Introduction: A spatial perspective on circular economy

Transitioning to a circular economy (CE) is a priority for local governments but is often understood in abstract terms rather than spatial realities. For public authorities, the lack of spatial clarity acts as a practical barrier to action. Advancing urban circularity depends on where and how practices occur, not just the technologies or policies supporting them. Territorialisation involves grounding circular strategies in a territory’s specific spatial distribution, land-use requirements, and material flows. This perspective reveals power relations and socio-spatial inequalities, raising important questions of spatial justice. In Europe, where resource consumption requires nearly three planets’ worth of land if everyone lived like a typical European, planning is essential to manage competing land demands.

A CCRI community of practice for circular urban planning

This paper synthesises learnings from the Urban Planning for the Circular Economy Community of Practice (CoP) established under the Circular Cities and Regions Initiative (CCRI). The working group consisted of a dozen members from eight cities and regions: ReLondon (UK), Perspective.brussels (BE), Amsterdam (NL), Valonia/Southwest Finland (FI), Berlin (DE), İzmir Planning Agency (TR), Tampere & Circular Pirkanmaa (FI), and Guimarães (PT). These participants met online six times between June 2025 and February 2026 to identify barriers and co-develop scalable actions to align circularity with broader urban agendas.

Why urban planning matters for the future of the circular economy

Research has increasingly recognised a “spatial turn” in CE scholarship, showing that circular practices are inherently territorial. Planners serve as territorialising agents by shaping physical and institutional spaces through zoning, land policy, and procurement. Without spatial anchoring, circular strategies risk remaining as fragmented pilot projects. Planning authorities can embed circular objectives directly into the spatial organisation of regions to ensure proximity, accessibility, and the mitigation of distributional effects.

Methodology

The white paper adopts a mixed-methods iterative learning approach. It combines a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed publications with exploratory semi-structured interviews and collaborative workshops. Practitioners used the whiteboard tool Miro to map actions, challenges, and drivers, ensuring the outputs were co-produced and empirically grounded.

Findings & systemic solutions

The transition starts at the building level, recognising that the most sustainable square metre is one that already exists. For circular developments, municipalities use design guidance and land tender criteria to reward modularity and adaptability. Amsterdam’s “Het Nieuwe Normaal” framework establishes shared indicators for modularity used during permitting. London has introduced regulations requiring a Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessment (WLCA) for all major new developments to minimise emissions across a building’s entire lifespan.

Allocating space for circular infrastructure is a central challenge. While large systems like waste plants have spatial stability, smaller activities like repair hubs face precarity. Brussels developed a construction materials logistics hub in its port area to optimise transportation through inland waterways. Planning instruments to secure land include statutory zoning and municipal land stewardship. Amsterdam extended temporary land-use contracts from five to ten years to provide better investment security for circular projects.

Circular land management involves four core actions: Regenerate, Reduce, Reuse/Reconfigure, and Recycle. Cities like Berlin use the Biotope Area Factor (BAF) to set permeability standards. In Finland, Tampere and Turku coordinate the reuse of excavated soil at a regional scale, treating earth as a resource rather than waste. The Hiedenranta district in Tampere serves as a case study for brownfield-first policies, where an industrial area is being redeveloped into a mixed-use district while preserving industrial heritage.

Multi-level governance is required because circular systems rarely operate within a single municipality. The city-region is the most relevant scale for coordination. The ASSET project in the EuroDelta involved collaboration between cities including Amsterdam, Brussels, and The Hague to clarify the spatial implications of the circular built environment. Effective governance depends on long-term political commitment, stable funding for coordination, and shared spatial metrics.

How to scale, replicate and transfer circular urban planning solutions across the EU

Scaling involves deepening practices within a system, while replicability concerns adopting similar instruments in comparable legal architectures. Transferability requires translating underlying logics across different contexts. European systems are grouped into four types: comprehensive-integrated, regional-economic, land-use management, and building-oriented. In France, national regulations for pre-demolition audits for buildings larger than 1000m² make such instruments highly replicable across French cities.

Conclusion

The circular economy is maturing from an innovation agenda into a territorial one. European cities are entering a “second wave” where territory is the main arena of transition. Success requires institutional anchoring, moving circularity from pilot status to “business as usual” by aligning strategic plans with regulatory instruments and land-ownership structures.