Cost effects of implementing the action plan

The Action Plan for the Circular and Sharing Economy now includes a total of 23 measures. The preliminary cost effects, resource needs and environmental benefits of each measure have been assessed on a three-tier scale of low, moderate and high. A low cost is less than EUR 50,000, a moderate cost is EUR 50,000–500,000 and a high cost is more than EUR 500,000. The estimates are indicative.
 

There are five measures with high estimated costs. These are particularly related to the piloting of new operating methods and solutions to be developed in construction and demolition as well as to promoting the smoother use of the city’s premises by residents. Smooth joint use of the city’s premises requires functional digital solutions, which are costly to develop and pilot. The circular economy of construction is still in its early stages, so taking circular economy aspects into account and assessing the life-cycle impacts in the design requires more time and resources than conventional design. At the moment, solutions in line with the circular economy are also often costly. However, as expertise increases and circular economy practices stabilise, the situation can be expected to change. Many solutions based on the circular economy may also prove to be more affordable from a life-cycle perspective. In addition, investing in the reuse of building components and materials will strengthen the city’s resilience to fluctuations in the price of building materials.

Six of the land use planning and construction measures have been estimated to have high resource requirements and the rest to have moderate resource requirements. Procurement measures and promoting the reuse of the city’s movable property and the smoother use of premises by residents also involve high resource requirements. However, all these measures have been assessed as having great or moderate benefits in terms of the consumption of natural resources and emissions. Other measures which are expected to bring great benefits include staff training and measures to reduce food waste.

Four of the measures are estimated to have potential for great financial savings. The first of these is Measure 4, which concerns the promotion of the circular economy in infrastructure and landscaping projects. Significant savings can be achieved by reusing and recycling building materials, in particular. This is evidenced, for example, by the work to coordinate the city’s land masses and the Kalasatama–Pasila tramway and Jokeri Light Rail railway projects. Significant financial savings can also be achieved through Measure 16 on the reuse of the city’s movable property. The City of Helsinki purchases millions of euros worth of furniture every year. A thesis commissioned by the Education Division (Saara Ahtaanluoma, The Reuse of Furniture at the City of Helsinki: Education Division, in finnish) provided calculations showing that the reuse of the city’s own furniture could achieve up to more than 95% cost and emission savings than the purchase of new furniture. The third measure with great potential is Measure 17 on reducing food waste. One of the goals of Palvelukeskus Helsinki’s productivity programme is to achieve EUR 300,000 in savings in food services in 2023 by investing in optimising food preparation volumes and production methods. The fourth measure is related to promoting the smoother use of the city’s premises by residents (Measure 19). With the rebuilt Varaamo service, overlapping facility reservation systems can be given up. A smoother reservation service will enable a significant increase in sales, in addition to the more efficient use of the city’s existing premises. There will also be an indirect economic impact from the reduction in the manual work of city personnel.

It is difficult to accurately assess all the ecological and economic impacts of the measures of the Action Plan for the Circular and Sharing Economy in advance, as the final impacts will depend, to a large extent, on the solutions chosen and their scope. In many cases, the effects are also delayed; investing in sustainable, repairable, reusable solutions may be more expensive at the investment stage but prove to be a more economical option over the life-cycle. In order to clarify these impacts, it is important to develop the assessment of the life-cycle costs and environmental impacts of procurements and investments.