Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 501–506
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

29th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering Conference

A framework to assess circularity of potable water through its lifecycle

Lutendo D. Rambaua, Paul T. Mativengaa,b, Annlizé L. Marewick a,*
a
Postgraduate School of Engineering Management, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
b
Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, Faculty of Science and Engineering, The University of Manchester,
Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +27 11 559 1735; E-mail address: amarnewick@uj.ac.za

Abstract

The United Nations estimated that by 2030 the world will face a 40% shortfall in the water it needs. There is a strong sustainability case to adopt
circular practices in how water resources are used and do more with less water. This will help where water is scarce, reduce pollution and capture
additional value. In this context, circularity indicators are useful to measure the transition from linear to circular economy as well as the progress
of circular strategies towards sustainable development. This research presents the supply chain system for delivery of potable drinking water,
identifying the circularity options and reviewing existing circular economy metrics to develop principles for assessing the circularity of water.
Although there are a number of circularity assessment frameworks, most frameworks focus on consumer goods and their transferability to the
water sector has to be examined. In this context, this paper defines the essential pillars of a circularity metric for water and thus contributes to the
evolving thinking on a new framework for circularity of water considering its supply chain, the solution space and sustainable development.
© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 29th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering Conference.

Keywords: Water; circularity; recycling; Circular Economy; South Africa

1. Introduction Apart from water quantity, water quality is also a challenge

Water is a very important ingredient for food, health,
biodiversity and industrial development. Its demand has been
rapidly rising due to population and economic growth. The
United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG-6)
challenges the world to enable access to water and sanitation
for all. It was estimated in 2017 by United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO’s) World
Water Assessment Programme (WWAP) that 36% of world’s
population lived in a water-scarce region and approximately
half of the world’s population will be at risk of water stress by
2050 [1]. Water Scarcity is lack of freshwater resources to meet
the standard water demand. While, water stress occurs when a
territory withdraws twenty-five per cent or more of its
renewable freshwater resources. In 2020, 72% of all water
withdrawals worldwide was utilized for agricultural purposes,
16% for household services and 12% for industries [2].
worldwide because of increasing water activities such as
agriculture and industrial activities [3]. About 80% of
wastewater globally is disposed untreated, with low-income
countries treating 8% of its wastewater, 28% for low middle-
income countries, 38% in upper middle - income and 70% in
high - income countries [4]. Discharge of untreated or partially
treated municipal wastewater into water bodies exacerbates
eutrophication and ecotoxicity impacts [4]. For clarity, the key
relevant terms used in this paper are defined in Table 1.
The availability of natural freshwater is affected by the linear
approach of extracting freshwater, using it and then disposing
in natural water bodies. Of particular interest and concern is the
availability of water that is suitable for people to drink (potable
water). In response to the linear approach of water,
implementation of Circular Economy in the water sector is
recommended to combat water stress challenges that are
currently experienced.

2212-8271 © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 29th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering Conference.
10.1016/j.procir.2022.02.083

