Science, Faculty of
Resources, Environment and Sustainability (IRES), Institute for
DSpace
University of British Columbia. Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability
University of British Columbia. Campus and Community Planning
Wong, Brittney
Belotti, Giulia
Oreoluwa, Glory
Travers, Josh
MacNicol, Rona
The idea of a circular economy (CE) has captured the interests of academics and decision-makers as the world attempts to shift towards sustainable economic systems. Circularity identifies opportunities to design out waste and enable better resource management by recovering materials at a product’s end-of-life. A circularity analysis assesses the current state of material flows and identifies opportunities to increase the circularity of a specific item, sector, or system. A circularity analysis within a specific case is a useful preliminary step in shifting to circular practices, but what inputs are needed for a circularity analysis are unclear and context dependent. This research aims to support the University of British Columbia (UBC) with the development of a circularity analysis by drawing on best practices from other institutions and exploring the context-specific factors within UBC. We utilize a document analysis, observations, and semi-structured interviews with both key external stakeholders who have experience conducting circularity analyses, as well as internal stakeholders whose work relates to a transition to circularity. We explored the factors that were key to the success of circularity analyses at other institutions, as well as the challenges they encountered, and specific learnings from their experiences. We used this data to inform our interviews with internal stakeholders in order to determine how these learnings could be adapted to the UBC context. We found that, contrary to much literature on the need for pre-defined indicators, most circularity analyses have been conducted iteratively. Rather than determining the optimal indicators, the circularity analyses we encountered began with preliminary metrics that were refined over time. These preliminary metrics were applied to specific pilot projects, which were then recreated with other targets after incorporating prior learnings. This progressive build-up of small projects, rather than one large analysis, was the preferred method of most external respondents. It also appears that quantitative metrics were less important for practitioners than has been expressed in the literature; a larger emphasis was placed upon fostering engagement with the broader student and administrative community, as well as procuring the necessary resources to conduct a circularity analysis. Ensuring that these resources are available is a major prerequisite for success. From our findings, we provide a number of recommendations, which include the creation of a circularity committee, the creation of a shared definition of “circularity”, engagement with the student community, and support of current circularity initiatives on campus. As detailed in the discussion and conclusion, these recommendations are provided as guidelines for future actions and research to support UBC in its transition to circular operation. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”
Developing a Framework for a Circularity Analysis at UBC Prepared by: Brittney Wong, Giulia Belotti, Glory Oreoluwa, Josh Travers, Rona MacNicol Prepared for: Course Code: RES 505 University of British Columbia Date: 21 December 2021 Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student research project and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore, readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Sustainability Program representative about the current status of the subject matter of a report”. University of British Columbia Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Sustainability Program Student Research Report Developing a Framework for a Circularity Analysis at UBCRes 505, SEEDS ProjectBrittney Wong, Giulia Belotti, Glory Oreoluwa, Josh Travers, Rona MacNicolTable of ContentsExecutive Summary.........................................................................................................................1. Background……………………………………………………………………………………..2. Research Question……………………………………………………………………………...3. Methods………………………………………………………………………………………….4. Results…………………………………………………………………………………………...4.1 Document analysis……………………………………………………………………...4.2 Interviews and observations…………………………………………………………….5. Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………….5.1 Piloting as blueprint…………………………………………………………………….1.1 The significance of context…………………………………………………….1.2 Developing policy “after the fact”……………………………………………..5.2 Data ……………………...…………………………………………………………….2.1 Metrics, indicators and narratives…………………………………………….2.2 Learning by doing……………………………………………………………….5.3 Towards a shared understanding of “circularity”………………………………………5.4 Resources: People, money and time……………………………………………………5.5 Engagement and buy-in………………………...………………………………………6. Recommendations.......................................................................................................................7. Conclusion....................................................................................................................................References…………………………………………………………………………………………1Executive SummaryThe idea of a circular economy (CE) has captured the interests of academics anddecision-makers as the world attempts to shift towards sustainable economic systems. Circularityidentifies opportunities to design out waste and enable better resource management byrecovering materials at a product’s end-of-life. A circularity analysis assesses the current state ofmaterial flows and identifies opportunities to increase the circularity of a specific item, sector, orsystem. A circularity analysis within a specific case is a useful preliminary step in shifting tocircular practices, but what inputs are needed for a circularity analysis are unclear and contextdependent. This research aims to support the University of British Columbia (UBC) with thedevelopment of a circularity analysis by drawing on best practices from other institutions andexploring the context-specific factors within UBC.We utilize a document analysis, observations, and semi-structured interviews with bothkey external stakeholders who have experience conducting circularity analyses, as well asinternal stakeholders whose work relates to a transition to circularity. We explored the factorsthat were key to the success of circularity analyses at other institutions, as well as the challengesthey encountered, and specific learnings from their experiences. We used this data to inform ourinterviews with internal stakeholders in order to determine how these learnings could be adaptedto the UBC context.We found that, contrary to much literature on the need for pre-defined indicators, mostcircularity analyses have been conducted iteratively. Rather than determining the optimalindicators, the circularity analyses we encountered began with preliminary metrics that wererefined over time. These preliminary metrics were applied to specific pilot projects, which were2then recreated with other targets after incorporating prior learnings. This progressive build-up ofsmall projects, rather than one large analysis, was the preferred method of most externalrespondents. It also appears that quantitative metrics were less important for practitioners thanhas been expressed in the literature; a larger emphasis was placed upon fostering engagementwith the broader student and administrative community, as well as procuring the necessaryresources to conduct a circularity analysis. Ensuring that these resources are available is a majorprerequisite for success.From our findings, we provide a number of recommendations, which include the creationof a circularity committee, the creation of a shared definition of “circularity”, engagement withthe student community, and support of current circularity initiatives on campus. As detailed inthe discussion and conclusion, these recommendations are provided as guidelines for futureactions and research to support UBC in its transition to circular operation.1.0 Background (Literature review)In the last few years, the concept of circular economy (CE) has been greatly addressed inacademic literature as circularity is increasingly considered a key element in the achievement ofsustainable economic systems (Stumpf et al., 2021). As highlighted by Sillanpää and Ncibi(2019), the concept refers to a practice which is far from new to humanity. Humans experiencedcircularity for centuries in an instinctive and spontaneous manner via their integration in naturalsystems. More recently, a shift in human relationships with nature stemming from technical,agricultural, and industrial revolutions have led to consumption characterized byoverexploitation of natural resources, and consequent generation of waste (Delchet-Cochet,2020).3Although it is not possible to precisely identify the first users of the concept “circularity”,its incubation occurred within the discipline of environmental economics in the early 1960s(Sillanpää and Ncibi, 2019). Since then, circularity has been presented