Circular Economy in Informal Settlements

Abstract

Applying the circular economy (CE) in practice continues to challenge environmental design. Studies regarding the design for a CE have been theoretical and conceptual; hence limited research has been conducted on practical applications. This paper argues that informal settlements already implement core CE practices such as recycling, indexing, and reusing materials in construction and thus can provide critical observations on core CE practices in industrialized regions. This research applies this approach using a case study on the outskirts of Medellín, Colombia. Using a mixed method of video interview analysis and participatory observations, the results of this research are concluded in two conceptual frameworks: incremental circularity and engaged placemaking, which are then applied to CE core ideas. Finally, the paper discusses the critical values generated by studying informal urban forms and their application limitations in the formal economy.

Keywords:

• Circular Economy
• Informal Settlements
• “Slums,” Urban Design
• Placemaking
• Incrementality

Introduction

Opening image. Aerial images of the Carpinelo 2 informal settlement, Medellín, Colombia, 2006 to 2022. (Credit: Authors for all figures unless otherwise noted)

As urban areas expand, concerns about the unsustainable utilization of finite resources and excessive waste production are raised. The United Nations estimates that the built environment contributes 40% of global carbon emissions; this is due not only to the construction period of a building but the materials which, at the end of the building’s lifecycle, become waste (Carlin 2022; UN Environment Programme 2022). However, a circular economy (CE) approach offers a solution by reducing resource consumption and eliminating waste by preserving products, components, and materials at optimal utility and value (MacArthur 2013). Transitioning to CE has the potential to bring about beneficial effects on economic, environmental, and social sustainability (Akhimien et al. 2021). Implementing CE ideals into our built environment is a solution to reduce our waste and carbon footprint. If it is approached correctly, we could significantly reduce the negative impacts of the waste produced in building demolition. However, a systemic change is needed in how products, services, systems, and infrastructures are designed (Moreno et al. 2016). Moreover, the built environment’s design is vital for a transition and CE’s application (De Los Rios and Charnley 2017; EU 2020).

While much has been explored on the theoretical underpinnings of CE, few cases exist to evaluate how it works in practice and how practitioners apply CE ideas (Dokter 2021). Looking at instances testing CE-used ideas can bring many nuances in understanding full CE implementation. We argue the value of examining the building process of informal settlements, as scholars have identified them as spaces born out of necessity that have become “circularity incubators” (Bekkering et al. 2021, 24). Additionally, we argue that the processes of foundation and development in informal settlements challenge traditional normative consumerism processes; in this way, informal settlements may present models that could elucidate conditions for applying CE on a broader level.

Informal settlements are self-built neighborhoods outside of city regulations in conditions of poverty (Samper 2022). More than a billion people live today in these spaces (UN 2003). A salient feature of informal settlements over other forms of urbanization is the constant state of change (Samper et al. 2020). This change results from the incremental densification process observed in informal settlements (Goethert and SiGUS Director, 2010). Furthermore, as communities in these areas heavily rely on reusing leftover materials to build homes, the constant change provides opportunities for raw materials and products to be continuously recycled and repurposed for constructing or expanding existing structures.

Poverty, risk, and scarcity are significant challenges that informal settlement residents face, and we do not intend to romanticize these circumstances. However, scholars argue that those conditions of scarcity in informal settlements force these population groups to innovate solutions that tend to be more sustainable than traditional problem-solving approaches (Samper 2022). In this paper, we first unpack the frameworks of CE as they relate to the built environment and how they can theoretically align with the zero-waste tendencies of building informal settlements. Later, we explore those ideas in the case of Medellín, Colombia informal settlements, analyzing data from video interviews and participatory observations. We argue two categories that serve to learn from informal spaces. The first one is incremental circularity—the concept of ever-changing structures in which informal settlement structures are developed where pieces are constantly added and replaced in an environment where all waste can become part of new expanding structures. The second method, engaged placemaking, is a qualitative approach that we have found to impact CE immensely. This method involves communal self-construction, where structures and communal history become ingrained in the symbolic value of built environment pieces, making them more permanent and sustainable over time. In such cases, the community and gatherings in the space make it a meaningful area that will not be destroyed or poorly maintained. They are making these spaces and structures more sustainable over time.

