City and Environment Interactions 16 (2022) 100086
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
City and Environment Interactions
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/city-and-environment-interactions
Review Articles
A review of international eco-industrial parks for implementation success in
the United States
Daniel V. Perrucci a, b, *, Can B. Aktaş c, Joseph Sorentino b, 1, Halimat Akanbi b, 1, Jack Curabba b, 1
a
East Carolina University, Department of Construction Management, E 5th St, Greenville, NC 27858, United States
Alfred State College, Department of Civil Engineering Technology, 10 Upper College Drive, Alfred, NY 14802, United States
c
TED University, Department of Civil Engineering, Ziya Gökalp Cad. No:48, Kültür Mah. 06420, Çankaya, Turkey
b
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Industrial ecology
Construction Waste
Agent-based Modeling
Social Network Analysis
Inter-firm Relations
Eco-industrial parks (EIP) are an organization of businesses grouped around material needs and outputs.
Functional synergies need to be formed that benefit both or multiple companies in these grouped organizations.
Such synergies may be in the form of sharing resources, materials, infrastructure, information, or industrial
ecology principles in the form of one entity using the by-product of another entity as input. There are envi­
ronmental, economic as well as societal gains to be realized through eco-industrial parks. A meta-analysis was
conducted to assess EIP success to date, as well as to report experienced advantages of EIPs in practice. Many EIP
projects failed to come to fruition or have transformed and fallen back on traditional industrial practices. Close
examination of such cases provides valuable lessons for future EIP projects and provides insight into why ecoindustrial parks have historically high failure rates in the United States. The study offers a summary and crit­
ical analysis of success factors for EIP development (e.g., geographic requirements, stakeholder involvement and
dedication, community involvement, and regulatory system/agency support). In addition, the strategies and
methods for future success of eco-industrial parks (e.g., agent-based modeling, optimization modeling, noncompetitive waste stream selection) are discussed. Agent-based modeling can identify true costs and benefits
and enable monitoring of EIPs during their operation. Use of optimization techniques may be applied to over­
come the complexity of multi-objective mathematical models aiming to balance the needs of multiple firms and
multiple resources being allocated among them. Non-competitive waste streams can alleviate various social
concerns between firms in an EIP conglomerate, due to reduced competition and mutual benefit such as reutilizing waste that is traditional expensive to eliminate, reducing disposal costs, and raw material sourcing costs.
1. Introduction
On a global scale, there is a finite number of natural resources. The
re-utilization of previously harvested materials, and reduction of newly
harvested raw material, is one of the main methods to meet the
manufacturing demands of an increasing global population. In addition,
the increasing severity and frequency of natural hazards lead to severe
disruptions and devastation to the built environment that requires mass
reconstruction and unexpected materials utilization before the end of
the initial designed life [1]. On a national scale, the United States has
experienced a severe raw material shortage and supply chain disruption
due to the impacts of COVID-19. This material shortage led to decreased
manufacturing capabilities and record-level price increases for raw
materials and products [2].
A methodology that decreases the required raw materials through
material re-utilization can reduce the strain from increased
manufacturing demand due to the global population increases, envi­
ronmental impacts from reconstruction after natural hazards, and sup­
ply chain disruptions similar to those during COVID-19. Eco-industrial
parks are one methodology revitalized during the 1992 Earth Summit
that academic researchers and policy decision-makers have investigated
and implemented on a global scale to experience cost savings and
environmental advantages when manufacturing new products [3]. This
study investigates the success of eco-industrial parks around the world
and finds an increased potential for failure in the United States, which
encourages this review to identify attributes of the global eco-industrial
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: perruccid22@ecu.edu, perrucdv@alfredstate.edu (D.V. Perrucci).
1
These authors have contributed equally.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cacint.2022.100086
Received 10 May 2022; Received in revised form 22 August 2022; Accepted 24 August 2022
Available online 30 August 2022
2590-2520/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
D.V. Perrucci et al.
City and Environment Interactions 16 (2022) 100086
park to maximize the success of United States implementations.
To increase the rate of successful implementations of eco-industrial
parks in the United States, this study first investigates and establishes
a modernized concept of the increasingly complex definition of ecoindustrial parks. Next, a structured literature review approach priori­
tizes publications from after the global consensus on the importance of
environmentally friendly development at the 1992 United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (i.e., Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) [3].
This review identifies EIP attributes and implementation methodol­
ogies that led to global eco-industrial park implementation success,
before ultimately discussing research thrusts requiring further investi­
gation for application in the United States to achieve increased rates of
EIP implementation successes (e.g., social network analysis, noncompetitive waste streams, and agent-based modelling) [4–7]. Specif­
ically, this study suggests the utilization of select waste streams to
eliminate inter-firm trust issues, labeled as non-competitive waste, and
consisting of materials which may be traditionally hard to discard for
one industry yet an alternative to another industry’s current practice.
Using this ideology of a non-competitive waste streams, an ecoindustrial park involving construction waste with examples of material
exchanges is proposed.
the importance of material exchanges to counteract the impacts of
resource depletion and are conducting innovative research on industrial
symbiosis with relevance to eco-industrial parks. These latest studies
include, but are not limited to, applying casual loop diagrams to un­
derstand social impacts on material interdependencies, utilizing
scenario-based approaches to analyze value chains during disruptive
events, and analyzing ecological food webs to understand eco-industrial
exchanges [17–21].
Today, eco-Industrial Parks combine the ideology behind industrial
ecology, cleaner production, and waste management to produce not
only a more environmentally friendly industrial infrastructure but also
one that is more efficient and profitable. Fig. 1 depicts this ideology in an
interconnected 5-stage process where new products are produced at an
EIP community utilizing less raw materials at a potentially lower cost
depending on recycled resource processing; ultimately, supporting a
transition away from traditional linear resource consumption [22,23].
The interconnected five stage life cycle process begins with the
traditional manufacturing of a product which transitions into its
designed purpose in stage 2. As this product reaches the end of its design
life, stage 3 initiates to divert all, or a portion of, the product’s waste.
The final stage of an eco-industrial park is the processing of one man­
ufacturer’s product waste into recyclable materials in to replace raw
materials in a new manufactured new product.
EIPs provide these multi-staged benefits and can contribute to the
triple bottom line of sustainability: environment; economy; and society.
More efficient use of resources, as well as a reduction in waste genera­
tion and environmental emissions, provides direct environmental ben­
efits. Decreased production cost through material and energy
efficiencies at the plant, reduction of waste disposal costs and waste
recycling needs, and compliance with regulatory policies are some po­
tential opportunities that provide economic benefits to industries
involved. Sale of unwanted by-products to other businesses itself may
open new avenues of income for industries. Societal benefits may
include a larger tax base than would otherwise be possible together with
a potential increase in local job availability [24–27].
