Exploring circular economy transition pathways: a roadmap analysis of 15 Canadian local governments

Abstract

This paper explores how 15 Canadian local governments of various sizes and contexts are transitioning to a circular economy by analysing their roadmap currently in development. It provides qualitative insights into how physical, socioeconomic and institutional factors are influencing the content of roadmaps, along with their similarities and differences. Drawing from the literature on the geography of transitions, we show that while local physical and socioeconomic attributes typically shape the roadmaps by determining likely activities, their actual trajectory varies based on the roadmap instigators and the broader institutional contexts in which they operate. The findings suggest the importance of local governments supporting the roadmap instigators while also recognising that circular economy transition pathways can capitalise on policies and programs not only locally but beyond local boundaries.

Introduction

Over the last decade, there has been a growing global interest in promoting a circular economy (CE) as a sustainable alternative to the predominantly linear economic model of ‘take-make-waste’. Conceptually, the CE aims to comprehensively transform the way modern societies produce and consume goods (Kirchherr et al., 2017), requiring all economic actors, from producers to consumers and public entities, to adopt more environmentally conscious behaviours (Beaurain et al., 2023). This transition aims to reduce harmful practices like natural resource extraction and non-recyclable waste through promoting and developing strategies like eco-design, sustainable sourcing, and recycling (Lieder and Rashid, 2016). In practice, achieving such a transition requires a collaborative effort from various stakeholders, including public authorities, businesses and institutions, through social and technological innovation (Chembessi et al., 2021).

To facilitate this transition, public authorities have developed various tools, including a circular economy roadmap (CER). A CER typically presents a vision and objectives for the transition, highlights key sectors and industries for CE implementation, specifies subsequent actions and policies, and, in some cases, outlines methods for monitoring, evaluation and stakeholder engagement (Bolger and Doyon, 2019). Additionally, a CER is not a standalone initiative; it interacts with other sustainability-related efforts ranging from local to national policies (Andersen, 2007; Domenech and Bahn-Walkowiak, 2019).

According to the OECD (2020) review, several European cities and regions, such as Amsterdam, Brussels, Helsinki and Umeå, have been at the forefront of adopting CERs at the subnational level. While most discussions about circular cities and regions primarily focus on European cases, insights from other regions, including North America, remain sparse, with only a few North American cities and regions beginning to transition towards CE (Prendeville et al., 2017; Bolger and Doyon, 2019; Marjanović et al., 2022). For example, in Canada, local authorities’ adoption of a CER is relatively new. In 2018, the Recycling Council of Alberta launched one of the pioneering initiatives involving four cities (Banff, Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge) and Strathcona County. This marked the first step in introducing the concept of circular cities into Canada’s national sustainability conversation (Marjanović et al., 2022). Building on this experience, the National Zero Waste Council, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Recycling Council of Alberta and Recyc-Québec took a further step in 2021 by initiating the Canadian Cities and Regions Circular Initiative (CCRI). The initiative was designed to assist local governments across Canada in formulating their roadmap (CCRI, 2023). The inaugural cohort of this program includes 15 diverse cities and regions, offering a unique research opportunity to understand the varied visions for developing a CE at a local level.

This paper proposes a qualitative assessment of the roadmaps envisioned by the initial cohort of local governments participating in the CCRI. We aim to empirically investigate the various transition pathways to a CE in different local contexts based on their dedicated roadmaps, guided by the following two questions: What are the converging and diverging characteristics of the CERs of these localities? How do physical, socioeconomic and institutional attributes influence the vision, prioritised sectors and planned actions outlined in the CERs?

To address the first question, we focussed on three key aspects commonly found in the 15 identified CERs—a vision of a CE, priority sectors and specific planned actions—to explore how CE principles are interpreted and applied across localities of varying sizes and contexts.

Regarding the second question, we analysed the influence of local physical, socioeconomic and institutional attributes on CERs, drawing on the geography of transitions literature (e.g. Fastenrath and Braun, 2018; Grillitsch and Sotarauta, 2020; Hansen and Coenen, 2015; Lawhon and Murphy, 2012; and,Murphy, 2015; and,Stambach and Pflitsch, 2020,and), and leveraging its insights into sustainability transitions to inform our study of CERs. In this perspective, we hypothesised that these local attributes matter in developing CERs and CE initiatives by determining the most probable sectoral focus and activities. However, we argue that local roadmap instigators may expand CE efforts beyond the potential defined solely by local attributes, depending on their organisational role, motivations and the institutional context under which they operate, including the organisation’s sustainability maturity and other government policies in place beyond the local boundaries.

Our approach is threefold. First, we reviewed and categorised the content of the CERs from the 15 Canadian local governments participating in the CCRI, focussing on their vision and objectives, targeted sectors and industries and key planned actions. We analysed converging and diverging patterns, considering local physical, social and economic attributes. Finally, we conducted semi-structured interviews with the roadmap instigators to examine the institutional dynamics.

The findings show that the focus and ambition of CERs vary considerably across localities, influenced more by the instigators and institutional context than by local attributes, such as resource endowment or economic activities. This variation can be attributed to three main factors further developed in the paper. First, roadmap instigators from different divisions of a local authority can bring diverse expertise, stakeholder networks and resources, affecting the roadmap’s direction, which can either be more environmentally focussed or economically focussed. Second, the motivations of roadmap instigators, ranging from leveraging local attributes to aligning with regional or national funding and policies, can expand local CE strategies beyond what local physical and socioeconomic attributes typically allow. Finally, institutional factors, including the local government’s experience in sustainability policy, political support and broader institutional context favourable to the CE, can shape the ambition of the transition strategy outlined in CERs. For example, more experienced authorities can navigate complex sustainability challenges more effectively, while political support locally and beyond the local boundaries can mobilise necessary resources and public acceptance for ambitious CE initiatives.

Consistent with institutional theories from the geography of transitions literature (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014; Grillitsch and Sotarauta, 2020; Strambach and Pfltsch, 2020), these findings highlight three key policy implications that are further discussed in the paper: (i) Expanding beyond local strengths to embrace opportunities from regional or national CE initiatives can serve as a potential transition pathway when developing a CER, for example for localities that are traditionally dependent on natural resource exploitation; (ii) Supporting CER instigators should be prioritised, as their work demonstrates their ability to drive change in complex institutional settings, particularly when local authorities lack sustainability experience; (iii) Aligning CERs with higher-level institutional goals (e.g. national policies and programs), even if they initially focus solely on environmental or economic development objectives is a strategic approach to leverage governmental support and provide the flexibility to expand the roadmap to becoming more comprehensive over time.