Circularity in Design

The Ellen McArthur Foundation coined the term ‘circularity’ to replace the ‘end-of-life concept with recycling and reuse. CE aims to create environmental quality, economic prosperity, and social equity to benefit current and future generations (MacArthur 2013). Primarily based on principles of the Cradle-to-Cradle manifesto, it describes the use of garbage as an infinite resource (Braungart and McDonough 2009). Cradle-to-Cradle aims to create an ecological system from how we use raw materials; every part is used and reused to avoid waste. CE has three core principles: value preservation, resource optimization, and system effectiveness. Value preservation aims to maintain the quality of an object, putting effort into utilizing high-quality materials, repairing, and refurbishing. Resource optimization is a way to separate from using primary resources and instead recycle and reuse. System effectiveness refers to minimizing valuable resources that are wasted, otherwise stated as “systematic leakage” (Braungart and McDonough 2009). The CE model is founded on improved supply chain management and circulation of resources (Pomponi and Moncaster 2017). One of the most crucial systemic barriers to CE implementation is the consumption patterns our society is entrenched in (MacArthur 2013). Therefore, design-to-dispose ideals are deeply ingrained in our culture, challenging the CE ideal of recycling and reuse. Other barriers appear to be logistical, where cities lack systems to sort waste effectively or measure other CE implementations. As we discuss CE further, overcoming obstacles requires awareness and involvement from all actors (MacArthur 2013).

Transitioning to a CE has the potential to bring about beneficial effects on economic, environmental, and social sustainability (Akhimien et al. 2021). The value of applying circular principles to the design field is evident, given that the built environment significantly contributes to waste production (Carlin 2022). Rethinking the design of cities through a CE lens could help mitigate these negative impacts. Past studies have shown that circularity needs to be present at every project stage. Still, the design phase is crucial in determining a building’s sustainability (Charef and Lu 2021). In particular, the design of buildings and architecture can influence all other areas of CE application (Kozminska 2019).

Concepts like Design for Disassembly (DFD), which can be applied to salvage materials from design stages to the entire life cycle, are crucial for CE implementation (O’Grady et al. 2021). Appling DFD ideas is challenging; it requires the creation of radical changes to construction protocols, supply chains, and the overall construction business model (Allam and Nik-Bakht, 2023). In a realistic scenario, not all materials can be repeatedly reused due to loss of integrity. One potential solution to this dilemma is implementing a cataloging system that tracks what can be reused (Luscuere 2017; Atta et al. 2021). Building Information Modeling (BIM) has been identified as an essential technological platform to implement the sustainability goals of a CE approach (Olawumi et al. 2018; Göswein et al. 2022). However, CE has been criticized for assuming a solely technological approach will solve the challenges posed by its future application (Schulz et al. 2019). Consequently, applying CE requires a broader perspective that includes other disciplinary approaches.

Another core aspect of Cradle-to-Cradle is value preservation (Braungart and McDonough 2009), which applies to circularity throughout place creation. The more value placed on a space, the more likely it is to last a long time, thus eliminating the need for demolition, a process called “circularity of place” (Andersen and Hvejsel 2022). Scholars find those qualities of placemaking in vernacular architecture. Its attention to detail, materiality, and longevity encompassing local resources is valuable for mindful design and waste reduction (Dabaieh et al. 2022). These constraints create value for the homes; in this scenario, there is no waste from disassembly because it is proactively eliminated through the care and value instilled in the building. The connection between vernacular architecture and circularity opens the door to exploring such connections in other spaces where scarcity and design can produce more sustainable processes, such as the world’s informal settlements.

