Received: 22 June 2022 Revised: 30 November 2022 Accepted: 9 December 2022

DOI: 10.1002/sd.2481

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A neighbourhood-scale conceptual model towards

regenerative circularity for the built environment

Henrique Sala Benites | Paul Osmond | Deo Prasad

School of Built Environment, University of

New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Correspondence
Henrique Sala Benites, School of Built
Environment, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia.
Email: h.salabenites@unsw.edu.au;
hsbenites@gmail.com
Funding information
Commonwealth through the Australia
Government - Research Training Program
Scholarship (RTP); University of New South
Wales - UIPA - University International
Postgraduate Award
Abstract
There is potential in applying the circular economy (CE) and regenerative design
(RD) models for the redevelopment of urban areas as a response to the current linear
and mechanistic practices that still contribute to exceeding planetary boundaries and
reinforcing social inequalities. Despite these models' common roots, they are usually
approached quite differently. A merged approach may be able to solve existing gaps
and critiques. This paper reviews relevant CE and RD definitions linked to the urban
context. An inductive content analysis to map and discuss existing themes is con-
ducted, leading to a set of five underpinning pillars. The resulting ‘Regenerative
Circularity for the Built Environment’ conceptual model adopts a systemic and posi-
tive impact approach that is the steppingstone for the development of a practical tool
aiming to support urban stakeholders in the transition of existing neighbourhoods
with strategies more suitable to their aims and notion of place.

KEYWORDS
circular cities, circular economy, circularity, conceptual model, regenerative design and
development, sustainable urban planning

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N increase from 4.22 billion in 2018, to 6.68 billion in 2050 (UN-

Societal development is a result of its core principles, and the current
linear model, obsessed with economic and technological growth, has
led the planet into many of its social and environmental problems, to
the point of entering the so-called Anthropocene (Crutzen &
Stoermer, 2000), or Capitalocene (Moore, 2017): A mindset in which
humans are seen as the measure of everything (Lyle, 1994). Global
resource use is responsible for about 50% of global greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and over 90% of impacts on water stress and biodi-
versity loss—this is, in part, a result of urbanisation, due to its inten-
sive resource demand for infrastructure and buildings (IRP, 2019).
Current urban development practices also negatively influence the
aspects of equity, health and climate resilience (Barton, 2017). These
impacts look to rise as the global urban population is expected to
DESA, 2019), driving the expansion of cities and the demand for
resources. At the same time, an existing building stock inefficient in
energy consumption, use of raw materials, and capacity for adaptive
reuse is calling for attention. In the United Kingdom, 87% of current
stock, mostly inefficient, will still exist in 2050 (Kelly, 2009). In
Australia, 50% of the buildings existing in 2050 will probably be built
after 2019 (ASBEC & ClimateWorks Australia, 2018). And in Europe,
most existing buildings date from 1940 to 1980 (Berggren &
Wall, 2019). Different profiles will require different strategies.
The comprehension that development needs to be a multidimen-
sional concept that considers the environment as a central component
was formally consolidated in the second half of the 20th century. This
may be represented by important milestones as the need to move
towards a sustainable world proposed by the Club of Rome

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2022 The Authors. Sustainable Development published by ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

1748 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sd Sustainable Development. 2023;31:1748–1767.


SALA BENITES ET AL.
(Meadows et al., 1972), the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment, in Stockholm at the same year, and the well-known defi-
nition of sustainable development (SD) by the Brudtland Report
(1987). Later, the United Nations proposed the ‘Agenda 2030’, a blue-
print with 17 ‘sustainable development goals’ (SDGs) for urgent
action towards a thriving planet. Among them, goal 11, Sustainable
Cities and Communities, aiming to ‘make cities and human settle-
ments inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable’ (UNDP, 2019).
In the built environment sector, since the 1990s, an increasing
number of buildings and planned communities has adhered to envi-
ronmental principles through voluntary tools or certification schemes,
such as the British BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Envi-
ronmental Assessment Method) and the American LEED©
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). Frameworks aiming
at community precincts and infrastructure projects, which we will call
‘neighbourhood sustainability assessment’ (NSA) tools, however, were
only launched in the 2000s and 2010s (International Federation of
Consulting Engineers [FIDIC], 2021).
Some issues arise from these frameworks. Firstly, they usually
foster technological solutions as a panacea to reach sustainability
(Benne & Mang, 2015). This is represented by the checklists and
emphasis on efficiency (a.k.a. ‘less bad’) of the Green Building move-
ment. Similarly, most NSAs fall short of a truly sustainable approach,
that is, a net-zero impact, as they value efficiency over eliminating the
impacts (Du Plessis, 2012) and fail to implement an integrated and
systemic approach (Sala Benites et al., 2020). Secondly, in many places
these NSA are used mostly or only in new developments, a possible
consequence of the complexities to renovate existing urban areas. At
the same time, a gap that requires attention. Reusing the existing built
form can lead to different and exciting experimentations, more than
those allowed in developing new areas from scratch. Jane Jacobs
explored this when advocating for the mixture of old and new build-
ings as an essence for a thriving neighbourhood:
As for really new ideas of any kind – no matter how
ultimately profitable or otherwise successful some of
them might prove to be – there is no leeway for such
chancy trial, error and experimentation in the high-
overhead economy of new construction. Old ideas can
sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old
buildings. (Jacobs, 1961, p. 168)
A more systemic discussion about the regeneration of the existing
built environment should consider, among many other aspects, the
intricate dynamics of the urban metabolic processes (inputs and out-
puts) over time. In an analogy to how living beings function, the
notion of city or urban metabolism (UM), commonly credited to Abel
Wolman (1965), refers to ‘the sum total of the technical and socioeco-
nomic processes that occur in cities, resulting in growth, production of
energy, and elimination of waste’ (Kennedy et al., 2007, p. 44). These
processes and their impacts within and outside urban boundaries,
however, change over time (Kalmykova & Rosado, 2015), for which
metabolic studies should also embrace life cycle thinking (LCT) (Lavers
10991719, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2481 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [14/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1749
Westin et al., 2019) in the planning of current and future cycles of
use, and the improvement of the inefficient and expanding urban built
environment (buildings and infrastructure) stock. LCT is a systemic
approach used in resource management to better comprehend the
dynamics of environmental, social and economic interactions between
humans and the environment throughout their various stages and
having life cycle assessment (LCA) studies as the main method for its
implementation (Frostell, 2013).
Changing course requires better approaches and a new attitude
that embraces the equilibrium between satisfying human desires and
aspirations, that is, quality of life (Gallopín, 2003), while regenerating
the social and ecological systems (Raworth, 2017a; Steffen et al., 2015).
Among the many schools of thought, the regenerative and circularity
approaches introduced in the following sections, which are linked to
the ideas of metabolism and LCT, emerge as important and recognised
pathways to be adopted in a transition to positive impact urban devel-
opment (Blomsma, 2018; Newman et al., 2017; Reed, 2007).
1.1 | The circular economy approach
The ‘circular economy’ (CE) has gained momentum recently and is con-
sidered an essential strategy for a Green Economy (UNEP, 2011b), the
New Urban Agenda (Resolution adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly on 23 December 2016—New Urban Agenda, 2017), and the
European Green Deal (European Commission, 2019). Nevertheless, it
was seeded in the zeitgeist of the Space Race and the discussions about
finite resources and metaphors of Earth as Spaceship (Fuller, 1969).
Despite its current strong focus on resources management (Calisto
Friant et al., 2020) as exemplified in the four Rs model (Reuse, Repair,
Reconditioning, and Recycling) proposed by Stahel (1982), the CE
embedded in its roots the belief that society's progress should go
beyond an economic view and the cycles of resources. Other authors
suggested it should consider human bodies and minds (Boulding, 1966),
the supply of aesthetic enjoyment and spiritual comfort (Pearce &
Turner, 1989), and the provision of individual and collective welfare
(Jackson, 1993).
As the concept evolved over time, it reverted to a resource loop
perspective with some consideration of environmental impacts, as the
commonly accepted definition proposed by the Ellen MacArthur
Foundation (EMF) illustrates:
A circular economy is an industrial system that is restor-
ative or regenerative by intention and design. It replaces
the ‘end-of-life’ concept with restoration, shifts towards
the use of renewable energy, eliminates the use of toxic
chemicals, which impair reuse, and aims for the elimina-
tion of waste through the superior design of materials,
products, systems, and, within this, business models
(Ellen MacArthur Foundation [EMF], 2013, p. 7).
Building upon the Cradle to Cradle concept (McDonough &
Braungart, 2002), EMF's model emphasises resource loops in separate