The paper is organised as follows. First, we provide background information on the localisation of CERs. Then, we propose a threefold theoretical framework derived from the geography of transitions literature to investigate the diversity of CE transition strategies: physical and socioeconomic attributes, institutional entrepreneurship and institutional context under which the transition strategy is developed. Our approach is then outlined based on a qualitative analysis of the roadmap content and semi-structured interviews with the roadmap instigators. The main findings are presented subsequently. Lastly, we discuss how these findings relate to the literature on circular cities and regions, including their policy implications, and conclude by highlighting potential avenues for future research.

Background on localised circular economy roadmaps

The development of CERs has made significant progress over the last few years in various national and subnational settings, reflecting the growing recognition and public policy application of CE principles (Smol, 2023). In the past, these roadmaps primarily focussed on a limited number of sectors (e.g. waste management), adopting a ‘mono-sectoral’ approach and were primarily designed to align with and support the goals of industrial growth and development, potentially at the expense of a broader, more integrated approach that considers environmental sustainability, social equity and economic diversity (Liu and Ramakrishna, 2021). This narrow approach resulted in highly targeted CERs that addressed industry-specific challenges, such as waste reduction and industrial symbiosis, particularly in the manufacturing industry. While this approach effectively addressed industry-specific issues, it often overlooked the interconnectedness between sectors, stakeholders and the potential for systemic change in a given location (Beaurain et al., 2023).

However, as the CE principles gained wider acceptance (Chedrak et al., 2023; Chembessi et al., 2023), roadmaps have evolved to adopt a more integrated, systemic approach. This shift is characterised by a broader scope that includes multiple sectors and stakeholders, encapsulating the complexity of real-world systems (OECD, 2020). An example of this evolution is the Regional Program for the Circular Economy in the Brussels Capital, a comprehensive, region-wide roadmap involving 111 measures across four strategic areas: cross-functional measures (a suitable regulatory framework, direct and indirect aid, innovation, procurement contracts, employment, training, education); sector-based measures (construction, resources and waste, trade, logistics, food); territorial measures (targeted planning and zoning strategy) and governance measures (strengthened co-operation between administrations) (OECD, 2020). The Brussels Capital roadmap involved diverse stakeholders, from businesses to residents and policymakers, and addressed numerous industrial sectors, setting ambitious targets aimed at enhancing economic, social and environmental outcomes. The development of this roadmap on the scale of a city region like Brussels further underscores the importance of local governments in shaping CE transition pathways.

The role of subnational governments in the conception and implementation of CERs has been acknowledged in recent literature (Bolger and Doyon, 2019; Bourdin et al., 2022; Marjanović et al., 2022; Niang et al., 2020; Williams, 2021,2023). Several lessons emerged from these studies. First, subnational governments are considered essential players in driving the transition to a CE within their jurisdiction due to their intimate understanding of local needs and opportunities (Bourdin et al., 2022). By leveraging their knowledge of local contexts and stakeholders, they are well-positioned to develop effective strategies tailored to their region’s environmental and socioeconomic challenges and opportunities (Williams, 2021). These strategies may diverge from those advocated nationally but are better suited to local circumstances (Niang et al., 2020). Second, developing a CE within a city or region necessitates extensive collaboration and coordination among diverse stakeholders, including policymakers, businesses, civil society organisations and the general public (Chembessi et al., 2021; Varjú et al., 2022). Involving a broad spectrum of stakeholders in the development process enhances the feasibility and effectiveness of the roadmap, as it ensures broad support and incorporates a diverse range of perspectives (Russell et al., 2020). This integrated approach often leads to more innovative and robust strategies responsive to various needs and concerns (Niang et al., 2020). Lastly, the successful development and implementation of CERs rely on the availability of financial resources and supportive policy frameworks, as they are significant drivers for realising the objectives outlined in the roadmap (Tura et al., 2019; Van Lierde and Gailly, 2015).

To support the increasing interest in transitioning towards a CE within their jurisdiction, various regional and national entities have developed guidelines or models that provide a structured approach for developing local CERs. For example, the Federal Government of Malaysia worked on guidelines and programs focussed on the CE for cities in 2020. They aimed to shape and facilitate the transition towards a CE in Malaysian cities by adopting and implementing best practices and models from the European Union (Chang, 2020). Another example comes from Circle Economy, a think tank that offers a set of guidelines for developing circular city strategies with a flexible approach. Their approach includes defining relevant stakeholders, performing a baseline assessment, prioritising focus areas, developing a vision, planning actions, establishing governance mechanisms, defining evaluation approaches and securing financial support (European Investment Bank, 2022). In Canada, Recyc-Quebec, a provincial governmental agency, has developed its comprehensive guideline that outlines the steps involved in roadmap development for Quebec cities and regions (Recyc-Quebec, 2022). The guidelines provide detailed advice on collecting, analysing, and translating this data into actionable strategies.

Despite the success of standardised guidelines in encouraging cities and regions to develop CERs, the context-dependent nature of CE transitions highlights the need for tailoring CER development to the specific conditions of each region (Bourdin et al., 2022; Coenen et al., 2012). In this regard, the geography of transitions literature proves particularly useful. As argued in the next section, it provides valuable insights into the variation of CERs across different cities and regions and the potential factors influencing these variations, thereby enhancing our understanding of the complexities involved in CER development and implementation.

Diversity in circular economy transition pathways: insights from the geography of transitions literature

To investigate the diversity in local CE transition pathways as outlined in their roadmaps, our approach draws upon the geography of transitions literature to emphasise location-specific sustainability factors and institutional dynamics likely to influence CE strategies. More specifically, we propose a threefold theoretical framework derived from this literature to explain the diversity in CE transition pathways: (i) the physical and socioeconomic attributes, including natural resources, environmental challenges and socioeconomic attributes of a given locality, which typically determine the most probable sectoral focus and activities in the transition strategy (Coenen et al., 2012; Fastenrath and Braun, 2018; Hansen and Coenen, 2015; Murphy, 2015,and); (ii) the institutional entrepreneurship that explore how individual actors or organisations can influence local transition pathways and ambition strategically (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014; Grillitsch and Sotarauta, 2020; Sotarauta et al., 2021) and (iii) the institutional context both locally and beyond local boundaries, including organisation maturity, political support and opportunities from local to national policies and programs (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014; Strambach and Pflitsch, 2020).