as an alternative to thepredominant economic model based on “taking, making and disposing” (Ness, 2008) and it isgenerally regarded as a paradigm enabling greater efficiency of resource use and thus animportant means to achieve sustainability (Ghisellini, 2016). One of the most cited definitions ofCE is from Kirchherr et al. (2017), who describe CE as “…an economic system that is based onbusiness models which replace the ‘end-of-life’ concept with reducing, alternatively reusing,recycling and recovering materials.”While Kirchher’s definition provides a general idea of the main features of a circulareconomy, some clarification is needed, especially when it comes to the term ‘recycling’, which isslightly controversial. For instance, it should be noted that, although most municipalities in NorthAmerica collect plastic waste, only a small percentage of this waste is actually recycled(McCormick et al., 2019). In 2019 alone, it is estimated that 68,000 containers with plasticrecycling were shipped from the US to developing countries, where they are often dumped inopen landfills (ibid). The complex global trade in waste between the global North and the globalSouth has been at the center of multiple debates and it has raised important questions on socialand environmental justice (Gragson and Crang, 2015). In this context, a shift to circularity iseven more urgent.For this reason, the concept of circularity has gained traction in policymaking. In recentyears, the European Union has been working on legislative texts, action plans and frameworkswith the aim of promoting a circular economic model (Völker et al., 2020). Although a specific4directive on circularity is yet to be drafted, every EU policy area mentions the circular economy,and €964 million have been allocated to projects on circularity (ibid).A shift towards circularity is also present in specific industries. Soo et al. (2021) foundsignificant effort to adopt circularity practices in the vehicle material industry, especially inregions where regulations encouraging material reuse were present.Most studies on circularity have focused on industrial waste disposal and environmentaleconomics, while less research has been conducted on circularity analysis, namely theidentification of methods and procedures for a successful implementation of CE. Circularityassessments are crucial steps for implementing circular economy measures. Indeed, the EllenMacArthur Foundation (2020) claims that it is difficult to create a circular economy without firstmeasuring it. Marianne Richeux, the Zero Waste World Program Lead, has reported a seriouslack of adequate measurement parameters to assess circularity and to form guidelines forimplementation. The lack of adequate measurement frameworks represents a barrier forcompanies and institutions to effectively calculate their impact and consequently work towardsmeaningful progress.For this reason, the identification of circularity indicators as analytical tools to develop aCE is imperative (De Oliveira et al., 2020). However, there is open and ongoing debate aboutwhich metrics are most suited to indicate circularity, which has led to various, subjectivemethodological frameworks for evaluating implementation strategies (Rocchi et al, 2021). Intheir analysis of existing literature on circularity, De Oliveira et al. (2020) found that mostliterature focuses on indicators for material and resource recovery, but they lack robustness interms of implementation of a comprehensive circular economy. More specifically, 66% of thearticles reviewed by the authors assessed circularity through the adoption of nano-level5indicators, which are best suited for products. Niero et al. (2019) observe that different indicatorsfor circular economy performance have been identified by various authors (e.g., productionefficiency, utilization efficiency, recycling rates) but publications in this regard have been scarce.Many authors mostly focus on the identification of material circularity indicators like intrinsicrecyclability (percentage of a product that can be recycled at least once) and recycled content(percentage of a product that is already recycled), but less attention has been paid to meso andmacro-level indicators, which would be helpful for assessing circularity on a larger scale (Nieroet al., 2019). This is partly because the development of this economic model has largely beenundertaken by practitioners rather than scholars (Korhonen et al, 2018).To assess circularity, many authors propose a material flow analysis (MFA), whichmatches the use of resources and production of waste with the capacity of the environment tosupply those resources and absorb waste (Jacobi et al., 2018; Mayer et al., 2019). The aim of thisapproach is linking inputs (resources), outputs (waste), and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions,thus providing decision makers and practitioners with a set of comprehensive data, instead ofconsidering each element separately (ibid). However, such an approach is often deployed on alarge scale by countries or sizable jurisdictions like regions and provinces (Kovanda et al., 2008;Raupova et al., 2014; Jacobi et al., 2018). Some institutions and smaller jurisdictions use anapproach called “circularity gap index” (CGI). The Circularity Gap Index calculates the share ofmaterial waste which is not converted into new resources, and thus does not re-enter theeconomy as recovered material (Aguilar-Hernandez et al., 2020).MFA and CGI are both useful instruments to calculate circularity within a determinedsystem, but they are still highly sector-specific and do not provide general guidelines to assessCE. In fact, they mostly provide guidance to assess circularity in sectors like waste recovery and6generation, but they are unable to offer a general framework, which might instead be helpful toconduct a comprehensive circularity analysis (ibid).The identification of universal indicators to conduct a circularity analysis is renderedeven more complex by the fact that different indicators might serve different purposes, whichmakes them highly contextual (Niero et al., 2019). Thus, it is of high importance to contactinstitutions who have already undertaken circularity analyzes to determine best practices andlearnings that can be applied to the UBC case. Guidance from organizations like the EllenMacArthur Foundation will also be useful. The Circulytics platform is of particular interest. Thisresource supports a company or institution by revealing the “…the extent to which a companyhas achieved circularity across its entire operations”1 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, n.d.). Freeresources are available to measure circularity performance and highlight blind spots andstrengths (ibid). This may provide insight into what indicators are generally useful for measuringcircularity generally.More specifically, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation identifies eleven areas which shouldbe considered when assessing circularity. As shown in the table reported below (Fig. 1),institutions should gather data from different sectors, namely strategy and planning, innovation,people and skills, operations, external engagement, products and materials, services, plantproperty and equipment assets, water, energy, and – if applicable – finance (The EllenMacArthur Foundation, n.d.). While these broader sectors provide a general guideline forinstitutions to calculate circularity, the foundation itself warns that they should not be taken out1 https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/resources/circulytics/overview7of context. Therefore, they must be distilled to the UBC context to determine the most beneficial,case-specific indicators.Fig. 1. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation (n.d.). Circulytics.After a thorough analysis on existing literature, it is apparent that there is a gap inunderstanding of what makes a good circularity analysis. It is impossible to create a circulareconomy without first measuring it, but what needs to be measured is unclear (Ellen MacArthurFoundation, 2020). Our research seeks to determine the characteristics of a successful circularityanalysis, as well as to provide insight into how such an analysis should be undertaken in theUBC context.2.0 Research Questions• How have other large institutions (post-secondary institutions, non-profitorganizations, municipalities) conducted circularity analysis?o What was the process?o What data inputs were used?o Who were the stakeholders involved in spearheading the process?8• What types of data exist within the UBC system that could be used as input for acircularity analysis? Who stewards the data? What types of necessary data are missing?3.0 MethodsThe core aim of this study is to determine the best practices for conducting a circularityanalysis at UBC. We employed a three-pronged approach to data collection, using a combinationof document analysis, semi-structured interviews and participant observations to exploresustainability efforts such as zero waste goals at UBC, and to understand the process ofconducting a circularity analysis. The document analysis provided insights on the processinstitutions have undertaken in conducting a circularity analysis. We