1750
flows, cascades, and cycles of use of biological and technical resources
(EMF, 2013) throughout the value network. Nevertheless, it does not
explicitly mention resource use reduction. Buchmann-Duck and Beaz-
ley (2020) understand that not properly addressing over-consumption
may affect biodiversity conservation due to a possible increase in
resource use. This derives from the so-called ‘circular economy
rebound’ effect, that is, when CE ‘activities, which have lower per-
unit-production impacts, also cause increased levels of production,
reducing their benefit’ (Zink & Geyer, 2017, p. 593). Corvellec (2015)
claims that CE is far from a radical approach, as it seeks to solve waste
and resource issues under a capitalist growth mentality, without
proper attention to post-materialist perspectives as frugality, volun-
tary simplicity, zero waste experiences, post-ownership paradigm, and
grassroots initiatives. Allwood (2014) complementarily argues that, in
a growing economy, there is a similar growing demand for resources.
If there is an expansion of buildings requiring steel, and an insufficient
source of that same material from a non-virgin source as there may
not be enough demolitions, how are we supposed to close the loop
without depending on external raw materials inputs?
Achieving full circularity and reducing rebound may not be feasi-
ble on a growth-dependent and profit-driven economy. That is one of
Raworth's (2017a) criticisms on how CE has been largely adopted by
large corporations that would be more interested in financial returns
rather than providing as many benefits to all of society as possible.
Even when societal and wellbeing aspects are considered, they are
mainly about employment, health and safety, and participation
(Padilla-Rivera et al., 2020).
It is noticeable how CE tools are mostly geared towards resource
management in products and organisations, with only a few examples
designed for buildings, for example, Level(s) (Dodd et al., 2017) and
Dutch BREEAM for buildings' addenda (Circle Economy, Metabolic,
DGBC, SGS Search, & Redveco Foundation, 2018). Similarly, urban-
scale initiatives and frameworks—like Helsinki's Circular Economy
Watchdog (City of Helsinki, 2020), London's circularity indicators
(Cambridge Econometrics, 2018), Circular city actions framework
(Circle Lab for Cities, 2021), and Circle city scan tool (Circle
Economy, 2020)—also adopt a narrow look mostly into resources.
The CE is not about recycling or waste management. It is about a
holistic and collaborative redesign of our society based on a systems
and LCT perspective that integrates varied solutions in different sec-
tors (OECD, 2019a). Circular solutions should stimulate the local
economy, generating more distributive financial benefits
(Raworth, 2017a) to address social inequalities, particularly in coun-
tries dominated by informal economy activities. In an attempt to move
beyond EMF's strong focus on resources, Schröder et al. (2020)
included a ‘human sphere’ that would support the development of
equitable and inclusive societies and CEs.
Another way of addressing these gaps may be through cross-
pollination with other concepts, approaches or discourses that are
connected to the CE. Calisto Friant et al. (2020) identified different
types of discourse based on whether they are sceptical or optimistic
in relation to technological innovation and ecological collapse, and
whether they are segmented or holistic regarding social, economic,
10991719, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2481 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [14/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SALA BENITES ET AL.
environmental, and political aspects. They propose a differentiation
between a CE and a circular society. The CE falls under the Techno-
centric Circular Economy category, which has a very practical approach
focused on technical innovations rather than on socio-cultural
changes. Whereas under the Reformist Circular Society category, which
emphasises social changes and call for a strong change of the eco-
nomic system, one can find regenerative design (RD), sharing econ-
omy, doughnut economics, among other approaches (Calisto Friant
et al., 2020). This aligns with the initial discussion of this paper on
how society's principles shape its progress and development, and links
to the following introduction to regenerative thinking.
1.2 | The regenerative approach
The term ‘regenerative’, connected to the idea of regeneration, per-
meates fields as different as medicine, engineering, and philosophy.
Just as with CE, RD originates in the concept of systems thinking.
In this context, it goes beyond traditional urban regeneration, in
which derelict urban areas go through major renewals involving
evictions and displacements, to one that effectively engage all
stakeholders towards a conscious and healthy co-evolution
(Du Plessis, 2012). The first identified use of the term ‘regenerative’
in an environmental context dates back to Robert Dale's discussion
about organic agriculture (Rodale Institute, 2020) in the 1980s,
aligning with the permaculture system developed in Australia in the
1970s by Mollison and Holmgren (1987). Only later in 1994, John
T. Lyle pioneered its use in BE in the book Regenerative Design for
Sustainable Development (1994). He builds on metabolism thinking to
define a regenerative system as one that ‘provides for continuous
replacement, through its own functional processes, of the energy
and materials used in its operation’ (Lyle, 1994, p. 10). And beyond
that, he discusses regeneration as a process of renewal, rebirth, and
reconnection with nature.
One of the bedrocks of RD is its promotion of a positive rather
than neutral or merely less-harmful attitude. It seeks to restore natural
systems and achieve a reconciliatory vision that places humans as an
integral part of nature (Reed, 2007). It is also about regenerating
human connections within a community by providing the conditions
for human interactions and citizen empowerment and participation,
fundamental to a regenerative transition (K. Brown, 2012). This is par-
ticularly important when we note that the SDGs may still fall behind
the bolder approaches of regenerative thinking, particularly the need
for a more holistic vision, the coevolutionary processes between
humans and the environment, and the positive impact rather than
negative impact reduction approach (Ibrahim & Ahmed, 2022).
Boselli (2016) suggests regeneration should focus on four core
aspects: (1) resources, (2) natural capital and urban ecosystems,
(3) urban spaces, and (4) communities. The deep ecology roots of the
regenerative development paradigm (Du Plessis, 2012), nevertheless,
sometimes results in strong philosophical content not always easily
accessible to or comprehensible by a lay person without the support
of experts.

SALA BENITES ET AL.
Applied NSAs with a regenerative approach still have few case
studies and do not fully address all issues. The Living Community
Challenge (LCC) 1.2 framework (ILFI, 2017) does not require a
complete LCA study, except for the need to compensate the
embodied carbon. Both water and energy require an onsite net
positive approach. For other resources, it relies on a red list of
materials, and additional requirements regarding the origin and
responsible sourcing of resources, and waste management. Eisen-
berg and Persram (2009) explored many of the barriers to the
implementation of the LCC, such as regulatory impediments, lack
of incentives, the need for more education and advocacy pro-
grammes and extended research and development. Holden et al.
(2016) argue the LCC devalues local in favour of universal solu-
tions, and although participation is crucial, a greater importance is
placed on experts rather than on non-expert stakeholders. The
LENSES framework (Center for Living Environments and
Regeneration, 2016), while extremely comprehensive, may become
extremely complex with all the different layers and levels of
performance.
1.3 | Towards a merged approach
It is clear that both CE and RD foster systemic and LCT, with potential
to contribute to a post-Covid sustainability transformation of cities
(Newman, 2020), the achievement of the SDGs (Williams, 2021), and
even beyond that, the regenerative development goals (RDGs)
(Ibrahim & Ahmed, 2022). Although their origins and development
intertwine (Calisto Friant et al., 2020), frameworks and standards
derived from them, like Level(s) (Dodd et al., 2017), British Standards
Institution (BSI)'s (2017) and ISO's (2022) CE standards, the Circle City
Scan Tool (Circle Economy, 2020), or ILFI's (2017) Living Community
Challenge still fail in this integration. And just like it happens with sus-
tainability, a better comprehension of what these concepts mean for
the built environment is needed. These gaps provide an opportunity
to improve how we apply these concepts to the transition of existing
urban areas.
In this paper, we first aim to understand the main ideas behind
the different definitions of CE and RD for cities. As Robinson (2004)
suggests, the myriad of existing definitions may be confusing, for
which a summative perspective of those ideas may be a more advan-
tageous approach. Thus, as a second step, this research stands on the
premise that an effective way of addressing the pros and cons of the
above concepts may be by merging their ideas and efforts, leading
towards our proposal of a unified approach, a ‘Regenerative Circular-
ity for the Built Environment’ (RC4BE).
The RC4BE conceptual model presented in this paper seeks to
effectively contribute to the redevelopment of urban environments
by generating a positive impact in a systemic manner. This is the initial
step towards the development of a practical tool to support urban
stakeholders in the transition of their neighbourhoods and communi-
ties beyond current practices, as well as expand the way the CE is
understood in the built environment.
10991719, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2481 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [14/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1751
2 | RESEARCH AIMS AND METHODS
This study (Figure 1) adopted an inductive approach in which litera-
ture was examined to identify relevant documents with existing circu-
larity and regenerative definitions for cities, the built environment
and/or related domains. Through a non-systematic literature review,
we conducted searches in Scopus and Google Scholar using different
combinations of the keywords ‘circular economy’, ‘circularity’, ‘regen-
erative design’, ‘regenerative development’, ‘built environment’,
‘urban planning’, ‘urban development’, ‘neighbourhood’, ‘district’ and
‘infrastructure’. The process was complemented through snowballing.
Additional grey literature was gathered from organisations, platforms,
and research centres dedicated to CE and RD. Documents were then
scoped based on their relevance for the study.
Rather than discussing or comparing specific definitions, this
study mapped common ideas and gaps to be filled, so that a common
pathway between both could be found. Once themes were identified,
they were grouped into five broader areas, which we named ‘under-
pinning concepts’ or ‘pillars’. These pillars, some of the emerging rele-
vant themes, and interconnections to the SDGs are discussed by
using the literature. They shape the resulting RC4BE conceptual
model. It is proposed with the aim of supporting processes of systemic
transition of existing urban areas from a degenerative and linear to a
regenerative and circular BE.
A total of 32 circularity definitions were gathered from 27 docu-
ments: 11 from NGOs or consulting firms, 8 documents originate from
institutional sources, 6 from academic reports, books, or scientific arti-
cles, and 1 from an international standard. Twenty-one definitions are
specifically focused on the city or built environment domain.
A total of 24 regenerative definitions were gathered from 21 doc-
uments. Regarding source, the absolute majority, 19, are from aca-
demic reports, books, or scientific articles, and 3 from NGOs (one of
them in partnership with academia). All definitions, but three, are spe-
cifically focused on the city, place or built environment domain.
Circularity and regenerative definitions were listed in separate
spreadsheets and scoped for the identification of relevant themes.
Emerged themes from each concept were then merged and harmonised.
The list of documents where definitions were extracted from is in
Appendix. The list of CE and regenerative definitions and mapping of
themes and pillars is in Supporting Information S1.
3 | EM E R G I N G T H E M E S A N D CO N C E P T S
Scoping of circularity and regenerative definitions revealed 47 relevant
themes or ideas, as represented by the word cloud in Figure 2. Once
the themes started to be analysed, broader ideas or areas of focus
linking emerged. Supporting Information S1 presents the matrix of
emerging themes in each document.
The detailed frequency of occurrence of these themes in ‘circu-
larity’ and ‘regenerative’ definitions is presented in Figure 4.
As expected, aspects regarding the management and cycles of
resources (materials, waste, water and energy), that is, their
10991719, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2481 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [14/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SALA BENITES ET AL.

themes identified in the definitions. Word

F I G U R E 1 Methodology to develop
a ‘Regenerative Circularity for the Built

F I G U R E 2 Word-cloud of relevant
Environment’ conceptual model

size reflects the frequency

1752
 10991719, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2481 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [14/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SALA BENITES ET AL. 1753

FIGURE 3 Frequency of themes identified in ‘circularity’ (blue) and ‘regenerative (grey) definitions

metabolism, have a stronger presence in all circularity definitions Another group that emerges refers to the quality of urban systems.
(Circle Economy, WBCSD, & Arcadis, 2018; ISO, 2022), whereas The need to embed resilience and the capacity to change and adapt to
they do not appear very strongly in regenerative definitions new uses and future conditions, as those resulting from climate
(Girardet, 2016). change, is a strong idea here (Garzillo et al., 2019; Hes et al., 2018). A

1754
final aspect regards the provision of urban spaces and amenities or
services that promote quality of life and sustainable lifestyles (EMF &
ARUP, 2019; Newman et al., 2017; Turntoo, 2019) (Figure 3).
The presence of aspects related to nature, as biodiversity, bio-
sphere, ecosystems, and natural capital appears in the definitions of
both concepts (EMF, 2017a; European Commission, 2020;
Haggard, 2002; Reed, 2007). The specific notion of eliminating pollu-
tion and other externalities appeared only in circularity definitions
(EMF, 2013; Stahel, 1982), and not once in regenerative ones. How-
ever, they are inherent conditions once we untangle the discussions
around regenerating, restoring, and replenishing.
Societal aspects regarding the governance of communities, the par-
ticipation of citizens (Garzillo et al., 2019; Mang & Reed, 2012b), the
strengthening of social capital, and innovation (Buck, Koh, &
Sparkes, 2016) appear clearly in both concepts. Integrated design, or
eco-design and project management also appear strongly in both. Cir-
cularity definitions give additional emphasis to the development of
local economies with new business models and more connected sup-
ply chains, thus supporting the increase of capital stock and economic
growth decoupled from resource use (Circle Economy, WBCSD, &
Arcadis, 2018; Girardet & World Future Council, 2013; Schröder
et al., 2020). Education and capacity development are more evident in
regenerative thinking (Plaut et al., 2016; Wahl, 2016).
Finally, the notion of a systems approach is present in both con-
cepts, although regenerative thinking gives it a stronger emphasis, in
tandem with a positive impact approach derived from restoring and
regenerating, evolution, and the importance of relationships and syner-
gies between people, communities, and systems (L. Gibbons
et al., 2018; Girardet, 2016; Reed, 2007). The CE places a great empha-
sis on creating, retaining or maximising value (EMF, 2013; ISO, 2022).
The above broader focal points that emerged from the amalgam-
ation of themes were reorganised to structure the five underpinning
10991719, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2481 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [14/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SALA BENITES ET AL.
F I G U R E 4 Occurrence of pillars in
circular (inner circle) and regenerative
(outer circle) definitions
concepts, or pillars, of a ‘RC4BE’. Figure 4 illustrates in how many of
the definitions each pillar occurs. These pillars are further explored
and defined in the following subsections.
4 | DI S C U S S I O N O F U N D E R P I N N I N G
C O N C EP T S O R P I L L A R S
4.1 | Circular metabolism
Cities are sinks of resources and producers of waste and emissions.
One of the core concepts of CE is to redesign the whole system to
eliminate waste and see everything as a resource (EMF, 2013), thus
rethinking how we manage the flows and stocks of physical resources
associated with cities and the built environment. This can only be
attained through LCT and a cradle-to-cradle approach which pro-
motes longer lifecycles, eliminates emissions, and replenishes techni-
cal (non-renewable) and biological (renewable) resource loops
(McDonough & Braungart, 2002). Closing the urban biological cycles
or biocycles offers immense opportunities to improve the UM, resil-
ience, and foster a circular bioeconomy by recognising the value of
biogenic materials and waste (Venkata Mohan et al., 2020). Under an
UM lens, other flows, such as information, money, energy, and social
and intellectual capital (Kennedy et al., 2011) may also be considered.
An example of LCT is illustrated (Figure 5) by combining the typi-
cal life cycle stages of a building of the European Standard EN 15978
Sustainability of Construction Works (CEN, 2011) with the ‘levels of cir-
cularity’ expanded from Cramer (2014) and Potting et al. (2017), to
visualise the planning and design stage, where decisions made have a
stronger effect to change the whole system (Kohler & Moffatt, 2003).
Our vision is that it is essential to rethink and challenge our current
practices, refuse, whenever possible, the extraction of virgin resources,

SALA BENITES ET AL.
F I G U R E 5 Towards a circular
approach to life cycle thinking in built
environment. Based on the typical life
cycle stages of a building (CEN, 2011) and
the levels of circularity (Cramer, 2014;
Potting et al., 2017)
and reconnect with other individuals or organisations—there is no CE
without collaboration and cooperation. Only then one can reimagine
and (re)design products, components, buildings, cities, or other sys-
tems, while reducing resource use. It is also important to consider the
opportunities to share resources and physical spaces during the use
stage to increase use intensity, and finally, the different possibilities
after a first life cycle completes and a new one initiates, including the
regeneration of ecosystems. Translating these levels of circularity in
the different BE life cycle stages has been explored through strategies
or typologies for the construction sector (Eberhardt et al., 2020; Sala
Benites & Zegers Cádiz, 2021) that could serve as a support for new
businesses models as discussed in Section 4.4.2.
Another aspect, the reduction of the rate of extraction of the
resources we use comes with decoupling them from the idea of devel-
opment and economic growth. Also referred to as dematerialisation,
resource-productivity, or eco-efficiency, it may be looked from two
perspectives, as indicated by UNEP (UNEP, 2011a): resource decou-
pling, that is, using less primary resources (material, energy, water and
land) per unit of economic activity, and impact decoupling, in which
despite economic growth, negative environmental impacts throughout
the whole life cycle of a product are reduced. It is important to note
that although efficiency (doing things right) is a desirable characteris-
tic, it must be sought in equilibrium with resilience (the capacity to
endure shocks and adapt), thus achieving an effectiveness (doing the
10991719, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2481 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [14/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1755
right thing) inherent to the complex systems of nature (Lietaer
et al., 2010; Webster, 2017).
A third aspect regards the use of critical materials. While some
common built environment materials normally have abundant
reserves, others may be prone to limitations (Ruuska &
Häkkinen, 2014). The probability of disruption and vulnerability in
supply of resources may be affected by different variables as geologi-
cal reserves, geopolitics, environmental impact, increasing demand,
substitutability, and recyclability (Roelich, 2012). Circumventing this
involves diversifying the supply chain with alternative materials that
are more abundant, local, renewable, and not overly exploited.
Finally, in the context of the climate crisis, the cycle of carbon
and other GHG is a priority to be considered. Density, land use mix,
connectivity, and accessibility are the key drivers of energy use and
GHG emissions related to urban form, according to Seto et al. (2014).
Their report suggests that while rapidly developing cities still have an
opportunity to shape new urban development towards a decarbo-
nised future, established or mature cities will need to rethink ways of
regenerating their existing building stock. Rather than seeing carbon
as an enemy, we should approach it as a resource whose cycles need
to be better managed (McDonough, 2016). Adopting regenerative
technologies may enable cities to generate positive impact by closing
the metabolic cycles and becoming sinks of carbon (G. Thomson &
Newman, 2016).
 10991719, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2481 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [14/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1756 SALA BENITES ET AL.

4.2 | Adaptive-resilient and high-quality urban

systems

Achieving a positive impact in this domain entails providing adequate

urban spaces and infrastructure through a people- and place-centred
design that facilitates public activities.
Public spaces shape the local urban dynamics (Barton, 2017) and
play an essential role in health and wellbeing (Lowe et al., 2015).
Reconnecting the community involves responding to context and cre-
ating a sense of place, where place refers to the many complex and
interacting layers of geographic and cultural features (Mang &
Reed, 2012a). For many decades, urban studies have explored in what
ways liveable cities may be reinterpreted, including Gehl's (2010) cri-
teria for protection, comfort, and delight in urban spaces, and encour-
aging the existence of all the basic needs, services and shops at
comfortable walking distances (Rydin, 2019). The redesign of public
spaces under these circumstances may be an important enabler for
the regeneration of the social fabric and promotion of healthy
lifestyles.
F I G U R E 6 ‘Bioconnectivity as an interconnection of four
Anticipating future changes may lead to future-proof urban
complementary concepts’. Based on Sala Benites & Osmond (2021)
spaces and systems that are flexible enough to adapt in response
to disasters, the effects of climate change, or even a pandemic in
which social distancing is a requirement. A concept linked to
SDGs 11 Sustainable Cities and Communities, and 13, Climate 4.3 | Healthy and bioconnected urban ecosystems
Action (UNDP, 2019). The notion of resilience has evolved over
time to acknowledge cities as complex and dynamic socio- Nature pervades cities in a variety of ways. There is, however, an
ecological systems with a need for an ‘adaptive resilience’ increasing need for more urban greenery that maximises the natural
based on: capital and potential socioenvironmental benefits from nature in
urban settings, a need that became more evident during the COVID-
(1) system integrity that enables the system to 19 pandemic (Ugolini et al., 2020). Seeing humans as an integrated
undergo shock, withstand and absorb it, and maintain part of nature is one of the tenets of the regenerative approach
the same character, function, and architecture; (Reed, 2007). The integration of nature and its functions in cities can
(2) capability of self-(re)organisation to accommodate actively contribute to the transition to a CE (Stefanakis et al., 2021)
external changes; and (3) ability to learn from the and the reversal of some planetary boundaries at the local level
disaster and seize it as an opportunity for self- (Hoornweg et al., 2016). Different pathways to achieve this have been
improvement and enhancement of the coping capac- discussed in previous research, where the concept of bioconnections
ity, (…) thus enabl(ing) the system to bounce back and or bioconnectivity was proposed as one that encompasses:
also bounce forward. (Sharifi & Yamagata, 2016a,
p. 1660) The solutions, initiatives, interventions, or strategies that
promote the reconnection between humans and nature,
Climate resilient developments depends upon broad cooperation ensuring adequate stewardship, maintenance and regener-
(IPCC, 2022). Hence, resilience thinking needs to be incorporated into ation of biodiversity, and enabling the provision of ecosys-
governance for both short-term actions and long-term effects and tem services sustainably into the future (Blinded source).
responses (Sanderson, 2020), by addressing the multiple dimensions
of urban resilience (Sharifi & Yamagata, 2016b), and eliminating the The idea of bioconnections may also be seen as an integration
dependency on drivers of climate change, ecosystem depletion, and (Figure 6) of various and sometimes overlapping principles, which
other threats to the planetary boundaries (Steffen et al., 2015). Mov- Mang and Reed (2012b) consider as steps for the evolutionary transi-
ing away from these dependencies, particularly fossil fuels, as argued tion from degenerative to regenerative:
by Newman et al. (2017), requires a combination of market, regula-
tory, and civil society forces. Programmes like the 100 Resilience Cit- 1. Ecosystem services (ESS)—The many benefits from nature to
ies network (The Rockefeller Foundation, n.d.) and the City Resilience humankind (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA], 2005).
Index (ARUP, 2018) integrate those forces and are important enablers 2. Nature-based solutions (NBS)—The ‘actions to protect, sustainably
of action. manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems’, that address

