{"title":"详细的废物流和循环率揭示了循环间隙概念的局限性","authors":"Alessio Miatto , Heinz Schandl , Naho Yamashita , Tomer Fishman","doi":"10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108319","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In recent discussions on circular economy metrics, the concepts of circularity rate and circularity gap have gained prominence. Countries have reached different levels of circularity, shaped by differences in their economic structures, yet still leaving a substantial gap. This article examines the limitations of the circularity gap concept, drawing on a counterfactual thought experiment that uses Japan, a leader in the 3Rs initiative, The Netherlands, a model of best practices, and Australia, which just developed its circular economy strategy. We discover that the three countries exhibit distinct levels of current and attainable circularity. However, when circularity is alternatively measured against each country's responsibility for primary material extraction, the three countries are strikingly similar. This outcome highlights the need to reevaluate the circularity gap concept, advocating for a narrative grounded in scientific evidence and reflecting what is realistically achievable for economies with diverse roles within global supply chains.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":21153,"journal":{"name":"Resources Conservation and Recycling","volume":"219 ","pages":"Article 108319"},"PeriodicalIF":11.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Detailed waste flows and circularity rates reveal the limits of the circularity gap concept\",\"authors\":\"Alessio Miatto , Heinz Schandl , Naho Yamashita , Tomer Fishman\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108319\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>In recent discussions on circular economy metrics, the concepts of circularity rate and circularity gap have gained prominence. Countries have reached different levels of circularity, shaped by differences in their economic structures, yet still leaving a substantial gap. This article examines the limitations of the circularity gap concept, drawing on a counterfactual thought experiment that uses Japan, a leader in the 3Rs initiative, The Netherlands, a model of best practices, and Australia, which just developed its circular economy strategy. We discover that the three countries exhibit distinct levels of current and attainable circularity. However, when circularity is alternatively measured against each country's responsibility for primary material extraction, the three countries are strikingly similar. This outcome highlights the need to reevaluate the circularity gap concept, advocating for a narrative grounded in scientific evidence and reflecting what is realistically achievable for economies with diverse roles within global supply chains.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21153,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Resources Conservation and Recycling\",\"volume\":\"219 \",\"pages\":\"Article 108319\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Resources Conservation and Recycling\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344925001983\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resources Conservation and Recycling","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344925001983","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Detailed waste flows and circularity rates reveal the limits of the circularity gap concept
In recent discussions on circular economy metrics, the concepts of circularity rate and circularity gap have gained prominence. Countries have reached different levels of circularity, shaped by differences in their economic structures, yet still leaving a substantial gap. This article examines the limitations of the circularity gap concept, drawing on a counterfactual thought experiment that uses Japan, a leader in the 3Rs initiative, The Netherlands, a model of best practices, and Australia, which just developed its circular economy strategy. We discover that the three countries exhibit distinct levels of current and attainable circularity. However, when circularity is alternatively measured against each country's responsibility for primary material extraction, the three countries are strikingly similar. This outcome highlights the need to reevaluate the circularity gap concept, advocating for a narrative grounded in scientific evidence and reflecting what is realistically achievable for economies with diverse roles within global supply chains.
期刊介绍:
The journal Resources, Conservation & Recycling welcomes contributions from research, which consider sustainable management and conservation of resources. The journal prioritizes understanding the transformation processes crucial for transitioning toward more sustainable production and consumption systems. It highlights technological, economic, institutional, and policy aspects related to specific resource management practices such as conservation, recycling, and resource substitution, as well as broader strategies like improving resource productivity and restructuring production and consumption patterns.
Contributions may address regional, national, or international scales and can range from individual resources or technologies to entire sectors or systems. Authors are encouraged to explore scientific and methodological issues alongside practical, environmental, and economic implications. However, manuscripts focusing solely on laboratory experiments without discussing their broader implications will not be considered for publication in the journal.