2. Background
2.1. Eco-Industrial parks
The idea for an Eco-Industrial Park (EIP) was established in the 1960
s as a local collaborative set of strategies that industrial facilities can
follow to more efficiently utilize materials, and to both reduce and
recycle waste [8]. Following renewed attention since the 1992 Earth
Summit, academic research as well as policy measures in the field of ecoindustrial parks has risen [3]. Then in 1997, five years after the ener­
gizing Rio Earth Summit, research began to scrutinize methods to
transition society and industry away from linear throughput and to a
closed-loop material and energy strategy to reduce both waste and
pollution [6]. Only a year later, the idea of eco-industrial parks was
referred to as an infant of a field in the world of research, due to the fact
it had only just emerged as an approach towards environmentally sus­
tainable socio-economic development [9].
In 2000, it was agreed that the definition of an eco-industrial park
was not specific enough, arguing that due to the multitude of objectives,
productivity timeframes, and capital cost, eco-industrial networks have
not been viable [10]. An early definition which remains relevant is the
federally accepted definition from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) field book which defines EIPs as “a community of
manufacturing and service businesses seeking enhanced environmental
and economic performance through collaboration in managing envi­
ronmental and resource issues including energy, water, and materials.
By working together, the community of businesses seeks a collective
benefit that is greater than the sum of the individual benefits each
company would realize if it optimized its individual performance only”
[10]. As research progressed, definitions for EIPs like the U.S. EPA’s are
reduced to the enhanced ability for companies to network in order to
reduce waste, recover value, and achieve demand [8]. Empowered by
these modernized definitions, researchers began to question the notion
of EIPs, and whether or not the theoretical concept had truly made it into
the professional industry [11].
Efforts renewed for the implementation of industrial symbiosis and
eco-industrial parks in 2015 when a case study revealed the true impact
of industrial production on global emissions, with a reported 62 % of
global greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 deriving from industrial pro­
duction emissions [12,13]. These research and application initiatives for
industrial sustainability and reductions of greenhouse gas emissions
through eco-industrial parks continued through the end of the 2010 s
[14–16]. In the late 2010 s and early 2020 s, researchers acknowledge
2.2. Historical key factors for EIPs
When tasked to design an eco-industrial park, it is required to have a
strong understanding of a broad topic that has been provided many
definitions over the years. In 1995 it was proposed that an eco-industrial
park was an industrial system which conserves natural and economic
resources; reduces production, material, energy, insurance, and treat­
ments 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. The description still
describes modern EIPs [9,28]. The problem that has arisen over the
years that EIPs have been established is the lack of expected production
from the original designs requiring EIPs to re-evaluate their methods or
fail completely.
The successfulness of an EIP implementation can be complicated to
determine and will differ depending on the location and culture. For this
research, in an effort to maintain the United States’ scope where sur­
passing the planning phase has proven difficult, the success of an EIP is
simplified to an organization, or group of organizations, where a ma­
terial exchange has successfully occurred and provides continued eco­
nomic and environmental benefit [26,29]. One aspect that often
influences this definition of success in EIP developments is the lack of
planning on critical success factors of EIPs. The following list of critical
factors was identified:
•
•
•
•
2
Geographic requirements
Stakeholder involvement and dedication
Community involvement
Regulatory system/agency support
D.V. Perrucci et al.
City and Environment Interactions 16 (2022) 100086
Fig. 1. The Synergy of an Eco-industrial Park Concept. *The sustainability of the inter-connected five-stage process is symbolized by colors transition from red to
green, red representing reduced sustainability and green representing increased sustainability, during the life cycle processes. It is important to note that this process
is not required to start with traditional manufacturing, and that the process would remain the same if beginning from a sustainably manufactured product.
Evaluation of these four categories is required during the preliminary
design stages. These four factors can be simply explained by their added
benefit to eco-industrial park design.
The symbiotic feel and synergistic aspects that are the basis of an EIP
benefit from geographic proximity. A close geographic proximity for the
eco-industrial park’s individual industries to each other and the entire
entities proximity to urban areas can enlarge the economic profits and
environmental reductions; however, this proximity is not required for a
successful EIP implementation. [30]. One method to increase the
geographic benefit, pre- or post-implementation, is to develop the area
between firms for material exchanges, this method of new development
to counteract the geographic isolation can be seen as an example at
Australia’s Kwinana and Gladstone EIPs [31].
In existing industrial parks the factor of geographic proximity is
usually minimized, while structured regularity caused by the embedd­
edness’ of the individual firms can hinder the openness to new re­
lationships and collaborations [32]. Furthermore, the firms set routine
resembles the safe route by reducing uncertainty within the process
[33]. This weariness is where the effect of ambitious stakeholders is
appreciated. Stakeholders play an important role in the success of the
EIPs future, they become an advocate for the development. This can be
seen at the Devens, Massachusetts EIP where individual industries that
wouldn’t normally think of combining efforts were brought together by
the “champions” of symbiosis [34,35]. However, dedication from
stakeholders is insignificant as a determining factor for industrial sym­
biosis success if the size of the company hinders their ability to make
long-term investments [36].
A successful EIP requires a combination of contributions and effort
from the businesses, public sector and the community, which then
provides not only economic, and environmental benefits for the region,
but also creates a powerful sense of pride for the community that it relies
on [26,29]. However, the eco-industrial park development’s relation­
ship with industrial waste management has created an undesirable
stigma [37]. Due to this obstacle, community support has not always
been granted for eco-industrial park ventures and similar projects. This
obstacle has been noted in literature and resulted in the requirement of
full stakeholder support to ensure the success of the project specifically
the local community [38,39].
The regulatory system utilized for eco-industrial parks can be
complicated, although it was once recommended that a consultative
approach should be taken to allow for the natural evolution and adap­
tions that are required of eco-industrial parks [40]. An example of a
successful regulatory body was TEDA Environmental Protection Bureau
which was established in 1990. After nearly-two decades TEDA was still
expanding as a regulatory body and methods, all while supporting the
environmental advantages through eco-industrial parks [41]. To ensure
the future success of EIP development and to reduce the chance of
regulatory issues, optimal solutions such as following a systems
approach to regulation, encouraging communication between stake­
holders, providing maximum flexibility maintaining environmental
sensitivity, and reducing uncertainty by defining past regulatory prob­
lems associated with similar projects [42].
2.3. Eco-Industrial park dilemmas in the United States
An eco-industrial park incorporates material exchanges into tradi­
tional industrial park manufacturing to realize economic and environ­
mental benefits for the involved firms [43,44]. For the United States, one
of the main dilemmas causing failure to EIP implementations is
achieving the required open communication between companies. This
overarching dilemma of increased rates of failure in the United States is
a combination of the following dilemmas, which are grouped as inter­
connectivity, supply uncertainty, and governance.