SALA BENITES ET AL.
F I G U R E 7 Examples of bioconnections-like cases. (a) Malmö's BO01 district, (b) Hamburg's Bio-Intelligent Quotient (BIQ) building,
(c) London's CityTree moss wall
societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously pro-
viding human well-being and biodiversity benefits (IUCN, 2016).
3. Biophilia—The inherent attachment of humans to nature (Kellert &
Wilson, 1993).
4. Biomimetics—The ‘interdisciplinary cooperation of biology and
technology or other fields of innovation with the goals of solving
practical problems through the function analysis of biological sys-
tems, their abstraction into models, and the transfer into and appli-
cation of these models to the solution’ (ISO, 2015, p. 2).
Some of these concepts have been translated into policies and
practice. This is the case of Malmö's ‘Green Space Factor’ and ‘Green
Points’ system, an urban planning instrument initiated as a pilot pro-
ject for the regeneration of former harbour area into BO01
(Figure 7a), a new mixed-use neighbourhood (Kruuse, 2011); or the
development of new technologies, such as algae for energy genera-
tion in facades (Elrayies, 2018) as the Bio-Intelligent Quotient house
in Wilhelmsburg, Hamburg (7b). Also, new structures have been using
vegetation to purify the air (Donateo et al., 2021), both indoors and
outdoors, as the CityTree moss wall in London (7c). On a broader
scale, the adoption of a circular bioeconomy is key to foster the differ-
ent industries dealing with biological materials, from agriculture and
forestry, to textiles, biotechnology, and waste treatment, among
others (EMF, 2017a; Venkata Mohan et al., 2020). At the same time,
despite its acknowledged importance to climate change mitigation
and adaptation by the IPCC (2022), nature-based solutions receive
less than 10% of all currently allocated climate funding (The Nature
Conservancy [TNC], 2022).
Such vision may catalyse, as envisioned by Benyus (2015), ‘gener-
ous cities’ whose urban environments are capable of learning from
nature's genius to produce their own resources, regenerate ecosys-
tems, and provide healthy environments for all beings.
4.4 | Good governance and thriving communities
Governance is increasingly essential in the backdrop of complex and
dynamic urban transitions (Loorbach & Shiroyama, 2016). UN Habitat
10991719, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2481 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [14/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1757
(2002) understands ‘good urban governance’ as the combined efforts
of individuals and organisations, private and public, for the manage-
ment of common issues in cities with the aim of providing wellbeing
for all through access to all necessities of life and pathways for citi-
zens to improve their socioeconomic conditions. Building upon this
concept, Garzillo et al. (2019) proposed a ‘circular governance’ model
for the adaptive reuse of cultural heritage based on five principles
(participatory, inclusive, transparent, accountable, collaborative) that is
easily adaptable to the context of urban transitions.
Another aspect of governance refers to fragmented or deficient
regulatory environments, usually pointed out as the main barriers for
RD and CE solutions (Bressanelli et al., 2019; Eisenberg &
Persram, 2009). Only through adequate policies we may be able to
truly enable regenerative and circular practices in the market
(Raworth, 2017a) and solve issues of just access and management of
resources (Armstrong, 2017) and societal issues.
4.4.1 | Community engagement for socially resilient
and connected places
A transition to a regenerative and circular BE cannot be achieved
without an active and adequate engagement of communities. More
than regenerating nature (EMF, 2017b), it should aim for the regen-
eration of social connections. Here, the African concept of Ubuntu
may add to the important notion of collectivity and collective that
could be used as ‘a moral and ethical framework’ towards sustain-
able lifestyles (Shumba, 2011) and resilient societies. It requires
empowering and engaging citizens not only in the active co-design
of collective solutions (Mang & Haggard, 2016) during planning
stages, but also involving them in the operation, and even monitoring
the performance of their communities, thus supporting them in their
fight for environmental justice (Hendricks et al., 2018) with data-
based informed-decisions. Cases of strong governance and decision-
making processes that engage all community groups through a col-
lective and shared vision aiming for positive impact have been
emerging in the development of regenerative communities (Craft
et al., 2022).

1758
Urban regeneration projects may also be used as laboratories to
improve the skills and capabilities of participants and the community in
general. They could provide education and awareness for less material-
ist ways of life that focus on enough to satisfy one's comfort levels, and
thus result in a more sustainable approach at the individual and collec-
tive levels with direct benefits to nature (Zsolnai, 2009). Boulding (1966,
p. 10) once argued that ‘if we had clothes that did not wear out, houses
that did not depreciate, (…) we would clearly be much better off’.
4.4.2 | Regenerative local economies and
regenerative business models enabling value for all
Strengthening local economies is an essential component of sustain-
able communities (Rydin, 2019), with jobs, business activities, and
skills as usual indicators of economic sustainability (Turcu, 2012) and
key drivers of health and wellbeing (Barton, 2017), contributing to
eliminate poverty, provide food security, and increase gender equality
and social equity (Padilla-Rivera et al., 2020).
Circular Business Models are concerned with the offer of solutions
designed to enable the circular metabolism of resources (Guldmann &
Huulgaard, 2019). Regenerative business models, however, should
additionally promote a positive impact onto people and the planet and
explore potential solutions to achieve the world we want, not to correct
the world we have (Sanford, 2017). Rather than depending on corpora-
tions' top-down actions, regenerative models foster economies distrib-
utive by design, in which profit is not the main driver (Raworth, 2017a).
Solutions as the free share of knowledge through ‘open-source econo-
mies’ (C. C. Thomson & Jakubowski, 2012), social businesses
(Yunus, 2010), and community currencies, have potential to build social
capital and inclusion, access to credit, and enhance local business activi-
ties (Michel & Hudon, 2015). In this arena, Chile's has been promoting
the adoption of CE principles by businesses in the construction sector
(Sala Benites & Zegers Cádiz, 2021) in line with its sectoral
(Construye2025, 2020) and national (MMA Chile, 2021) CE roadmaps.
This and other initiatives will have the support of the new international
CE standards being developed by ISO (2019a), with potential for being
important enablers for the transition of existing businesses and the
development of new ones based on a circularity mindset.
Smaller, local, open, connected, and diverse is the way to
go. Enabling innovative ecosystems in which cooperation is more
important than competition is essential. And even more so for built
environment companies to enable broader changes in the sector.
4.5 | Systemic approach and positive impact
Last, but not least important, as this pillar transverses all others, are
the ideas of systemic approach and positive impact.
Positive impact is not only about respecting the planetary bound-
aries (Steffen et al., 2015) and using a fair share of the assigned
planet's resources (Vale & Vale, 2009), but also doing good rather than
less harm and working towards replenishing and regenerating natural
10991719, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2481 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [14/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SALA BENITES ET AL.
systems (Birkeland, 2019), thus creating a value for all living sys-
tems. That arises from acknowledging cities as complex and
dynamic systems, a vision that emerged in the modern era in the
1920s through planner and botanist Patrick Geddes, and later in
the 1960s through planning theorist Brian McLoughlin
(Taylor, 1998), and urban activist Jane Jacobs (1970). Yet, it fails
to be the predominant approach.
In a systemic approach, every action needs to acknowledge the
interconnectedness and interdependencies between systems and
their subsystems (ISO, 2019b). This requires the use of LCT and an
understanding that the level of effectiveness of a measure depends
on where one intervenes in a system (Meadows, 1999). Only an inte-
grated approach to planning and design, as opposed to traditional
practices, may be able engage all different stakeholders, enable the
synergies between the different system components, and achieve
regenerative results (Fusco Girard, 2014).
5 | T H E ‘R C 4 B E ’ C O N C E P T U A L M O D E L
The aforementioned five pillars or underpinning concepts build upon
a broad range of ideas which need to be seen connected with each
other. We attempt to offer a summary of the main ideas that shape
our proposed conceptual model (illustrated in Figure 8) under the
assumption that they need to be dynamic, ever evolving, and adaptive
to each context. Our preliminary idea of a RC4BE is one that seeks:
1. a circular metabolism of urban flows and stocks based on the fair
share and regeneration of resources.
2. adaptive-resilient and high-quality urban systems that adapt to and
recover from future conditions, and provide liveable, accessible,
and safe urban spaces to reconnect citizens and promote sustain-
able lifestyles.
3. healthy and bioconnected urban ecosystems that promote the recon-
nection between humans and nature, the stewardship and regen-
eration of urban and non-urban ecological systems, and the
support of nature-inspired solutions, thus enabling the provision of
ecosystem services sustainably into the future.
4. good governance and thriving communities that stimulate a just man-
agement of natural, social, and economic capital, with inclusive,
equitable, and collaborative community participation, access to
knowledge, and regenerative local economies and livelihoods.
5. all based on systemic approach and positive impact that, through inte-
grated planning, embrace life cycle thinking, respect the local and
global social and ecological boundaries, and create value for all.
The visual representation of the RC4BE conceptual model
(Figure 8) draws upon the biological and technical resource flows,
respectively in green (left) and orange (right), of the Butterfly Diagram
(EMF, 2019), and the ecological and social boundaries, here repre-
sented by the two external circles in green and blue-grey, of the
Doughnut Economics model (Raworth, 2017a). It additionally presents
some of the ideas in each of the blue grey text-boxes, to some extent

SALA BENITES ET AL.
F I G U R E 8 Schematic
representation of Regenerative
Circularity for the Built Environment
(RC4BE) conceptual model
inspired by Barton's Health Map for Urban Planners Barton (2017), and
Schröder et al.'s (2020) human sphere.
The BE domain is placed as the focus of the model. An outer circu-
lar arrow suggesting LCT, and the elements of the urban infrastructure,
as in ISO 37105 (ISO, 2019c), is embedded, and to which a society of
connected, engaged and empowered diverse citizens is added.
Evoking the idea of a mandala, pervasive across humanity's and
cities' history, the model embeds the idea of the cosmos and the ulti-
mate wholeness (Jung & von Franz, 1964), symbolising the aspirations
for a better planet and the power of reshaping our communities and
the built environment that supports them.
6 | F I N A L CO N S I D E R A T I O N S
In light of the global challenges, this paper indicates the need for positive
impact practices in the transition of existing neighbourhoods as opposed
10991719, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2481 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [14/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1759
to current mechanistic practices. The CE approach, currently being
adopted by corporations and policies at different levels, is suggested as a
possible pathway to achieve it. Some limitations of the CE approach
regarding its technical nature, focus on resources, limited consideration
of some social aspects, and lack of tools for urban planning use, were
examined. Additionally, we have identified a lack of NSA tools employing
CE concepts. Despite the existence of some urban RD tools, there are
only a few examples of precincts in which they have been implemented.
As a solution for these gaps, we adopted a cross-pollination
approach between CE and RD due to their common origins. The first
step was understanding the main ideas behind the different defini-
tions of CE and RD for cities. Aspects related to the management and
cycles of resources, quality of urban systems, ecosystems, governance
of communities, and systems approach are common across both con-
cepts. CE has a more evident presence of ideas related to resources,
systems thinking and governance, whereas RD is stronger mainly in
systems thinking and governance.

