With circular economy being high on governmental agendas, there is an increasing request from governing bodies for circularity measurements. Yet, currently existing macro-level monitoring frameworks are widely criticized for not being able to inform the decision-making. The criticism includes, among others, a lack of consensus on terminologies and definitions among scholars, politicians, and practitioners, a lack of supporting data and tools and, consequently, a lack of transparency and trustworthiness. To address those needs, a bottom-up approach to build a shared terminology is suggested as a starting point for monitoring development. The government, data providers, and tool developers are involved in the process of formal ontology development and alignment. The experiment builds upon a use case of the Amsterdam Circular Economy Monitor (2020). First, four ontology development approaches are used to create a theory-centered, a user-centered, a tool-centered, and a data-centered ontology. The ontologies are later compared, merged, and aligned to arrive at one single ontology which forms the basis of the circular economy monitor. The notes taken during the process have revealed that next to a material flow model, typical of socioeconomic metabolism analysis, policy makers are concerned with actors (i.e., institutions, companies, or groups of people) who participate in the analyzed processes and services. Furthermore, a number of terms used by the decision-makers lack clear definitions and references to be directly associated with the available data. Finally, a structured terminology alignment process between monitor users, developers, and data providers helps in exposing terminology conflicts and ambiguities.

The announcement of a new Circular Economy Action Plan as part of the European Green Deal policy has created an urgent need for the reliable information on resource flows to monitor and support the transition. An updated Monitoring Framework is set to rely as much as possible on European Statistics, however at this point there are no changes introduced in supranational statistics regulations. This raises a question whether regulations that have been created before the paradigm shift are still able to supply us with statistics necessary to inform policy makers about current successful practices, remaining barriers, positive and negative impacts of the transition and overall progress towards the set goals. This paper focuses on the Waste Statistics Regulation, specifically the relationship between the types of waste and economic activities which are considered to be the waste producers. Dutch National Waste Registry is used as a case study to compare the guidelines on pan-European waste data collection to the actual waste reports. The task of this publication is to explore to which extent the guidelines available in the Waste Statistics Regulation correspond to the operational reality. To do so it presents a computational method to link waste producers to their economic activities using a national Trade Registry. An extensive discussion of the results provides insights and recommendations for the future guidelines of waste statistics to support circular economy transition.

As appointed in the EU Circular Economy Action Plan, cities and regions in EU member countries start accompanying their circular economy strategies by monitoring frameworks, often called Circular Economy Monitors (CEM). Having the task to assess the performance towards the achievement of set targets and to steer decision-making, CEMs need to rely on a multitude of statistics and datasets. Waste statistics play an important role in circular economy monitoring as they provide insights into the remaining linear part of the economy. The collection of waste statistics is mandated by the European Commission which provides general guidelines on data collection and processing. The Netherlands has one of the most detailed waste registries among the EU countries. The country's largest metropolitan region, Amsterdam, is currently building a CEM which tracks progress over time towards the set goals, highlights which areas need improvement and estimates target feasibility. This paper uses the Amsterdam CEM as a case-study to explore how the existing system of waste registration in the Netherlands is able to support decision-making. The data is explored with the help of four queries that relate to the CEM's goals and require data mapping to be answered. The data mapping and analysis process has revealed several limitations present in the waste data collection and a number of gaps present in current circular economy research and data analysis. At the same time, the available data already supports significant insights into the status quo of the current waste system and provides opportunities for circular economy monitoring.

Nowadays, the circularity concept dominates the debate on resource management in cities and territories. The idea is often used as a vehicle towards a more sustainable socio-ecological transition, based on the circular economy (CE) framework. Unlike other sustainability frameworks, CE originates in ecological and environmental economics and industrial ecology. It focuses on developing an alternative economic and technological model for production and consumption, avoiding natural resource depletion and redesigning processes and cycles of materials (closed-loops). However, when CE is translated to cities and territories, its environmental, economic and design agency is often neglected. On the one hand, it demands to acknowledge the need for a relational understanding of space, place and actors involved and, on the other, to explore the spatial specificity of CE. Therefore, there is a need for a broader theoretical discourse on the CE’s territoriality as the predominant. Research on circular urban and territorial development demands more than merely upscaling industrial ecosystems diagrams and generating circular businesses. Consequently, what is the role of territory in the CE conceptualisation in the urbanism literature? How to interpret territories through the lens of circularity, which tools, methods are needed? Therefore, territory, its role and meaning in the CE contribution to urban regeneration is the key focus of this text.

Advancing circularity in metropolitan areas involves planning, co-designing and implementing spatially explicit interventions with a multitude of stakeholders who are required to work with waste and resource management information. For the stakeholders, understanding information on these flows of resources and materials, and the spatial implications of these flows across the territory, is crucial when proposing new interventions and assessing the effects of these interventions. Spatial decision support systems constitute potential tools for supporting groups of stakeholders involved in the collaborative process of shaping the future of urban areas while achieving sustainability and increased circularity. This chapter focuses on the digital representation and portrayal, and the use of different types of information in a digital spatial decision support tool aimed at helping decision-makers through stages of the collaborative process that starts at problem identification and status quo understanding, and finishes at the proposed circular economy strategies for a metropolitan area. The way in which information is modeled and presented in the tool is largely based on the geodesign methodology, and is specific to individual stages of the planning process. The tool presents information relevant to a peri-urban area through different mediums: web maps and charts to describe the study area, Sankey diagrams linked with dynamic flow maps to portray its resource flow streams, and the integration of the above to portray and assess the scenarios developed jointly by the stakeholders. The tool was implemented in an interactive web application and applied to the collaborative process of developing spatial strategies for advancing circularity in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area. A series of interconnected workshops were held with stakeholders, who used the tool to guide them through the stages of the co-development of the strategies. Stakeholders were presented with spatial information about the study area’s current resource and waste management situation in the form of web maps and the spatial distribution and dynamics of resource flows. This chapter describes how all this information was portrayed, presented, and used within the interactive web application at the collaborative workshops.

A large proportion of European inhabitants live in dispersed urban settlements, much of which is labelled as sprawl, defined by monofunctional, low-density areas. However, there is increasing evidence that this may be an overly simplistic way of describing territories-in-between (TiB). This paper defines and maps functional mix in six dispersed urban areas across Europe, applying a method that goes beyond existing land-use-based mixed-use indicators but considers functional mixing on the parcel level. The paper uses data on the location of economic activities and the residential population. It concludes that, in eight cases from four European countries, mixed-use is widespread and that more than 65% of inhabited areas are mixed. Moreover, the paper relates functional mixing to specific settlement characteristics: permeability, grain size, centrality and accessibility, and connectivity. This demonstrates that functional mixing is not the result of local urban morphology or planning instruments, but of the multi-scalar qualities of a location. Therefore, there is a requirement to coordinate planning and design through different scales if mixed-use areas are to be seen as one strategy for achieving greater sustainability in the spatial development of dispersed areas.