2.3.1. Dilemma One: Interconnectivity
Dilemma one is an issue with interconnectivity caused by missing
trust between stakeholders which reduces the main benefit of EIPs (i.e.,
material proximity and personal contact) by requiring restrictive con­
tracts that take time and money to replace the trust from inter-firm
personal relationships [45]. The interconnectivity between firms
within the eco-industry agreement drives the success of the EIP, and this
importance on interconnectivity can cause disruption to the overall
success of the EIP if communication regarding material exchange is not
maintained [46].
The first accepted EIP success, and example of interconnectivity in
eco-industry, is in Kalundborg, Denmark where organic relationships
between firms located in proximity to each other led to successful ma­
terial exchanges which later helped define EIPs [47]. Many attempts
since Kalundborg have failed to capture the same success, however, a
case study analysis shows the Londonderry EIP in New Hampshire, USA
did experience similar success by utilizing an identical emphasize on
social relationships for enhanced interconnectivity. These case study
results, on two of the most renowned EIPs, supports and reiterates the
importance of personal social connections and interconnectivity for
effective material exchanges over any technological connection [48].
2.3.2. Dilemma Two: Supply uncertainty
Dilemma two is an issue involving the uncertainty in material ex­
changes, where a fluctuation in one firm would lead to disruptions in the
output of another firm due to material dependence, dependences like
these can lead to reduced performance and economic benefits (i.e., if one
firm is failing, it will make other firms susceptible to poor performance
3
D.V. Perrucci et al.
City and Environment Interactions 16 (2022) 100086
and failure) [49,50]. Overdependence in the supply chain on one or
more firms within the EIP instills additional risk into the material ex­
changes deriving from supply uncertainty due to potential reduced
waste production due to any form of financial hardship an individual
company [49,51]. The risk from supply uncertainty and disruption re­
quires hedging (e.g., an alternate material source from a traditional
supply chain of raw materials) to ensure success when material ex­
changes between EIP firms is insufficient. [52].
waste and emission flows, and the types of industries to be located
within the park have to be researched in advance and included within
the masterplan. An additional type of EIP is a networked eco-industrial
park system (NEIPS). These follow the ideals of a general EIP and rely on
the success of the EIPs on a local level, but function at the macro level.
NEIPSs create connections between EIPs over distances ranging from
regional to global and provide a larger platform for the development of
synergies between firms; and furthermore, these exchanges promote the
development of new industries. The internet has played a role in the
success of NEIPS, allowing for a virtual site of exchange for waste and
byproducts [8,55].
Chertow (2000) has separated EIPs into 5 categories depending on
the level of interaction and the physical location of partnering firms
[10]. The proposed categorization also denotes the level of complexity
inherent in EIPs, where higher categories require more planning for
project success. GIPs may be said to be of Types 1 or 2, whereas IEIP may
be designated as Type 3, and NEIPS as either a Type 4 or 5.
2.3.3. Dilemma Three: Governance
Dilemma three is an issue regarding the optimal level of government
involvement. Research is contradictory with regards to the impact (i.e.,
positive or negative) of governance involvement, with the main uncer­
tainty deriving from the geographic location of the EIP. Studies suggest
governance support for political, coordinative, education, and infra­
structural can effectively assist EIP implementation; however, other
research notes that government overreach can lead to reduced success in
the United States’ compared to the Netherlands organic approach to EIP
development [11,47,53,54]. This compilation of studies signifies the
need for an optimized government involvement on a per project basis,
due to the broad spectrum of impacts which can be experienced.
3.2. meta-Analysis description
The meta-analysis provides a spatio-temporal distribution of the
reviewed publications.
3. Methods
3.2.1. Temporal distribution of research
Separating journal articles by year of publication enables an analysis
of the evolution in research topics and concepts concerning EIPs over the
course of nearly-two decades. A total of 112 articles that contain rele­
vant information on EIPs have been located during this timeframe. The
years of 2004 and 2018 had the highest number of research publications,
as demonstrated by Fig. 2. Some of these articles stress the importance of
and make references to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit as an encouraging
factor for the global understanding of the importance between envi­
ronment and development [6].
The results from the meta-analysis supply insight into the trends
within eco-industrial park implementations and reveal events that may
significantly contribute to the development of novel EIP research since
the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, including but not limited to the Kyoto
Protocol, UN Johannesburg Summit, UN Champions of Earth, and the
Paris Climate Agreement.
This research reviews 99 publications that represent 23 different
nations worldwide across North America, South America, Europe, Asia,
and Australia and nearly-three decades of academic investigation (i.e.,
publications from 1995 to 2022). Each selected publication cited in this
study is manually reviewed for relevance by evaluating the title, ab­
stract, key words, methodology, and ultimately the article.
3.1. Key Eco-Industrial park terminology
Multiple terms and acronyms were found to be used for same,
similar, or related concepts during the literature review. The variation in
phrases can be attributed to different geographical areas that peerreviewed articles were based upon. Table 1 presents relevant terminol­
ogy that are commonly used within the field.
An EIP is an additional categorization of an eco-industrial network
due to the community-based (i.e., a grouping of firms) network of firms
interacting and exchanging [56,57,59]. EIPs may also be further cate­
gorized as either a Green Industry Parks (GIP), or as an Integrated EcoIndustry Parks. A green industry park is a coalition of environmentally
conscious firms, following strict regulations and conditions that are
promoted through the idea of sustainable industrial development. GIPs
lack a majority of the industrial ecology and symbiosis aspects as their
main focus is on green industrial practices at the firm level, rather than
maximize interactions and symbiotic benefits among different firms
[8,55].
Unlike a GIP, integrated eco-industry parks (IEIP) are strongly reliant
on industrial ecology and symbiosis principles that can be pre-planned
or naturally occurring. However, in most cases, IEIP comparatively
has much more extensive and complex planning/development re­
quirements. In order for an IEIP to function correctly from the start,
3.2.2. Research themes and geographic breakdown
The geographical distribution of the first authorship of articles and
research reviewed for this study may be taken as an indication of which
countries have experience with EIPs or those who are actively investing
in the technique. The research is further analyzed through thematic
categorization by methodology and focus. Fig. 3 presents these articles
from twenty-two different countries are organized into thirteen unique
themes.
The top five themes for research considered in this review are Re­
view, Cast Study, Policy, Modelling, and Planning. The United States is
the largest contributor of research considered in this study, and the top
three categorical themes are Review, Case Study, and Planning; this
focus may signify/confirm that the United States is investing resources
into EIP implementation. Following the United States is China, which
focuses EIP research in the categories of Policy, Case Study, and Review,
signifying a focus on applied research (e.g., EIP development through
government programs with success evaluations) rather than theoretical
(literature reviews). The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom are also
at the forefront of EIP research.
Table 1
Acronyms and terminology used in academic literature to denote formal
or informal gathering of industries, and the study of environment-industry
interactions.
