The circular economy (CE) is heralded as reducing material use and emissions while providing more jobs and growth. We explored this narrative in a series of expert workshops, basing ourselves on theories, methods and findings from science fields such as global environmental input-output analysis, business modelling, industrial organisation, innovation sciences and transition studies. Our findings indicate that this dominant narrative suffers from at least three inconvenient truths. First, CE can lead to loss of GDP. Each doubling of product lifetimes will halve the related industrial production, while the required design changes may cost little. Second, the same mechanism can create losses of production jobs. This may not be compensated by extra maintenance, repair or refurbishing activities. Finally, ‘Product-as-a-Service’ business models supported by platform technologies are crucial for a CE transition. But by transforming consumers from owners to users, they lose independence and do not share in any value enhancement of assets (e.g., houses). As shown by Uber and AirBNB, platforms tend to concentrate power and value with providers, dramatically affecting the distribution of wealth. The real win-win potential of circularity is that the same societal welfare may be achieved with less production and fewer working hours, resulting in more leisure time. But it is perfectly possible that powerful platform providers capture most added value and channel that to their elite owners, at the expense of the purchasing power of ordinary people working fewer hours. Similar undesirable distributional effects may occur at the global scale: the service economies in the Global North may benefit from the additional repair and refurbishment activities, while economies in the Global South that are more oriented towards primary production will see these activities shrink. It is essential that CE research comes to grips with such effects. Furthermore, governance approaches mitigating unfair distribution of power and value are hence essential for a successful circularity transition.
LINK
Several studies show that logistics facilities have spread spatially from relatively concentrated clusters in the 1970s to geographically more decentralized patterns away from urban areas. The literature indicates that logistics costs are one of the major influences on changes in distribution structures, or locations and usage of logistics facilities. Quantitative modelling studies that aim to describe or predict these phenomena in relation to logistics costs are lacking, however. This is relevant to design more effective policies concerning spatial development, transport and infrastructure investments as well as for understanding environmental consequences of freight transport. The objective of this paper is to gain an understanding of the responsiveness of spatial logistics patterns to changes in these costs, using a quantitative model that links production and consumption points via distribution centers. The model is estimated to reproduce observed use of logistics facilities as well as related transport flows, for the case of the Netherlands. We apply the model to estimate the impacts of a number of scenarios on the spatial spreading of regional distribution activity, interregional vehicle movements and commodity flows. We estimate new cost elasticities, of the demand for trade and transport together, as well as specifically for the demand for the distribution facility services. The relatively low cost elasticity of transport services and high cost elasticity for the distribution services provide new insights for policy makers, relevant to understand the possible impacts of their policies on land use and freight flows.
In the autumn of 2020, an autonomous and electric delivery robot was deployed on the BUas campus for the distribution of goods. In addition to the actual field test of the robot, we conducted research into various aspects of autonomous delivery robots. In this contribution we discuss the test with the autonomous delivery robot itself, the adjustments we had to make because the campus was very quiet due to COVID-19 and therefore there was less to transport for the robot, and the perception of people. with regard to the delivery robot, on the possible future areas of application and on the learning experiences we have gained in the tests.