Circularity in Informal Settlements

The most common description of informal settlements portrays them as lacking basic infrastructure, poor housing, illegal dwelling, nonsecure tenure, high urban density, lack of sanitation, poverty, and exclusion (Gilbert and Gugler 1982; UN-Habitat 2007). International agencies’ primary concerns are the poverty and deprivation of the communities occupying these spaces (UN-Habitat 2016). A staple theme in the literature on urban informality is the territories’ constant state of construction (Caminos et al. 1969; Goethert and SiGUS Director 2010; Holston 1991; Nohn and Goethert 2017; Turner 1977; Samper 2017; Samper and Liao 2023). Change happens across various dimensions: population size and features, housing quantity, quality, and infrastructure (Samper, 2022). Urban upgrade results from private, collective NGO, and state-funded processes. The interaction between multiple actors starts a virtuous development cycle in which the infrastructure continuously improves (Samper and Marko 2015). Together these improvements add up to coherent urban environments that not only fulfill the function of housing but also include social, religious, educational, and production areas. As a result of this building process, the urban patterns and distinctive morphological features become distinguishing characteristics of these spaces and separate informal from formal settlements’ (Taubenbock and Kraff 2014, 35; Kuffer and Barrosb 2011; Dovey and King 2011). That characteristic pattern results from urban forms’ constant change due to that gradual growth process (Samper et al. 2020; Buhl et al. 2006; Patel 2012). Improvement and growth become essential defining characteristics of an informal settlement different from any other city form.

Incremental construction and housing expansion—the pay-as-you-go process—are key to increasing housing stock and quality in rapidly growing cities, particularly in most low-income sectors (Goethert and SiGUS Director 2010). The informal incremental/staged process of housing growth has not been embraced or well understood; however, meaningful progress exists in exploring the change of housing units in informal areas (Ward 2012; Williams 2005). International lending agencies have amply applied learnings from incrementality to support the housing supply for low-income people (Greene and Rojas 2008). Studying the incrementality of units also reveals how the materials and building techniques are innovative tools dwellers select to support the process of constant expansion with few resources (Cruz and Samper 2008; Cruz 2005). Building an informal settlement’s apparent lack of order results from following a logic different from those enclaves designed by professionals (Lara 2010). However, they still include modern materials and techniques (Brillembourg 2004). Informal settlements adopting updated construction techniques are the product not only of the economic or stylistic process but, more importantly, of a technical one; they choose this style not because it looks modern but because it is adaptable in ways the residents can build and manage as they live in it (Samper 2014). The informal settlement housing designs allow flexibility, strategy, and utility according to available resources, including time, materials, and labor.

Incremental housing development is also the result of economic savings within the household. Financially, housing construction in informal settlements is divided into two stages: (1) start-up (the first shelter) and (2) the successive transformation phases (improvements). The start-up stage is financed by asking for money or carrying what they can find to the place where they are building. In the second phase, people use other systems of housing self-financing than those used in traditional monetary savings in social housing (Sheuya 2007). Strategies to self-finance building expansion include the subdivision of housing units for rental uses to access funds for future growth. One of the fascinating aspects of the incremental self-construction model’s cleverness is that it provides its own financing mechanism (Samper 2022).

A stunning part of the incremental process related to CE is the consistent assembling and disassembling of material to achieve new phases of the housing structure. Materials are classified, reused to become part of the new structure, or recycled to be incorporated into nearby facilities or services until the material’s life cycle is exhausted. We see this constant assembly and reassembly of the material part of informal settlements’ unique incremental construction process as central to further understanding the application of the circular economy into architecture and construction in general. And it’s what led us to our main research question: How can we learn from the ever-changing construction of informal settlements as we investigate the idea of circularity in the built environment?

