Keywords

1 Introduction

One of the core aspects or “building blocks” of the model of CE, that revolutionized the previous linear economy model, is the design of circular production and consumption models that aims to reducing, slowing and closing the flows of resources [1]. As such “reducing” reflects in general in improving the efficiency in the use of resources needed for products, processes, or systems whereas the “slowing” also reduces the speed in the use of resources by designing long-life products (e.g., applying the concept of design for durability or reliability) as well as extending their service life (through strategies such as reuse, maintenance, repair, and technical upgrading). The last strategy “closing the loops” recycles materials or other kinds of resources (e.g., by-products) by closing the loops in both post-production and post-consumption stages avoiding landfillingFootnote 1 [1]. At the company or industry level, the application of CE translates into the adoption of cleaner production processes creating the opportunity of exploring internal and external recycling processes with other companies in the supply chain [2,3,4]. Through internal or external recycling strategies, the industrial activities operate more closely to the functioning of natural ecosystems where resources are never considered as a “waste” [5]. Frosch and Gallopoulous [6] in their seminal work emphasized the need for industrial activities to be more integrated by cooperating in exchanges of by-products and resources. They quote that:

The traditional model of industrial activity... should be transformed into a more integrated model: an industrial ecosystem. In such a system the consumption of energy and materials is optimized, waste generation is minimized, and the effluents of one process...serve as the raw material for another [6].

These concepts, on the production side, translate into cooperative networks of resource exchanges (materials, water, energy, and by-products) between independent companies of the same sector or other sectors [3]. The primary essence of establishing such resource exchange for “industrial symbiosis” [7] is gaining an economic advantage, of course, there are environmental benefits too [7]. In this regard, the Kalundborg eco-industrial park in Denmark is a reference case all over the world for a smart community of companies applying circularity.Footnote 2 Other EIPs have been identified all over the world, analyzed, and documented well in literature [7,8,9,10].

The meso level of CE implementation also comprises programs of residential complexes of households aimed to reduce and optimize the use of energy, water, and solid waste [11, 12]. Moreover, resource exchanges can be realized in cities between the civil society (e.g., households) and private sector (e.g., industries) with the support of local government. Applications of these practices can be found in Rotterdam (The Netherlands) and Japanese eco-cities [9, 13]. The Rotterdam Energy Approach and Planning (REAP) started in 2009 by the Rotterdam local authority’s aims to realize several initiatives of urban symbiosis at different levels: city, district, neighborhood, and building level. At the city level, it involves the reuse of waste energy flows coming from the harbor industries towards the district heating grid. At the district/neighborhood scale, the waste heat of offices and shops can be directed to homes where the energy can be exchanged between swimming pools (requiring heat) and ice-skating rings (requiring cooling and using renewable energy).Footnote 3

In this chapter, we begin by providing definitions and features of EIPs and further present the assessment frameworks and indicators useful for industrial parks in transitioning to the model of EIP as well as for evaluating the performance of EIPs with illustrations and case studies (IZ NÖ-Süd in Austria and the Ulsan Mipo and Onsan Industrial Park in South Korea). Then, the National Eco-industrial Park Standard in China inclusive of the indicators adopted for evaluation is provided as a further case study. Also, the Kalundborg EIP is discussed as another case that includes a description of its environmental and socio-economic performances. We conclude with a summary of this chapter on Eco-Industrial Parks.