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 502 Lutendo D. Rambau et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 501–506
Table 1. Definition of terms used in paper
Term Definition
Circular economy An economic system that promotes recycling,
reuse, remanufacturing and refurbishment to
create a closed loop [5].
Natural water Also known as freshwater, is water of varying
quality coming from natural sources such as
dams, lakes, oceans, rivers, reservoirs and
streams [6].
Potable water Treated natural water that is suitable for
human consumption [7].
Wastewater Used water derived from any number of uses
of water (domestic, institutional and
industrial) and collected through the network
sewers into treatment plants [7].
Waste management Guidelines of preference measures when it
hierarchy comes to waste management with an aim to
reduce waste [8].
Wastewater Utilisation of treated or untreated wastewater
recycling for the same process that generated it [9].
Wastewater reuse Method of recycling treated wastewater for
beneficial purposes, such as agricultural and
landscape irrigation, industrial processes,
toilet flushing, and groundwater replenishing
[7].
Water scarcity Lack of freshwater resources to meet the
standard water demand [10].
Water stress When a territory withdraws 25 per cent or
more of its renewable freshwater resources
[10].
1.1. Circular Economy for water
The circular economy is now receiving more attention as an
alternative model to a linear model based on take, use and
dispose [5]. There is no single agreed definition for a circular
economy [11]. Authors have defined a circular economy, as an
economic system that promotes recycling, reuse, refurbishment
and remanufacturing of materials to keep them in use for as
long as possible [12], [13], economic model to promote the
efficient use of resources [14] and decoupling of economic
growth though ensuring that the value of resources, material
and products are being maintained in use for a longer period [5]
and eliminating wastes by running a close loop system [15].
Yuan et al. [16] and Gower and Schroder [17] concurred that
the implementation of a circular economy could bring
economic benefits such as cost saving and value creation
through raw material reduction, social benefits such as creation
of jobs through new opportunities in companies and
environmental benefits such as impact reduction and resource
efficiency.
A circular economy for water offers opportunities such as
reducing the watershed demand where water is scare, reducing
pollution where water is polluted, and capturing additional
value where water is undervalued [16]. The transition or
maturity from a linear to a circular economy needs to be
supported by measurement of the degree of circularity. A
universal and consistent way to measure circularity is required.
There are a number of circularity assessments under
development. However, a comprehensive investigation of their
completeness needs to be done [18]. The majority of developed
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
circularity frameworks focus on the consumer goods sector and
their transferability to the water sector has to be examined [19].
The existing frameworks lack the capacity to capture circularity
of the whole supply chain of materials or water. Due to lack of
a comprehensive framework to measure the circularity of water
throughout its lifecycle [19], [20], this study aims to contribute
to the development of principles for assessing the circularity of
water to assist water resource management authorities and
water supply organisations and stakeholders, governments and
policy makers. A framework to assess water circularity will
help in better management of water resources and minimizing
waste.
1.2. Structure of the paper
The article is divided into six sections. After introduction,
section 2 discusses the research methodology to identify,
analyse and characterize the Circularity metrics; section 3
outlines the water supply chain, opportunity of water circularity
and requirements for a circularity metric; Section 4 reviews and
compares existing circularity metrics; Section 5 develops the
requirements of a new circularity metric for water and
conclusions are presented in the last section, Section 6.
2. Research Methodology
A literature review was conducted on existing circularity
metrics to determine the existing metrics to measure
circulatory. The research conducted was based on both
academic articles and non-academic organizations
contributions. Thus, through a comprehensive review of
available studies, this paper focuses on the types of metrics used
to measure circularity worldwide and also the type of
environment they are applied.
3. Potable water supply and opportunities for circularity
To assess the circularity of water an understanding of the
water supply system is required as well as the loses encountered
in the system. Figure 1 shows a typical water supply chain
system. For most large cities and dense communities, natural
water is abstracted (sourced or withdrawn) from natural water
resource (i.e. streams, rivers, lakes, dams, reservoirs, oceans).
The amount abstracted has to be determined by considering
other stakeholders in the catchment area and the need to leave
enough natural water to maintain water quality and health of
ecosystems. The abstracted natural water is, then pumped to a
purification plant. After purification, the potable water is
distributed by transmission typically through pipework to the
different types of consumers (domestic, industrial, commercial,
state institutions etc.). After use, this is collected or manifest as
wastewater that may or may not be subjected to wastewater
treatment processes. At each of these stages there are
opportunities to reduce water demand, address water loses and
to re-use or recycle wastewater, and for resource recovery thus
contributing towards a circular economy. Treated wastewater
can be recycled directly to the water purification plant
depending on its quality.
 Lutendo D. Rambau et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 501–506 503

management hierarchy and (4) robustness. The product life

cycle is the core system that can be used to evaluate the stages
at which the circularity options can be applied. The goal is to
consider and prioritize options higher up the waste hierarchy.
For product or material circularity to be truly, sustainable it has
to promote or retain economic, social and environmental value.