Methodology: Unraveling CE Core Ideas in Informal Settlements

The circular economy seeks to encourage a shift away from linear supply chains towards circular ones, contending that all economic activities should consider several CE core practice principles. These include using wastes and by-products as inputs, switching to renewable and clean energy sources, managing the environmental costs and effects of the operation, safely reinserting end-of-life materials either into other economic activities or back into the biosphere, and designing outputs in a way that facilitates collection, separation, recycling, refurbishing, repair for reuse, redistribution, maintenance, and sharing throughout their lifespans (Haas et al. 2015; Park et al. 2010; Schulze 2016; Stahel 2016; Winans et al. 2017). To visualize how incrementalism in informal settlements can relate to the application of CE core practices, we developed a mixed-method (Lucas and Lucas 2016) approach.

We chose Medellín’s informal settlements as an exemplary case (Yin 2009) to explore CE application in that context. Medellín’s urban and architectural interventions in the informal settlements merited the award as the most innovative city in the world in 2012 (BBC News 2013). Medellín comprises up to 39% of the area dedicated to informal settlements (Samper 2014). It is one of the few cities worldwide that has kept consistent records of informal settlements for over 60 years, which can help account for urban changes. Additionally, communities in informal settlements in Medellín have a track record of participating alongside researchers on sustainability strategies (Echeverri and Cadena-Gaitán 2019). For data collection, first we analyzed narratives of lived experiences of informal dwellers in Medellín, by codifying videography and video interviews (Jewitt 2012; de Villiers et al. 2022). Secondly, we conducted participatory observations (Whyte 1984; Musante and DeWalt 2010) during a six-week construction project in the informal settlement of Carpinelo 2 in that same city. We later integrated these two scales of analysis into two main findings. For a methodological workflow diagram, see Figure 1.

Figure 1. Methodological workflow.

Video Archive Analysis

A historical video archive was sourced, titled “Medellín my Home,” with 700 interviews documenting the building process in informal settlements in Medellín (Marko and Samper 2010). The survey includes mention of 39 informal settlements that created a generalized picture of the lived experiences of dwellers. These unstructured interviews answer the question of narrating the personal stories of families in their current homes, how they arrived in the city, and descriptions of the history of their homes and neighborhoods. Interviews were coded to identify events relating to land taking, construction, deconstruction, dismantling, reassembling, and material sourcing. The cycles of reconstruction were of particular interest. In the analysis phase, those narratives were coded into the five main frameworks of circularity that fit the traditional definition (Atta et al. 2021).

More specialized areas, such as DFD and Material Cataloging (passports), were also identified. The additional concept identified as worth evaluating in the context of informality was the idea of “Value Preservation,” found in the Cradle-to-Cradle principles (Braungart and McDonough 2009), and placemaking as a form of further archiving the sustainable goals of CE (Andersen and Hvejsel 2022); we observed it to be a central concept in informality. This resource was crucial to compare field observations in Carpinelo and expand the scope of analysis past just one settlement.

Direct Participatory Observations

Alongside the review of the recorded interviews, we conducted onsite observations for six weeks in Carpinelo 2, an informal settlement in Medellín going through a community-building process. This direct participant observation (Ciesielska et al. 2018) was a hands-on approach as we worked alongside the residents of Carpinelo; we were there to witness and help with the construction process and the reuse of materials. Carpinelo 2 has a total of 540 homes in various stages of construction and has developed substantially over the last decade (Figure 2). As part of the observation, we participated for six weeks in constructing a set of community upgrading projects for the neighborhood. During that time, three projects were built (a community garden, a stairway, and a water collection tank) by a combination of community members, university students, and faculty. The six-week project period taught firsthand what it is like to build under the constraints of the level of poverty everyday settlements experience. We made a great effort to communicate with the residents as we worked next to them. The Carpinelo residents were happy to relay their stories and histories of their territory. The engagement process included three phases: the analysis of needs, the design of the structures, and the construction of such a project. These three phases were directly collaborative with the residents. We took it upon ourselves to review and observe the risks and needs of Carpinelo 2; however, we verified our findings with the community. Our design phase also was a great community effort, as any design we came up with was discussed and approved by Carpinelo residents. As previously mentioned, the construction phase was completely collaborative, and we learned a lot from that experience. Like the 2019 study (Echeverri and Cadena-Gaitán 2019), our process was greatly aided by the community members willing to participate. Direct participation was a time for the authors to learn directly from the source what it means to keep count of every usable material and resource. The value engineering that went into these projects was an effort to comply with the CE building tendencies of an informal settlement like Carpinelo 2.