Physical and socioeconomic attributes

Physical and socioeconomic attributes play a well-documented role in shaping the ambition, focus and strategies of local sustainability transitions (Coenen et al., 2012; Fastenrath and Braun, 2018; Hansen and Coenen, 2015; Murphy, 2015,and). These attributes influence the direction and extent of local sustainability transition in various ways. First, the availability or scarcity of natural resources in a given locality directly impacts the choices made regarding environmentally sustainable activities, practices and technologies to support (Hansen and Coenen, 2015). For example, localities rich in resources may focus on renewable energy and recycling initiatives (Bridge et al., 2013), while those with scarce resources might prioritise efficiency and conservation strategies (Mavi and Mavi, 2019). Environmental challenges can also serve as catalysts for sustainability transitions. Thus, localities confronting significant environmental challenges often adopt ambitious local policies and initiatives, fostering the development of environmental innovations. These challenges shape their sustainability visions and align their efforts with the pressing need to tackle these issues (Hodson and Marvin, 2010; Rohracher and Späth, 2014). Socioeconomic factors are also involved in shaping local technological and industrial specialisation. For example, localities with favourable socioeconomic conditions, including a thriving business sector, high-income populations and low unemployment rates, typically have the financial resources and the ability to mobilise these resources easily, which are essential for developing the capabilities necessary for sustainability transitions (Fastenrath and Braun, 2018; Hodson and Marvin, 2010,and). Conversely, those facing socioeconomic challenges may find it more difficult to shape an ambitious sustainability transition. They are likely to limit themselves to narrower objectives, sectoral focus, and less intensive activities (Bridge et al., 2013).

These perspectives become more compelling when applied to CE transitions, for several reasons. First, the resource dependency of CE initiatives highlights geography’s central role in shaping subsequent transition pathways. Consequently, the availability or scarcity of natural or transformed resources is critical. It determines how much of these resources are present and how easily they are accessible and exploitable for economic activities. For example, localities endowed with abundant renewable resources are often strategically positioned to prioritise CE strategies related to these resources, leveraging their strengths. In contrast, those facing resource scarcity are compelled to focus on innovative resource management as a means of compensation (Karstensen et al., 2019).

Second, geographic attributes can amplify the connection between environmental adversity and the focus of CE initiatives outlined in the CERs. For example, cities and regions facing significant environmental challenges, such as high pollution levels from industries, resource depletion or ecological degradation, are more likely to adopt CE principles (Williams, 2021), and their roadmaps are likely to develop targeted solutions to address these challenges. In other words, environmental challenges can act as a catalyst for change, leading to the development of various environmental measures and promoting a sustainability culture among local economic stakeholders (Prendeville et al., 2017).

Third, socioeconomic factors are key determinants of a city or a region’s ability to adopt and implement an ambitious CER. Those with high socioeconomic conditions, such as access to significant financial capital and a supportive business environment, are more likely to invest in CE initiatives (Gue et al., 2021). This, in turn, contributes to shaping the focus and ambition level of their roadmaps. They can quickly develop the necessary infrastructure, technologies and expertise for ambitious strategies. However, those facing economic challenges may encounter barriers to entry, such as limited financial resources or workforce skills shortages, which can result in a roadmap restricted to addressing limited issues and taking fewer intensive actions (Gue et al., 2021).

Institutional entrepreneurship

Regardless of the role of geographical attributes discussed earlier, the ambition and content of CERs can also be influenced by the individuals or organisations driving their elaboration. Research on institutional entrepreneurship and change agents (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014; Grillitsch and Sotarauta, 2020; Sotarauta et al., 2021) provides evidence supporting this perspective.

Institutional entrepreneurs are individuals or groups within an organisation who drive innovation and change. They typically combine creative thinking with practical insight, focussing on solving problems and meeting needs, often in ways that break from traditional methods or thinking (Garud et al., 2007). Their vision, influence and actions are crucial in making theoretical aspects of sustainability more tangible and impactful (Sotarauta et al., 2021). Additionally, as change agents, they initiate and sustain change by engaging with stakeholders, mobilising resources and advocating for systemic shifts in attitudes and behaviours (Wirth et al., 2013). Their efforts ensure that transition pathways extend beyond mere roadmap elaboration, engaging with other local and national policies to address emerging sustainability challenges and opportunities (Avelino and Wittmayer, 2016; Chembessi et al., 2023; Grillitsch et al., 2023).

However, CE transitions differ from other sustainability approaches often led by environmental divisions, as they encompass a broader array of initiatives and stakeholders, including those involved in economic development. As a result, the ‘institutional entrepreneurs’ or instigators behind the CERs may also originate from a local authority’s economic or procurement division. The division to which they belong can influence the core vision embodied in the CER. For instance, instigators from the environmental division are more likely to prioritise ecological sustainability, as this is embedded in their mission, and they have a clear mandate for it. In contrast, those from the economic development division may focus on growth and technological innovation, aligning with their mission of supporting businesses. Based on the division of the CER instigators, this perspective disparity can lead to various CE transition approaches independent of a locality’s specific attributes.

Furthermore, regardless of the division where they belong, the motivations of the instigators (e.g. seizing economic opportunities, community benefits, aligning with higher levels of government, overcoming environmental challenges), along with their influence and strategic navigation within the organisation, result in strategic choices that are important to garnering support for specific actions in their CER. Their ability to articulate the benefits of the roadmap, align it with the organisation’s broader goals and engage key stakeholders is what makes the roadmap rooted in the specific context of each locality (Kristensen et al., 2023).

Institutional context

In addition to the institutional entrepreneurship perspective discussed earlier, the institutional context under which the roadmap is developed, from local to national levels, is also a key factor in shaping sustainability transition pathways (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014; Strambach and Pflitsch, 2020). CE initiatives typically involve interconnected cycles of resource use and recovery. Depending on each locality’s specific resource availability and the potential stakeholders contributing to circularity, these cycles may extend beyond local boundaries to encompass regional or national scales (Susur et al., 2019).