4. Comparison of existing metrics on a product level

Indicators assessing the circularity of products have been

developed. This includes the Circular Economy Toolkit (CET),
Circular Economy Indicator Prototype (CEIP), and Material
Circularity Indicator (MCI) [11]. Table 1 presents a list of
product level circularity metrics that are going to be reviewed.
The approaches appear to consider assessment of circularity
using (i) a single metric of 0 to 1 or a percentage, (ii) multiple
scores that can be aggregated, or (iii) broad relative ranking of
improvement potential for example into high, medium and low.
Figure 1: Potable drinking water supply chain While a single score has utility and enables global comparisons,
it does not easily relate to the different circularity challenges
During water purification and in wastewater treatment nor opportunities in the stages of the product supply chain, and
plants, solid wastes (sludge and screenings) are removed. These neither does it show full alignment to the three pillars of
resources can also be considered for circularity. The global sustainability.
production of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is expected to
reach 3.4 billion tonnes by 2025. For example over a million Table 2: Circular Economy Metrics, Description and Output
tonnes of bio-solids are produced at wastewater treatment Circularity Description Output
facilities across South Africa [21]. Landfilling is still a common Metric
sludge disposal practice worldwide, while on-site sludge Circular Economy Assesses potential Levels of
disposal method is still dominant in South Africa. Screenings Toolkit [28] improvement of products’ Improvement
(solids) are receiving limited attention due to relatively low circularity potential (high,
medium, low)
volume. Land filling and incineration is the most commonly
used method. According to waste management hierarchy Material Metric to assess circular Single score value
Circularity economy transition on a between 0 and 1
disposal is the least preferred option. The circularity of potable
Indicator [5] company or product level where higher values
water has to maximize availability of potable water while indicate a higher
recovering value from municipal solid waste. circularity
The requirement of circularity metric is that the metric Circular Economy Measures a product’s Single score (%)
measures what is intended to be measured, is consistent, robust Indicator performance in the context
and practical [22]. When defining circularity, authors such Elia Prototype [29] of circular economy
et al., Pauliuk and Corona et al. [22]–[24] considered metric Circonomics Measures the circularity of Single score from 0
validity requirements while Linder et al., and Saidani et al. Index [30] wastewater treatment to 1
[11], [25] considered reliability and utility of the circularity sector
metric. Multi-Sectoral Measure circularity in a Extent of achieved
EMF and Siraj et al. [5], [26] proposed three principle of Water Circularity multi-sectoral approach. intrinsic circularity
Assessment [20] The main components are of the different re-
Circular Economy namely designing out waste externalities,
material flow analysis, sources
keeping resources in use and regenerating natural capital. Other natural systems models and
authors such as Elia et al. and Pauliuk [23], [24] cover the economic valuation.
same requirements. Kakwani and Kalbar [27] proposed 6Rs Water Circularity Consider circularity in the Single score values
(Rethink, Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Repair) strategies of Index [31] volume of virgin water, ranging from 0 to 1
Circular Economy. wastewater and water used
for plant operations
3.1. Proposed circularity criteria Water Circularity Evaluates the circular Level of circularity
metric [32] water flows for the for the three
processes at a site. indicators and an
This study focuses on validity, reliability and utility based
aggregated score
requirements. The authors propose that circularity has to be in
the context of sustainable development, embedded in the
product value chain and exploiting the waste hierarchy. The In this paper, the authors proposed that the circularity
requirement of circularity metric are thus defined as modelling measure should cover the following, (1) the product’s life cycle
the solution spaces considering (1) product life cycle supply supply chain, (2) embed the benefits across the three
chain, (2) three sustainable development pillars, (3) waste sustainability pillars, (3) exploit the waste hierarchy, (4) be