2 Understanding Eco-Industrial Parks (EIP)

One of the first definitions of Eco-industrial park has been provided by Cotè and Hall [14, 15] as follows: an industrial system which conserves natural and economic resources; reduces production, material, energy, insurance and treatments costs and liabilities; improves operating efficiency, quality, worker health and public image; and provides opportunities for income generation from use and sale of wasted materials. This definition has been further expanded by Lowe [16] to emphasize that the aim of realizing cooperative strategies for the company’s part of an EIP is the realization of particular synergies. The EIPs show that businesses are not always playing a zero-sum game, by working together to achieve more benefits (economic, environmental and social) as compared to the case in which each company worked alone. In the context of EIP as a whole, some authors compare the behavior of companies interacting with each other to a chemical reaction, where the combination of the reagents gives a product and some residues in the form of waste and emissions. However, for this to happen, the reaction should have some activation energy, be profitable, and release more energy than required for activating the reaction [17]. Similarly, the rationale underlying the realization of an EIP is to find companies (reagents) that are highly compatible (reactive with one another) in terms of input and output, and the procedures to realize cooperative strategies that are profitable for the participating companies [17]. The implementation of EIPs can be the result of planned projects defined at the national level as in the case of China, that has so far developed the largest EIP program [18, 19]. However, there are also EIPs that have been created based on pre-existing spontaneous initiatives of symbiotic relationships among the participating companies (as in the case of Kalundborg in Denmark) and mixed experiences of EIPs (Burnside, Kawasaki, Central Gulf Coast, Kwinana) where the top-down planning of the EIP project is associated with the unplanned nature of the symbiotic relationships occurring in the EIP [18, 20].

Fig. 4.1
An illustration of a pot plant with 11 branches. The pot represents the E I P, while the branches represent the important parts. It begins with the identification of stakeholders and community involvement and culminates with flexible policies that reward performance goals.

Template Copyright PresentationGO.com

Schematic illustration of the key elements characterizing an EIP [15].

Full size image

Cotè and Cohen-Rosenthal defined the key elements characterizing an EIP to distinguish the EIP from a conventional industrial park [15], illustrated in Fig. 4.1. These include (adapted from Cotè and Cohen-Rosenthal [15]):

  1. 1.

    The definition of the stakeholders’ community of the EIP and the consideration of their involvement in the design of the park;

  2. 2.

    The reduction of environmental impacts and the ecological footprint by replacing toxic materials, absorption of CO2, material exchanges, and integrated treatment of wastes;

  3. 3.

    Maximization of the energy efficiency by utilizing the design of facility and construction, co-generation and cascading;

  4. 4.

    Conservation of materials through facility design and construction, reuse, recovery and recycling;

  5. 5.

    Link or network of companies with suppliers and customers in the wider community in which the eco-industrial park is located;

  6. 6.

    The continuous improvement of the environmental performances by the individual businesses and the community as a whole;

  7. 7.

    A flexible regulatory system that encourages the companies to meet the performance goals;

  8. 8.

    The use of economic instruments that encourage waste and pollution prevention;

  9. 9.

    The adoption of an information management system (monitoring system) that supports the flow of energy and materials within a more or less closed-loop;

  10. 10.

    The creation of a mechanism for the training and education of managers and workers about new strategies, tools, and technologies to improve the system;

  11. 11.

    The orientation of the marketing (including green marketing) of the EIP, to favor the inclusion of new companies that fill niches and complement other businesses [15].

2.1 The Need for Evaluating the Performances of EIPs

The development of EIPs tries to address the need for mitigating the environmental impacts of industrial areas [21]. The classification of EIPs stems from the presence of a community of companies that cooperate with each other in the sharing/exchange of resources (materials, water, energy, by-products) and/or infrastructure. The EIPs are then helpful in achieving greater resource efficiency through the realization of ‘economies of systems integration’ where a central role is played by the adoption of IS. The latter involves the activation of complex interplay of resource exchanges (materials, water, energy, and by-products) within the participating companies to achieve socio-economic and environmental benefits [16, 17].Footnote 4 The essence of industrial symbiosis is taking full advantage of by-product utilization, while reducing residual products or treating them effectively. The term is usually applied to a network of independent companies that exchange by-products and possibly share other common resources [23]. Economic benefits arise for example from avoiding the waste disposal costs and the purchasing of raw materials while the environmental benefits come from the reduction of waste generation and the exploitation of new resource inputs coming from participating companies [18] substituting them with commercial products or raw materials [17].

The EIPs can be evaluated from different perspectives. For example, in terms of performance requirements for existing industrial parks to shift towards the EIP model (such as the UNIDO EIP toolkit and presented in Sect. 4.3). Integral models are also proposed for increasing the knowledge of the metabolism of EIPs and improving their management under the CE perspective [24]. The EIPs can also be evaluated using well-known assessment methods (for example, MFA, LCA, EMA) and related indicators.