Among this institutional context, previous studies suggest influences stemming from a combination of (i) organisational maturity (Loorbach, 2010; Maassen, 2012), (ii) local political support (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014; Strambach and Pflitsch, 2020) and (iii) the broader context of regional or national priorities (Strambach and Pflitsch, 2020; Susur et al., 2019,and).

Organisational maturity refers to an organisation’s readiness to adopt CE principles, which can be influenced by its experience in sustainability policy. Local authorities with a strong background in sustainability are more likely to effectively embrace and implement detailed and action-oriented transition strategies (Loorbach, 2010). This is because their existing sustainability commitments provide a natural foundation for CE principles. Additionally, they benefit from an established, well-informed sustainability community and a collaborative network, which collectively facilitate the seamless adoption of CER, ensuring that priorities and activities are well-informed (Maassen, 2012).

Political support at the local level can also be an influential factor encompassing the degree to which local authorities and policymakers understand, endorse and are willing to invest in transition initiatives (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014; Tura et al., 2019). Thus, solid political backing can facilitate the implementation of CE practices and elevate the ambition level of CER. This support is typically provided through allocating necessary funds, creating favourable policies and legitimising these efforts in the public eye (Strambach and Pflitsch, 2020; Williams, 2023). The role of CER instigators in navigating such a complex political and institutional context, where numerous priorities and ambitions overlap and may compete, is as crucial as their knowledge and experience in sustainability and CE.

Lastly, beyond local boundaries, regional or national opportunities can act as strategic levers to advance transitions at the local level (Strambach and Pflitsch, 2020; Susur et al., 2019,and). For instance, a strong regional or national commitment to climate change can establish a foundational base for local CERs. Though it might seem narrow, starting solely with a focus on environmental sustainability can be an effective initial step. This approach also applies when regional or national opportunities are primarily oriented towards economic development goals. In such a case, strategically leveraging these opportunities by initially focussing the roadmap on economic objectives is beneficial. Over time, the CER can naturally evolve to incorporate more environmentally centric objectives and actions or integrate economic aspects if it starts with an environmental focus.

Based on the theoretical background provided in this section, we argue that CE transition strategies of local authorities are influenced by a complex combination of geographical and institutional factors. While these factors are difficult to isolate, understanding them is valuable to making progress in developing a sustainable alternative to the traditional linear economy. Physical and human geographical attributes are typically expected to explain converging patterns in localities with similar characteristics. At the same time, institutional entrepreneurship and context illustrate how CE transitions may diverge, irrespective of geographical attributes, due to opportunistic and strategic choices. The subsequent sections detail our empirical investigation, examining evidence of diversity in CE transition pathways through an analysis of pioneering local CERs in development in Canada.

Materials and methods

Roadmaps and characteristics of the selected Canadian local governments

To investigate the diverse pathways of CE transitions, we focussed on the inaugural cohort of the 2021 Circular Cities and Regions Initiative (CCRI) program in Canada. This program, launched by the National Zero Waste Council, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Recycling Council of Alberta and Recyc-Québec, aims to support local governments in creating their own CE roadmap. The inaugural cohort comprises 15 Canadian local governments (see Table 1), varying in size and context, making them particularly relevant to our analysis. Also, their roadmaps, which are currently in development, offer a rich perspective on the diverse approaches and visions for CE transition across various local settings. Furthermore, being in the process of developing a roadmap was a central criterion, along with the ability of the roadmap instigator to participate in the program’s peer-to-peer network.

To begin with, we collected data on the studied localities, including population size, environmental factors, and socioeconomic information. The data was obtained from official statistics, reports, and publications from local and national government agencies. This data was collected to contextualise CERs and identify potential factors influencing their content and direction. Table 1 provides an overview of the characteristics of the studied localities.

The table illustrates the wide range of populations, natural resources, and environmental and socioeconomic contexts across the studied localities. Population sizes vary from small towns like Chapais, QC, with 1468 residents, to large metropolises such as Montreal, with over 1.8 million people. The availability of natural resources also differs significantly. For instance, places like the Town of Canmore, AB, and the City of St. John’s, NL, are rich in resources such as wood, minerals, fish and oil, while others like the City of Richmond, BC, and the City of Vancouver, BC, have fewer notable resources. Environmental challenges, including vulnerability to climate change, waste management and air and water pollution, are prevalent in most areas regardless of location or population size. However, these challenges are often balanced by opportunities for sustainable development, such as ecotourism, green energy implementation and sustainable agriculture. Economic challenges, such as dependence on single industries or the public sector, are common in smaller localities. However, they share the potential for diversification and growth in sectors like biotechnology and tourism. Lastly, median income levels vary significantly, ranging from $43,000 to $92,000, and do not necessarily align with the abundance or lack of natural resources.

This diversity of contexts makes our case relevant for investigating various approaches to developing a CER. The variations in the availability of natural resources, for instance, could influence the types of resource recovery strategies adopted by localities in their CER. Cities with wood, minerals, fish and oil resources might focus on innovative recycling or repurposing strategies. In contrast, cities with limited resources could prioritise efficient resource use and conservation or concentrate on digital, service or knowledge-based circular economy initiatives. Environmental challenges may also shape their strategies. In regions where climate change has already had tangible impacts, CERs could emphasise the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In areas dealing with air and water pollution, the focus might be on strategies to reduce waste and emissions. Similarly, economic challenges can also guide roadmaps. In areas with high living costs, the affordability of sustainable products and services may be a focal point. In contrast, in regions reliant on a single industry or the public sector, the emphasis could be on creating new green jobs to diversify the economy. Lastly, the identified environmental and economic opportunities, such as ecotourism, renewable energies and sustainable agriculture, suggest that the roadmap will likely leverage these opportunities to stimulate local economies while promoting a sustainable transition.

CERs content-analysis

We conducted a qualitative content analysis of the roadmaps of the selected localities. Our objective was to explore various aspects of CE development strategies and identify converging and diverging patterns across the roadmaps. Specifically, we focussed on three themes that were consistently present in all roadmaps:

• Vision and objectives, which reflect the desired future state and outcomes each roadmap aims to achieve. Here, we seek to understand each locality’s strategic intent and focus in its CE agenda.