Figure 2. The Carpinelo 2 informal settlement has experienced incremental growth as community members have engaged in self-building activities, evidenced from 2006 to 2022.

Findings and Discussion

Through our methodology, which included a review of interviews conducted throughout informal settlements in Medellín and participatory observation in Carpinelo 2, we identified critical elements related to the CE goal of transitioning from linear to circular supply chains. Specifically, we found strong evidence of using waste and byproducts as inputs for constructing new structures. Additionally, we observed that communities safely reintroduced end-of-life materials into other economic activities or back into the biosphere. Materials that could not be used in construction, such as small pieces of wood, became fuel for cooking or compost for planting. We also found evidence of community members designing outputs to facilitate collection, separation, recycling, refurbishing, repair for reuse, redistribution, maintenance, and sharing throughout structures’ lifespans. However, we did not find evidence of other core ideas of CE, such as communities transitioning to renewable and clean energy sources or managing the environmental costs and effects of their operations. Once materials arrive at settlements, they begin a use and reuse process akin to CE; the supply chain before that arrival is still attached to the world/city linear economy. Price and access to materials are the critical concerns of community members accessing materials, not the sustainable sourcing or process of each material.

The reuse of materials in the construction and reform of structures became evident in the process of incrementality. We found strong evidence in the interview records of Medellín informal settlements changing over time because of self-construction. For example, 90% of the interviews talk about homes’ transformations over time due to the owner’s improvements. Additions go from small aesthetic changes to refurbishing the entire structure, including rooms and floors. An incremental building is evident in all interview records. Part of this process is the reuse of materials for the new additions of homes. Homes are designed with future expansions in mind, and the materials that can be reused in those future transformations are carefully cataloged. During the onsite observation process, we witnessed the decision-making course of community members prioritizing minimal resources in time, labor, and funding—and how those play in the ways projects were later designed and built with an incremental approach.

Furthermore, as we engaged in construction, we saw how the materials from dismantling previous structures were employed in adjacent constructions. We also witnessed community members repurpose the waste we created during construction for retrofitting other buildings to a degree in which, in the end, no construction waste was onsite. This incremental process, often revealed in informal settlements scholarship, becomes relevant to CE and is called Incremental Circularity.

The permanence in the time of structures with intrinsic value to communities was the other element that became evident. Interviewees emphasize how self-construction adds emotional value to their homes and communal establishments such as facilities, public buildings, and pathways; community members will point to structures and narrate the process of construction, ending by saying with pride, “We did this.” Moreover, interviews mention dismantling structures under the constant threat of eviction by other actors, such as government agencies. The removals of informal settlements are especially relevant to the field of CE because they demonstrate a process of construction and destruction. The ability to rebuild quickly after such attacks becomes essential for the survival of impoverished communities.

Moreover, the desire for permanence creates strong links between the places they construct and protect and the people themselves. This desire is another aspect of CE, which we call engaged placemaking. Finally, the core application of CE in informal settlements was cataloged in two categories; incremental circularity and engaged placemaking.

Incremental Circularity

The risk of poverty that encompasses informal communities makes them resourceful as there is constant reuse of materials in the construction and dismantling of homes. A unique part of construction in informality is the incremental approach of remodeling and rebuilding homes. Incremental homes have been in families for generations, adding to their structures to accommodate a growing family. Homes in informal settlements commonly start as small and light structures, reflecting the minimal resources of inhabitants and the need to build quickly as part of the land-taking process.