1760
The second step tries to address the multitude of definitions
through a summative perspective, as discussed by Robinson (2004).
The common themes were identified and then grouped into the five
broader underpinning concepts or pillars: circular metabolism,
adaptive-resilient and high-quality urban systems, healthy and biocon-
nected urban ecosystems, good governance and thriving communities,
and systemic approach and positive impact. This set of pillars form
what we propose as a RC4BE conceptual model.
A limitation of this study is focus on the definitions and not the
whole theory or document for the identification of emerging topics.
Additionally, due to its qualitative nature, the mapping and classifica-
tion of topics vary. While at this stage it is only a theoretical frame-
work that requires further exploration about its practical implications
and applications, the RC4BE model is an attempt to respond to the
identified gaps of the CE and RD paradigms in the context of transi-
tioning existing urban areas. It is part of a larger research scope that
intends to develop a practical framework to support urban stake-
holders in their journey towards thriving cities.
Based on what the literature presents for each separate approach,
the RC4BE conceptual model could contribute mainly to SDG6 (Clean
Water and Sanitation), SDG7 (Affordable Energy and Clean Energy),
SDG8 (Decent Work, and Economic Growth), SDG11 (Sustainable Cit-
ies and Communities), SDG12 (Responsible Production and Consump-
tion), and SDG13 (Climate Action) (Pathak et al., 2022). Also, it could
directly address what has been proposed by Ibrahim and Ahmed
(2022) as RDG. It has also been designed to improve cities' safe and
just operating spaces and facilitate the responses to the burdens
imposed upon the global and local ecological (Rockström et al., 2009;
Steffen et al., 2015) and social (Raworth, 2017b) boundaries.
6.1 | Future research and recommendations
The RC4BE model is also a steppingstone towards the development
of a more detailed framework to support citizens and professionals in
transitions of degenerative urban areas while respecting planetary
boundaries, regenerating natural systems, and reconnecting people
and planet through positive impact.
As a new conceptual model, it raises new questions to be further
examined as a part of this research scope. Future steps should address
the many existing intersections among the five pillars, as well as better
understanding how these approaches are perceived by built environ-
ment sector professionals. For the tool development process, it is
essential to identify the possible pathways to implement a regenera-
tive circularity in existing urban areas and define specific areas of
action in tandem with a set of quantitative and qualitative indicators
for monitoring and measuring performance. From a systemic point of
view, the regenerative and circular transformation of cities also
requires changes in the value chain that depend on improving the
business models for the built environment sector.
We expect the RC4BE conceptual model may support policy-
makers, practitioners, and researchers working with CE in the built
environment to move their practices beyond the focus on resources
10991719, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2481 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [14/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SALA BENITES ET AL.
by adding other variables represented by each of its pillars. It may also
enable the comprehension that our cities and neighbourhoods need
to be regenerated to provide positive impact, reversing as many
impacts as possible, rather than small increases of efficiency.
It is worth noting that no regenerative solution alone will operate
effectively without profound behavioural changes. Fiction offers us dif-
ferent visions of future for inspiration or despair. It is up to all of our
society to redesign our pathways towards either dystopic tales as
Butler's (1993) Parable of the Sower or utopic inspirations for change as
Callenbach's (1975) Ecotopia. A real transformation can only take place
if we change our society's core principles. It is about gaining an ‘integra-
tive awareness’ of the planetary survival and seeing ourselves as part
of nature and co-evolving with the whole (Reed, 2007). This will only
be possible by shifting from an anthropocentric, individualistic, compet-
itive, and growth-fetish perspective to an eco-centric, community-
focused, cooperative, and needs-based lifestyle (Gomes, 2018).
ACKNOWLEDG MENT
The lead author (Henrique Sala Benites) acknowledges the support of
a University International Postgraduate Award (UIPA) from the Uni-
versity of New South Wales, and a Research Training Program (RTP)
scholarship provided by the Commonwealth through the Australian
Government. Open access publishing facilitated by University of New
South Wales, as part of the Wiley - University of New South Wales
agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.
OR CID
Henrique Sala Benites https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1616-8938
RE FE RE NCE S
Allwood, J. M. (2014). Squaring the circular economy. In Handbook of recy-
cling (pp. 445–477). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
396459-5.00030-1
Armstrong, C. (2017). Justice and natural resources: An egalitarian theory
(1st ed.). Oxford University Press.
ARUP. (2018). City resilience index. Retrieved from. https://www.
cityresilienceindex.org/
ASBEC, & ClimateWorks Australia. (2018, February). The bottom line: The
household impacts of delaying improved energy requirements in the Build-
ing Code (Building Code Energy Performance Trajectory Project
No. Interim Report).
Axinte, L. F., Mehmood, A., Marsden, T., & Roep, D. (2019). Regenerative
city-regions: A new conceptual framework. Regional Studies, Regional Sci-
ence, 6(1), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2019.1584542
Barton, H. (2017). City of well-being: A radical guide to planning. Routledge
Taylor & Francis Group.
Benne, B., & Mang, P. (2015). Working regeneratively across scales—Insights
from nature applied to the built environment. Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion, 109, 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.037
Benyus, J. (2015). The generous city. Architectural Design, 85(4), 120–121.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1939
Berggren, B., & Wall, M. (2019). Review of constructions and materials
used in Swedish residential buildings during the post-war peak of pro-
duction. Buildings, 9(4), 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9040099
Birkeland, J. (2019). Net-positive design and sustainable urban development
(1st ed.). Routledge.
Blomsma, F. (2018). Collective ‘action recipes’ in a circular economy—On
waste and resource management frameworks and their role in