• Priority sectors or industries, which indicate the areas identified for the application of CE strategies and highlight the economic sectors considered suitable for transformation. Analysing these sectors helps estimate the roadmaps’ sectoral focus and potential economic outcomes.

• Types of anticipated actions, which refer to the specific interventions or initiatives proposed in the roadmaps. This theme provides insights into the practical measures and initiatives being considered to facilitate the transition towards a CE.

To ensure comparability and efficient data categorisation, we coded each theme based on similar points or statements compiled from the CERs. Two researchers independently conducted the coding process to minimise bias and enhance accuracy. After coding, we analysed the data, searching for patterns, relationships or trends among the categories. Our approach was iterative, revisiting earlier stages to refine the coding scheme and enhance the depth and validity of our analysis.

Semi-structured interviews with CER instigators

In addition to the content analysis, we conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with the roadmap instigators, chosen for their central role in shaping the roadmaps in their respective cities or regions. The interviews aimed to address three fundamental questions.

• Who initiated the roadmaps? We documented the overall experience of the roadmap instigators and the divisions they work in using the OECD (2021) categorisation. This categorisation includes the environmental, economic development and procurement divisions, which often play a leading role in shaping the CE agenda within subnational governments (OECD, 2020). Understanding the profile and affiliation of the roadmap instigators allowed us to infer the influences and inspirations behind the ambitions and objectives of the studied localities.

• What were their motivations? These motivations, which have been reviewed in previous studies on CE (e.g. Bourdin et al., 2022; Chembessi et al., 2023; Williams, 2023), include economic opportunities, social and community benefits, alignment with higher levels of government, demographic factors (i.e. targeting the consumer base for CE or using CE as a means to attract households), environmental challenges and opportunities, and cultural and institutional aspects. Answering this question allowed us to connect the roadmap strategies with inherent local attributes and more pragmatic reasons.

• Under what conditions were the roadmaps developed? We considered three factors that we could compare across the roadmaps: (i) the sustainability maturity of the organisation, determined by the presence of established sustainability-related policies and strategies, impacting the vision and objectives for CE development; (ii) the level of political support for the CE, which influences the ambition level of chosen actions; (iii) the opportunities presented by policies and programs locally and beyond the local boundaries. Paying attention to these situational variables throughout our investigation allowed us to reflect on how they also play a role in the course and content of the CERs.

Subsequently, to reduce individual biases and enable a more nuanced understanding of the data (White and Marsh, 2006), both researchers collaboratively interpreted the results from the content analysis and the interviews. Our goal was to reach a common understanding of the key considerations that influenced the roadmaps’ content and the process and dynamics behind their development. For interpretation, we relied on the theoretical background outlined in the previous section, considering the potential influence of physical, socioeconomic and institutional factors.

Findings

The findings are organised into three sections based on the converging and diverging characteristics of the roadmaps, which are influenced by (i) physical and socioeconomic attributes, (ii) the CER instigators and (iii) the institutional context under which the roadmaps were developed. In this section, our primary focus is on presenting the findings, while the discussion is reserved for a separate section of the paper.

On physical and socioeconomic attributes

Table 2 summarises the primary characteristics of the 15 roadmaps analysed. From this analysis, we made three key observations.

First, regarding the overarching vision and goals of the CE transition, we observed a general alignment among localities of varying population sizes in three key areas: integrating CE into local development policies, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and promoting waste reduction. However, there were distinct differences in specific objectives and approaches. Larger cities, such as Montreal, with 1.8 million inhabitants, often had broader goals encompassing multiple sectors (food, construction and energy) identified through extensive stakeholder consultations. In contrast, smaller cities, exemplified by Canmore with 16,000 inhabitants, typically focussed their CE efforts on addressing immediate local challenges, such as job creation and improving access to affordable goods and services.

Second, regarding the sectoral focus, while common interests such as construction and sustainable procurement were noted, the characteristics of each locality influenced its specific areas of emphasis. Three main elements contributing to these differences were identified:

• Natural resources and environmental challenges: Localities such as Chapais (1468 inhabitants) and Whitehorse (28,200 inhabitants) developed their CE strategies around their natural resources and specific environmental challenges. For example, Chapais, known for its forestry industry, has embraced industrial symbiosis to minimise waste and improve resource efficiency by integrating different industrial processes. This approach allows the town to manage forestry by-products more sustainably, reducing environmental impacts. Meanwhile, Whitehorse focuses on renewable energy sourced from their hydroelectric plant and initiatives to cut waste, reflecting a broad commitment to circularity ambition tailored to its geographic and climatic conditions.

• Socioeconomic contexts: The socioeconomic profile was another important factor in shaping CE strategies. For instance, Mississauga, with a larger population and higher median income, integrated circular principles into city governance, focussing on clean technology. Similarly affluent, York emphasised sustainable practices in food systems and circular procurement.

• Local economic opportunities: In larger cities like Vancouver and Montreal, economic considerations played a major role in defining CE approaches. Vancouver concentrated on construction and textile recovery sectors, capitalising on the substantial opportunities presented by its density and consumption base, while Montreal supported a diverse array of circular businesses and projects across more sectors, benefiting from its well-developed CE ecosystem.

Third, the analysis showed that local attributes did not always directly influence the content of the roadmaps. For example, despite its rich wood and fish resources, the Regional District of Nanaimo did not explicitly address circularity in its wood and fishery industries, focussing instead on circular homes and sustainable procurement. Similarly, Calgary, known for its oil and gas sector, shifted its focus towards appliance reuse and local food promotion, moving away from its traditional resource base. This divergence between local attributes and the sectoral focus in CERs was partly attributable to strategic decisions made by the instigators, as elaborated in the next section.

On CER instigators

Regardless of the local environmental and socioeconomic attributes discussed in the previous section, the instigators can influence the content of the roadmaps. These individuals or entities from the local authorities are the main ones responsible for the CER development. The interviews revealed that their influence arises from the division they are part of, motives shaped by their experiences and their abilities and skills in garnering support. These observations are detailed in this section.