For example, [25] applies the MFA to quantify the generation, management (reuse or recycling both on-site and off-site), and disposal of industrial waste in two industrial estates in the Nanjangud Industrial Area (India). The authors evidence that MFA is a key method in industrial ecology research for evaluating the metabolism of a defined system (be it an individual facility or an industrial area) in its input and output including waste generation, and their recovery inside companies, within the companies and outside the EIP. Such a method can also be useful in suggesting potential alternative uses of waste materials and evaluate the improvements in resource efficiency [26]. Other authors used LCA to identify existing and potential industrial symbiosis opportunities and their environmental impacts and benefits. Dont et al. [27] used a hybrid LCA to assess the carbon footprint of the Shenyang Economic and Technological Development Zone, an EIP in China for identifying the sources (on-site and off-site the EIP) and industries contributing to the highest environmental impacts. They found that almost 45% of the latter come from on-site activities of the EIP whereas 55% of them from off-site the EIP. The Emergy Accounting has also been applied to analyze the performances of SETDZ EIP in China in terms of environmental and economic benefits coming from the existing IS. The authors also identified opportunities of increasing the benefits by the expansion of exchanges towards those related to the reuse of treated wastewater from local wastewater treatment, the reuse of sludge from wastewater treatment as a fertilizer, the reduction of the use of coal as an energy source and its substitution with renewable energies such as wind energy [28]. Finally, Chertow et al. [29] studied the number of by-products that could potentially be reused in industrial symbiosis in the Mysuru industrial district in India to understand the potential public benefits (e.g. saved landfill capacity, lower need for public wastewater treatment) deriving from the potential activation of the IS and also, which industries could be facilitated in the activation of the IS by policymakers. They also assessed using a Life Cycle Impact Assessment, the potential impacts of the IS, finding relevant environmental benefits in terms of reduction of CO2 and PM10 in the IS scenario compared to that without IS.

Table 4.1 Park Management, Environmental, Economic, and Social performances requirements for EIPs (see Footnote 5). Source The UNIDO, the World Bank Group, and Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (German Development Cooperation) (GIZ) GmbH, 2017
Full size table

3 Evaluating Eco-Industrial Parks: The Assessment Framework by UNIDO

The UNIDO EIP toolkit Footnote 5 has been developed for guiding industrial parks towards the mainstreaming of EIPs and assuring their compliance to sustainability. In that, it has been intended as a useful tool for supporting the implementation and decision-making process of existing and new industrial parks. The EIP Toolboxprovides a wide range of tools useful for the selection of industrial parks for new EIP projects, stakeholder mapping, policy support, assessing industrial parks, identification of symbiotic industries, monitoring impacts from company-level production activities, and park-level EIP opportunities [30].

The various categories and the major aspects covered under the UNIDO toolkit are given in Table 4.1 that lists the performance requirements for EIPs within four key categories: (i) park management performance, (ii) environmental performance, (iii) social performance, and (iv) economic performance. The framework provides the basis for defining and setting prerequisites and performance requirements for EIPs, based on 51 criteria (benchmarks) [30]. However, it is important to underline that the development of the EIP toolkit aims not only to define minimum performance requirements to be met by industrial parks in transitioning to the model of EIP but to hopefully stimulate the EIP for the continuous improvement of their performances.

The UNIDO, The World Bank, and GIZ under their project and collaborative efforts in supporting the EIPs development worldwide have published a working paper, in which they describe in detail, the just above-mentioned toolkit and apply it to the evaluation of the performances of existing EIPs. This is to show how the adoption of the concept of EIPs in practice provides the case for more sustainable and inclusive development of industrial parks. Here, we report the main results of the analysis (mainly qualitative as only a few quantitative data are provided) from such a working paper on two existing EIPsFootnote 6: the industrial IZ NÖ-Süd in Austria and the Ulsan Mipo and Onsan Industrial Park in South Korea. A brief explanation of the framework implementation for the IZ NÖ-Süd and the Ulsan Mipo and Onsan Industrial Park has been provided below (see Footnotes 5 and 6).