A home can begin as a single-level space barely enough for one family; we found homes where only one person fits. Years later, as more resources are available and the family grows, and children become adults with their own children, the house is expanded, even adding multiple levels. In Carpinelo 2, we found homes that follow this incremental process and are now up to three stories. The incremental process takes what exists and upgrades it, using, for the most part, found and locally sourced materials. The initial structure is often built considering how it will be removed later. All homes in Carpinelo 2 have experienced change since its foundation more than 20 years ago.

In contrast, early dwellings made of wood and plastic have evolved into structures of several floors made of brick and concrete. While most current homes are made of solid materials like concrete, around 10% of families with fewer resources still live in shacks of more fragile construction materials such as wood and plastic sheets. Figure 3 depicts the incremental process and how it relates to standard CE principles in construction. The graph illustrates how a home can evolve from a small shack to an expanded multilevel brick structure. As homes improve, the materials removed are often reused in nearby buildings. This process of recycling materials, and the return of some of those materials to the biosphere, are examples of the circular economy in action. However, the diagram also shows that the process is not entirely circular. The failure to achieve CE resides in the supply chain sourcing of materials which, at the end of the life of buildings, is still attached to the linear economy process.

Figure 3. The traditional concept of the Circular Economy in building vs. Incremental Circularity, the incremental process in informal settlements.

Part of the incremental evolution of structures in informal settlements resides in reusing and recycling materials. Construction materials in informal settlements enter a cycle of reuse; materials sourced from dismantled homes will be reused on a different structure across the neighborhood. Door frames from one house may be repurposed and used as window frames in the next. The uses for materials can be infinite when the spaces are taken care of properly—and they are. The following story helps to contextualize such a process. One day a piece of wood was missing from our project. We stored all materials in a community member’s home alongside other construction materials waiting to be used to upgrade their home. It did not take long to find it; the wood piece was in front of us the whole time. It had become part of the formwork of that house in the few days we had been away. It had spent sufficient time there for the concrete to cure and was not needed anymore. Later that afternoon, Obni, the community leader, arrived with the piece of wood on her shoulder already cleaned and ready to become part of the roof structure we were building (Figure 4). That 10 in. x 12 ft. (25 cm x 3.65 m) piece of wood had already been part of two buildings in less than a month. And if it does not decay, it will not be the last. In Figure 5, we mapped the materials changing location during the six weeks of observation. It showed that the structures were transforming daily and that a great effort was placed into reusing and minimizing waste.

Figure 4. Materials path of circulation during one month in Carpinelo 2.

Figure 5. Medellín Practicum Studio CU Boulder Community Carpinelo 2, Community Garden, Medellín, Colombia, Aug. 6, 2022. Last day of project construction. (Credit: Valeria Henao)

The wood reuse story highlights another key connection to the circular economy: how communities reuse materials. Scanning existing buildings for reusable materials is a form of cataloging for future structures. Similarly, the way materials are quickly reused after dismantling structures that are being upgraded has all the hallmarks of the concept of “Materials Passports” (Atta et al. 2021). However, despite the sophisticated software such as Building Information Modeling (BIM) envisioned in the circular economy literature, these communities do not have access to such technology. Instead, community members constantly map what is disposed of, exchange dismantled materials, and purposefully mark construction waste to be used in neighboring structures. We were repeatedly made aware of this process while building, as community members would come to the construction site to claim material for themselves or others. Construction surplus, such as sewer pipes, was quickly assigned to members in need blocks away. Materials were exchanged instead of returned if they did not fit the structure under construction but would fit another nearby. All this contributed to the absence of construction waste onsite at the end of our engagement. How collaborative construction happens leads to our final point on CE application in informal settlements.