Roadmap instigator’s division within the organisation

Table 3 illustrates how the instigator’s home division varied across municipalities, a trend observed regardless of the organisation’s size. We noted that the environmental division served as the instigator in cities like New Glasgow (9471 inhabitants), Whitehorse (28,200 inhabitants), St. John’s (110,500 inhabitants) and Richmond (209,937 inhabitants). This observation generally correlates with common elements in the roadmaps, such as the emphasis on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and waste. In localities with a more pronounced economic focus, the economic development division took on the instigator role, like in Chapais (1468 inhabitants) and Montreal (1.8 million inhabitants). Cities like Vancouver (662,248 inhabitants) and Sherbrooke (119,038 inhabitants) demonstrated a mixed approach involving environmental and economic development divisions, which may indicate a potential synergy in CE implementation. In some instances, roadmaps originated from the corporate division responsible for procurement, as seen in Calgary (1.3 million inhabitants), suggesting a more integrated approach to CE within the organisational structure. Additionally, the instigators within municipal organisations were typically one or two individuals, reflecting the relatively recent incorporation of CE into the roles of local authorities.

Roadmap instigator’s motivation

As the profiles of instigators differed from one municipal organisation to another, their sources of motivation also varied. Table 4 categorises these variations in motivation factors, as observed in the economic development, environmental and procurement divisions within municipal organisations. It assigned levels of motivation (ranging from ‘low’ to ‘very high’), suggesting that motivation levels differed significantly based on each municipality’s specific context. The table also noted the case of small-sized municipal organisations, where divisional departments were not always clearly defined.

Our findings show that instigators in economic development divisions were often motivated by economic opportunities, aiming to enhance local economies and job creation. Their actions in the roadmap included incentivising the CE with financial measures, as seen in larger cities like Montreal and Vancouver, and developing and supporting industrial symbiosis practices, as observed in smaller communities like Chapais. Factors like local and community benefits, alignment with higher-level governments, and cultural and institutional aspects were also considered, albeit with moderate to low importance. When not directly affecting local businesses, environmental challenges were not a priority.

We observed that instigators from environmental divisions typically focussed on addressing environmental opportunities and challenges. Their approach to the CER is generally aligned with environmental priorities, including climate change mitigation and pollution reduction, and they also consider cultural and institutional factors such as promoting awareness and education. While economic benefits were acknowledged, they were often not the primary driver. The emphasis was placed on sustainability and societal resilience. An example is St. John’s, where efforts focussed on waste reduction, reuse in construction and recycling initiatives.

For procurement divisions, as demonstrated in the case of Calgary, the motivation was high towards opportunities like cost savings and efficiency, alongside tackling environmental challenges through sustainable procurement practices. Alignment with higher-level governments and cultural and institutional factors were also valued, though to a moderate extent. Social benefits and demographic influences were considered less compared to efficiency goals.

However, we noted that in smaller municipalities, such as Chapais (1468 inhabitants) and New Glasgow (9471 inhabitants), the motivations of the roadmap’s instigators are not directly related to their division. The motivations were more variable and tied to local conditions, such as demographic factors, economic dynamics, and cultural and institutional characteristics. These municipalities often focussed on community benefits and alignment with higher-level governments, with varying emphasis on environmental challenges and opportunities, dependent on specific local circumstances.

Roadmap instigator’s ability and skills to gain support

From the interviews, we observed that developing a roadmap involved active collaboration by instigators to seek internal and external support. This process, referred to as ‘the expansion of the core instigators’, entailed engaging with stakeholders within the municipal organisation and beyond to establish legitimacy and drive the desired changes within the existing system.

Table 5 summarises the various approaches instigators use to enhance the legitimacy of the roadmap by gradually gaining support. The table indicates that while the motivations of the core instigators were generally aligned with the division they belonged to, as previously detailed in Table 4, the actual expansion of the core instigators, internally and externally, frequently encountered challenges and necessitated practical strategies beyond mere motivation. For instance, economic development divisions, predominantly motivated by economic opportunities, had to forge connections with procurement and environmental divisions to secure support for roadmap development. This required leveraging support from local officials, making the most of existing local resources, and fostering inter-divisional collaboration. Likewise, despite their different focus areas, environmental and procurement divisions needed to navigate internal dynamics, obtain administrative backing, and engage with external stakeholders. This included business stakeholders, who might only sometimes be familiar with environmental divisions, and non-profits, with whom procurement divisions might not have frequent interactions yet. This involved negotiation, demonstrating feasibility and emphasising the potential benefits to the community and economy.

The interviews revealed that the challenges were amplified in smaller municipal organisations. The core instigator, often working individually, was required to show adaptability and employ various forms of influence to gain internal and external support while ensuring their initiatives aligned with local demographic, economic, environmental and cultural factors.

The actions of CER instigators described in Table 5 reflect institutional entrepreneurship principles. CER instigators successfully navigate and influence their respective municipalities’ institutional landscapes to support CE initiatives. By using local attributes and aligning them with broader sustainability goals, they are showing the agility required to act as change agents within their spheres of influence. Their efforts to gain support across divisions and beyond highlight a strategic balance of utilising local strengths while pursuing external opportunities to strengthen the CE agenda. As a result, they are challenging existing silos that are often seen between a municipality’s divisions and creating new pathways for implementing CE practices.

On institutional context

Finally, the context in which the roadmaps are developed added to the role of the CER instigators discussed in the previous section. Table 6 outlines three such factors based on the findings from the interviews: (i) the sustainability maturity of the organisation; (ii) the level of political support, which can be strong or weak and (iii) the local opportunities in the CE, which can be abundant or restricted.

Organisational maturity in sustainability

On organisational maturity, we found that the sustainability maturity of the organisations involved influences the development of CERs. In larger municipal organisations (with over 100,000 inhabitants), higher levels of organisational maturity in sustainability were linked with a substantial understanding of the CE, as indicated by interviewees. These organisations were often well-connected internationally for knowledge sharing and had robust policy frameworks and internal support networks. In contrast, interviewees from large organisations with lower sustainability maturity emphasised the need for project management skills, solid political skills to build legitimacy for the CER, and the ability to coordinate multiple stakeholders internally and externally.

In smaller and medium-sized municipalities (with fewer than 100,000 inhabitants), interviewees from organisations with higher sustainability maturity reported having expertise and involvement in multiple areas and a preference for incremental change as a key strategy. Those from organisations with lower sustainability maturity described a need to juggle multiple roles, adaptability and creativity in resource utilisation.