analyzed the websites andreports produced by large institutions such as post-secondary institutions (e.g. McGillUniversity), non-profit organizations, and municipalities who have conducted some form ofcircularity analysis (e.g. the city of Montréal). Eligible institutions were identified using ascoping search within academic libraries and guidance from our (Social Ecological EconomicDevelopment Studies (SEEDS) partners. This document analysis was focused on highlighting thetypes of data inputs used in conducting circularity analysis, the stakeholders involved inconducting the analysis, and the roles various stakeholders played in facilitating the analysis.Semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders at large institutions(post-secondary institutions, municipalities) who have conducted a circularity analysis. Theseindividuals were identified through our document analysis. Our initial scoping search identifiedQuebec as an area which has made significant progress towards conducting a full circularityanalysis. We contacted the EDDEC Institute management team which led the research anddevelopment process for a group of schools in the province looking to transition towardscircularity. Additionally, McGill University has developed a sustainability strategy that9highlights the need for a circular economy. We reached out via email to the sustainabilitymanagers and sustainability officers who’ve been part of developing and implementing thesustainability plan. During these in-depth interviews, we sought to gain a detailed and nuancedunderstanding of the process of conducting a circularity analysis and the experiences ofparticipants. Our questions were designed to encourage our participants to describe the specificsteps that were taken by their institutions from the conception stage to the completion of thecircularity analysis. We probed for the types of data-sets and skill-sets that facilitated thecompletion of the analysis (see appendix for interview guide). We also inquired about thechallenges they encountered and the lessons they learned in the course of their analysis.We also interviewed stakeholders within the UBC community who showed interest inhaving a circularity analysis done at UBC. These stakeholders were identified in collaborationwith our SEEDS partners, who provided suggestions for partnerships between students, staff, andcommunity partners to advance the circularity work on campus. We discussed their ideas on theopportunities for circularity and the challenges they anticipate in conducting a circularityanalysis at UBC. We used a snowball sampling method, harnessing the contacts of ourparticipants to identify additional stakeholders with information on the kinds of data collected bythe university and available to be used in a circularity analysis. We also inquired about the typesof data that are not readily available and ways they can be approximated or replaced.All participants were interviewed using Zoom and were informed that their participationwas strictly confidential. Interviews were recorded and transcribed by members of the studyteam, with minor edits made to remove potentially identifying information about the respondents(see appendix for consent form).10We conducted observations of the building operations team meeting and the AMSoperations committee meeting. In these observations our focus was on how issues relating tocircularity are discussed in the UBC context.We conducted a thematic analysis of our interview data. The analysis occurred in stages.All team members conducted an initial review of transcripts for familiarization and identificationof key themes. Team members then paired up and conducted a thematic coding of the sametranscript to ensure inter-coder reliability. The final stages involved having a team meeting todiscuss and synthesize themes for interpretation.4.0 Results4.1 Document AnalysisThe document analysis consisted of 11 documents, mainly from institutions and variouslevels of governments (municipal, provincial, and federal). The documents that we were lookingfor targeted institutions that were similar in size with the UBC campus. University institutionsand municipalities in Canada were the first searches we did. The types of documents that wereanalyzed were sustainability plans and zero waste strategies as keywords such as “circularity”and “circular economy” were most commonly found in these documents. Our document analysisprovided us with knowledge on existing circularity research and programs and expanded ourresearch themes and scope for our interviews. Through our document analysis, it becameapparent that “circular economy” is a fairly new concept which institutions and governments areincorporating into action plans and strategies to meet waste and greenhouse gas reduction targets.We sought to identify what research exists on conducting circularity analyses, as well as whatgaps remain. Our document analysis was conducted by three members of the team and used the11same template for each of the documents. The information we looked for in our documentsincluded: a brief summary, timeline, targeted sectors, approaches/methodologies, data inputs,indicators to measure process, challenges, facilitators (people in charge of the circularityprojects), and potential contacts for interviews. We used that as a starting point to guide ourresearch on how to conduct a circularity analysis at UBC.Our first finding from our document analysis was that action plan and strategy timelinesranged from 2025 to 2050 for their waste goals regarding circularity to be completed. Seven outof the 11 documents did not include specific timelines or dates for their goals. The City ofPeterborough in the United Kingdom developed a Circular City Maturity Model that outlined thebasic steps to be more circular including circular economy indicators and metrics (OpportunityPeterborough, 2018). Thus, they were taking a progressive approach to become fully circular by2050. The remaining documents with timelines were from university institutions with timelinesthat have either been already completed or have plans to be completed by 2035 (McGillUniversity, 2020). One of the more detailed timeline examples was from the University ofToronto’s Mississauga campus as seen in Figure 2. However, it does not specifically outline anywork on circularity directly. Rather, the steps for the creation of their Comprehensive Strategyhave a focus on waste diversion, which supports a circular economy (University of Toronto, n.d).12Figure 2. University of Toronto’s waste reduction goal timeline (University of Toronto, n.d).As well, the most common sectors that were targeted for action were waste management,procurement, construction, and food services. The ability to track material flows and volume ofresources was the reasoning behind selecting these sectors as they have the potential toexperience significant reductions with the implementation of a circular economy.The scope of our project was specifically concerning approaches and methodologies forconducting a circularity analysis. In our document analysis we looked for prior examples toinvestigate and gain knowledge from. From our analysis, we identified these commonapproaches:1. Conduct a study of the existing systems in place (i.e. waste audits, consultations, lifecycle analysis, landscape analysis),2. Establish a working group or committee,3. Data collection and analysis,4. Work with relevant partners (i.e. waste haulers to ensure that they understand thecommunity of practice and comply to the appropriate waste management practices), and135. Engagement and education to the public/targeted audience (i.e. students)To conduct a circularity analysis, it is important to identify what data will be used and theindicators or metrics required to measure success and progress. From the document analysis, themajority of the documents did not specify what data inputs will be/were used. Only Quebec’sCircularity Gap Report has conducted a full circularity analysis and included the types of datathat was used: extraction of natural resources, imports, exports, emissions, dispersed anddissipated materials, and waste data (Circle Economy, 2021). Thus, alternate data inputs are yetto be proven effective or useful at conducting a circularity analysis.Lastly, our document analysis examined the challenges associated with circularityanalyses. Since many of the institutions and governments have not yet conducted a fullcircularity analysis, they did not identify challenges. However, the organizations that haveundertaken some circularity initiatives noted similar challenges, mainly revolving around datacollection and availability challenges, stakeholder inertia, and little return on investments. Thecomplexity of the issue was an overarching challenge as this is a fairly new concept that has yetto be implemented. Businesses and institutions are starting to shift and realize the importance ofcircularity, however, roles and responsibilities have yet to be defined creating the challenge tostart the work in circularity. Overall, the findings from our document analysis guided thequestions for our interviews and provided insight for our project to help UBC identify usefulapproaches for a circularity analysis.144.2 Interviews and ObservationsWe had ten participants including three external stakeholders and seven internalstakeholders from across the UBC campus. Our participants were involved in eightsemi-structured interviews, including two which employed the use of photo prompts and onefocus group.We also observed a zero- waste action committee meeting and a lunch and learn eventhosted by the Graduate Student Society and a Zero Waste Coordinator from Campus andCommunity Planning for UBC students that are interested in living a more sustainable lifestyle.Figure 3. Thematic map showing core themes and sub themes that describe theexperience of conducting circularity analysis in external institutions. Developed by author team(2021)15Exploring the external stakeholders’ perspectivesMotivation: The external stakeholders described the presence of 1. Political will, and 2.Existing rules and compliance factors along with sustainability concerns as key motivations forconducting a circularity analysis and engaging in more circular processes. They expressed theidea that while the desire for sustainability was a useful driving force, the need to comply withthe rules of granting agencies and the province provided a significant push towards a morecareful tracking and management of assets within the institution.