Acronym
Terminology
EIP
EIN
EID
NEIP
IEIP
GIP
Eco-industrial park
Eco-industrial networks
Eco-industrial development
Networked eco-industrial parks [8,55]
Integrated eco-industrial parks [8,55]
Green Industry Parks [55]
4. Results
On a global scale, previously initiated or planned EIP projects are
compiled to enable an analysis to determine potential key factors for
overall EIP implementation success and corresponding identify potential
4
D.V. Perrucci et al.
City and Environment Interactions 16 (2022) 100086
Fig. 2. Number of publications published each year on the eco-industrial parks, within the study period of 1995–2019.
Fig. 3. Thematic categorization of articles with recorded country of first authors.
solutions for the previously noted dilemmas causing increased failure
rates in the United States. The EIP implementations detailed in these
studies are compiled by the source year, location of park, number of
involved firms, estimated material re-usage, land use requirement, and
most recent implementation status and/or initial implementation date.
Based on the available information, these EIP implementations are
categorized into the industrial sector/s (e.g., energy, biowaste, petro­
leum, chemical, water) and further categorized by assessed government
support (e.g., high-sponsored, medium-encouraged, low-limited/none).
Prior studies on eco-industrial parks range widely in data availabil­
ity, potentially due to differing definitions and technology in ecoindustry over the time periods and between countries, and this
5
D.V. Perrucci et al.
City and Environment Interactions 16 (2022) 100086
regarding the process leading up to the development of EIPs and an
understanding of the governmental effort that will benefit developers.
Between 1999 and 2003 the Dutch government granted nearly 8 million
euros for eco-industrial parks, with the funds reaching more than 200
projects in the country.
Beyond this, the Dutch created two lanes for eco-industrial park
development. The first lane was the sustainable business processes,
while the second was the sustainable design of business parks. The
sustainable business processes avenue involves the physical flows due to
industrial activates and methods for maximizing energy and material
usage efficiency. The latter avenue, concerns itself with business prin­
ciples and infrastructure, hoping to provide a short term and long term
value [44]. The Dutch government wanted to ensure that the ecoindustrial parks are viewed as business locations, in order to
encourage companies to update and adapt [66].
South Korea: The South Korean government has become the leading
contributor to their vastly expanding eco-industrial network of EIPs due
to their “low-carbon green growth” policy that has handicapped indus­
trial development since 2008 [67]. In the past fifteen years, the South
Korean government has created policies that stimulate sustainable
development and promote eco-friendly industrial structures. The policy
labeled as “Environmental Vision 21” provided five basic principles that
involved prevention, harmony, and integration, charging polluter and
recipient, utilizing economic incentives, and opening information and
getting residents involved.
Over a decade ago, The Korea National Cleaner Production Center
and the Korea Institute of Industrial Technology began a 3 step, nearly
fifteen-year-long, project supporting the development of Eco-industrial
parks, and establishing cleaner production in Korea through their con­
struction. The first phase was set for the years of 2006–2010, the second
phase was set during the years 2011–2015, and the third was placed
during 2016–2020. Each phase of the project had set goals, starting with
two pilot projects that included the conversion of two industrial parks to
eco-industrial parks during phase one. Phase two was established to
provide a conceptual ecologic design for the future conversion of
another twenty additional EIPs. Lastly, the third phase strived to create
industry parks with zero discharge through the vital analysis of the
performance indicators of the first phases [68].
This project has found success through the Ulsan EIP pilot, once a
conventional industrial site now transformed due to the regulatory
constraints and economic benefits. The key stakeholders for the venture
were the Ulsan EIP center, the Ulsan Metropolitan City government,
research centers, Mipo-Onsan industrial complexes, and FICOX [60].
This EIP consists of a total of seven different companies, which includes
the material transfer of pure-water, steam, recovered zinc, recovered
copper, biogas, and methanol waste. The cooperation between these
companies was expected to provide a five-year expected economic
benefit of $39.9 billion [68]. This project was met with success at both
providing knowledge behind the feasibility of EIPs and also the eco­
nomic benefit of the transition. In 2012, it was reported that there were
thirteen successful symbiotic networks which included 41 companies in
Ulsan, which provided both environmental and economic benefits [60].
China: More than 80 % of the 12,000 industrial parks in the world are
located in developed countries [69]. However, over the last two de­
cades, developing countries in Asia have shown dramatic economic
growth. This rapid growth creates a unique opportunity for industrial
ecology and EIPs, where still developing Asian countries can act as a test
for the overall success within the concept of an eco-industrial park [70].
The dramatic increase of foreign investment and local industriali­
zation that has occurred since the 1990 s within China has created the
largest economy in the developing world [71]. Due to this, motivation to
develop EIPs has emerged with the hopes to reduce pollution,
discourage the excessive use of natural resources, and sustain economic
growth for the more than 1500 industrial parks in the country [72]. This
combination of desires led the Chinese State Environmental Protection
Administration (SEPA) to create the Circular Economy (CE) strategy. In
scarcity of data impacts the completeness of Table 2. Table 2 succeeds to
provide research value by presenting a synthesis of global eco-industrial
efforts by macro-region, magnitudes of eco-industrial investment (e.g.,
number of firms and land use), and types of material exchanges with
amount exchanged and overarching success of the EIP (if available). The
compilation of these EIP implementations is organized in Table 2.
The variance in data collection and reporting between geographic
locations are one area which hinder the success of analyses on EIPs. EIP
locations come from a range of countries that includes the United States,
the Netherlands, South Korea, China, Australia, Italy, and provide a
global view of eco-industrial park interest, potential, and implementa­
tion success. The approximate material reutilization and assessed sectors
are presented pending data availability, allowing for conclusions
regarding successful and unsuccessful symbiosis and material
exchanges.
Fig. 4 breaks down the compilation of Table 2 into past or current
attempts and successes of eco-industrial parks. For this study, the at­
tempts and successes of EIPs are defined by its last reported status. If the
status is last reported as active with material exchanges, then the
attempt is considered successful; while an attempt is documented when
the status of an eco-industrial park halted in the planning stages or
switches from active to either change of concept or closed.
An estimated total of 17 EIPs in Fig. 4 were either theoretical, drifted
from the EIP concept or failed. The high failure ratio in the United States,
as depicted in Fig. 4, supports an investigation to identify critical factors
for the success of EIPs. Eco-industrial parks have proven themselves to
be an effective method of industrial symbiosis with levels of government
support a noted potential limiting factor due to reduced program ini­
tiatives [38]. Referencing the lower than average assessed governmental
support for EIP projects (compared to the European, Oceanian, and
Asian counterparts) in Fig. 4, this research takes first steps to evaluating
the governmental cultural and initiative which can be contributing to
this United States’ discrepancy. The following are examples with vary­
ing levels of governmental support leading to eco-industrial park success
and failure.