SALA BENITES ET AL.
collective change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199, 969–982.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.145
Boselli, F. (2016). Cities must be regenerative. But what kind of regeneration
are we actually talking about? World Future Council. Retrieved from.
https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/cities-must-regenerative-kind-
regeneration-actually-talking/
Boulding, K. E. (1966). The economics of the coming spaceship Earth. In H.
Jarrett & K. E. Boulding (Eds.), Environmental and resource economics
Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy (Vol. 3, pp. 3–14). Earth-
scan (Original work published 1966).
Bressanelli, G., Perona, M., & Saccani, N. (2019). Challenges in supply chain
redesign for the Circular Economy: A literature review and a multiple
case study. International Journal of Production Research, 57(23), 7395–
7422. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1542176
British Standards Institution (BSI). (2017). Framework for implementing the
principles of the circular economy in organizations—Guide (Vol. 8001).
BSI Standards Publication.
Brown, K. (2012). Design for regenerative communities. Progressive Plan-
ning, 193, 4–8.
Brown, M., Naboni, E., & Havinga, L. (2019). Defining regenerative design.
In E. Naboni & L. Havinga (Eds.), Regenerative design in digital practice:
A handbook for the built environment (Vol. I, pp. 23–26). Eurac.
Brudtland Report. (1987). Our common future: Report of the World Commis-
sion on Environment and Development.
Buchmann-Duck, J., & Beazley, K. F. (2020). An urgent call for circular
economy advocates to acknowledge its limitations in conserving biodi-
versity. The Science of the Total Environment, 727, 138602. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138602
Buck, N. T., Koh, L., Sparkes, R., & University of Sheffield (Producer).
(2016). DIF Animation 1: Regenerative cities. Written by Dr Nick Taylor
Buck (Urban Institute) and Lenny Koh (Advanced Resource Efficiency
Centre). Animated and produced by Rachel Sparkes.
Butler, O. E. (1993). Parable of the Sower. Earthseed: v.1. [S.I.]: Open Road
Media. Retrieved from. http://gbv.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?
p=1803491
Calisto Friant, M., Vermeulen, W. J., & Salomone, R. (2020). A typology of
circular economy discourses: Navigating the diverse visions of a con-
tested paradigm. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 161, 104917.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104917
Callenbach, E. (1975). Ecotopia: The notebooks and reports of William Wes-
ton (2nd ed.). Banyan Tree Books in Association with Heyday Books.
Cambridge Econometrics. (2018). Measuring London's progress towards
becoming a more circular city. Retrieved from. https://acrplus.org/fr/
climate-change/measuring-london-s-progress-towards-becoming-a-
more-circular-city
CEN. (2011). EN 15978 Sustainability of construction works. CEN.
Center for Living Environments and Regeneration. (2016). LENSES Over-
view Guide: How to create livng environments in natural, social and eco-
nomic systems.
Chin, T. (2020). Industrial ecologies: Manufacturing the post-industrial
landscape. In H. Bougdah, A. Versaci, A. Sotoca, F. Trapani, M.
Migliore, & N. Clark (Eds.), Advances in science, technology & innovation.
Urban and transit planning (pp. 69–76). Springer International Publish-
ing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17308-1_7
Circle Economy. (2020). Circle City Scan Tool, prototype [Computer soft-
ware]. Retrieved from. https://cities.circle-lab.com/
Circle Economy, Metabolic, DGBC, SGS Search, & Redveco Foundation.
(2018). A framework for circular buildings: Indicators for possible inclusion
in BREEAM.
Circle Economy, WBCSD, & Arcadis. (2018). Scaling the circular built envi-
ronment: Pathways for business and government.
Circle Lab for Cities. (2021). Circular city actions framework. Retrieved from.
https://circulars.iclei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Circular-City-
Action-Framework_V2.pdf
10991719, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2481 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [14/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1761
City of Helsinki. (2020). Helsinki Kiertotalousvahti [Helsinki Circular Econ-
omy Watchdog]. Retrieved from. https://kiertotalousvahti.hel.fi/
Construye2025. (2020). Hoja de ruta RCD: Economía circular en construccio n
2035 [C&DW roadmap: Circular economy in construction]. Santiago,
Chile. Retrieved from. https://construye2025.cl/rcd/hoja-de-ruta/
Corvellec, H. (2015). New directions for management and organization stud-
ies on waste. Gothenburg Research Institute.
Craft, W., Ding, L., & Prasad, D. (2022). Understanding decision-making in
regenerative precinct developments. Journal of Cleaner Production,
338, 130672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130672
Cramer, J. (2014). Milieu. Elementaire deeltjes (Vol. 16). Amsterdam Univer-
sity Press. Retrieved from https://www.bol.com/nl/f/milieu/
9200000030338962/
Crutzen, P., & Stoermer, E. F. (2000). The "Anthropocene". Global Change
Newsletter, 41, 17–18.
DGNB GmbH. (2020). DGNB System Districts Criteria Set (Version 2020).
Retrieved from. https://static.dgnb.de/fileadmin/dgnb-system/
downloads/criteria/DGNB-Criteria-Set-Districts-Version-2020.pdf
Dhawan, P. (2019). Circular economy guidebook for cities. Retrieved from
Collaborating Centre for Sustainable Consumption and Production
(CSCP) website. https://www.cscp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/
03/Circular_Cities_Publication.pdf
Dodd, N., Cordella, M., Traverso, M., & Donatello, S. (2017). Level(s)—A
common EU framework of core sustainability indicators for office and resi-
dential buildings: Parts 1 and 2: Introduction to Level(s) and how it works
(Draft Beta v1.0) (JCR Technical Reports).
Donateo, A., Rinaldi, M., Paglione, M., Villani, M. G., Russo, F., Carbone, C.,
Zanca, N., Pappaccogli, G., Grasso, F. M., Busetto, M., Sänger, P.,
Ciancarella, L., & Decesari, S. (2021). An evaluation of the performance
of a green panel in improving air quality, the case study in a street can-
yon in Modena, Italy. Atmospheric Environment, 247, 118189. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118189
Du Plessis, C. (2012). Towards a regenerative paradigm for the built envi-
ronment. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09613218.2012.628548
Eberhardt, L. C. M., Birkved, M., & Birgisdottir, H. (2020). Building design
and construction strategies for a circular economy. Architectural Engi-
neering and Design Management, 1–21, 93–113. https://doi.org/10.
1080/17452007.2020.1781588
Eisenberg, D., & Persram, S. (2009). Code, regulatory and systemic barriers
affecting living building projects. Cascadia Region Green Building Council.
Retrieved from. https://living-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/
11/Code-Regulatory-Systemic-Barriers-Affecting-LB-Projects.pdf
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2013). Towards the circular economy: Economic
and business rationale for an accelerated transition. Vol. 1. Ellen MacArthur
Foundation. Retrieved from https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/
towards-the-circular-economy-vol-1-an-economic-and-business-rationale-
for-an
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017a). Urban bio-cycles.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017b). What is the circular economy?
Retrieved from. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-
economy/what-is-the-circular-economy
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2019). Infographic: Circular economy systems
diagram. Retrieved from. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/
circular-economy/concept/infographic
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, & ARUP. (2019). Circular economy in cities:
Project guide. Retrieved from. https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/
circular-economy-in-cities
Elrayies, G. M. (2018). Microalgae: Prospects for greener future buildings.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 1175–1191. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.08.032
ENEL. (2020). Circular cities: Cities of tomorrow. Retrieved from https://
www.enel.com/content/dam/enel-com/documenti/media/paper-circular-
cities-2020.pdf

1762
European Commission. (2017). Public procurement for a circular economy—
Good practice and guidance. Retrieved from. https://ec.europa.eu/
environment/gpp/circular_procurement_en.htm
European Commission. (2019, December 11). The European Green Deal:
COM(2019) 640 final.
European Commission. (2020). Circular economy action plan. Retrieved
from. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/new_
circular_economy_action_plan.pdf
Frostell, B. (2013). Life cycle thinking for improved resource management:
LCA or? In J. Kauffman & K.-M. Lee (Eds.), Handbook of sustainable
engineering (pp. 837–857). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-1-4020-8939-8
Fuller, R. B. (1969). Operating manual for spaceship Earth. Lars Muller.
Fusco Girard, L. (2014). The regenerative city and wealth creation/conser-
vation: The role of urban planning. International Journal of Global Envi-
ronmental Issues, 13(2/3/4), 118–140.
Gallopín, G. C. (2003). A systems approach to sustainability and sustainable
development. Serie Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo: Vol. 64. s.l.: ECLAC.
Retrieved from. http://hdl.handle.net/11362/5759
Garzillo, C., Balanciaga, I., Izulain, A., Rangil-Escribano, T., & Wildman, A.
(2019). Circular governance models for adaptive reuse of cultural heritage.
CLIC project, Deliverable D3.4. Retrieved from ICLEI website. https://
www.clicproject.eu/files/D3-4.pdf
Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Island Press.
Gibbons, L., Cloutier, S., Coseo, P., & Barakat, A. (2018). Regenerative
development as an integrative paradigm and methodology for land-
scape sustainability. Sustainability, 10(6), 1910. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su10061910
Gibbons, L. V., Pearthree, G., Cloutier, S. A., & Ehlenz, M. M. (2020). The
development, application, and refinement of a Regenerative Develop-
ment Evaluation Tool and indicators. Ecological Indicators, 108,
105698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105698
Girardet, H. (2016). Regenerative cities. In S. Shmelev (Ed.), Studies in eco-
logical economics: Vol. 6. Green economy reader: Lectures in ecological
economics and sustainability (pp. 183–236). Springer. Retrieved from
http://lib.myilibrary.com/detail.asp?ID=957262
Girardet, H., & World Future Council. (2013). Towards the regenerative
city.
Gladek, E. (2019). The seven pillars of the circular economy. Retrieved
from. https://www.metabolic.nl/news/the-seven-pillars-of-the-
circular-economy/
Gomes, A. (2018). Lessons from the margin. The Organ, 15(28), 149–166.
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2238-2593.organicom.2018.150579
Greater London Authority. (2019). The London plan—Spatial development
strategy for Greater London_2019: (intend to publish—Clean).
Retrieved from. https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/intend_
to_publish_-_clean.pdf
Green Building Council of Australia, & Coreo. (2021, July 9). Circular econ-
omy: Leadership challenge. Green Star Fact Sheet, R1 Retrieved from.
https://www.gbca.org.au/greenstar-manager/resources/
Guldmann, E., & Huulgaard, R. D. (2019). Circular business model innova-
tion for sustainable development. In N. Bocken, P. Ritala, L. Albareda, &
R. Verburg (Eds.), Palgrave studies in sustainable business in association
with future earth. Innovation for sustainability (Vol. 29, pp. 77–95).
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-97385-2_5
Haggard, B. (2002, March). Green to the power of three. EnvironmentalDe-
sign+Construction, pp. 24–31.
Hendricks, M. D., Meyer, M. A., Gharaibeh, N. G., van Zandt, S.,
Masterson, J., Cooper, J. T., Horney, J. A., & Berke, P. (2018). The
development of a participatory assessment technique for infrastruc-
ture: Neighborhood-level monitoring towards sustainable infrastruc-
ture systems. Sustainable Cities and Society, 38, 265–274. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.12.039
10991719, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2481 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [14/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SALA BENITES ET AL.
Hes, D., Stephan, A., & Moosavi, S. (2018). Evaluating the practice and out-
comes of applying regenerative development to a large-scale project
in Victoria, Australia. Sustainability, 10(2), 460. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su10020460
Holden, M., Li, C., Molina, A., & Sturgeon, D. (2016). Crafting new urban
assemblages and steering neighborhood transition: Actors and roles in
ecourban neighborhood development. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.4000/articulo.3114
Hoornweg, D., Hosseini, M., Kennedy, C., & Behdadi, A. (2016). An urban
approach to planetary boundaries. Ambio, 45(5), 567–580. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13280-016-0764-y
Ibrahim, I., & Ahmed, N. (2022). Investigating regenerative ideation within
sustainable development goals. Sustainability, 14(16), 10137. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su141610137
ILFI. (2017). Living community challenge 1.2. International Living Future
Institute. Retrieved from https://living-future.org/wp-content/
uploads/2019/08/Living-Community-Challenge-1-2.pdf
International Federation of Consulting Engineers. (2021). Sustainable infra-
structure: Rating & certification tools. Retrieved from. https://fidic.org/
node/5943
IPCC (Ed.). (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerabil-
ity: Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
IRP. (2019). Global resources outlook 2019: Natural resources for the future
we want. International Resource Panel (IRP), Retrieved from https://
www.resourcepanel.org/reports/global-resources-outlook
ISO. (2015). ISO 18458 Biomimetics—Terminology, concepts and methodol-
ogy (ISO 18458:2015(en)). International Standard Organisation: Inter-
national Standard Organisation.
ISO. (2019a). Connecting the dots in a circular economy: A new ISO technical
committee just formed. Retrieved from. https://www.iso.org/news/
ref2402.html
ISO. (2019b). Guidelines for addressing sustainability in standards (ISO Guide
82:2019). International Standard Organisation: International Standard
Organisation.
ISO. (2019c). ISO 37105 Sustainable cities and communities—Descriptive
framework for cities and communities (37105:2019(E)). International
Standard Organisation: International Standard Organisation.
ISO. (2022, May 31). ISO 59004 CD—Circular Economy—Terminology, Princi-
ples and Guidance for Implementation, Committee Draft. International
Standard Organisation: International Standard Organisation.
IUCN. (2016). Defining nature-based solutions. International Union for
Conservation of Nature: International Union for Conservation of
Nature.
Jackson, T. (Ed.). (1993). Clean production strategies: Developing preventive envi-
ronmental management in the industrial economy. Lewis. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.br/books/about/Clean_Production_Strategies_
Developing_P.html?id=iWIJ9dLfn4UC&printsec=frontcover&source=
kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities (Vintage Books
ed.). Vintage Books.
Jacobs, J. (1970). The economy of cities. Knopf Doubleday Publishing
Group. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kxp/
detail.action?docID=6044632
Jung, C. G., & von Franz, M.-L. (1964). Man and his symbols (1979 printing).
Doubleday.
Kalmykova, Y., & Rosado, L. (2015). Urban metabolism as framework for
circular economy design for cities. In World Resources Forum (Chair),
SS11: Circular economy and decoupling.
Kellert, S., & Wilson, E. O. (Eds.). (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Island
Press/Shearwater Books.
Kelly, M. J. (2009). Retrofitting the existing UK building stock. Building
Research & Information, 37(2), 196–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09613210802645924