“There's sustainability objectives for sure. But we're also using compliance as a driver.Right? In case not everybody's on board with just the sustainability aspects. So, compliance tothe granting agency rules and programs and compliance with the provincial governmentexpectations that we track and manage and ensure the longevity of certain assets” – Respondent5 (Procurement, McGill)Process: We also identified a number of key factors that are core aspects of the process ofconducting a circularity analysis. They include; developing frameworks and metrics, iterativepolicy development, learning by doing, and capacity development. Participants expressed theneed for identifying frameworks, metrics and indicators that fit within the specific institutionalcontexts. Additionally, the need for an iterative process was consistently emphasized to ensurethe process was flexible enough to allow for new learnings to be incorporated along the way.They also described the process as complicated and extensive, requiring the development ofhuman (e.g. advisory committees, skilled experts, etc.) and financial capacity to effectivelyfacilitate it."So, before we got into an analysis, we look at different frameworks already used. And wesort of did a literature review and what worked, what was completed, or what were the commonelements between those frameworks. And we decided to go with our own framework rather thanfollowing one, because they were not necessarily in line with what we wanted to do.” –Respondent 8 (Researcher, Quebec College)16"It was so complicated and such a big undertaking that we've been going at it veryincrementally. We're going at it per asset category and then we're learning as we're doing"-Respondent 5 (Procurement, McGill)Challenges: Our external stakeholders also faced a number of key challenges broadlydescribed under the themes of 1. Limited human resources, 2. Resistance to standardization and3. Decentralized structures. As previously described, the process of conducting a circularityanalysis is extensive, and thus requires some dedicated human resources to facilitate it; theabsence of that resource was identified as a significant challenge. Our respondents explained thatit was often useful to standardize some practices (e.g. procurement, asset management, etc.)across the university, however, this was occasionally met with resistance. The decentralizednature of university systems was identified as a significant difficulty by our externalstakeholders. The fragmented approach to data collection and data stewardship meant that therewas often no singular data repository and thus identifying the various data stewards and engagingthem in the process was a necessary but often tricky and time consuming first step."Universities are so huge and decentralized, it's hard to get everybody to know what thisis and how it's working" – Respondent 5 (Procurement, McGill)“So, without strong support, but also like dedicated people, so like, SustainableDevelopment, office or person, you know, that it's their job to do that kind of analysis. And it ismandated, I think it's really hard to work around that.”- Respondent 10 (Circularity researcher)"There's been some resistance, not to circularity or to sustainability, it's resistance tocontrol from the central administration… every once in a while, we'll run into people who arelike well, I don't want to tell you what I have and why should you be controlling this and I wantto do my own thing"- Respondent 5 (Procurement, McGill)Facilitators: Our external stakeholders also described a number of key factors whichsupport the process of conducting a circularity analysis. Participants found these helpful formitigating the challenges they experienced, or expressed that they would be useful for otherinstitutions looking to embark on this process. Four core themes describe their ideas; piloting andreplication, clearly defined goals and roles, active stakeholder engagement, and skilled human17resources. Given the complicated and extensive nature of the process of conducting a circularityanalysis, our participants highlighted the value of starting with pilot projects in smaller sectionsof the system, learning from the process as described earlier and then replicating that in otherparts of the system. Additionally, our stakeholders highlighted the need for engaging withstakeholders in various sectors of the system and people who have the necessary skills tofacilitate the process.“The first initiative that we had was tackling the lifecycle and optimizing the lifecycle ofour IT assets. And then when we got that done, we realized, wait a minute, there's like aframework here. And a process that can be replicated with other asset categories” – Respondent5 (Procurement, McGill)"So hence, we have to go for the data, we went around to create an advisory committee.Because it's a very complex subject, we really want to be sure to have a committee that couldhelp us to give us the latest data, the best insights on the different parts of the report to give uscomments and wisdom on their different fields to help us. So, we created a committee with about,I think, 11 people. And that was quite a challenge." – Respondent 1 (circularity officer, Montreal)18Figure 4. Thematic map showing core themes and sub themes that describe stakeholders’perceptions of the steps to conducting a circularity analysis at UBC. Developed by author team(2021)Exploring internal stakeholders’ perspectivesOur interviews with UBC stakeholders provided us with insights into the ideas arounddata collection, and opportunities for improving circularity, and the kinds of data available.Data collection: With regard to data collection, limited capacity and resources, as well asdecentralization were identified as key challenges. The resource constraint was in many ways thekey challenge, making it difficult to employ the human resources needed to facilitate circularityinitiatives and collect/collate the data necessary to conduct a circularity analysis.“procurement is semi decentralized at UBC so we have we have Financial operationswhich has procurement officers which do a lot of work in procurement and then they have staffthat are embedded in different departments and faculties that do procurement as well and thenthere's also another level of procurement which is just done by individuals who could be like adepartmental administrators who work for faculties and departments and that procurement is notnecessarily going through any kind of centralized process, it is very decentralized and veryindependent and so that's probably one of the hardest areas to get at because I don't know I don'tknow if there's any easy way to collect data”- Respondent 2 (planning and sustainability, UBC)“I think it's not a challenge of commitment, but a challenge of resources that back thatcommitment. So UBC I think has a very strong declaration on what is important and that's theright direction but I feel like at times we could do a little better in terms of committing resourcestowards getting us there. I think it’s a little understaffed and underfunded. I’m going to chooseone example of creating a recycling space on campus. The fact that we don't have a physicalspace and I know it requires higher commitment and financial backing towards it but I thinkthere’s a need but it’s challenging to convert these great ideas into commitments, marrying thecommitments to the ideas is a challenge.” –Respondent 4 (sustainability, UBC)Other opportunities: A number of opportunities were also identified, especially throughpilot projects and behavioral data. Our stakeholders noted that a lot of data exists on the impactsand perceptions of various sustainability related pilot projects going on across campus.19"We have a lot of audits in terms of compost data, when it comes to students composting,and a lot of it's based on student behavior or staff behavior." – Respondent 6 (sustainability,UBC)"I think that there's a lot of data on, like student perceptions, and how students