3.1 Industrial Zone NÖ-Süd Eco-Industrial Park, Austria

The IZ NÖ-Süd EIP in Austria is more than half a century old and comprises 370 companies. Most of them are SMEs as well as international companies that mainly rent the facilities for office, storage, and production space purposes. The sectors covered by the companies include food and beverage, aluminum and steel converting,Footnote 7 production of energy and technical components, environmental services and technologies, and logistics. The EIP is managed by a private business holding company named ‘Ecoplus’ which is experienced in managing EIPs. Such a private business aims to ensure the achievement of an added value for the region, the creation of local jobs, and a more sustainable regional development. The compliance to the above requirements translates into the following EIP performances and impacts:

  1. 1.

    Park Management: The holding company Ecoplus acts as a hub that links institutions, public authorities, and partners. It supports companies from the creation of their business idea to its financing. Ecoplus also supports companies in the EIP in facilitating relations with local authorities, for example, in obtaining permits for the company’s activities.

  2. 2.

    Economic performance: The Ecoplus business park IZ NÖ-Süd employs around 11,000 people and relies on long-term collaborations with local vocational schools in the neighboring 4 municipalities (namely, Biedermannsdorf, Guntramsdorf, Laxenburg, and Wiener Neudorf). The collaboration is useful for the recruitment and retention of skilled work force. Ecoplus provides other economic core services, including the creation of business networks, organization of conferences and event facilities, coordination of joint media initiatives for companies and the EIP. Additionally, Ecoplus collaborates with universities to better address the issues of industrial development and its environmental and social sustainability.

  3. 3.

    Environmental performance: Ecoplus operates and provides central infrastructure services for the EIP such as a central wastewater treatment plant (totally renovated in 2015–2017), 17 km of access roads, and bus routes, rail connections, and a freight station with the Austrian railroad. Additionally, Ecoplus maintains 100,000 square meters (m2) of green spaces, shrubs, and trees within the industrial parks. This positive landscaping provides space for recreational activities.

  4. 4.

    Social performance: There is an extensive social infrastructure provision in and around the EIP, enabling the growth of a small city. This offers easy access to postal offices and custom services for shipments, restaurants, shopping malls, child care facility, security system, well-designed navigation system to guide visitors through the EIP. Furthermore, space for recreational activities dedicated to employees and local communities are provided including tennis courts and golf courses.

3.2 Ulsan Mipo and Onsan Eco-Industrial Park, South Korea

The Ulsan Mipo and Onsan EIP in South Korea originated from the transformation of the Mipo-Onsan conventional national industrial complexes into a more sustainable EIP operating according to the national EIP development master plan. The EIP is developed over an area of 6,540 hectares and involves currently 1,000 companies. The companies operate in various industrial sectors such as automobile manufacturing, shipbuilding, oil refining, machinery manufacturing, non-ferrous metals, fertilizer, and chemical industries. Overall, the EIP employs more than 100,000 people and has supported inter-business synergies on the basis of the outputs and requirements of each of the businesses in the EIP network [31]. A typical example of such a synergy [31] appears in Fig. 4.2.

Fig. 4.2
A block flow diagram of 30 different industries mapped with arrows. Some of the industries are oil spill restoration company, S K energy, petrochemical cluster, Dau Metal, Teakwang industry, S K C petrochemical, T N C Metal, and Sigma Samsung.

Reproduced from [31]. Copyright, 2012 Elsevier

An overview of symbiosis developed in the Ulsan EIP. The network of arrows connecting varies industries in the park, are channels for delivering by-products/waste from one company which is useful to the neighboring one.

Full size image

The Ulsan EIP Centre is in charge of the management of the EIP, the reception of the project proposals as well as monitoring the achievements of the EIP in terms of economic, environmental, and social benefits. Some results of such monitoring activity are the following:

  1. 1.

