Circularity at the neighbourhood scale: co-creative living lab lessons

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. Practice relevance An important aspect of a living lab is in its ability is to collectively define structural problems and opportunities. This living lab widened the scope in which stakeholders understand and apply circular principles. Four key features of the living lab’s structure are: setting goals rather than delivering concrete results; a broad and open definition of problems; an advisory role in identifying real-world bottlenecks; and a co-creative organisation of experts drawn from the private sector (construction companies and developers), the public sector (municipalities and social housing companies), civil society (experts in affordable housing renovation, material reuse, and tendering), finance (social financiers) and knowledge institutions. The advantages and disadvantages of this flexible structure are discussed and hold insights for establishing future living labs.