The U.S.: A primary example of the United States governments’ effect
on the EIP development, starts in the year 1994 with the President’s
Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) demonstration project in
Fairfield, MD [63]. The EPA began funding the Fairfield EIP project as
part of EPA’s Brownfield Program [64]. Later, the City of Baltimore
successfully received $100 million in funds and tax incentives due to
their application for a Federal Empowerment Zone (EZ) and the ecoindustrial park project that anchored the application. With these
funds, the Baltimore Development Corporation, Cornell University, and
community participants worked together to provide a conceptual
development for the future EIP transformation of an existing industrial
park [58,63].
At the start of the millennium (the 2000 s), there was no functioning
EIP in the USA [63]. Just 10 years after the demonstration project began,
it transformed into the Fairfield Ecological Business Park. In the few
years between the 2001 and 2004, the Fairfield EIP was renamed Fair­
field Eco-Business Park and became known as one of the only zeroemission eco-industrial parks in the world [61,65].
The Netherlands: It has been commonly accepted that the first fully
understood and true model of an EIP was in Kalundborg, Denmark,
during the 1980 s [10]. In fact, the industrial structure of Kalundborg
was not designed as an EIP from the onset, but rather evolved due to
economic and environmental benefits participating institutions experi­
enced through sharing or recycling common resources among them.
Since the success at Kalundborg, the development of eco-industrial
projects has largely expanded among all levels of government and in
many countries [47].
There have been explicit intentions from the Dutch environmental
policy since 1997 to support the creation of EIPs in an effort to create
symbiosis and utility sharing. An initiative that was described within the
1997 policy, called for the promotion of EIPs through education
6
D.V. Perrucci et al.
City and Environment Interactions 16 (2022) 100086
Table 2
Summary of Past Eco-industrial Park Implementations.
(continued on next page)
7
D.V. Perrucci et al.
City and Environment Interactions 16 (2022) 100086
Table 2 (continued )
Note: Color depicts macro-region of origin (i.e., Blue = Europe, Orange = Asia, Gray = Oceania, Yellow = North America, Green = South America).
2001, the nation enlisted the efforts of the National Pilot EIP Program
(NPEIPP) and the National Pilot Circular Economy Zone Program
(NPCEZP); who combined to produce over sixty approved pilot EIP de­
velopments [73]. One year later in 2002, the Committee of the National
People’s Congress (NPC) approved a law that was labeled as “Cleaner
Production Promotion Law. This law was created to promote cleaner
production; efficiency in resource utilization; reducing/avoiding
pollution generation; protecting/improving environments; ensuring the
health of humans; and promoting sustainable development.
In just ten years, China had managed to create a successful
government-led promotion of eco-industrial parks, with the NPEIPP and
NPCEZP showing achievement at insisting EIP development. The
resultant of this was the Suzhou Industrial park which both offer
instance of resource-conserving, environmentally friendly industry, and
8
D.V. Perrucci et al.
City and Environment Interactions 16 (2022) 100086
Fig. 4. Success and failures of reported EIPs by country.
a guide for future development [73–75]. Furthermore, China’s innova­
tive national standards for eco-industrial parks provide quantitative and
comprehensive indicators for EIP success, which can contribute to the
success of industrial symbiosis on a global scale [43,76,77].
However, there are potential takeaways from the Chinese experience
that can benefit the implementation of global eco-industry. A study on
the national pilot practices in China question whether there may be
confusion regarding the existence of two agencies, NPCEZP and NPEIPP,
with separate pilot programs and further discusses the importance of
operational guidelines and assessment strategies for these types of pro­
grams. There is no quantifiable evidence for the impact but this can be
an area for future analysis to maximize the success of eco-industrial park
[73].
Brazil: The role of EIPs in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil has been heavily
attributed to the degree of governmental support provided. A majority of
the projects themselves were launched through formal legislation that
aimed towards creating sustainable developments and therefore
decreasing the overburden caused by unplanned development. The first
official government initiative was the Sustainable Eco-Industrial
Development Program (Rio ECOPOLO), established in 2002. This pro­
gram sought to halt the disorderly industrial settlement throughout
Brazil. This program inspired support all around Rio, a financial
incentive labeled as Economic and Social Development Fund (FUNDES),
the Rio de Janeiro Environmental Protection Agency (FEEMA), the Rio
de Janeiro Federal University (UFRJ), and private institutions such as
the Rio de Janeiro Industrial Federation (FIRJAN) combined efforts to
launch the first EIP pilot projects in the country.
All of this progress began to unravel as a political change occurred,
and the once supportive government abandoned the idea of EIPs. The
EIP evolution continued at a disadvantage at three pilot projects due to
the lack of public sector support, while the remaining two pilot projects
achieved very little in the form of success. Without the continuing
support of the public sector, especially the state and federal govern­
ments, the EIP initiative has not matured into the environmental plan­
ning strategy for sustainable development that was desired [78].
a significant number of the eco-industrial park projects have either
failed or were abandoned after only a few years of lower than expected
rates of success [79]. As previously discussed, this lack of success is
largely located in the United States and can be caused by several
different areas within the overall operation and design of the EIP.
However, if eco-industrial parks are to become the standard way in
which governments plan their industrial parks, the confidence in the
longevity and efficiency of the project must be improved.
Efforts are ongoing to increase the success rates of these EIPs, and
one thoroughly researched area, in particular, involves the evaluation of
EIPs utilizing ecological network analysis. This evaluation approach
shows benefits for man-made interactive exchanges through knowledge
obtained from evaluating natural exchange networks and promoting the
cyclical exchanges [80–82]. Several case studies support the utilization
of ecological network analysis (ENA) as a methodology to support the
success of EIP implementations, by quantifying expected material flows
to ensure producers can sustain consumers [12,83]. Due to the
complexity of EIPs success, ecological network analysis alone is unable
to ensure the desired success moving forward and a combination of
innovative approaches are required. The most innovative methods to
overcome the three identified dilemmas hindering EIP success in the
United States are introduced and discussed.
5.1. Social methods for Eco-Industrial park success
5.1.1. Inter-firm relations
For industrial symbiosis and in turn eco-industrial parks, economic
benefits and regulatory requirements are the major pieces of encour­
agement for further development, while communication and trust
among firm managers are both considered minor motivations [84].
However, EIPs require an amount of communication, trust, and coop­
eration to be fully effective and accomplish their goals. With this being
said, the current interconnectivity dilemma (dilemma one) is difficult to
remediate and achieve a proper amount of cooperation between the
firms, correlating with outcomes lower than expected [85]. One of the
main reasons for diminished interfirm relations is trust, a concerning
issue is due to the desired competitive edge that companies try to retain.
To remain competitive, companies can be unwilling to disclose their
production process, therefore their input materials and more impor­
tantly their by-products that have the potential to be re-used; greatly
5. Discussion
Eco-industrial parks have been considered a way of achieving sus­
tainable yet profitable industrial development [55]. In the past decades,
9
D.V. Perrucci et al.