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 504 Lutendo D. Rambau et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 501–506
robust. These pillars are discussed in the following in the
context of existing material circularity metrics.
4.1. Discussion of existing circularity metrics in terms of co-
requirements
The alignment of the existing circularity index to the defined
pillars is shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Assessment of Circular Economy Metrics (P= partially addressed, Ö
= fully addressed,? – query alignment)
Circularity Metric
Sustainability
supply chain
hierarchy
Life cycle
pillars
Waste
Circular Economy Toolkit [28] P P
Material circularity indicator [5] P ?
Circular Economy Indicator Prototype
P ?
[29]
Circonomics Index [30] P P
Multi-Sectoral Water Circularity
Ö P
Assessment [20]
Water Circularity Index [31] P ?
Water Circularity Metric [32] Ö ?
Life Cycle Supply Chain - The Circular Economy Toolkit
(CET) and Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) covers aspects
of the life cycle thinking, with CET focusing on pre-life, life
and end of life and MCI focusing only on recycling and reuse
[33]. Circular Economy Indicator Prototype and Circonomic
Index were built following the MCI concept, and do not cover
the whole value chain. Circonomic Index is a circularity metric
designed for water however, it only covers the end of life
options which is wastewater circularity [30]. Multi-Sectoral
Water Circularity Assessment is a multi-sector assessment
which considers the whole life cycle thinking and its value
chain [20]. Water Circularity Metric covers the pre-life, life and
end life of water circularity.
Sustainability Pillars - Material Circularity Indicator
(MCI), Circular Economy Indicator Prototype (CEIP), WCI
and WCM do not consider the sustainable pillars [5], [29], [31],
[32] while Circular Economy Toolkit (CET), Circonomics and
MSWCA partially addresses the sustainable pillars. CET
focusses only on the economic pillar and Circonomics index
addresses the economic and partially addressing social and
environmental [28], [11], [30]. MSWCA addresses economic
and environmental pillar of sustainable development [20].
Waste Hierarchy - Material Circularity Indicator (MCI),
Circular Economy Indicator Prototype (CEIP) and CEV
considers the recycle and reuse option on the waste hierarchy,
Circonomics index, MSWCA and Water Circularity Metric
considers the 3Rs, of reduce, recycle and reuse on the waste
hierarchy. Circonomic Index, Water Circularity Index, Multi-
Sectoral Water Circularity Assessment and Water Circularity
Metric considers all the 3Rs of waste hierarchy, moreover
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
MSWCA [23] and WCM includes restore and replenish of
natural resource [25].
Robustness - Circular Economy Toolkit (CET), Material
Circularity Indicator (MCI) and Circular Economy Indicator
Prototype (CEIP) tools are available free and they are easy to
use even for non-experts. They are applicable to many products
and for MCI and CEIP an Excel tool can be edited. MCI and
CEIP are single score metric. The single score hides the true
complexity of circular economy as it excludes other circular
economy aspects [11]. Circonomic Index and Water Circularity
Index are single score using equations that are transparent and
easy to use. Multi-Sectoral Water Circularity Assessment and
Water Circularity Metric are multi score metrics. MSWCA uses
a complex software to calculate circularity.
Robustness
Circular Economy Toolkit (CET) and Circular Economy
Indicator Prototype (CEIP) are questionnaire-based
P P assessments. Some questions can lead to different interpretation
P Ö and neglect some crucial aspects of circular economy [11].
Circonomic Index and Water Circularity Index (WCI) are
P Ö circularity metrics developed to assess wastewater circularity.
Ö Ö However, the metrics do not cover the whole water supply chain
and life cycle and do not comprehensively address the
P P circularity of wastewater by-products in terms of waste
prevention and management. Moreover, they only focus on the
P P
micro level of circular economy, which is the water footprint of
P P
a single enterprise. Multi-Sectoral Water Circularity
Assessment (MSWCA) is a multiple scores circularity
assessment. Moreover, a software-based tool is not easy to use