react tocertain pilot projects, initiatives on campus, and just what they see what they notice, I think a lotof data on that will be pretty, pretty accessible" –Respondent 6 (sustainability, UBC)Participant observationsOur observation of the zero- waste action committee provided us with useful insight into theexperience of data collection across campus. We observed that there seems to be very limitedstandardization of data across departments; data collection was described as an activity embarkedupon by departments based on their very specific needs. Data was not collected with the aim offeeding into a larger process like a circularity analysis. However, within departments thereappeared to be a focus on collecting relevant data to inform or evaluate various ongoinginitiatives and pilot projects.Our observation of the lunch and learn event on zero waste and sustainability showed us thework that is being done around familiarizing the student community with work related to wastereduction, to ensure that the UBC community is able to participate actively in the process ofcareful waste management to support the goals set by the university.Overview of recurring themesAcross our interviews with internal and external stakeholders and observation of the zero-wastecommittee, using pilot projects was identified as a valuable tool for learning in the process oftransitioning towards circularity. Additionally, the decentralized nature of universities was acommon challenge and resulted in the need for human resources that are focused on20implementing circular processes and engaging with various data stewards to facilitate datacollection for a circularity analysis.5.0 DiscussionThe following section unpacks some of the report’s key findings in greater detail. Finalrecommendations will be outlined in section 6.0. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the maininsights gleaned from interviews and which institutions these insights came from.Table 1Key insights SourceCreation of a committee can be valuable way ofbringing relevant voices around the table andkeeping the process moving alongQuebec ProvinceCreate at least one staff role to work on circularity McGill UniversityInvolve at least 2-4 people (academics) ifconducting a Life Cycle AnalysisQuebec ProvinceCircularity analysis teams of 1-4 staff Quebec CollegeCreate a context-specific definition of“circularity”McGill UniversityQuebec CollegeQuebec ProvinceUBC StaffIdentify department or material(s) for pilot McGill UniversityDevelop indicators for measuring circularity anddevelop baseline data as you go(Baseline data should focus on where things comefrom, who decides how they are processed, whotracks them and eventually how are theytransferred, what are the removal logistics)McGill UniversityQuebec ProvinceEngage students McGill UniversityUBC Staff21Engage university leadership and get support McGill UniversityQuebec CollegeUBC Staff5.1 Piloting as blueprint5.1.1 The significance of contextThis research sought to understand how to best conduct a circularity analysis in the UBCcontext. The process of conducting a circularity analysis and implementing circular economymeasures often begins at a small scale. Typically, an initial inventory of specific materials, forexample IT equipment, is undertaken. These are then tagged and tracked throughout theirlifespan, including at the potential disposal or reuse stage. This provides a clear picture of howitems are used, for how long, and how they are dealt with at end of life. In doing so, a moreaccurate picture of the circularity, or lack thereof, of specific types of items is gained, whichprovides useful information on the current state of circularity for that given case. Ideally, thesepilot projects can then be undertaken with other items and in other departments, eventuallyscaling up to university-wide analyses. It is worth noting that piloting already takes place insome settings at UBC, with waste and sustainability projects first trialed at a small scale to assesstheir efficacy, before applying them across the university. Niero et al. (2019) argue that it can bechallenging to identify a set of universal indicators to conduct a circularity analysis, sinceindicators tend to be contextual. Context is therefore important insofar as institutions can developtheir own circularity analysis framework to meet their needs. For example, as part of theircircularity analysis, Quebec took stock of high level inputs like fishing, forestry, and agricultureand then sought to understand how these inputs translated into the province’s waste output. This22high-level approach to a circularity analyses could form part of UBC’s strategy, but wouldclearly need to be adapted to fit the UBC-specific context.On the other hand, small-scale pilots for doing a circularity analysis, with some flexibilityand adaptability built-in, can also be used for a variety of materials and material objects,irrespective of context. Conducting an analysis and implementing circularity measures at thelevel of an individual item (e.g. IT) can be replicated for other items and item groups, such asfurniture and appliances. As one external participant highlighted:“There's different people, different stakeholders, different issues. But for me, now it's mucheasier because I have the blueprint of what I need. I know I need my stakeholder groups, I needto issue the roles and responsibilities, who's going to be the asset steward, who's going to be theasset administrator taking care of the inventory, and then we need to have people at the back endto determine what's our reuse eligibility criteria. Then you have to find logistics, we have our listfor internal reuse loops then we go hunting for external reuse loops" - Respondent 5(Procurement, McGill)While it may not be possible to develop a “one size fits all” approach to conducting acircularity analysis at an institution-wide level and from the “top-down”, a circularity analysiscan first be conducted at a small scale, and the same approach then applied to other materials,flows and departments. In a sense, conducting a circularity analysis is therefore a “bottom-up”process.5.1.2 Developing policy “after the fact”At the beginning of this research process, the research team began with a preconceivednotion that in order to conduct a circularity analysis a UBC-wide policy for measuring andanalyzing material flows may have to be developed first, or early on in the process. This wasprimarily based on dominant scholarship on circularity analyses, which discusses the process asbeing the development of universal indicators, along with recurring suggestions that acomprehensive tool for measuring circularity would be invaluable (e.g. Ellen MacArthur23Foundation, 2020). Conversely, our findings suggest that policy as it relates to capturing thelifespan of materials and material objects, and policy on who decides what happens to them attheir end of life, can be developed iteratively. For example, McGill University developed aprocess for understanding the lifespan of IT assets first, because they viewed these to be thehighest risk items in terms of both material and financial waste. Once they tracked and tagged allIT assets, and developed a system for redistributing - internally or externally - at their ‘end oflife’, the university was able to conduct the same process for other items. As they developed anunderstanding of flows, developed reuse criteria, and decided who was responsible fordecision-making in relation to end-of-life items and managing logistics, they were able todevelop circularity policies for more items, with a view to using this information to eventuallydevelop a university-wide policy for circularity. Analyses can therefore be conducted for singularobjects, types of objects or departments, with some informal guidelines in place to steer thisprocess. Once this process is working well, and has been conducted in a number of departments,a policy can be developed for future measurement and analysis of material flows. This is relevantboth for UBC in their journey towards conducting a circularity analysis, and for otherorganizations and institutions who desire to conduct a circularity analysis. As such, policy can bedeveloped at a later point, based on learnings acquired throughout the process.5.2 Data5.2.1 Metrics, indicators and narrativesThis research sought to understand what data would be required in order for UBC toundertake a circularity analysis. Metrics and indicators were primarily in mind, as these were thedata most commonly referred to by others in the field (e.g. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2020;24Rocchi et al, 2021). It was discovered that a large volume of metrics and quantitative data onwaste already exist at UBC, but that there can sometimes be barriers to obtaining data. Barriersmight include whether, for example, data is held by a third party, as is the case with somerecycling data, or if it is hard to access, as is the case with some data which is accessible throughWorkday2 . While it might be the case that these data-types are somewhat important for gettingthe process “off the ground”, and that barriers to obtaining data may be a hindrance, qualitativedata that can provide a comprehensive picture of who is responsible for items and flows,including how their “end of life” direction is decided and by whom, might be equally if not moreimportant. In order to add nuance to the traditional focus of circularity literature on metrics andindicators, information on the journey of materials and who is involved in managing and makingdecisions about these materials is just as vital for beginning the process of conducting acircularity analysis . The research findings have provided some indication regarding what typesof data will be needed, and what types of data already exist, but this is not comprehensive, andmore work may have to be undertaken to ascertain what data UBC needs beyond what is listedbelow in Table 2. One approach to finding this out could be to recruit the support of UBCacademics working on circularity, who may be able to support in the development of amethodology and analysis strategy - which was the approach taken by the province of Quebec.Table 2 indicates the data this research identified as having been useful to external intervieweeswho had conducted some form of circularity analysis, as well as data which some UBC staffidentified as already being available at the institution.2 Workday is a software that is used for a range of financial actions at UBC. In relation to data connected tocircularity/waste, some reimbursements and procurement activities have their data stored in Workday. Retrievingthis has time and labor commitments. Additionally, some data is “stewarded” by individuals and departments atUBC meaning that it is not readily accessible and often requires good relations in order to be accessed by interestedparties.25Table 2Data needed (general materialinputs e.g. where do materialobjects come from)Data needed (UBC ordepartmental level)Data which already exists atUBCForestry What UBC purchases Some waste metrics*Agriculture Who is responsible forpurchasing itemsCompostingMining Who keeps track of UBC’s itemsand howStaff and student waste-relatedbehaviorWater Where does the majority ofwaste at UBC goStaff and student reactions toprevious projectsEnergy What items are most likely toend up in landfill at UBCFrom student housing: data onwork with De-brand (clothing);company who shreds theirexcess linen and pillows; batteryrecycling; glass recyclingWho currently decides whathappens to an item or item groupat their “end of life”Facilities management data onreuse of tubes*Some waste metrics are held by departments. Some waste metrics (e.g. recycling) are held by the third party, where the thirdparty is responsible for UBC’s waste processing.5.2.2 Learning by doingIn addition, while beginning the process of conducting a circularity analysis with somedata can be useful, having comprehensive data on every aspect of assets and material flowsmight not be necessary in order to begin the process. Instead, conducting a circularity analysisand implementing circular economy measures can involve a considerable amount of “learning bydoing”; that is, not capturing all data before conducting a circularity analysis but insteadbeginning the process of understanding how materials currently flow through a department, at asmall scale, and gathering relevant data along the way. In some cases, the data that is initiallyuseful will become redundant at a later stage in the process. Indicators and metrics might26therefore be a useful analytical tool, but a circularity analysis can begin without them beingsolidified. While debate continues about which metrics are required to conduct circularityanalyses in general, our results indicate that data can be collected during the process (De Oliveiraet al., 2020; Rocchi et al., 2021). As such, while it may be useful to begin the process with someindicators, it is more important to get the process “off the ground” and develop indicatorsiteratively instead of lamenting over the “right” indicators. A starting point, for example, couldbe to develop an understanding of where items and materials come from; decide who managesthese items; decide who and how they are tracked; select a person to be responsible for trackingand tagging3 the item and for deciding the future of disused items; creating communicationchannels for finding new homes for items and; deciding removal logistics. At McGill, after thesedetails were agreed upon and circularity measures were being implemented, the most appropriateindicators and metrics were identified by the people responsible for tracking and redistributingdisused or unwanted items. Indicators could also be adapted, if it was discovered that they wereno longer useful. For UBC specifically, while data is often gathered prior to the initiation of pilotprojects, it may not be necessary to gather an expansive or comprehensive data set ahead ofproject commencement in the context of circularity analysis. Rather, it may be possible to beginwith a rough set of indicators, which can be refined and adapted as the process advances.Additionally, it may be more important to gather the relevant staff members for one item or itemgroup to establish roles and responsibilities, and criteria for reuse. Once the process ofimplementing circularity measures is underway, it will likely become easier to identify what therelevant indicators and metrics should be for any given item or item group.3 At McGill University, understanding flow of materials was done, in part, by tracking down all items belonging toan item group (IT equipment), tagging them, and assigning responsibility for them to a person/person. Tracking andtagging all items meant that the Sustainability Officer could collect data on what IT equipment existed, who had it,what condition it was in and, when it was not wanted or in use, a decision could be taken about where it would gonext, based on a set of criteria that were developed at the beginning of the process and adapted throughout.275.3 Towards a shared understanding of “circularity”While establishing what data might be required and to what extent data is valuable forbeginning a circularity analysis is fundamental, it is perhaps more important for all relevantactors to begin with a shared understanding of what circularity is and the purpose of identifiedprojects. In order to do so, it is critical that stakeholders involved in undertaking a circularityanalysis, whether at a small or large scale, agree on a common narrative or understanding ofexactly what is meant by “circularity”. As one external participant highlighted:“…it's not set in stone which is great in a way because, you know, you can develop anything andyou can adapt it to your to your needs, but the offset is that for instance, when we were analyzingthem we were putting a number of how many of the outputs were being looped. Some people weresaying energy recovery is a form of a loop. So there was not clear boundaries on not cleardefinitions on some indicators that we proposed" - Respondent 8 (Researcher, Quebec College)Therefore, forming a common definition should include close consideration of what does anddoes not count as reuse, as well as what items and materials will be included in the commondefinition of circularity.Further, as Niero et al. (2019) and Rocchi et al. (2021) have both emphasized, it has beenchallenging thus far to agree upon how to conduct a circularity analysis and how to implementcircularity measures. This step is a vital component for conducting a circularity analysis at UBC,and should take place early on in the process, with scope to review the definition as the projectprogresses.5.4 Resources: People, money and timeAnother precursor to conducting a circularity analysis which precedes the need formetrics and indicators, is the securing of required resources - namely money, time, and human28resource capacity. In many cases, circularity-related work is currently done “on the side” of auniversity employee’s other work, which makes the prospect of undertaking additional workdaunting and potentially unrealistic. Beyond the need for at least one additional staff member orteam to be working on a circularity analysis in order for it to be successful, the involvement ofother departments, faculty and teams, university leadership, and at times students can also act asa facilitator to a successful circularity analysis. Additionally, a circularity analysis andimplementing circular economy measures is a considerable time commitment, with someanalyses taking over 6 months to complete (and possibly more depending on the scope andcontext). This latter point confirms the need to have people and money dedicated to the processof conducting a circularity analysis and as Niero et al. (2019) point out, these will likely besomewhat context specific. The successful cases we examined typically had 1-4 people workingon the project in varying capacities, ranging from full-time to part-time support, for severalmonths, as well as a steering committee. Plans for larger analyses typically had dedicated teamswith timelines of several years. In almost all external and internal interviews, participantsindicated that circularity required additional funding and at least one, if not more, dedicatedproject manager to sustain the project - all of which would be made more possible throughbuy-in from senior leadership. Evidently, there are many more practical elements necessary