Political support

On political support, interviewees from large organisations reported that strong political support facilitates effective navigation of the political landscape, access to resources and leveraging of political momentum for large-scale CE initiatives. In smaller organisations, solid political support was crucial for gaining political influence and forming strategic partnerships. Communication and persuasion skills were highlighted as essential in both contexts. Conversely, in situations with weak political support, the interviewees noted the importance of strategic navigation of the political environment, seeking external alliances and achieving incremental successes to demonstrate CE’s value.

Opportunities from local and higher-level institutions

Regarding opportunities from policies and programs by local and higher-level institutions, the interviews suggested that local authorities adapt their CERs to leverage local opportunities and, in some cases, extend beyond local boundaries for additional support and legitimacy.

In large organisations with ample local opportunities, respondents indicated that CER initiatives focus on addressing local needs in the transition to CE, involving local stakeholders extensively. Where local opportunities were scarce, these organisations reportedly diversified strategies, including efficiency enhancement, external collaborations and alignment with broader initiatives for support. Conversely, respondents from small organisations described optimising local opportunities through innovative and resource-efficient approaches. They often focussed on collaborative and mutualisation projects to overcome resource limitations. When facing limited local leadership support, these organisations sought collaborative partnerships beyond their immediate locality.

Despite varied organisational sizes, the interviews revealed no significant reliance on regional or national government policies as a primary strategy for CER development. CERs were primarily developed with a local focus, as interviewees emphasised addressing specific community needs and utilising local opportunities. The extension of these efforts beyond local boundaries was often contingent on the availability of local support and resources. Furthermore, as narrated by the interviewees, the focus on local priorities in CE transition strategies was influenced by factors like financial and human resource constraints, provincial government involvement, lack of awareness of CE concepts and the need to demonstrate the effectiveness of local approaches before broader adoption.

Discussion on developing circular economy locally

Developing CE locally is shaped by a complex mix of physical, socioeconomic, and institutional factors. Our study focussed on qualitatively identifying these factors, as their intertwined nature makes it difficult to precisely assess their individual impacts on CE transition goals and strategies. Thus, factors varied across local authorities, and multiple possibilities rather than one pattern existed. This variation raises three policy implications for CE transition strategies, which are discussed in this section.

Expanding CE transition beyond physical and socioeconomic attributes

First, our findings align with prior studies indicating that physical environment, resource availability and socioeconomic factors shape sustainability transitions (Coenen et al., 2012; Hansen and Coenen, 2015; Murphy, 2015), often dictating the sectors and industries targeted in local strategies. However, these local characteristics are not always central in CE transition strategies. The examples of Canmore and New Glasgow illustrate the complexity of aligning CERs with local attributes, demonstrating that while these cities have strategies focussed on their respective local challenges, the correlation between local attributes and CER focus does not always follow a straightforward pattern. This implies that aligning or misaligning with local characteristics can be context-dependent rather than inherently good or bad. For example, local authorities may deviate from traditional sectors to address broader challenges like national GHG emission reduction or enhancing economic resilience by reducing imports, potentially shifting from current to new industrial sectors.

Despite the diversity in local contexts, shared visions and objectives in CERs across various localities, regardless of their size, reflect a general acknowledgement of environmental concerns and an understanding of CE principles. This observation aligns with geographical perspectives in sustainability transition literature, especially as argued by Coenen et al. (2012), suggesting that global environmental pressures and sustainability paradigms often lead to similar strategic responses in different places. Furthermore, the similarities we found could be attributed to the CCRI program. During the program, local authorities shared their experiences, but our data and approach did not allow us to confirm the extent of this influence.

The key policy implication is the need for a context-specific CE transition strategy. Policymakers must balance leveraging immediate local strengths and exploring broader opportunities, potentially outside the local context. It is important to recognise that expanding CER beyond local attributes might overlook opportunities to utilise local strengths. However, in some cases, this approach can be a strategic choice to tackle specific local or national challenges or to take advantage of new trends and external opportunities.

Empowering the roadmap instigators

Second, our study also underscores the role of roadmap instigators in initiating and strategically shaping the CER. Their competencies in vision crafting, engaging stakeholders, overcoming obstacles and adapting to organisational changes are critical to strengthening the CER (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014; Grillitsch and Sotarauta, 2020; Sotarauta et al., 2021; Wirth et al., 2013,and,and). This is consistent with Grillitsch and Sotarauta (2020), who emphasise that the variation in transition pathways depends on the dynamics between change agents and their ability to secure political support and legitimacy. The actions of CER instigators as institutional entrepreneurs highlight their crucial position in steering the transition towards CE practices. These change agents have the potential to challenge and reshape existing norms and structures to align with CE principles, crafting new narratives and fostering collaborations across traditional boundaries. Their strategic approach to garner internal and external support exemplifies the entrepreneurial spirit necessary for systemic change. This highlights the need for supportive policies that empower these individuals to unlock the potential for their localities to transition to the CE effectively.

Broadening the group of core instigators is a relevant step for the division leading the CER to enhance legitimacy and garner support, both within and outside the organisation. Strategic engagement with diverse stakeholders can strengthen the CER’s ambition and focus. However, such an approach might also result in broader, less action-oriented roadmap actions, posing challenges in prioritisation. Additionally, the instigators’ motivations, be they based on their division or personal experience, can play a significant role in steering the roadmap’s direction. For instance, instigators in economic development divisions often prioritise economic opportunities to improve local economies, as observed in larger cities like Montreal and Vancouver, while environmental factors are secondary unless they directly affect local businesses. Conversely, environmental division instigators focus on addressing environmental challenges, placing sustainability and societal resilience at the forefront, as exemplified by waste reduction initiatives in St. John’s. In procurement divisions, exemplified by Calgary, the emphasis is on cost savings and efficiency, with sustainable procurement practices also being a key focus.

One policy implication is that local authorities must provide the CER instigators with essential support, resources and stability. Their contribution goes beyond roadmap development. They are also responsible for educating local organisations and officials about CE and sustainability. They need access to necessary tools and networks to advance the roadmap and to work in an environment that recognises and values their skills and contributions, extending beyond the initial roadmap creation phase.