Engaged Placemaking

The permanence of structures can also achieve circularity; a space can earn an abstract value that encourages the users to take care of that space, repair it, and refurbish it (Andersen and Hvejsel, 2022). We see this concept of achieving the sustainability goals of CE through permanence realized in informal settlements in the way community members attach value to spaces that sustain them longer over time. The building is not an individual act but a communal effort in informal settlements. The collectivization of building practices does not mean that buildings in formal communities are built only by individuals, nor does it imply that there is no collective construction process in formal city building. However, it is important to highlight that members of informal communities participate in all aspects of the building process, including design, construction, use, deconstruction, and reconstruction. Collective participation in all these areas, even during adversity, creates strong bonds between the spaces, structures, and communities that build and sustain those spaces. While this level of community involvement is valuable, it is also the result of the marginalization, persecution, and poverty levels experienced by these communities. It takes the persistence of an entire group to claim the space and defend their right to be there. This community effort adds to structures’ additional symbolic value—what we define as engaged placemaking; it is a clearly evident phenomenon we observed in our case study and, it can be argued, is present across all informal settlements. The added symbolic value that the user of informal settlements attaches to a space that has been communally constructed is what can convert such spaces into places of importance. We observed how the collective building process intrinsically adding value to place was one way CE was applied in the case of Carpinelo 2 in two ways. The first resides with the foundation of informal settlements during the land-claiming efforts. The second relates to the community’s construction of communal and individual structures, which are imprinted in each design that adds value to a place.

Placemaking by Land Taking and Foundation

Placemaking roots back to the establishment of the community employing land taking. A key defining feature of informal settlements is the insecure tenure resulting from the unclear ownership of land (Durand-Lasserve 2002). The informal land-claiming process can be long and complex; it includes a set of steps that start with finding a site and later, to collective organizing to schedule a communal land-taking event, which means taking land by occupying the territory. Building quickly is essential for the success of such an effort. After families take plots and make temporary dwellings it is characteristic for landowners or state actors to attempt to remove community members from the site. Eviction is a violent process that often includes police forcefully expelling families and eradicating all structures (Weinstein 2021). The first evictions began a cycle in which community members would later reorganize, return, and rebuild their homes just to be removed violently again. Informal settlements that succeed survive these cycles of destruction and construction. See Figure 6 for a diagram that describes this cycle of land-taking construction and demolition in the foundation of informal settlements. We argue CE thinking plays a role in this process; the entire neighborhood gets disassembled and reassembled with most of the same materials left by the destruction.

Figure 6. Circularity in construction and destruction at the foundation of informal settlements.

An example is the neighborhood of El Triunfo in Medellín. It has been destroyed three times; the last time, police officers burned all homes and belongings to prevent residents from using leftover material to build back (Marko and Samper 2010). We argue that CE is present in two ways; the first is that since inception, homes have resulted from circular no-waste thinking intended to be disassembled and reassembled infinitely. The second one engages with the idea of CE and place; community members by land taking, building, and defending the space of the neighborhood and its structures attach to these spaces value that makes them meaningful places.

Placemaking by Self-build

Participating in the self-building of structures in informal settlements makes structures meaningful. And in that way, it lasts longer. It is imperative to highlight that these spaces fought for, created, and rebuilt by the residents have immense value. Understanding the meaning behind these spaces is achieved best through experience, and we find ourselves reminiscing on our experiences.

Most streets in Carpinelo are steps since the elevated topography does not permit streets. The value of those concrete steps was not evident at first glance. However, we realized these spaces fulfill many other functions, like gathering spaces that become extensions of home dining rooms when the weather permits. We became accustomed to these events during our observation, leaving us with valuable memories of our time there. The residents who not only walk down those steps every day but were there before and while they were being built have made that space significant; therefore, they take care of it, maintain it, and repair it if needed. When we arrived the first time, a community member pointed to the steps and narrated an entire story about their value history, past and future. The culmination of each segment was an event that all families celebrated; Figure 7 depicts the last pour of concrete in the final stair section in November of 2022, where community members dressed in Colombian colors to commemorate the event. As with these steps, each phase of the improvement of homes became a milestone to celebrate and remember. The long and sometimes painful process of establishing an informal community creates a bond to that place that means structures are sustained over time, and demonstrates the application of circularity by placemaking in these communities.

