]. Some are more directly related, such as goal 12: responsible consumption and production[20], and some are less directly applicable but still related, such as goal 11: sustainable cities and communities[20]. These interconnections within the SDGs serve to underline the ubiquity of CE thinking in both micro and macro scale applications, With Ogunmakinde (2022) positing that "the CE links the SDGs through its economic, social, and environmental impacts"[19].

Visual diagram illustrating Doughnut Economics.

Doughnut Economics

Conceived by Kate Raworth in 2017 in her book of the same name, Doughnut Economics (DE) argues against traditional schools of economic thought which have historically been focused entirely on production and growth as the be all, end all purpose of economics[21]. Instead, Raworth advocates for a revolution in our understanding of global economics by following new tenets, such as growth agnosticism[21], or creation for the purposes of regeneration. It is the latter of these two ideas which most closely aligns and synergizes with CE, with Amiel (2024) pointing towards various city's adoption of her economic model as a direct part of engagement with circular economic systems[22].

Conclusion

The Circular Economy has undergone a great deal of evolution, and as can be seen here, Circularity as a concept continues to operate in a space of constant change. Its evolution as voices in the space appear and disappear, and as researchers continue to refine the idea in all of its forms has made this framework the topic of uncounted research studies, via which this Wiki page has been formed. From a mid 20th century "green" economic proposition to the modern day's widely adopted and ever-restructured framework for reducing waste, conserving natural resources and systems, and rethinking prior consumerist production ideas[1]. While research continually demonstrates its potential as a universal strategy to reduce humanity's impact on the planet, challenges remain in implementation, governance, and universal economic restructuring[11][13][15]. In this vein, critics identify concerns with the framework, including recycling limits, an over-reliance on techno-centrism, and its potential for use in green-washing campaigns. In spite and resultant of these critiques, CE thinking continues to evolve and transform as it intersects & synergizes with various global sustainable policies, large and small[22].

References

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 Rada, E. C. (2023). Circular Economy: Origins, Evolution and role of MSW. Environmental and Climate Technologies, 27(1), 989–998. https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2023-0072
  2. ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 Cheng, Y., & Xu, J. (2021). Model of environmental management science based on circular economy theory. Ecological Chemistry and Engineering S, 28(4), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.2478/eces-2021-0034
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Burinskienė, A., Lingaitienė, O., & Byčenkaitė, G. (2025). Dynamics of trade of recycled raw materials and the connection with the circular economy. Discover Sustainability, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-01502-4
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Corvellec, H., Stowell, A. F., & Johansson, N. (2021). Critiques of the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 26(2), 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13187
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Kirchherr, Julian (December 2017). "Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions". Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 127: 221–232 – via Science Direct.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Didenko, Nikolay (September 2018). "Ecological Criteria for Comparing Linear and Circular Economies". MDPI – via ProQuest.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 MacArthur, Ellen (10 February 2023). "What is the linear economy?". Ellen Macarthur Foundation.
  8. ↑ 8.00 8.01 8.02 8.03 8.04 8.05 8.06 8.07 8.08 8.09 8.10 8.11 Ozola, Z. U., Vesere, R., Kalnins, S. N., & Blumberga, D. (2019). Paper waste recycling. Circular Economy aspects. Environmental and Climate Technologies, 23(3), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2019-0094
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Paes, M. X., Campos-Silva, J. V., & De Oliveira, J. a. P. (2021). Integrating circular economy in urban Amazon. Npj Urban Sustainability, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00031-z
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Garske, B., Heyl, K., Ekardt, F., Weber, L., & Gradzka, W. (2020). Challenges of food waste Governance: An assessment of European legislation on food waste and recommendations for improvement by economic instruments. Land, 9(7), 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9070231
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Sanchez, Levoso (2020-03-01). "Methodological framework for the implementation of circular economy in urban systems". Journal of Cleaner Production. 248: 119–227 – via Science Direct.
  12. ↑ Craig, Paul P. (March 2001). "Energy limits on recycling".
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Choudhury, Raya Rafia; et al. (1 July, 2023). "More than Just a Business Ploy? Greenwashing as a Barrier to Circular Economy and Sustainable Development: a Case Study-Based Critical Review". Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Choudhary, Chetana; et al. (September 2023). "Legal Challenges and Opportunities in Implementing Circular Economy Practices" (PDF). International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT). Volume 3: 1–7. line feed character in |title= at position 38 (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Koval, V., Abramović, N., Đurović, S., Crvenica, D., & Arsawan, I. W. E. (2025). Fostering technology adoption and management advancements in environmental performance: mediation of circular economy and Sustainability-Oriented innovation. Sustainability, 17(5), 1848. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17051848
  16. ↑ Murray, Alan; et al. (22 May 2015). "The Circular Economy: An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Concept and Application in a Global Context". Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 Kweku Sobeng, Augustus; et al. (19 October 2025). "Beyond a Single Narrative: An Investigation of Non-western Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Their Application to Deliver an Effective Circular Economy". Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  18. ↑ Tabar, Linda; et al. (2017). [utoronto.ca "Decolonization is a global project: From Palestine to the Americas"] Check |url= value (help). Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society. Vol. 6. line feed character in |title= at position 42 (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Ogunmakinde, Olabode Emmanuel; et al. (March 2022). "Contributions of the circular economy to the UN sustainable development goals through sustainable construction". Science Direct. Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Carlsen, Lars; et al. (30 July, 2021). "The 17 United Nations' sustainable development goals: a status by 2020". Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 Raworth, Kate (2017). Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st Century Economist. United States of America: Chelsea Green Publishing. pp. 1–210.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Amiel, Lindsay (20 Dec. 2024). "Thriving in Balance: Navigating Doughnut Economics, Circular Economies, and the Green Transition". Taylor & Francis Online. Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]

This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS200.
  1. ↑ Dzhengiz, T.; et al. (2023). "Unpacking the circular economy: A problematizing review". Wiley Online Library. Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:CONS200/2025FL1/as_an_Instrument_for_Natural_Resources_Conservation&oldid=881968"