for non-expert in circular economy.
While Water Circularity Metric (WCM) is a circularity
metric designed specifically for water circularity, it does not
address the circularity of wastewater by-product (sludge
circularity) nor the three pillars of sustainable development.
Material Circularity Indicator (MCI), Circular Economy
Toolkit (CET) and Circular Economy Indicator Prototype
(CEIP) focus only on the technical cycle with less focus on
biological cycle. The biological cycle is of major importance
in the water sector [19]. However, the MCI is adaptive and
flexible for all kinds of products and it was adapted for
biological cycle [31], [34], [35]. Notably, multiple authors
have used Material Circularity Indicator as a foundation in
developing new circularity metric.
5. Developing new circularity metrics for water
Due to large number of circularity metrics proposed in the
last decade, it is crucial to define the requirements of the new
metric. A circular economy for potable water and wastewater
is looking for a better management of water resources and by
products by closed loops, promoting reuse, and recycling of
water resources [36]. Water life cycle includes; withdrawal
from natural water resource, purification of water, distribution
of potable water for consumption, consumption of water, reuse
of wastewater for non- consumptive purposes, collection of
wastewater for treatment, treatment of wastewater, recycling of
wastewater by-products for other processes, reuse of treated
wastewater for non-consumptive purposes and treated
 Lutendo D. Rambau et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 501–506
wastewater returned to the watershed. The waste hierarchy,
Figure 2, has to be applied to these stages and the overall
assessment needs to deliver on the environmental, economic
and sustainability pillars or value. This requires a new metric.
Figure 2: Waste management hierarchy with a focus on water
The drive for water circularity is to sustainably manage
supply chain for freshwater while ensuring the availability of
water for all users, the economy and the environment. This
places sustainability at the core of water circularity.
6. Concluding Discussions and Recommendations
A significant share of the world’s population lives in water-
scarce regions and approximately half of the world’s
population will be at risk of water stress by 2050. The
availability of natural fresh water is affected by the linear
approach of extracting freshwater, using it and then disposing
it in natural water bodies. In response to the linear approach of
water, implementation of Circular Economy in the water sector
is recommended to combat water stress challenges that are
currently experienced. To enable this transition, there is a lack
of comprehensive circularity measures for water. A number of
metrics for assessing the circularity of materials and water have
been developed, but these differ in scope and utility. The
predominant focus on designing out waste externalities,
keeping resources in use and regenerating natural capital needs
to be expanded.
In this paper, it has been proposed that circularity metrics
for water should further cover, (i) the supply chain for water to
enable embedding of solutions, (ii) the water waste hierarchy
to promote solutions higher up the waste hierarchy, (iii) the
sustainability pillars as well as being, (iv) robust.
A future research question however, remains on how to
develop a circularity measure incorporating the above-
proposed aspects of circular economy. Therefore, the future
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
505
research should address the current challenge of developing a
holistic circularity metric for assessing the circularity of water
and other materials. There is a need for the international
community to agree a framework for defining the scope, for
modelling and reporting circularity that will enable
standardization and global benchmarking. A key aspect is to
develop a framework that can be used to drive innovations
through all stages of the water supply value chain and hence
maximize circularity. Additionally water exists in different
forms and quality this is another dimension to be considered in
the framework development and the metric. This circularity
metric is important for water catchment custodians, water