SALA BENITES ET AL.
Kennedy, C., Cuddihy, J., & Engel-Yan, J. (2007). The changing metabolism
of cities. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11(2), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.
1162/jie.2007.1107
Kennedy, C., Pincetl, S., & Bunje, P. (2011). The study of urban
metabolism and its applications to urban planning and design.
Environmental Pollution, 159, 1965–1973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2010.10.022
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular
economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recy-
cling, 127, 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005
Kohler, N., & Moffatt, S. (2003). Life-cycle analysis of the built environ-
ment. Industry and Environment, 26(2–3), 17–21.
Kruuse, A. (2011). The green space factor and the green points system
(GRaBS Expert Paper No. 6). Retrieved from Town and Country Plan-
ning Association website. https://nextcity.nl/wp-content/uploads/
2017/01/1701256-Malmoe-Tools-c-Annika-Kruuse.pdf
Larrick, S. (Ed.). (1997). A living systems model for assessing and promoting
the sustainability of communities.
Lavers Westin, A., Kalmykova, Y., Rosado, L., Oliveira, F., Laurenti, R., &
Rydberg, T. (2019). Combining material flow analysis with life cycle
assessment to identify environmental hotspots of urban consumption.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 226, 526–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.04.036
Lietaer, B., Ulanowicz, R. E., Goerner, S. J., & McLaren, N. (2010). Is our
monetary structure a systemic cause for financial instability? Evi-
dence and remedies from nature. Journal of Futures Studies, 14(3),
89–108.
Loorbach, D., & Shiroyama, H. (2016). The challenge of sustainable
urban development and transforming cities. In D. Loorbach, J. M.
Wittmayer, H. Shiroyama, J. Fujino, & S. Mizuguchi (Eds.), Theory
and practice of urban sustainability transitions, 2199–5508. Gover-
nance of urban sustainability transitions: European and Asian experi-
ences (pp. 3–12). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-
55426-4_1
Lowe, M., Whitzman, C., Badland, H., Davern, M., Aye, L., Hes, D.,
Butterworth, I., & Giles-Corti, B. (2015). Planning healthy, liveable and
sustainable cities: How can indicators inform policy? Urban Policy and
Research, 33(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2014.
1002606
Lyle, J. T. (1994). Regenerative design for sustainable development. Wiley.
Mairie de Paris. (2017). White paper on the circular economy of Greater
Paris. Retrieved from. https://api-site.paris.fr/images/77050
Mang, P., & Haggard, B. (2016). Regenerative development and design: A
framework for evolving sustainability. Wiley.
Mang, P., & Reed, B. (2012a). Designing from place: A regenerative frame-
work and methodology. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 23–38.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.621341
Mang, P., & Reed, B. (2012b). Regenerative development and design. In
R. A. Meyers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of sustainability science and technology
(pp. 8855–8879). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-
0851-3_303
McDonough, W. (2016). Carbon is not the enemy. Nature, 539(7629),
349–351. https://doi.org/10.1038/539349a
McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the
way we make things. Vintage.
Meadows, D. H. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system.
The Sustainability Institute. Retrieved from https://donellameadows.
org/wp-content/userfiles/Leverage_Points.pdf
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W., III.
(1972). The limits to growth: A report for the Club of Rome's project on
the predicament of mankind (2nd ed.). Universe Books.
Metabolic, DELVA Landscape Architects, & Studioninedots. (2015). Transi-
tioning Amsterdam to a circular city: Circular Buiksloterham. Vision &
Ambition Retrieved from https://www.metabolic.nl/projects/circular-
buiksloterham/
10991719, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2481 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [14/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1763
Michel, A., & Hudon, M. (2015). Community currencies and sustainable
development: A systematic review. Ecological Economics, 116, 160–
171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.023
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-
being: Synthesis. Island Press.
MMA Chile. (2021). Hoja de ruta para un Chile circular al 2040 [Roadmap
for a circular Chile by 2040]. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Retrieved
from https://economiacircular.mma.gob.cl/hoja-de-ruta/
Mollison, B., & Holmgren, D. (1987). Permaculture one: A perennial agricul-
ture for human settlements (5th ed.). Tagari Publications.
Moore, J. W. (2017). The Capitalocene, Part I: on the nature and origins of
our ecological crisis. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 44(3), 594–630.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1235036
Newman, P. (2020). COVID, CITIES and CLIMATE: Historical precedents
and potential transitions for the new economy. Urban Science, 4(3), 32.
https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci4030032
Newman, P., Beatley, T., & Boyer, H. (2017). Resilient cities: Overcoming
fossil fuel dependence (2nd ed.). Island Press.
NSW EPA. (2019). NSW Circular economy policy statement final: Too good
to waste.
OECD. (2019a). Business models for the circular economy: Opportunities and
challenges for policy. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9dd62-en
OECD. (2019b). The circular economy in cities and regions. Brochure.
Retrieved from. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regionaldevelopment/
Circular-economy-brochure.pdf
OECD. (2019c). OECD principles on urban policy. Retrieved from OECD Cen-
tre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Regions and Cities website. https://
www.oecd.org/cfe/Brochure-OECD-Principles-Urban-Policy.pdf
Padilla-Rivera, A., Russo-Garrido, S., & Merveille, N. (2020). Addressing the
social aspects of a circular economy: A systematic literature review.
Sustainability, 12(19), 7912. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197912
Pathak, M., Slade, R., Pichs-Madruga, R., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Shukla, P. R., &
Skea, J. (2022). Technical summary: (Complete author list). In IPCC
(Ed.), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of climate change: Contribution of
Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmen-
tal Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Pearce, D. W., & Turner, R. K. (1989). Economics of natural resources and
the environment. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved from
http://www.edwardmorey.org/4999Ethics/PearceTurnerEconomicsOf
Chap3CircularEcon1991.pdf
Pedersen Zari, M. (2018). Regenerative urban design and ecosystem biomimi-
cry. Routledge research in sustainable urbanism. Routledge Taylor &
Francis Group.
Plaut, J. M., Dunbar, B., Gotthelf, H., & Hes, D. (2016). Regenerative devel-
opment through LENSES with a case study of Seacombe West. Envi-
ronment Design Guide, 88, 1–19.
Potting, J., Hekkert, M., Worrell, E., & Hanemaaijer, A. (2017). Circular
economy: Measuring innovation in the product chain (Policy Report).
Raworth, K. (2017a). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st
century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Raworth, K. (2017b). A doughnut for the Anthropocene: Humanity's com-
pass in the 21st century. The Lancet Planetary Health, 1(2), e48–e49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30028-1
Reed, B. (2007). Shifting from ‘sustainability’ to regeneration. Building
Research & Information, 35(6), 674–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09613210701475753
Resolution. (2017). Resolution adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly on 23 December 2016—New Urban Agenda 71st session,
Resolution A/RES/71/256 1.
Robinson, J. (2004). Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sus-
tainable development. Ecological Economics, 48(4), 369–384. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.017
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S. I.,
Lambin, E., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.,
Nykvist, B., De Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H.,
Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., … Foley, J. (2009).

