Liaros, S (2022) A network of circular economy villages: Design guidelines for 21st century garden cities. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 12(3), pp. 349-364. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose is to open the possibility for a research institute, perhaps in partnership with a local council and a major developer, to bring together skills necessary to prototype the CEV development model. Design/methodology/approach: This paper advances the development of a hypothetical, systems-based approach to the design and development of smart rural villages – a network of circular economy villages (CEVs). The method is to assimilate visionary ideas from 20th century town planning literature related to decentralisation and the development of new towns in rural areas, identifying key design principles. The present trajectory of infrastructure design and emerging development models are then analysed to modernise the design principles for implementation in the 21st century. Findings: The availability of localised, renewable energy micro-grids potentially makes CEVs feasible and affordable. The shift to remote work and movement of people to regional areas suggests that this may be a desirable development form. This can only be confirmed through the development of a pilot project as proof of concept. Originality/value: The proposed CEV development model applies circular economy strategies to every aspect of the smart rural village development including financing, ownership, spatial planning, design and material selection.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | circular economy; energy transition; life cycle planning; regenerative agriculture; town planning |
| Index terms: | circular economy, design principle, research institute, life cycle, prototype, strategy, partnership, movement, design and development, decentralization, spatial planning, financing, renewable energy, implementation, rural area, ownership, town planning, methodology |
| Subjects: | sustainable design, design process, urban design, management, economics, research methods, political science, land use and regional development, partnership management, design methods, value management, health behaviours and lifestyles, research organizations, contractual arrangements, energy systems, economic analysis, modelling and simulation |
| Topics: | Procurement, Governance, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Design Practice, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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