Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
The hypothesis of this paper is that the circular economy (CE) has the potential to (re)balance the conflict within urban spatial planning between ‘place as a location’ and the ‘organization of space’. The former dominates the latter following a shift from a Fordist towards a finance and real-estate driven regime. A consequence is that existing manufacturing areas are increasingly transformed into residential and commercial areas. However, this conflicts with the rationale of CE, namely that to end the linear economy, externalized activities, such as the (re)manufacturing of waste, should be internalized again, especially within urban regions. Emphasized by the EU, The Netherlands have the ambition to become fully circular in 2050. To test our hypothesis, we focus on two ongoing circular area developments in Amsterdam and Utrecht. By performing a discourse-institutional analysis, we detect in both case studies a change in discourse towards CE. Our results show that in contrast to our hypothesis, the concept of circularity is not emphasizing the ‘organization of space’, but even accelerating ‘space as a location’, increasingly transforming urban industrial areas into circular built residential and commercial areas. We conclude with spatial policy recommendations regarding the ambitions of a future CE.
Highlights
The main focus of this paper is on circular area development, the denominator of this paper revolves around the fundamental conflict within urban planning between ‘space as a location’ and the ‘organization of space’
Having identified the most important actors within the two area developments, we can analyze the actors according to their views on the area development [51]
In Amsterdam, the corporation of the port authority led to a clearer focus on the biobased and circular sector in reference to its profiling towards the city and its license to operate [57]
Summary
The main focus of this paper is on circular area development, the denominator of this paper revolves around the fundamental conflict within urban planning between ‘space as a location’ and the ‘organization of space’ (see for example [1,2,3]). As explained by Gleye [4], ‘space as a location’ is design-oriented (physical) planning, while ‘the organization of space’ is socioeconomic planning Both focus on places, the former concerns tangible place-oriented qualities (e.g., sidewalks, parking spots, and green areas), while the latter concerns intangible spatial aspects making a community function and develop. Following the arguments put above, core CE activities (e.g., remanufacturing, R&D, and waste treatment) will or should be located nearby or within urban regions to make their economy truly circular [18] The latter links CE with the literature on sustainability. The hypothesis of this paper, is that within regional and urban planning under the influence of CE ideas, the organization of space gains increased attention in comparison with the space as location This entails that, for example, existing industrial areas within cities are seen to be important to host core CE activities. We discuss our results and end this paper with a conclusion
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