1764
Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity.
Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32. Retrieved from http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/
Rodale Institute. (2020). Regenerative organic agriculture. Rodale Institute.
Retrieved from https://rodaleinstitute.org/why-organic/organic-
basics/regenerative-organic-agriculture/
Roelich, K. (2012). Undermining infrastructure briefing note 1, Material criti-
cality. University of Leeds. Retrieved from http://sure-infrastructure.
leeds.ac.uk/ui/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/01/Material_Criticality_
briefing_note.pdf
Ruuska, A., & Häkkinen, T. (2014). Material efficiency of building construction.
Buildings, 4(3), 266–294. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings4030266
Rydin, Y. (2019). Planning for sustainability: Lessons from studying neigh-
bourhood shopping areas. Planning Practice & Research, 34(5), 522–536.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2019.1679428
Sala Benites, H., & Osmond, P. (2021). Bioconnections as enablers of
regenerative circularity for the built environment. Urban Planning, 6.
https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v6i4.4373
Sala Benites, H., Osmond, P., & Rossi, A. M. G. (2020). Developing low-
carbon communities with LEED-ND and climate tools and policies in
São Paulo, Brazil. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 146(1),
4019025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000545
Sala Benites, H., & Zegers Cádiz, C. (2021). Portafolio de modelos de nego-
cios en economía circular para la construccio n. Informe final de la consul-
toría [Portfolio of circular economy business models in construction.
Final consultancy report]. Iniciativa de la Hoja de Ruta RCD y Econo-
mía Circular en Construccio  n, PEDN 35718-5. Retrieved from Con-
struye2025 website. https://construye2025.cl/wp-content/uploads/
2022/07/Portafolio-de-modelos%E2%80%A8-de-negocio-en-economia-
circular-para-la-construccion-Informe-final-de-la-consultoria.pdf
Sanderson, D. (2020, April 9). Why the world needs more resilience-
thinking to stem escalating crises. The Conversation. Retrieved from.
https://theconversation.com/why-the-world-needs-more-resilience-
thinking-to-stem-escalating-crises-65880
Sanford, C. (2017). The regenerative business: How to redesign work, culti-
vate human potential, and realize extraordinary outcomes. Nicholas
Brealey Publishing.
Schröder, P., Lemille, A., & Desmond, P. (2020). Making the circular econ-
omy work for human development. Resources, Conservation and Recy-
cling, 156, 104686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104686
Seto, K. C., Dhakal, S., Bigio, A., Blanco, H., Delgado, G. C., Dewar, D.,
Huang, L., Inaba, A., Kansal, A., Lwasa, S., McMahon, J. E., Müller, D. B.,
Murakami, J., Nagendra, H., & Ramaswami, A. (2014). Human settle-
ments, infrastructure and spatial planning. In O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-
Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I.
Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlö-
mer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, & J. C. Minx (Eds.), Climate change
2014: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (Chapter 12) (pp. 923–1000). Cambridge University Press.
Sharifi, A., & Yamagata, Y. (2016a). Principles and criteria for assessing urban
energy resilience: A literature review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 60, 1654–1677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.028
Sharifi, A., & Yamagata, Y. (2016b). Urban resilience assessment: Multiple
dimensions, criteria, and indicators. In Y. Yamagata & H. Maruyama
(Eds.), Advanced sciences and technologies for security applications.
Urban resilience (pp. 259–276). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39812-9_13
Shumba, O. (2011). Commons thinking, ecological intelligence and the ethi-
cal and moral framework of Ubuntu: An imperative for sustainable
development. Journal of Media and Communication Studies, 3(3), 84–96.
Stahel, R. W. (1982). The product-life factor. In S. G. Orr (Ed.), An inquiry
into the nature of sustainable societies: The role of the private sector
(pp. 72–104). Houston Area Research Center. Retrieved from https://
p2infohouse.org/ref/33/32217.pdf
10991719, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2481 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [14/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SALA BENITES ET AL.
Stefanakis, A. I., Calheiros, C. S., & Nikolaou, I. (2021). Nature-based solu-
tions as a tool in the new circular economic model for climate change
adaptation. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 1(1), 303–318. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00022-3
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I.,
Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S., Vries, W., de Wit, C., Folke, C.,
Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Persson, L., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., &
Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development
on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855. https://doi.org/
10.1126/science.1259855
Taylor, N. (1998). Urban planning theory since 1945. SAGE Publications Ltd.
The Nature Conservancy. (2022). COP27: Your guide to the 2022 Climate
Change Conference in Egypt. Retrieved from. https://www.nature.org/
en-us/what-we-do/our-priorities/tackle-climate-change/climate-change-
stories/cop-climate-change-conference/
The Rockefeller Foundation. (n.d.). 100 Resilient Cities—The Rockefeller
Foundation. Retrieved from. https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/
100-resilient-cities/
Thomson, C. C., & Jakubowski, M. (2012). Toward an open source civiliza-
tion: Innovations case narrative: Open source ecology. Innovations:
Technology, Governance, Globalization, 7(3), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.
1162/INOV_a_00139
Thomson, G., & Newman, P. (2016). Geoengineering in the Anthropocene
through regenerative urbanism. Geosciences, 6(46), 1–16. https://doi.
org/10.3390/geosciences6040046
Turcu, C. (2012). Local experiences of urban sustainability: Researching
Housing Market Renewal interventions in three English neighbour-
hoods. Progress in Planning, 78(3), 101–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
progress.2012.04.002
Turntoo. (2019). Kolding Marina City as a show case for circular area devel-
opment. Retrieved from. https://www.readkong.com/page/marina-
city-kolding-1716201
Ugolini, F., Massetti, L., Calaza-Martínez, P., Cariñanos, P., Dobbs, C.,
Ostoic, S. K., Marin, A. M., Pearlmutter, D., Saaroni, H.,
Šaulienė, I., Simoneti, M., Verlič, A., Vuletic, D., & Sanesi, G.
(2020). Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use and per-
ceptions of urban green space: An international exploratory study.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 56, 126888. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ufug.2020.126888
UN Habitat. (2002). The global campaign on good governance (Concept Paper,
2nd ed.). Retrieved from. https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/
download-manager-files/Global%20Campaign%20on%20Urban%20Go
vernance.pdf
UN-DESA. (2019). World urbanization prospects: The 2018 Revision. United
Nations.
UNDP. (2019). Sustainable development goals. Retrieved from. https://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs
UNEP. (2011a). Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts
from economic growth. A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling
to the International Resource Panel, UNEP.
UNEP. (2011b). Towards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable develop-
ment and poverty eradication. UNEP.
United 4 Smart Sustainable Cities. (2020, June). A guide to circular cities.
Retrieved from https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/2020_
A-Guide-to-Circular-Cities.pdf
Vale, R., & Vale, B. (2009). Footprinting urban form and behaviour in
New Zealand. Architectural Science Review, 52(4), 254–260. https://
doi.org/10.3763/asre.2009.0071
Venkata Mohan, S., Amulya, K., & Annie Modestra, J. (2020). Urban
biocycles—Closing metabolic loops for resilient and regenerative eco-
system: A perspective. Bioresource Technology, 306, 123098. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123098
Wahl, D. C. (2016). Designing regenerative cultures. Triarchy Press.
Webster, K. (2017). The circular economy: A wealth of flows (2nd ed.). Ellen
MacArthur.
 10991719, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2481 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [14/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SALA BENITES ET AL. 1765

Williams, J. (2017). Circular cities: Strategies, challenges and knowledge gaps. SUPPORTING INF ORMATION
UCL & Circular Cities Hub. Additional supporting information can be found online in the Support-
Williams, J. (2021). Circular cities. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
ing Information section at the end of this article.
9780429490613
Wolman, A. (1965). The metabolism of cities. Scientific American, 213(3),
179–190.
Yunus, M. (2010). Building social business: The new kind of capitalism that How to cite this article: Sala Benites, H., Osmond, P., &
serves humanity's most pressing needs. PublicAffairs. Prasad, D. (2023). A neighbourhood-scale conceptual model
Zink, T., & Geyer, R. (2017). Circular economy rebound. Journal of Industrial towards regenerative circularity for the built environment.
Ecology, 21(3), 593–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12545
Sustainable Development, 31(3), 1748–1767. https://doi.org/
Zsolnai, L. (2009). Buddhist economics for business. In L. Zsolnai, Z.
Boda, & L. Fekete (Eds.), Ethical prospects: Economy, society and envi- 10.1002/sd.2481
ronment (pp. 89–99). Springer.
 10991719, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2481 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [14/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1766 SALA BENITES ET AL.

APPENDIX

LIST OF DOCUMENTS WITH DEFINITIONS ANALYSED

Document Authors
Scaling the circular built environment: Pathways for business and government (Circle Economy, WBCSD, & Arcadis, 2018)
Circular city actions framework (Circle Lab for Cities, 2021)
Circular economy guidebook for cities (Dhawan, 2019)
DGNB-UD urban districts 2020 (DGNB GmbH, 2020)
Towards the circular economy: Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition (EMF, 2013)
What is the circular economy? (EMF, 2017b)
Urban bio-cycles (EMF, 2017a)
Circular economy in cities: Project guide (EMF & ARUP, 2019)
Circular cities: Cities of tomorrow (ENEL, 2020)
Public procurement for a circular economy—Good practice and guidance (European Commission, 2017)
Circular economy action plan (European Commission, 2020)
D3.4 Circular governance models for adaptive reuse of cultural heritage (Garzillo et al., 2019)
Green Star—Circular economy fact sheet (Green Building Council of Australia [GBCA] &
Coreo, 2021)
The seven pillars of the circular economy (Gladek, 2019)
The London plan. Spatial development strategy for Greater London (Greater London Authority, 2019)
ISO 59004 CD—Circular Economy—Terminology, Principles and Guidance for Implementation, (ISO, 2022)
Committee Draft
Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions (Kirchherr et al., 2017)
White paper on the circular economy of Greater Paris (Mairie de Paris, 2017)
Circular Buiksloterham: Transitioning Amsterdam to a circular city (Metabolic, DELVA Landscape Architects, &
Studioninedots, 2015)
NSW Circular economy policy statement final: Too good to waste (NSW EPA, 2019)
The circular economy in cities and regions—Synthesis report (OECD, 2019b)
OECD principles on urban policy (OECD, 2019c)
Making the circular economy work for human development (Schröder et al., 2020)
The product-life factor (Stahel, 1982)
Kolding Marina City as a show case for circular area development (Turntoo, 2019)
A guide to circular cities (United 4 Smart Sustainable Cities [U4SSC], 2020)
Circular cities—What are the benefits of circular development? (Joanna Williams, 2017)
Regenerative design for sustainable development (Lyle, 1994)
Regenerative city-regions: A new conceptual framework (Axinte et al., 2019)
Cities must be regenerative. But what kind of regeneration are we actually talking about? (Boselli, 2016)
Design for regenerative communities (K. Brown, 2012)
Regenerative development as an integrative paradigm and methodology for landscape (L. Gibbons et al., 2018)
sustainability
The development, application, and refinement of a Regenerative Development Evaluation (L. V. Gibbons et al., 2020)
Tool and indicators
Regenerative cities (Girardet, 2016)
A living systems model for assessing and promoting the sustainability of communities (Larrick, 1997)
Regenerative development and design (Mang & Reed, 2012b)
Evaluating the practice and outcomes of applying regenerative development to a large-scale (Hes et al., 2018)
project in Victoria, Australia
Green to the power of three. Environmental design and construction, March/April, 24–31. (Haggard, 2002)
 10991719, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2481 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [14/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SALA BENITES ET AL. 1767

Document Authors
Defining regenerative design (In: Regenerative design in digital practice: A handbook for the (M. Brown et al., 2019)
built environment)
Regenerative urban design and ecosystem biomimicry (Pedersen Zari, 2018)
Resilient cities: Overcoming fossil fuel dependence (Newman et al., 2017)
Regenerative development through LENSES with a case study of Seacombe West (Plaut et al., 2016)
Geoengineering in the Anthropocene through regenerative urbanism (G. Thomson & Newman, 2016)
Designing regenerative cultures (Wahl, 2016)
Shifting from ‘sustainability’ to regeneration (Reed, 2007)
Towards the regenerative city Girardet & World Future Council [WFC]
Industrial ecologies—Manufacturing the post-industrial landscape (Chin, 2020)
DIF Animation 1: Regenerative cities (Buck et al., 2016)