Implementing the circular economy in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area: The interplay between market actors mediated by transition brokers

Abstract

AbstractThis paper analyses the interplay between regime and niche actors in implementing the circular economy through mediation by transition brokers. The study is based on ‘action research’ carried out in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area. Innovation science is adopted as theoretical approach. First, the analysis shows that more ambitious initiatives could be taken than by individual market actors. Whether these circular initiatives represent just incremental change—as other studies suggest—cannot be concluded. Rather, it is plausible to conceptualise the transition process as a continuous transformational change. Second, in creating circular initiatives, the interplay between regime and niche actors was evident but varied. Actors could team up more easily where their interests aligned. This conclusion corresponds with recent innovation literature, which emphasises the importance of linkages between processes at niche, regime and landscape levels. Before generalising the results, similar studies in other regional contexts would be valuable.Short informative In moving to a circular economy, the willingness of market actors to innovate is crucial. Real‐life experiments on the implementation of circular initiatives built by market actors at local level through the mediation of independent intermediaries (here called ‘transition brokers’) are scarce. This study aims to bridge this knowledge gap by focussing on the interplay between niche and regime actors. Action research on implementing the circular economy programme in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area (2015–2020) represents an example. Innovation science is adopted as leading theoretical approach. The case shows that more advanced ambitions could be achieved than through individual market actors by themselves. Whether the circular initiatives built represent just incremental change—as suggested in the few other studies—is considered too simplistic. It is concluded to conceptualise the CE transition rather as a continuous, transformational change which takes time. The interplay between niche and regime actors was evident in the case but varied. Niche actors could team up more easily with regime actors where their interests coincided. Niche CE innovations did not necessarily develop in protected environments, as suggested by early MLP studies. They could diffuse more widely if they link up with ongoing processes at regime and landscape level. This conclusion corresponds with the more recent innovation literature.