Leveraging opportunities beyond the local boundaries

Third, our research aligns with existing research (Strambach and Pflitsch, 2020) in finding that institutional factors, including an organisation’s sustainability maturity, political support, and institutional opportunities, can influence CE transition strategies outlined in CERs. Notably, we observed that CERs were primarily tailored to specific localities without adopting a multi-scalar approach, contrasting with transition geography literature that emphasises interactions across local, regional, national, and global scales for effective sustainability transitions (Kristensen et al., 2023). Authors like Coenen et al. (2012) and Bauer and Fuenfschilling (2019) have highlighted the importance of coordination and knowledge exchange across these scales.

From a policy standpoint, localities independently developing their CERs might overlook synergistic opportunities with neighbouring areas or miss regional and national strategic levers. In CE, inter-municipality collaborations can lead to shared resources, coordinated strategies, and joint problem-solving. Thus, localities with similar industrial setups, for instance, could jointly develop CE infrastructures like recycling facilities or renewable energy grids, enhancing efficiency and economies of scale. Such a collaboration can help address transboundary environmental challenges and foster horizontal knowledge transfer (Frantzeskaki et al., 2012; Hodson and Marvin, 2010), as seen in the Circular Cities and Regions Initiatives in Canada, where the 15 localities we studied shared experiences and lessons.

Moreover, a strong regional or national commitment to climate change can provide a foundational base for local CERs. Though seemingly narrow, beginning with a focus on environmental sustainability can then be an effective initial step. Likewise, this approach is also valuable if regional or national opportunities are primarily oriented towards economic development goals. In such a case, strategically leveraging these opportunities by initially focussing the roadmap on economic objectives can be beneficial. Over time, the CER can evolve to incorporate more environmentally centric objectives and actions or integrate more economic aspects if it starts with an environmental focus.

Limitations

Our study of CER has limitations concerning the scope of qualitative analysis, case selection and theoretical framing. First, we intentionally focussed on identifying the most common characteristics and factors of CE transition in local governments by analysing their roadmap content and investigating their instigators. Any initiatives not included in the roadmaps were not considered, even if they align with CE objectives. Additionally, given our exploratory intention, our goal was to identify factors. As such, the comparison and weighting of their influence were beyond the scope of the study. Moreover, we did not examine potential interactions between the factors involved in CER content. Isolating the individual contributions of each factor would have required a longitudinal approach where we could track changes and adaptations made to the roadmaps over time.

Second, the study is based on a limited number of cases. The Canadian case study was selected purposefully to capture insights into local visions of the CE transition at a time when their roadmaps are still under development. Consequently, the generalizability of our findings is limited. However, the diversity of the 15 localities, ranging from small communities with populations of a thousand to large urban centres with nearly two million inhabitants, provides a foundation for understanding CE development in different local contexts.

Lastly, our research questions were designed to explore CE roadmaps’ converging and diverging characteristics across various localities and examine how physical, socioeconomic and institutional attributes influence their vision, prioritised sectors and planned actions. This inquiry was framed within the geography of transitions literature, guiding our theoretical approach. Our focus on this specific set of factors means other potentially significant elements, such as technological innovations and international policy trends, were not examined in this paper. Future research might expand on these areas to offer a more comprehensive view of factors influencing CE transitions.

Conclusion

This paper analysed the CERs of 15 Canadian local governments and discussed diverse transition pathways in an era where cities and regions increasingly develop their roadmaps. We found that CER approaches vary across localities and are influenced by local attributes, instigators’ entrepreneurship and institutional context. Larger cities like Montreal and Vancouver implemented comprehensive CE strategies across various sectors, leveraging their broader capabilities. In contrast, smaller cities such as Canmore opted for more focussed strategies addressing local challenges. The diversity in strategies reflects each locality’s unique environmental and socioeconomic context. The instigators’ division and motivations, from economic opportunities to sustainability, directed the CER focus and contents. Moreover, their ability to obtain support and navigate organisational and political landscapes was essential in developing and implementing these roadmaps, highlighting the complexity of the CE transition.

The theoretical framework focussing on physical and socioeconomic conditions, institutional entrepreneurship and the broader institutional landscape enabled us to explore how these factors interact to influence the diversity of CE transition pathways in Canadian localities of various sizes and contexts. Our analysis underscores that the influence of geography on CE transitions goes beyond the tangible physical and socioeconomic features of a location, typically used to inform CERs through assessments of material flows, economic sector strengths and stakeholder involvement. It extends to the entrepreneurship of the CER instigators within municipal organisations, thus echoing a core aspect of institutional entrepreneurship. Regardless of whether the instigator originates from environmental, economic development or procurement division, its strategic use of institutional context, both locally and nationally, also proves essential in the CER development.

Our study suggests three main implications discussed in the previous section of the paper and summarised as follows. First, strategically expanding CERs beyond local physical attributes can offer a valuable pathway, especially for regions seeking to diversify their economic activities for greater sustainability. Such a strategy upholds the significance of local contexts while suggesting that expanding strategies beyond immediate physical attributes may unlock new opportunities for effectively addressing both local and broader circularity challenges. Second, supporting instigators is essential, especially in municipal organisations with limited sustainability expertise, as their role extends beyond roadmap creation to include education, CE promotion and network building. Third, aligning CERs with broader provincial or national objectives can be advantageous for securing governmental support, although it may involve an initial focus on either environmental or economic goals within the roadmap while retaining the flexibility to evolve and incorporate the other dimension over time.

While our study had limited scope as it focussed on the content of CERs and their instigators, it lays a valuable foundation for future research. Thus, it invites further exploration into the role and impact of initiatives outside the official CE roadmaps, enabling us to understand the broader CE efforts. Our descriptive and exploratory approach also provides a pathway for future comparative analyses of the relative significance and synergies between various factors influencing CE transitions. While the findings are specific to the Canadian context, they pave the way for more empirical studies into the diverse approach to CE transition across different cultural and environmental settings. Finally, we focussed on the geography of transitions literature. As such, there is room for future research to broaden the theoretical scope and consider other perspectives, such as technological and governance factors. Such a broader theoretical scope would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges of developing a CE transition strategy for local governments.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Québec Circular Economy Research Network (RRECQ) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (430-2022-01038) as part of the project on Circular Cities and the Differentiated Potential of Cities in Circular Economy. We would like to express our gratitude to the editor-in-charge and the anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions on earlier versions of the paper.

References