Analyzes urban bioeconomy indicators to measure circularity maturity in European regions, suggesting a flexible evaluation method.
<ns3:p>Background The European Commission is promoting the Circular Economy (CE) to replace the linear model with one based on recycling and reuse. A genuine commitment to the CE requires that organizations and cities first identify and quantify the value leakages within their resource flows before designing and implementing any CE-related initiatives. Methods This study presents an innovative set of Urban Bioeconomy Indicators (UBI) designed to assess and enhance CE initiatives in cities and regions, with a particular focus on biowaste management and valorization. Addressing the need for standardized yet locally adaptable metrics, this research proposes a comprehensive methodology for evaluating urban bioeconomy performance. The study’s methodology involved an extensive review of existing CE indicators, followed by a structured selection and adaptation process. This led to the development of 20 indicators across six key dimensions: Waste, Water, Energy, Economy, Society, and Policy. The UBI set uniquely integrates both quantitative and qualitative indicators, including ‘enabling factors’ that capture crucial but hard-to-quantify aspects of CE implementation. Results Key innovations of this research include: (1) a specific focus on urban bioeconomy, (2) emphasis on material valorization over energy recovery, (3) introduction of self-sufficiency indicators, and (4) incorporation of qualitative enabling factors. Nevertheless, the indicators are designed to measure both citizen behavior and waste management system performance, providing a holistic assessment of urban CE progress. Conclusions By providing a standardized yet flexible methodology, this work contributes to the advancement of urban bioeconomy assessment. It serves as a valuable tool for local authorities to measure, compare, and enhance their bioeconomy performance, potentially laying the groundwork for future urban CE evaluations and policy development.</ns3:p>
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pereira-Ferrer et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: