**2. Circular economy, closed loop systems, and agricultural byproducts**

Whereas the author of this chapter is not an expert scholar within the burgeoning field of Circular Economy (CE), it is important to point out similarities of CE to what was once referred to as a closed loop system; the creation of a closed-loop system for producing compost, coffee or clothing, for example, should be based upon the principles of (CE). It is important to mention that the term circular economy first appeared in the literature as part of a study by Pearce and Turner (1990) [5]. This earlier research, referenced by Anderson (2007) and later Kumble (2019), worked to establish a link between production activities in industry [6, 7]. Thus, CE is recognized as a good strategy that can minimize any unneeded waste by increasing manufacturing efficient [8–10]. In general terms, this was called a closed-loop system, and was initially introduced by Boulding (1966) and later refined by Leontief (1991). The concept is based upon using raw materials and the superfluous waste contained within a closed loop [11, 12], meaning that you recycle the end product and its associated components in the manufacturing of a new item. Obviously, this is perhaps a standard used within the agricultural industry, but it can also be applied at a much smaller scale. An excellent example of this is where organic waste is converted into fertilizer and recycled into the soil. A closed loop system is a bit more complicated to achieve within the manufacturing industries given the huge variety of the product being produced. Nevertheless, if one were to try to explain CE as it might relate to ecological efficiency as demonstrated in agricultural production, things become perhaps less clear due to the diversity of what we make and how it is both distributed and consumed, as mentioned above. The literature has established that sophisticated cultures demand more resources to meet both their social and economic needs [13–15] at the cost of resource depletion, many of which are finite and ultimately not sustainable.

As presented in an extensive literature review of more than 500 articles, Merli et al. (2018), the authors established that CE can overcome what they referred to as the "take–make–disposal linear pattern of production and consumption" [16]. Whereas this may sound like a mouthful, pun intended, the principle behind this phrase aimed to preserve raw materials resources, within the production system as long as possible. Although one might think that all manufacturing aims to do this as a way to cut costs and improve efficiency, the sheer volume of industrial waste that ends up being disposed of in a landfill or elsewhere suggests otherwise. Merli et al. established a connection between the temporal scale with product production and reuse—the longer and greater diversity of how raw products are used play to the benefit of sustainable efficiency. Unfortunately, scholars seldom consider both the social and institutional inferences of CE at the environmental and economic level. Professor of landscape architecture John T. Lyle demonstrated this dysfunction as part of his applied research nearly 40 years ago, launching a movement which later became more broadly referred to as *regenerative design*. This work was published in the book, *Design for Human Ecosystems* [17], which eloquently demonstrated how closed-loop systems are used for waste water recycling, integrated pest management, renewable energy production, and efficient use of finite resources. Professor Lyle's applied work can be found today at the Center for Regenerative Studies on the campus of Cal Poly Pomona, California, USA.

It is interesting yet not surprising that Circular Economy is a contested title and description [18, 19]. I believe that this is attributed to the fact that it is very much an interdisciplinary topic, with feet in different scholarly and professional fields. Such definitive controversy or tension is not unique to CE. For example, ecotourism experiences a similar level of confusion and uncertainty; is it part of the tourism industry or simply a movement that promotes natural or cultural resource

conservation with a focus upon nature-based experiences while also accounting for the intended educational and learning experience of the place visited? Perhaps even the often and over used terminology—sustainability—shares the dubious distinction of uncertainly, different meanings, and "gray" clarity. Regardless, ascribing CE within the context of compost production in a developing-world economy is not flawed or inappropriate, nor does it create confusion. In fact, it might even help to provide a clearer category for how recycling through compost production fits within the broader business of manufacturing. In an effort to lend clarity to this topic, Kumble (2019), reported on how Kirchherr et al. (2017) evaluated 114 definitions of the term CE, which led to the creation of the following definition: *"…CE describes an economic system that is based on business models which replace the end of life concept with reducing, and alternatively reusing and recycling materials in production, distribution, and consumption processes…"* [20]. Perhaps the confusion does not exist within trying to actually define what truly is CE, but rather which through what business or policy models to use [7]. As with ecotourism or even the popularized term sustainability, it is perhaps better expressed as a verb and not a noun; it is about action and should not be boxed-in with a one-fits-all place-based definition. What is exciting is that now CE can be perceived as a possible means by which achieve the principles of sustainable development [21], and more specific for the work in Guatemala contained in this chapter, achieving social sustainability.

More recent literature describes the need for quantifiable factors associated with the lifespan of a product to best determine the efficiency of CE. It seems that this current trend is attempting to alleviate the uncertainty mentioned above. This then introduces a new set of questions, such as what those indicators should be and of course how to account for variability? Again, this raises the question of boxing-in, a trend with rigid definitions. A plausible definition of lifespan of a product might be related to the number of times or repetition that a something is used and reused while also considering the longevity or duration of that use. Research by Figge et al. (2018) contend that the duration (temporal) and circularity (complexity) are necessary for sustainable resource use, but how should one clearly ascribe measurements that combine both approaches such as temporal complexity [22]? Again, Figge's research team argued for a complex matrix to measure both, which is not surprising given their background in economic studies. If then one were to use this model and apply it toward the production of compost from green waste and brown carbon such as cardboard or wood chips, this production technique would achieve temporal longevity. What now becomes significant is that compost production suggests quantitative and qualitative factors that are key concepts of CE.

Sama, et al. (2018) described how the food industry has successfully made the more toward the production of fair-trade products and socially responsible consumption, both which are a critical measurement of sustainability within CE [23]. With that, the world has been moving, albeit slowly, toward circular economy with the demand to become more sustainable its daily life with the production of coffee, clothing, or perhaps compost. With the popularizing of fair-trade products, consumer demand for these goods produced in developing countries such as Guatemala can be found at a worldwide scale. This trend is evident in the move toward "green projects" that supports environmentally sustainable investments, as reported by Falcone el al. (2018) [24] on ethical socially responsible projects. They reported on the trend for funding radical green innovation. It could be argued that this is simply *green washing*, or it might suggest a new paradigm shift in how business is being conducted due to reduced costs, reduced energy consumption, and the added benefit of producing a positive and sustainable result. George, et al. (2015) discussed the connection between green finance within circular economy [25] specific to the biomass production sector; this is akin to the production of compost.

#### *Compost, Social Sustainability, and Circular Economy in Guatemala DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100280*

The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) published a report in 2011 reporting on the trend toward an economy based upon low carbon outputs, signaling the move toward green businesses [26]. Has this been a true shift in response to climate change or as mentioned earlier, simply green washing? With regard toward the aforementioned biomass production, the movement toward renewable energy and associated industries—such as making compost from green waste in Guatemala—is no doubt significant. Again, the UNEP report found that the money required worldwide could be 2% of global GDP between 2010 and 2050 [27]. Although a significant sum, are their other viable alternatives?

When weighing the costs and long-term benefits of the global movement toward being more green, not because it is marketable but because it is necessary, what are then the implications of making compost from market waste, and how can this small action by the municipal government in Guatemala City be a model for other communities to follow? When trying to apply a change in how business is conducted, some world economies have adopted a top-down centralized approach [28], while others believe that a community-based bottom-up movement is more appropriate [29]. It is difficult to generalize which is more appropriate and perhaps local conditions and the size or scale of the problem is the main determinant.

No doubt, CE contains numerous complexities in both how it might be defined and quantified, likely due to the various disciplines associated, as argued above. With this understanding, or perhaps the uncertainty of how to best demonstrate the circular nature of making compost, in addition with how does it in fact represent a closed loop system applicable in Guatemala or any other culture, the research presented in this chapter attempted to achieve a variety of applied and theoretical objectives:


The work reported in this chapter did in fact have multiple objectives as described above. Initiating a startup business and its associated challenges of balancing economic, environmental, and social objectives was not to be taken lightly, however altruistic as they may have seemed. These three pillars or three Es are the foundations of sustainability [32], but how should one bridge gap between pedagogical theory and real-world working conditions while factoring in a myriad of political and social challenges? Perhaps a brief revisit of how sustainability became part of the world dialog is in order.