service providers, governments, consumers and stakeholders.
References
[1] D. J. Rodriguez, H. A. Serrano, A. Delgado, D. Nolasco, and G.
Saltiel, “From Waste to Resource: Shifting paradigms for smarter
wastewater interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean,” World
Bank, Washington, DC, 2020. Accessed: Mar. 03, 2021. [Online].
Available: www.worldbank.org/wastetoresource
[2] UN-Water, “Summary Progress Update 2021 – SDG 6 – water and
sanitation for all,” UN-Water, Geneva, 2020. Accessed: Mar. 29, 2021.
[Online]. Available: www.unwater.org
[3] P. Gleick and C. Iceland, “Water, Security , and Conflict,” World
Resource Institute, Washington, D.C., 2018. [Online]. Available:
www.wri.org
[4] WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme)., “The
United Nations World Water Development Report 2017. Watewater:
The Untapped Resource,” UNESCO on behalf of UN-Water., Paris,
2017. Accessed: Mar. 29, 2021. [Online]. Available: www.unwater.org
[5] EMF (Ellen MacAthur Foundation), “Towards a Circular Economy :
Business Rationale for an Acelerated Transition,” 2015. Accessed: Jul.
27, 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/
[6] M. Lindahl, N. Svensson, B. H. Svensson, and E. Sundin, “Industrial
cleaning with Qlean Water - A case study of printed circuit boards,” J.
Clean. Prod., vol. 47, pp. 19–25, 2013
[7] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)., “Guidelines for Water
Reuse 2012,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).,
Washington, D.C., 2012. Accessed: Mar. 09, 2021. [Online].
Available: www.epa.gov
[8] DEA (Department of Environmental Affairs)., “NATIONAL WASTE
INFORMATION BASELINE REPORT,” DEA: Pretoria, South
Africa, 2012, Dec. 14, 2012.
http://sawic.environment.gov.za/documents/1880.pdf (accessed Apr.
16, 2021).
[9] Department of Water and Sanitation, “National Strategy for water re-
use,” 2011.
[10] UN(United Nations), “The Sustainable Development Goals Report,” ©
2021 United Nations, New York, 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs.
[11] M. Saidani, B. Yannou, Y. Leroy, and F. Cluzel, “How to Assess
Product Performance in the Circular Economy? Proposed
Requirements for the Design of a Circularity Measurement
Framework,” Recycling, vol. 2, p. 6, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.33902010006.
[12] P. Ekins, T. Domenech, P. Drummond, R. Bleischwitz, N. Hughes, and
L. Lotti, “The Circular Economy: What, Why, How and Where.
 506 Lutendo D. Rambau et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 501–506
Managing environmental and energy transitions for regions and cities,”
Paris, 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regionaldevelopment/Ekins-2019-Circular-
Economy-What-Why-How-Where.pdf
[13] M. Smol, C. Adam, and M. Preisner, “Circular economy model
framework in the European water and wastewater sector,” J. Mater.
Cycles Waste Manag., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 682–697, 2020, doi:
10.1007/s10163-019-00960-z.
[14] P. Morseletto, “Targets for a circular economy Piero,” Resour.
Conserv. Recycl., vol. 153, no. October 2019, p. 104553, 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104553.
[15] L. Beaulieu, V. Durme, and M.-L. Arpin, “Circular Economy: A
Critical Review of Concepts,” J. Chem. Inf. Model., vol. 53, no. 9, pp.
1689–1699, 2015, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1179.7840.
[16] Z. Yuan, J. Bi, and Y. Moriguchi, “The Circular Economy: A New
Development Strategy in China,” J. Ind. Ecol., no. February, 2008, doi:
10.1162/108819806775545321.
[17] R. Gower and P. Schroder, “Virtuous Circle: how the circular economy
can create jobs and save lives in low and middle-income countries,”
Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Brighton, Brighton, 2016.
[18] M. Saidani, B. Yannou, Y. Leroy, F. Cluzel, and A. Kendall, “A
taxonomy of circular economy indicators,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 207,
pp. 542–559, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.014.
[19] C. E. Nika, L. Gusmaroli, M. Ghafourian, N. Atanasova, G. Buttiglieri,
and E. Katsou, “Nature-based solutions as enablers of circularity in
water systems: A review on assessment methodologies, tools and
indicators,” Water Res., vol. 183, p. 115988, 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.watres.2020.115988.
