Honsa, J; Versele, A; van de Kerckhove, T and Piccardo, C (2025) Circularity at the neighbourhood scale: Co-creative living lab lessons. Buildings & Cities, 6(1), pp. 800-818. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
The transition to a circular economy is a challenging problem for the built environment, as circularity is not a well-understood term, nor do societal stakeholders have a common vision. The 'impaC3t' living lab addresses interrelated issues of defining and applying the principles of circularity at the neighbourhood scale in terms of material use and flow, utility and usefulness of buildings and urban change (densification) and affordability. With a consortium of multidisciplinary experts, the living lab advises on a variety of case study neighbourhoods in Flanders undergoing change. Five case studies indicate how its strategies have evolved as project partners, participants and policymakers widen their views of circularity. The advantages and disadvantages of the living lab's structure are discussed. Living labs can identify new opportunities and barriers, as well as help to collectively define circular goals for housing and urbanism.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | circular economy; circularity; housing; living lab; living labs; neighbourhood; retrofit; urban adaptation |
| Index terms: | strategy, consortium, circularity, housing, adaptation, urbanism, case study, Flanders, built environment, densification, project partner, circular economy, affordability |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, user focus, data collection methods, construction type, infrastructure and transport systems, urban design, sustainable materials, partnership management, management, cities and urban places, sustainable design, sociology, physical geography and landforms |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Construction Technology, Design Practice, Geographical Context, Urban Studies, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here