forconducting a circularity analysis than just metrics or indicators alone, and in the context of UBC,adequately resourcing a circularity analysis will be a central determinant of the success andlongevity of this project. Future research may wish to consider in greater detail what resourcesare valuable and necessary to the process of conducting a circularity analysis.295.5 Engagement and buy-inIn addition to securing resources, engaging with the student population and securing thesustained engagement and backing of senior management were also identified throughout ourstudy as being central features of a successful circularity analysis. Again, this is outside therealm of metric and indicator driven approaches that have been the dominant focus fororganizations working on the development of circularity analysis tools, like the Ellen MacArthurFoundation (2020). Our findings indicate that beyond defining a set of relevant data points aheadof and during the circularity analysis process, those involved will need to implement a range ofpersuasive, co-ordinated, and sustained communication strategies in order to ensure that studentsare supportive and responsive to any new circularity measures being implemented. In addition,convincing senior management at UBC of the need for conducting a circularity analysis will bevital in helping to secure the much-needed financial resources, especially additional staff, and thetime commitment required to conduct a circularity analysis. As one external participant noted:"...there was a barrier in terms of the support from the high level. It's not that sustainabledevelopment or environment is not viewed as important, I think everyone is okay with theprinciple. It's really in terms of that there's a lot of administrative challenges right now at thecollege, and just at the, they have to concentrate on how to manage the college. And so in thatcontext, sustainable development is seen as something that is not necessary, or we'll do that lateronce we're more settled. Even though it appears in some strategic plans, or when we discuss withthe administration , they say it is important, like, we see that something is always being pushed.So without…dedicated people, like a Sustainable Development office or person whose job it is todo that kind of analysis, and it is mandated, I think it's really hard to work around that.” -Respondent 8 (Researcher, Quebec College)One way of doing this may be to explicate, based on findings from this report, theuniversity’s ability to meet its own goals as laid out in their Zero Waste Action Plan (Universityof British Columbia, 2014), the overall reputation of the university as a leader in sustainability30initiatives, and the potential for a circularity analysis to have a positive impact on the long-termfinancial costs to the university.Further, it may be beneficial to foster student engagement in the early stages of acircularity analysis as a means to procure increased support from senior leadership. Participantsdiscussed the potential of student support to influence leadership decisions. In UBC’s studentaccommodation, work has already been undertaken to educate students on sustainable options forunwanted items at the end of their stay in student accommodation, and those seeking toimplement circularity measures at UBC should seek to learn from and build upon this approach,in order to ensure students are on board with the development and implementation of circularitymeasures. Student support can also be engaged to participate in the process of conducting acircularity analysis. One institution engaged students in the process of gathering data relating toitems and item groups where a circularity analysis was being conducted and circularity measuresimplemented. Broad student support, in the form of political will, as well as practical support,will be a key factor in ensuring the required resources for conducting a successful circularityanalysis. Lastly, it is important that staff are aware of what is happening, and why, in relation tothe analysis and management of material flows at UBC so that they can support procedureswhere needed, such as providing access to data that they preside over.6.0 RecommendationsFrom the research conducted we have a number of recommendations to put forth. Theseprimarily relate to governance, resourcing, data and indicators of a circularity analysis.311. Create a circularity analysis committeeThe central recommendation is to create a committee with the purpose of undertaking acircularity analysis at UBC. It should involve stakeholders from procurement and wastemanagement roles, student reps, and faculty from both scientific and social scientificbackgrounds. The committee should play a central role in ascertaining how much staff resourceand budget should be committed to the analysis.2. Create at least one project lead/officer positionWe recommend that UBC create at least one new staff position, and associated budget forthis role (e.g. Circularity Analysis Project Manager/Officer). Creating a new position to managethe circularity analysis will require adequate time and funding to support the success of thecircularity analysis. An external interviewee stated that their successful analyses typicallyincluded 1-4 dedicated staff working on the project for several months, and we assume that asimilar model would support success at UBC. Our findings suggest that creating multiplepositions would further increase the likelihood of successful circularity analyses, although moreresearch is needed on how many staff members are needed, and the related budget. These staffmembers would be responsible for undertaking tasks including coordinating stakeholders anddepartments, developing a robust communications strategy, project management, life-cycleanalyses, and the development of a strong relationship with senior management in order tosecure the future needs of the project.UBC has a strong research focus amongst its faculty, and internal interviews showed adesire to utilize this to support circularity analyses and initiatives. Further exploration on howbest to include faculty in circularity analyses at UBC should be conducted.323. Create a UBC-specific definition of circularity and circularity analysisAs a starting point, it will be vital that this committee creates a context-specific definitionof circularity that will be used for the circularity analysis. One approach to doing this could be ina workshop setting, and by involving academics who work on circular economy. Once adefinition is developed, we recommend identifying a specific material(s) or department to pilot acircularity analysis. After conducting a pilot, it may be worthwhile to review the initial commondefinition of circularity.4. Gather baseline data and develop indicators for measuring circularityIt will be useful to collect internal baseline data to determine the starting point for UBC,as well as the most impactful areas of opportunity for improvement. To do this, UBC shouldidentify all individuals who interact with the flow of the material(s) identified for pilot projectsand interview them to find out what their responsibilities are in relation to the material, thedisposal of the material, and the potential for reuse of the material. Concurrently, the committeeshould develop indicators for measuring the circularity of these specific cases or items. Theseindicators should be continuously reviewed, and iteratively adapted as their efficacy becomesapparent through a process of ongoing data collection. Table 2 provides a starting pointregarding what data will be useful to UBC, but further research could identify additional datasources that will be useful beyond this.5. Develop a formal engagement strategy for staff, students, and university leadershipWe recommend that the committee and/or Circularity Project Manager develop a formalstrategy to engage students and university leadership in order to garner broad support for future33circularity practices on campus. Ensuring the widespread support of students will help to ensurethat any new circularity measures are understood and supported. Generating an enhancedawareness of the benefits of circularity measures may also serve as a useful tool for holding theinstitution accountable. Gaining the support of university leadership will be an important way ofmaintaining the resources necessary for the success of a circularity analysis. Further study isrequired on how best to garner this support, but promoting current circularity initiatives is apromising starting point. Doing so may foster broader engagement and support of circularityamongst members of the UBC Community.7.0 ConclusionIn this report, we explored best practices from various institutions with the aim ofsupporting UBC in the development of a circularity analysis. We found that, although theconcepts of circular economy (CE) and circularity have gained momentum in the past few years,existing literature rarely addresses the indicators needed to develop a circularity analysis and,when it does, findings are still highly contextual.For this reason, we proceeded by analyzing circularity strategies developed by differentinstitutions, both universities and jurisdictions, and then focused on the UBC context in order toassess what best practices