4.7 Article

Circular economy: Preserving materials or products? Introducing the Resource States framework

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104698

关键词

Circular economy; Resource states; Closed-loop; Resource productivity; Circular configurations; Circular strategies

资金

  1. Climate-KIC [1292/2013]
  2. EPSRC National Centre for Industrial Sustainability [RG64858]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper draws on material entropy and life cycle thinking to develop the Resource States framework. This framework clarifies and systematises the language around resources within the circular economy (CE) discourse, such that insights from different tools and approaches that investigate different aspects of CE can be aggregated and a more comprehensive picture of complex circular systems can be compiled. Currently, progress of the CE discourse is hampered by a lack of a clear and systematic approach to what we refer to as the particle state and the product state. That is: whether to approach resource circulation from the perspective of elements, molecules or materials; or whether to adopt the perspective of products or finished goods. As these two perspectives are often implicit in current contributions to CE, we first articulate both approaches, before assessing their respective contributions and limitations. Next, we draw on material entropy and life cycle thinking to integrate both perspectives and develop a more comprehensive way of conceptualising resource states, in the form of the Resource States framework. We furthermore present how this framework can be used A) to clearly distinguish between circular strategies, as well as between different implementation scenarios of the same circular strategy; B) to systematically explore and map synergies and trade-offs between combinations of circular strategies; and C) to link circular strategies with structural waste present in a given context. Lastly, we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the framework and reflect on how it advances the CE field.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据