| Title | Critical appraisal of recycling indicators used in European criticality exercises and circularity monitoring |
|---|---|
| ID_Doc | 16304 |
| Authors | Espinoza, LAT |
| Title | Critical appraisal of recycling indicators used in European criticality exercises and circularity monitoring |
| Year | 2021 |
| Published | |
| Abstract | Recycling indicators are an important part of criticality assessments and circularity reporting. This paper examines the definitions of recycling indicators used in EU reporting, compares and contrasts them with definitions from the literature, and probes their fitness for use in European criticality studies and circularity reporting. In particular, it is shown that the end-of-life recycling input rate (Epsilon omicron L R Iota R, the material-centric indicator used both in criticality assessments and circular economy monitoring) is inappropriate on its own for measuring progress in the circular economy. The reason is that its value strongly depends on the lifetime of products and on demand growth, obscuring the efficacy of the waste management system, which is more directly reflected by the end-of-life recycling rate for individual elements. Furthermore, the differences in definition of Epsilon omicron L R Iota R used in EU reporting vs. the literature can be misleading and impedes direct comparison with other regions. The data basis is also key in appropriately measuring recycling performance. Since the EU has undertaken significant efforts to improve the information basis for recycling indicators, a progression of estimates of recycling indicators between the last two criticality exercises is reported and discussed. Finally, a critical review of the current status of the Epsilon omicron L R Iota R is presented, leading to recommendations for better use and communication of recycling indicators in European documents on the topics of raw materials criticality and circularity monitoring. |
| https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102208 |
Similar Articles
| ID | Score | Article |
|---|---|---|
4772
|
Huysveld, S; Hubo, S; Ragaert, K; Dewulf, J Advancing circular economy benefit indicators and application on open-loop recycling of mixed and contaminated plastic waste fractions(2019) | |
| 24815
|
Tonini, D; Albizzati, PF; Caro, D; De Meester, S; Garbarino, E; Blengini, GA Quality of recycling: Urgent and undefined(2022) | |
| 16767
|
Roithner, C; Rechberger, H Implementing the dimension of quality into the conventional quantitative definition of recycling rates(2020) | |
| 29250
|
Schulte, A; Kampmann, B; Galafton, C Measuring the Circularity and Impact Reduction Potential of Post-Industrial and Post-Consumer Recycled Plastics(2023)Sustainability, 15.0, 16 | |
| 5137
|
Haupt, M; Vadenbo, C; Hellweg, S Do We Have the Right Performance Indicators for the Circular Economy? Insight into the Swiss Waste Management System(2017)Journal Of Industrial Ecology, 21, 3 | |
| 26432
|
Bradley, JE; Auping, WL; Kleijn, R; Kwakkel, JH; Sprecher, B Reassessing tin circularity and criticality(2024)Journal Of Industrial Ecology, 28, 2 | |
| 2373
|
Yang, CK; Ma, HW; Liu, KH; Yuan, MH Measuring circular economy transition potential for industrial wastes(2023) | |
| 295
|
Pacurariu, RL; Vatca, SD; Lakatos, ES; Bacali, L; Vlad, M A Critical Review of EU Key Indicators for the Transition to the Circular Economy(2021)International Journal Of Environmental Research And Public Health, 18, 16 | |
| 5136
|
Hennebert, P; Navazas, A; Katrakis, E A Risk-Based Approach For Waste Management In The Modern Circular Economy: Propositions From The Eu Recycling Industries(2024) | |
| 27744
|
Sultan, AM; Lou, E; Mativenga, PT What should be recycled: An integrated model for product recycling desirability(2017) |