    Economic performance: The economic benefits arise in the form of cost savings (resource procurement, operations, and environmental/waste management by replacing virgin materials with by-products) and revenues (generated by selling by-products) which are annually reported. Relevant government investments support research projects and development, including center operations. The government funds contribute to funding new research projects that generate new added value from selling by-products and waste for recycling purposes. Further benefits come from energy and material savings.Footnote 8

  2. 2.

    Environmental performance: The monitoring of the environmental benefits resulted in the reduction of energy consumption, as well as a reduction in the generation of waste or by-products, wastewater, and CO2 emissions. During 2005–2016, the Ulsan EIP program saved energy equivalent of 279,761 tons of oil. This contributed to the reduction of 665,712 tons of CO2 emissions and 4052 tons of toxic gases, such as SOx and NOx. In addition, the reuse of 40,044 tons of by-products and waste contributed to improving the negative image of the industrial complexes related to the emission of pollutants and the social relations with the neighboring communities.

  3. 3.

    Social performance: Compared to the previous EIP, the social performances are not well documented as the data only evidence the economic investments for the construction of networking facilities for industrial symbiosis (totaling US$ 245.8 million in the year 2016) and the creation of 195 new jobs.

4 Case Study I: The National EIPs Evaluation Standard System of China

Since the beginning of this millennium, China has developed the largest global EIPs program. Currently, the Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection has approved more than a hundred EIP projects [8, 32, 33]. Three main types of EIPs included in the program are sector-integrated EIPs, sector-specific EIPs, and venous industry EIPs.

The Chinese EIPs program relies on the development of a National EIPs evaluation standard system introduced in the year 2006 (updated in 2015). Also, China happens to be the first and only country in the world to have a National EIPs evaluation standard system. As evidenced in Table 4.2 (adapted from [33]), the standard includes five categories of indicators related to economic development, industrial symbiosis, resource conservation, environmental protection, and information disclosure. Each of the indicators’ categories is associated with specific targets whose requirements should be satisfied by the EIPs.

Table 4.2 Performance Indicators in the National Chinese EIP standard system. Adapted from [33]
Full size table

Compared to the previous versions of the standard, the latest one applies to all the three types of EIPs with more stringent indicator thresholds (as mentioned above) as there is little use of specific indicators for each one of the three types of EIPs. The industrial symbiosis category of indicators was included for driving the adoption of further industrial symbiosis with others participants. Moreover, another key aspect is the inclusion of the indicator “usage rate of renewable resources” that supports the regeneration and reuse of renewable resources within the existing network of industrial symbiosis. Additionally, the current standard includes environmental risk control indicators for better management of hazardous materials and prevention of environmental accidents. The standard also includes environmental indicators such as “elasticity coefficient of main pollutant emissions” for evaluating the opportunity of contributing to the decoupling between resource consumption and emissions of pollutants and economic growth [33].

Proposals for future improvements consider the expansion of industrial symbiosis indicators for understanding better, the practical implications (for example, economic benefits of the industrial symbiosis), and the sharing of other resources (such as waste heat recovery). The proposal also includes ideas for taking into account the impacts of the EIP on its surroundings and its contribution to promoting a more sustainable local development. In this view, the adoption of exchange of resources with the local community surrounding the EIPs is relevant and the inclusion of social indicators for evaluating and monitoring the social impacts of EIPs can be expected. The role of stakeholders (for example, employees, local government, and communities) is key for the success of participant companies and the whole EIP towards a smarter and longstanding perspective [33].

Fig. 4.3
A schematic diagram of the Kalunborg eco-industrial park with various companies exchanging energy, water, and materials through pipelines among them. The pipelines are represented in 3 different shades.

Copyright 2020, European Union

Kalunborg eco-industrial park with the participant companies and the tracking of energy, water and materials exchanges among them (Courtesy of the Administrative Project and Communications Manager of Kalundborg Symbiosis) (see Footnote 8).