Figure 7. Medellín Practicum Studio CU Boulder Community Carpinelo 2, Community Garden, Medellín, Colombia, Oct. 6, 2022. An event commemorating the last pouring of concrete for the steps to the highest house of Carpinelo 2, Calle 107a. (Credit: Adolfo Taborda)

Conclusion

This paper debates the innovation, tenacity, and ingenuity that informal settlement dwellers exercise as they build and constantly reshape their built environment. However, we must reiterate that this is not an attempt to glorify or romanticize poverty. The harsh reality is that these communities in extreme poverty face many risks. One of this century’s most important challenges is resolving those risks for the one billion people living under such conditions. Still, it is central to highlight that the circumstances of scarcity in which they live have forced them to innovate and develop new city-building processes that starkly contrast conventional city-building practices. Their application of CE is something we can learn from as we strive to pursue more sustainable cities.

By looking at how residents in these settlements applied CE, we found that one of the challenges of circularity implementation is that we think of buildings as finite structures that impose linear thinking. In contrast, the unfinished nature of informal settlements encourages more circular thinking. When building the community garden structure, the lack of resources such as time and funds forced community members to consider the design an unfinished product and the first step in a series of future ones. Our society emphasizes the creation of finite constructions and conceptualizes buildings as finished projects. However, informal settlements’ scarcity conditions, which impede a limited design and impose an incremental approach to the built environment, force CE thinking into the design, construction, and retrofitting of structures. Informal settlements’ incrementality forces builders to envision buildings as continuously transforming, and by doing so they include in the building process the cataloging, dismantling, and reassembling of materials crucial for CE.

We identified placemaking as a valuable way to sustain structures longer and avoid waste. Contemporary building practices have delinked building experience from the occupant by focusing on the specialization of functions. In turn, that distancing creates a detachment from place and structure in those who encounter them. Constructions become commodities that users quickly replace, products of our current linear economy waiting to become waste. Linking the user with the building experience creates meaningful attachments to places that support built structures over long periods. The added value then justifies expenditures in upkeep and upgrading. Finally, informal settlements teach us that placemaking results from communal efforts, and entire neighborhoods result from residents’ engagement in building their environment. By building in association, communities in informal settlements promote the participation of all actors in the identified core ideas of CE. This kind of sizeable societal engagement found in informal settlements has eluded the application of CE in our neighborhoods.

Informality supports and challenges linear economic processes embedded in our capitalist system. It provides cheap labor for mass-produced goods but challenges land ownership, one of the cornerstones of capitalism. It is precisely that contradiction that becomes the ground for the claims of this paper. One can argue that the immense amount of waste generated by our built environment is a consequence of the linear economy’s failure. Nonetheless, by challenging this system, informal settlements should not be considered part of that failure. On the contrary, informal communities that already showcase circularity have the upper hand in transitioning to a CE. As we refrain from glorifying poverty, we can learn from the human ingenuity displayed by these communities.

Acknowledgments

A CU Boulder Outreach Award from the Office for Outreach and Engagement at the University of Colorado Boulder sponsored some portions of this research.

Data Sharing Statement

The data supporting this study’s findings are available on request from the corresponding authors, J. Samper and E. Andrade. The data are not publicly available as they contain information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jota Samper

Jota Samper is an Assistant Professor at the Environmental Design Program ENVD, University of Colorado Boulder. His work at Informal Settlements Research concentrates on sustainable urban growth at the intersection of urban informality (“slums”) and violent urban conflict. Samper’s “Atlas of Informality” was presented in a TEDx Talk to an audience of 1.6 million viewers.

Erika Andrade

Erika Andrade is a Designer at Tryba Architects, Denver. She works on urban architecture with research at the intersection of the user and space. She is a recent graduate of the University of Colorado Boulder. Her thesis “The Racialization of Educational Spaces” received the highest distinction.