City and Environment Interactions 16 (2022) 100086
diminishing the efficiency of the EIP. On the opposite side of the spec­
trum, the over dependency on a by-product from a company within the
EIP can have a major effect on the productivity and economic benefit. In
this case, if business is slow for one industry, business could have the
potential to be slow for every company within the EIP [49,50].
An eco-industrial park requires the full symbiosis of all firms within
the industrial park, otherwise, the performance will be affected. For
these relationships and cooperation to function as planned, a coordi­
nating body must be established that focuses on guaranteeing commit­
ment of all parties included, and heading information flows to enable
enhance communication [86]. While also creating an awareness for each
firms perspective and developing a sense of transparency, co-operation,
and trust within the entity that aims to solve the interconnectivity
dilemma (dilemma one) [87]. Inter-firm relations tend to be forgotten
during the planning and design of EIPs, by taking these steps the effi­
ciency and productivity will have a better opportunity to succeed.
consequences of EIP exchanges, agent-based modeling methodology
allows for the simulation of an EIP and the application of previously
established industrial of symbiosis indicators. This application informs
the users of the effectiveness for the type of waste exchange and the
effect on the overall symbiosis of the park; enabling the formation of
resource exchange decisions by professionals with reduced supply un­
certainties (dilemma two) [95,96]. The same methodology can model
the benefits of using an online information-sharing platform that com­
municates the waste supply from companies and the waste demand from
others, with varying levels of sensitivity and business transparency. In
doing so, companies can weigh the benefits from varying levels of in­
formation release to determine the optimal level of inter-firm trust [97].
Beyond the exchange of waste, agent-based modeling has been used to
understand and simulate the development of inter-firm synergy through
the social structure and dynamics of each individual firm [98].
5.2.2. Optimization of Eco-Industrial park exchanges
The optimization of the design and waste/byproduct exchanges
within eco-industrial parks is noted as a reliable method to contribute
towards sustainable industrial production. However, there is an absence
in required complexity in the form of multi-objective mathematical
models and social considerations thus far, which if accessible would
increase comprehension of the benefits and negatives behind various
waste and byproduct exchanges [99,100].
In past eco-industrial research, fuzzy optimization has been used to
meet supply and demand dilemmas (dilemma two). An example of such
optimization efforts is the fuzzy optimization of waste-to-energy
network that enabled the satisfaction of demand and satisfaction of
stakeholders [101]. Other fuzzy optimization models are utilized to
determine the optimal exchange levels that aim to minimize both the
consumption of resources and creation of waste. These mathematical
models were able to optimize and allocate the environmental re­
sponsibility between the consumer and the producer in an attempt to
establish minimized resource consumption and waste [102–104].
Overall, the expansion of optimization models and an increase in the
complexity of the research would contribute towards the success of ecoindustrial parks.
5.1.2. Government backing and business interest
Although there are examples where government-backed eco-indus­
trial parks have ended both in success and failure, the support and “topdown” approach can greatly ease the initial processes [88]. The EIP’s
that have government support enable the stakeholders to accept the
desired concept while reinterpreting this concept to provide a mean­
ingful understanding in their area of expertise, furthermore these
stakeholders gain a leadership role in future projects. However, the idea
of government support may not be a straightforward approach as it in­
cludes several difficulties, including specifically the implementation of
different agencies policies and agendas, that can lead to ineffective
governance (dilemma three). If government agencies lack the proper
communication or cooperation, the variance in policy creates a
competing atmosphere that allows the business to pick and choose be­
tween policies to satisfy their priorities [33]. Additionally, governments
must be careful when adding or changing policies around an already
functioning EIP. Regulations need to be flexible rather than concrete
[42,89]. Policies can also be aimed at other aspects of environmental
regulation, and while not being directed towards eco-industrial parks, it
can have indirect benefits. An example of this is the European Union’s
national waste strategy plans that are renewed every-four years. These
plans have included taxes on both landfills and incineration since 1987,
which indirectly encourages the re-utilization of waste [90].
Although there should be governmental support, the initiative for the
eco-industrial park project should be taken by the involved companies
themselves. In a past study, the comparative success between US and
Dutch EIPs was conducted. The Dutch EIPs were concluded to be more
successful with the main attribution to the success being that the Dutch
EIPs were initiated by stakeholders, while the US mainly originated
through different levels of the government [91]. Nonetheless, without
the correct policies and actions by the government eco-industrial parks
would struggle for success [62,92].
5.2.3. Social network analysis as a tool for Eco-Industrial parks
A social network analysis (SNA) is useful to maintain inter­
connectivity (dilemma one) by examining and quantifying the effec­
tiveness of the relationships within and between organizations that are a
part of an industrial ecosystem [105,106]. Furthermore, a social
network analysis clarifies the organizational framework of an entity, in
this case an eco-industrial park, and reveals social causations for why
eco-industrial parks perform at varying levels due to collaborations
between entities. This type of analysis has been conducted on Kalund­
borg in an attempt to understand why the EIP is so successful and the full
extent of the influence of the organizational framework [107,108]. In
China, a social network analysis has been conducted for the Gujiao ecoindustrial park which exposes that the EIP is not utilizing the full extent
of the potential synergies between firms due to a lack of interaction and
communication. The results from this SNA suggest the establishment of
an information platform, to enable the vital information flow between
firms [109].
5.2. Quantitative methods for Eco-Industrial park success
5.2.1. Agent-Based modeling of Eco-Industrial parks and industrial
symbiosis
The vital information flows and the overall design of eco-industrial
parks can benefit from the application of agent-based modeling and
analysis techniques [76]. These agent-based models can enhance the
relationships and cooperation (dilemma one) required for eco-industrial
park success that is dependent on the accuracy and updated information
flows being communicated between firms [86]. In addition, agent-based
modeling can be effectively used to understand the complex and adap­
tive systems that make up an eco-industrial park. This modeling type has
been successfully employed to express and predict the evolution of ecoindustrial systems; allowing for a data-backed decision behind choosing
to develop an EIP, or not, between a number of different sites [93,94].
Further, in an area with minimal real data behind the benefits and
5.3. Application of Non-competitive waste streams for successful EIPs in
the United States
The United States experiences the largest failure rate for ecoindustrial park implementation and based on the results of this
research, the increased failure rate can be attributed to a lack of gov­
ernment support, ineffective material exchanges, and insufficient trust/
communication.
These authors suggest a potential solution to the insufficient trust/
communication associated with the increased failure rate of EIPs in the
10
D.V. Perrucci et al.