Full size image

5 Case Study II: Kalundborg Symbiosis in Denmark

The Kalundborg Industrial Symbiosis,Footnote 9 Denmark, illustrated in Fig. 4.3 is regarded as the first bottom-up example of industrial symbiosis, that began in 1961 from the spontaneous initiative of a few companies whose initial resource exchange comprised the area of water supply. The number of companies involved (inclusive of those belonging to the heavy industries sector) grew progressively over time, subsequently increasing the exchange of resources, rendering in this way the CE challenge a more accessible reality [5]. This setup is in complete contrast with the traditional vision of industrial systems of being independent and competitive [15]. The industrial symbiosis at Kalundborg is an example of a local public-private partnership where the participant companies provide, share, and reuse energy, water, and materials to create new and mutual economic benefits. The economic benefits have been a key driver, guiding over such a long time, the adoption of new projects and their advancement [18] even if other factors such as those related to resource scarcity (e.g. low water availability) have been relevant in each of the resource exchange projects [34]. The business models of circular start-ups seem the most suitable in Kalundborg due to the existence of industrial symbiosis and the continuous innovation in this context. Besides cooperation between participants, crucial factors such as trust, confidentiality, and openness make Kalundborg a successful and longstanding case study and a real icon of the industrial ecosystem at the global level.

Moreover, this EIP (formalized in 2011 as a private association named ‘Kalundborg Symbiosis’) relies on a structure inclusive of a board of directors comprising a member from each of the participant companies and regular meeting schedule needed to take the relevant decisions such as the implementation of new symbiosis projects.Footnote 10 In terms of structure and functioning, the Kalundborg Symbiosis consists of 25 different resource flow channels for water, energy, and material flows, linking six industrial sectors and three public sector organizations.

The combined annual benefits for the partners in Kalundborg have been assessed through LCA taking into account the data flows in 2015. In monetary terms, it amounted to 24 million euros along with socio-economic benefits (for example, those derived from avoiding costs in waste management) amounting to 14 million euros (see Footnote 9). The combined annual environmental benefits for the partners of the Kalundborg Symbiosis are as follows:

  • Reduction of 635,000 tons of CO2

  • Reduction of 3, 6 million m3 of water

  • Reduction of 100 GWh of energy

  • Reduction of 87,000 tons of materials.Footnote 11

Many studies have analyzed the origins, functioning, and performances of Kalundborg, along with providing qualitative and quantitative evidence of the exchanges occurring in such EIPs [34] highlighting the economic and environmental benefits. For example, there are exchanges of high-temperature steam from Ørsted’s combined heat and power plant (located at Enghave Brygge, Sydhavnen in Copenhagen, Denmark), to many of the other partners in the symbiosis (see Footnote 8), saving energy and benefitting the companies at the same time. A further study [35] analyzed the evolution of the resilience capacity of Kalundborg to various perturbations as well as its improvements in diversification of energy sources that reduced the dependence on fossil fuel in favor of bioenergy.

6 Concluding Opinion

This chapter aimed to provide an overview of how to evaluate circularity at the meso level, particularly in EIPs. This study showed how EIPs can be identified, how the companies within an EIP interact with each other as well as how the EIPs are managed and relates to the local community. After defining EIPs in all their important elements according to the most relevant literature in the field, the UNIDO EIP toolkit developed to support the implementation of EIPs in existing and new industrial parks were briefly introduced as well as the toolkit’s application in evaluating the environmental, economic and social performances of the two EIPs (The IZ NÖ-Süd EIP in Austria and The Ulsan Mipo and Onsan in South Korea). The National EIPs evaluation standard system developed by the Chinese government has been presented through its current indicators along with some of the most significant updates compared to the previous versions of the evaluation standard system. The updates regard the inclusion of indicators measuring the industrial symbiosis category that is a central aspect in an EIP.

Whereas the UNIDO EIP toolkit serves more as a checklist of best practices for an EIP and helps set them apart from normal industrial parks, the Chinese National Evaluation Standard System for EIPs provides indicators to measure the performance of EIPs. In particular, the Austrian Case shows that the EIP meets the imperatives of sustainable development in industrial activities by delivering a wide range of benefits (not limited to economic benefits only) that contribute to creating a more favorable context with the local community and a better relationship with the natural environment. In this view, echoing Cohen-Rosenthal [36], eco-industrial development presents an archway for a better future where companies aim for continuous improvement of their economic, environmental and social performances.