might apply to our institution.Contrary to our expectations, this research did not find one clear vision of what asuccessful circularity analysis looks like. Rather, there are a number of facets that can helppost-secondary institutions conduct circularity analyses.34Our main finding was that, being the context under consideration highly significant, it ispossible to conduct a circularity analysis starting on a small scale, and then develop a circularityframework. Specific policy can be formulated at a later time, in an iterative manner. Morespecifically, successful pilot projects conducted in one sector or department could potentially bescaled up and applied to other settings. Piloting may allow UBC to progressively gather andanalyze data throughout the process, adopting a “learning by doing” approach. In terms of data,we concluded that it is not necessary to collect all data prior to the analysis. Instead, it might bemore useful to agree on some common indicators that can be then revised if necessary. Asreported in the literature, indicators can be adopted to measure circularity for a variety of sectors,such as pilot projects on individual assets, groups of assets (material flows), or flows such aswaste, energy, and water . Just like other institutions, UBC has already implemented some pilotprojects that might represent a good starting point for data collection.Nonetheless, before the identification of indicators to measure circularity, externalstakeholders have indicated the importance of adopting a common definition of the concept.Ensuring a shared understanding of circularity was identified as an important baseline which isespecially useful in the first stages of conducting a circularity analysis.In terms of data collection, some major obstacles exist at UBC, especially when it comesto its accessibility, since data is often held by a third party and thus difficult to obtain. Fromexternal stakeholders, we found that the usefulness of quantitative indicators had previously beenoverestimated in the literature for the development of circularity analyses. Although stillrelevant, merely focusing on quantitative data could result in inadequate understanding of crucialdynamics unfolding at UBC, which may be more thoroughly understood through a qualitativeapproach. More specifically, qualitative data on who is responsible for data collection might35provide significant insights on major stakeholders involved in circularity-related tasks and therole they play at UBC, thus producing a more comprehensive picture of the context examined.When considering quantitative components, it is impactful to utilize an iterative process, withlearnings re-integrated into the project and future initiatives. It appears to be preferable to beginthe process with imperfect metrics/indicators and to adapt as needed, rather than lament overwhat the perfect indicators may be without beginning the analysis.As suggested by all external stakeholders, resources play a critical role as facilitators ofsuccess. In particular, committing money, time, and human resources can prove vital to sustainthe effort towards circularity.Lastly, it is important to ensure strong channels of communication and awareness-raisingexist among all relevant stakeholders, including students and faculty, and to secure support fromsenior management for the principles that underpin the need to do a circularity analysis in thefirst place.The recommendations provided should be followed as guidelines to develop a circularityanalysis at UBC. Nonetheless, it is important to keep in mind that the process of developingcircularity is not a linear one, and as such it requires continuous revision and re-elaboration ofpractices, together with great flexibility of all stakeholders involved.36ReferencesAguilar-Hernandez, G. A., Sigüenza-Sanchez, C. P., Donati, F., Merciai, S., Schmidt, J.,Rodrigues, J. F., & Tukker, A. (2019). The circularity gap of nations: A multiregionalanalysis of waste generation, recovery, and stock depletion in 2011. Resources, Conservationand Recycling, 151, 104452.Circle Economy. (2021). The Circularity Gap Report Quebec. Available at:https://assets.website-files.com/5e185aa4d27bcf348400ed82/60f530dea0bd951f852f229e_20210715%20-%20CGR%20Quebec%202021%20-%20report%20-%20EN%20-%20210x297mm.pdfDelchet-Cochet, K. (2020). Circular Economy: From Waste Reduction to Value Creation. JohnWiley & Sons.De Oliveira, C. T., Dantas, T. E. T., & Soares, S. R. (2020). Nano and micro levelcircular economy indicators: Assisting decision-makers in circularity assessments.Sustainable Production and Consumption.Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), 2020. Circulytics - measuring circularity. Available at:https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/resources/circulytics/journey.Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (n.d.). Resources. Circulytics. Retrieved October 10, 2021, fromhttps://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/resources/circulytics/resources.Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: the expectedtransition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleanerproduction, 114, 11-32.Gregson, N. and Crang, M. (2015). From Waste to Resource: The Trade in Wastes and GlobalRecycling Economies. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 2015 40:1, 151-176Jacobi, N., Haas, W., Wiedenhofer, D., & Mayer, A. (2018). Providing an economy-widemonitoring framework for the circular economy in Austria: Status quo and challenges.Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 137, 156-166.Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: Ananalysis of 114 definitions. Resources, conservation and recycling, 127, 221-232.Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular economy: The concept and itslimitations. Ecological Economics, 143, 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041Kovanda, J., Hak, T., & Janacek, J. (2008). Economy-wide material flow indicators in the CzechRepublic: trends, decoupling analysis and uncertainties. International Journal ofEnvironment and Pollution, 35(1), 25-41.Mayer, A., Haas, W., Wiedenhofer, D., Krausmann, F., Nuss, P., & Blengini, G. A. (2019).Measuring progress towards a circular economy: a monitoring framework for economy‐wide material loop closing in the EU28. Journal of industrial ecology, 23(1), 62-76.37McCormick, E., Murray, B., Kijewski, L., Fonbuena, C., Saraçoğlu, G., Fullerton, J., Firdaus, F.,Brown, Q., Asiedu, K.G., Ahmed, R. (2019). Where does your plastic go? Global investigationreveals America's dirty secret. The Guardian. June, 17.McGill University. (2020). Climate and Sustainability Strategy 2020-2025. Available at:https://www.mcgill.ca/sustainability/files/sustainability/mcgillclimatesustainability2025_-_reduced.pdfNess, D. (2008). Sustainable urban infrastructure in China: Towards a Factor 10 improvementin resource productivity through integrated infrastructure systems. The InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 15(4), 288-301.Niero, M., & Kalbar, P. P. (2019). Coupling material circularity indicators and life cycle basedindicators: A proposal to advance the assessment of circular economy strategies at the productlevel. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 140, 305-312.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.002Opportunity Peterborough. (2018). Circular City Roadmap - an ambitious plan & performancemonitoring framework towards 2021. Available at:http://www.futurepeterborough.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/PREVIEW_Peterboroughs-Circular-City-Roadmap.pdfRaupova, O., Kamahara, H., & Goto, N. (2014). Assessment of physical economy througheconomy-wide material flow analysis in developing Uzbekistan. Resources, Conservationand Recycling, 89, 76-85.Rocchi, L., Paolotti, L., Cortina, C., Fagioli, F. F., & Boggia, A. (2021). Measuring circularity:An application of modified material circularity indicator to agricultural systems. Agriculturaland Food Economics, 9(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-021- 00182-8Stumpf, L., Schöggl, J. P., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2021). Climbing up the circularity ladder?–Amixed- methods analysis of circular economy in business practice. Journal of CleanerProduction, 316, 128158.University of British Columbia. (2014). Zero Waste Action Plan. Available at:https://planning.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/2020-01/PLAN_UBC_Zero_Waste_Action_Plan%202014%2010%2003%20final.pdfUniversity of Toronto. (n.d). University of Toronto Mississauga Strategic Strategic PlanFostering a Culture of Sustainability 2030. Available at:https://www.utm.utoronto.ca/green/sites/files/green/public/shared/UTM_SustainabilityStrategicPlan_FosteringACultureOfSustainability2030%20%28lowres%29%20%28pages% 29.pdfVölker, T., Kovacic, Z., & Strand, R. (2020). Indicator development as a site of collectiveimagination? The case of European Commission policies on the circular economy. Culture andOrganization, 26(2), 103-120.38
Report
eng
Unreviewed
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report
University of British Columbia. RES 505
Waste
Procurement
Community
Developing a Framework for a Circularity Analysis at UBC
Text