City and Environment Interactions 16 (2022) 100086
United States by proposing an EIP implementation focusing on noncompetitive waste streams that are associated with unsustainable and
costly disposal. Construction waste is one example of these noncompetitive waste streams that can increase interaction between EIP
firms (dilemma one) due to mutual value from exchanges. The higher
associated cost of disposal for constructions waste’s association with
higher disposal costs benefits the disposing firm, while the resource
utilizing firm requires a reduced number of raw materials. This scenario
of mutual benefit can increase willingness to interact and establish a
level of trust through mutual prosperity. In addition, the exchanging
firms may meet government initiatives for decreasing raw-material
usage for sustainability goals (dilemma three); however, these results
are not guaranteed and would not have a direct connection.
(start-of-life) for a new product. These recycled products have various
uses (e.g., pre-cast concrete, fill material, non-structural concrete), this
EIP incorporates a pre-cast concrete plant for the consumption of highgrade recycled materials and a construction company to utilize the precasted material and the rubblized concrete from the recycler which is
not sufficient for the new pre-casted products. Emerging technologies,
like the C2CA (Concrete to Cement and Aggregate), can cost-effectively
recycle high-volume concrete streams into prime grade aggregates and
cement; therefore, reducing the amount of insufficient material for the
pre-cast plant [111].
6. Conclusions
The necessity for successful implementations of eco-industrial parks
will only continue to grow as concerns over the environment’s wellbeing
prove persistent. The comprehensive overview of EIP details compiled in
the study provides insight into the EIP attributes driving successful and
unsuccessful efforts to date. The overview reveals the United States
holds a significantly larger failure rate in comparison to other countries,
however, the meta-analysis reveals they are one of the leading nations in
published research for eco-industrial parks. The three failure points
identified for the United States from the country analysis and the
reviewed articles are governance, interconnectivity, and supply uncer­
tainty. The governance dilemma derives from an absence of govern­
mental and public backing that was found to exist during project
failures. While government support is crucial in the initiation phase of
EIPs, the level of continuous government involvement during operation
can directly or indirectly (e.g., government policies or tax breaks vs
increased pressure for social interaction and effective communication
between EIP firms) lead to varying impacts based on geographic loca­
tion, and the associated culture, of the EIP. The interconnectivity
dilemma for United States’ EIPs require effective communication and
cooperation among stakeholders and firms involved in the EIP. Interfirm cooperation needs to be planned and given careful consideration
as it may require more information disclosure than a traditional indus­
trial park would require. Quantitative methods such as optimization or
agent-based modeling are discussed as solutions for inter-firm planning
and effective exchanges but the utilization of non-competitive wastes (i.
e., waste which is traditionally costly to dispose) is one non-quantitative
method that can encourage effective communication and trust due to
mutual benefit between partners.
Moving forward, research and implementation of eco-industrial
parks may make progress within exchange optimization, social
network analyses and the utilization of simulation information from
agent-based models to gain vital knowledge of the required symbiosis of
eco-industrial parks to support management and success.
5.3.1. Potential of Non-competitive construction waste streams in EIP
implementation
Construction waste is globally prevalent with an estimated 11 billion
tons of new construction and demolition waste annually, and approxi­
mately 5.5 to 7.7 billion tons is estimated to be concrete waste [110].
This production of concrete waste, and corresponding new concrete, is
expected to continue as the end-of-life cycle begins for buildings built
before the 1960 s (assuming and average 60-year design life) and
climate-driven disaster events continue to cause building damage
[111,112]. In addition to end-of-life waste, the production of concrete
with raw materials has historically contributed over 8 % of global CO2emmisions from fossil fuels [111]. Therefore, concrete suffers with
sustainability due to the required raw materials and lack of efficient endof-life disposal. To achieve desired levels of sustainability for concrete,
the traditional and recycled concrete material flows are explored in
Fig. 5.
By comparing these material flows, the end-of-life and the inclusion
of recycled components in the new construction become imperative for
the successful re-utilization of rubblized concrete materials. The five
most significant dilemmas for concrete recycling for the United States
are identified as: A lack of government awareness and support, Place­
ment of recycling machines on construction sites, Industrial waste
sorting procedure is costly, there is an imbalance of supply and demand
on recycled products, and Transportation is costly from sites to recycling
plants [110]. The bolded components of the recycled material flows in
Fig. 5 can be incorporated into an EIP, similarly to the proposed
configuration is proposed in Fig. 6.
This eco-industrial park’s main material stream (i.e., concrete con­
struction waste) is provided by a demolition company that recovers the
material from deconstructed building sites. This recovered concrete
material is utilized in the EIP at a specialized concrete recycling plant,
where end-of-life for the concrete material is transitioned to the cradle
Fig. 5. Traditional vs Recycled Concrete Waste Material Flows.
11
D.V. Perrucci et al.
City and Environment Interactions 16 (2022) 100086
Fig. 6. Eco-Industrial Park Setup Focused on Concrete Waste. *Direction of arrow specifies flow of material or processes into or out of the EIP.
Declaration of Competing Interest
[14] Martin M, Harris S. Prospecting the sustainability implications of an emerging
industrial symbiosis network. Resour Conserv Recycl 2018;138(March):246–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.07.026.
[15] Guo Y, Glad T, Zhong Z, He R, Tian J, Chen L. Environmental life-cycle
assessment of municipal solid waste incineration stocks in Chinese industrial
parks. Resour Conserv Recycl 2018;139(May):387–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.resconrec.2018.05.018.
[16] Farooque M, Zhang A, Liu Y, Hartley JL. Circular supply chain management:
Performance outcomes and the role of eco-industrial parks in China. Transp Res
Part E Logist Transp Rev 2022;157(April 2021):102596. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tre.2021.102596.
[17] Morales M, Diemer A. Industrial Symbiosis Dynamics, a Strategy to Accomplish
Complex Analysis: The Dunkirk Case Study. Sustainability 2019;11(7):1971.
[18] Morales ME, Lhuillery S, Ghobakhloo M. Circularity effect in the viability of biobased industrial symbiosis: Tackling extraordinary events in value chains. J Clean
Prod May 2022;348:131387. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2022.131387.
[19] Layton A, Bras B, Weissburg M. Ecological Principles and Metrics for Improving
Material Cycling Structures in Manufacturing Networks. J Manuf Sci Eng Trans
ASME 2016;138(10):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4033689.
[20] Layton A, Bras B, Weissburg M. Designing Industrial Networks Using Ecological
Food Web Metrics. Environ Sci & Technol 2016;50(20):11243–52. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.est.6b03066.
[21] Layton A, Bras B, Weissburg M. Industrial Ecosystems and Food Webs: An
Expansion and Update of Existing Data for Eco-Industrial Parks and
Understanding the Ecological Food Webs They Wish to Mimic. J Ind Ecol 2016;20
(1):85–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12283.
[22] de Abreu MCS, Ceglia D. On the implementation of a circular economy: The role
of institutional capacity-building through industrial symbiosis. Resour Conserv
Recycl 2018;138(June):99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2018.07.001.