[20] C. E. Nika, V. Vasilaki, A. Expósito, and E. Katsou, “Water Cycle and
Circular Economy: Developing a Circularity Assessment Framework
for Complex Water Systems,” Water Res., vol. 187, p. 116423, 2020,
doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2020.116423.
[21] H. G. Snyman, “South African Sludge Management Guidelines –
Innovation and Impact,” eWISA, 2010, [Online]. Available:
sa.co.za/literature/files/391_276 Snyman.pdf
[22] B. Corona, L. Shen, D. Reike, J. Rosales Carreón, and E. Worrell,
“Towards sustainable development through the circular economy—A
review and critical assessment on current circularity metrics,” Resour.
Conserv. Recycl., vol. 151, no. May 2019, pp. 0921–3449, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104498.
[23] V. Elia, M. G. Gnoni, and F. Tornese, “Measuring circular economy
strategies through index methods: A critical analysis,” J. Clean. Prod.,
vol. 142, pp. 2741–2751, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.196.
[24] S. Pauliuk, “Critical appraisal of the circular economy standard BS
8001:2017 and a dashboard of quantitative system indicators for its
implementation in organizations,” Resour. Conserv. Recycl., vol. 129,
no. September 2017, pp. 81–92, 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.019.
[25] M. Linder, S. Sarasini, and P. van Loon, “A Metric for Quantifying
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
Product-Level Circularity,” J. Ind. Ecol., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 545–558,
2017, doi: 10.1111/jiec.12552.
[26] T. Siraj, T. Steichen, and M. Shuoler, “Water and Circular Economy:
White Paper,” 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://us.anteagroup.com/sites/default/files/Water_and_circular_econo
my_Co.Project_White_paper.pdf
[27] N. S. Kakwani and P. P. Kalbar, “Review of Circular Economy in
urban water sector: Challenges and opportunities in India,” J. Environ.
Manage., vol. 271, no. July, 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111010.
[28] J. Evans and N. Bocken, “Developing a Tool for Manufacturers to Find
Opportunity in the Circular Economy -,” in Proceedings of the
International Conference on Sustainable Design and Manufacturing,
2014, vol. 2011, no. 1, pp. 303–320.
[29] S. Cayzer, P. Griffiths, and V. Beghetto, “Design of indicators for
measuring product performance in the circular economy,” Int. J.
Sustain. Eng., vol. 10, no. 4–5, pp. 289–298, 2017, doi:
10.1080/19397038.2017.1333543.
[30] B. Kayal, D. Abu-Ghunmi, L. Abu-Ghunmi, A. Archenti, M.
Nicolescu, C. Larkin, and S. Corbet, “An economic index for
measuring firm’s circularity: The case of water industry,” J. Behav.
Exp. Financ., vol. 21, pp. 123–129, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.jbef.2018.11.007.
[31] A. Sartal, N. Ozcelik, and M. Rodríguez, “Bringing the circular
economy closer to small and medium entreprises: Improving water
circularity without damaging plant productivity,” J. Clean. Prod., vol.
256, p. 120363, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120363.
[32] T. Williams, C. van Brunschot, N. Martin, and O. Maennicke, “Water
Circularity Metric: Tool application and guidance note,” 2021,
[Online]. Available:
https://www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/12130/182099/1
[33] M. Saidani, B. Yannou, Y. Leroy, F. Cluzel, M. Saidani, B. Yannou,
Y. Leroy, and F. C. Hybrid, “Hybrid top-down and bottom-up
framework to measure products ’ circularity performance To cite this
version : HAL Id : hal-01571581,” in Proceedings of the International
Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, 2017, vol. 1, no. DS87-1,
pp. 81–90. [Online].
[34] M. Rufí-Salís, A. Petit-Boix, G. Villalba, X. Gabarrell, and S. Leipold,
“Combining LCA and circularity assessments in complex production
systems: the case of urban agriculture,” Resour. Conserv. Recycl., vol.
166, no. June 2020, p. 105359, 2021.
[35] L. Rocchi, L. Paolotti, C. Cortina, F. F. Fagioli, and A. Boggia,
“Measuring circularity: an application of modified Material Circularity
Indicator to agricultural systems,” Agric. Food Econ., vol. 9, no. 1,
2021, doi: 10.1186/s40100-021-00182-8.
[36] N. Voulvoulis, “Water Reuse from a Circular Economy Perspective
and Potential Risks from an Unregulated Approach,” Curr. Opin.
Environ. Sci. Heal., vol. 2, pp. 32–45, 2018.