[23] N. Shevchuk, S. Tulchynska, and L. Severyn-mrachkovska, “Conceptual Principles
of the Transformation of Industrial Parks into Eco- Conceptual Principles of the
Transformation of Industrial Parks into Eco-Industrial Ones in the Conditions of
Sustainable Development,” no. January 2022, 2021, doi: 10.22937/
IJCSNS.2021.21.12.49.
[24] Lowe EA, Evans LK. Industrial ecology and industrial ecosystems.pdf. J Clean
Prod 1995;3(1–2):47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-6526(95)00045-G.
[25] Deutz P, Gibbs D. Eco-industrial development and economic development:
Industrial ecology or place promotion? Bus Strateg Environ 2004;13(5):347–62.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.416.
[26] J. B. De Araujo, R. Pintão, and C. W. Rosa, “Sustainable value generation through
collaborative symbiotic networks planning,” IFIP Adv. Inf. Commun. Technol., vol.
362 AICT, pp. 564–571, 2011, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-23330-2_61.
[27] Matani AG. Strategies for better waste management in industrial estates. J Ind
Pollut Control 2006;22(1):67–72.
[28] Côté R, Hall J. Industrial parks as ecosystems. J Clean Prod 1995;3(1-2):41–6.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Perrucci DV, Vazquez BA, Aktas CB. Sustainable Temporary Housing: Global
Trends and Outlook. Proc Eng 2016;145:327–32.
[2] Sheffi Y. What Everyone Gets Wrong About the Never-Ending COVID-19 Supply
Chain Crisis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2021.
[3] Gibbs D, Deutz P. Implementing industrial ecology? Planning for eco-industrial
parks in the USA. Geoforum 2004;36(4):452–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geoforum.2004.07.009.
[4] Easterby-Smith M, Thorpe R, Lowe A. Management Research: An Introduction.
London: Sage; 2002.
[5] Cherrafi A, Elfezazi S, Chiarini A, Mokhlis A, Benhida K. The integration of lean
manufacturing, Six Sigma and sustainability: A literature review and future
research directions for developing a specific model. J Clean Prod 2016;139:
828–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.101.
[6] Ehrenfeld J, Gertler N. Industrial Ecology in Practice. J Ind Ecol 1997;1(1):67–79.
https://doi.org/10.1162/jiec.1997.1.1.67.
[7] Mainar-Toledo MD, Castan MA, Millán G, Rodin V, Kollmann A, Peccianti F, et al.
Accelerating sustainable and economic development via industrial energy
cooperation and shared services – A case study for three European countries.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;153:111737.
[8] Tudor T, Adam E, Bates M. Drivers and limitations for the successful development
and functioning of EIPs (eco-industrial parks): A literature review. Ecol Econ
2007;61(2–3):199–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.010.
[9] Côté RP, Cohen-Rosenthal E. Designing eco-industrial parks: a synthesis of some
experiences. J Clean Prod 1998;6:181–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526
(98)00029-8.
[10] Chertow MR. INDUSTRIAL SYMBIOSIS: Literature and Taxonomy. Annu Rev
Energy Environ 2000;25(1):313–37. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
energy.25.1.313.
[11] Gibbs D, Deutz P. Reflections on implementing industrial ecology through ecoindustrial park development. J Clean Prod 2007;15(17):1683–95. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.02.003.
[12] Lu Y, Chen B, Feng K, Hubacek K. Ecological Network Analysis for Carbon
Metabolism of Eco-industrial Parks: A Case Study of a Typical Eco-industrial Park
in Beijing. Environ Sci Technol 2015;49(12):7254–64. https://doi.org/10.1021/
es5056758.
[13] Van der Hoeven M. CO2 Emisssions From Fuel Combustion Highlights. Int Energy
Agency 2014. https://doi.org/10.1787/co2_fuel-2014-en.
12
D.V. Perrucci et al.
City and Environment Interactions 16 (2022) 100086
[29] Shu-yang F, Freedman B, Cote R. Principles and practice of ecological design.
NRC Res Press 2004;12:97–112. https://doi.org/10.1139/A04-005.
[30] Van Berkel R, Fujita T, Hashimoto S, Geng Y. Industrial and urban symbiosis in
Japan: Analysis of the Eco-Town program 1997–2006. J Environ Manage 2009;90
(3):1544–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.11.010.
[31] van Beers D, Corder G, Bossilkov A, van Berkel R. Industrial Symbiosis in the
Australian Minerals Industry: The Cases of Kwinana and Gladstone. J Ind Ecol
2007;11(1):55–72. https://doi.org/10.1162/jiec.2007.1161.
[32] Baas L. Planning and uncovering industrial symbiosis: Comparing the Rotterdam
and Östergötland regions. Bus Strateg Environ 2011;20(7):428–40. https://doi.
org/10.1002/bse.735.
[33] Vermeulen WJVV. The social dimension of industrial ecology: on the implications
of the inherent nature of social phenomena. Prog Ind Ecol 2006;3(6):574–98.
https://doi.org/10.1504/PIE.2006.012754.
[34] Boons F, Spekkink W, Mouzakitis Y. The dynamics of industrial symbiosis: A
proposal for a conceptual framework based upon a comprehensive literature
review. J Clean Prod 2011;19(9–10):905–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2011.01.003.
[35] Chertow M, Ehrenfeld J. Organizing Self-Organizing Systems: Toward a Theory of
Industrial Symbiosis. J Ind Ecol 2012;16(1):13–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1530-9290.2011.00450.x.
[36] Morales EM, Diemer A, Cervantes G, Carrillo-González G. ‘By-product synergy’
changes in the industrial symbiosis dynamics at the Altamira-Tampico industrial
corridor: 20 Years of industrial ecology in Mexico. Resour Conserv Recycl 2019;
140(January 2018):235–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.026.
[37] I. S. Costa, R. S. Pinto, E. F. C. Jr, and P. M. Ferrão, “Um Eco Parque No Seu
Quintal : Casos De Estudo Em Portugal,” IV Natl. Meet. II Lat. Am. Meet. Build.
Sustain. Communities, no. 1, pp. 1016–1026, 2007.
[38] Geng Y, Doberstein B. Developing the circular economy in China: Challenges and
opportunities for achieving’leapfrog development’. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol
2008;15(April 2016):231–9. https://doi.org/10.3843/SusDev.15.3.
[39] Costa I, Ferrão P. A case study of industrial symbiosis development using a
middle-out approach. J Clean Prod 2010;18(10–11):984–92. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.03.007.
[40] Wolf A, Petersson K. Industrial symbiosis in the Swedish forest industry. PIE
2007;4(5):348.
[41] Shi H, Chertow M, Song Y. Developing country experience with eco-industrial
parks: a case study of the Tianjin Economic-Technological Development Area in
China. J Clean Prod 2009;18(3):191–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2009.10.002.
[42] S. A. Martin, K. A. Weitz, R. A. Cushman, A. Sharma, R. C. Lindrooth, and S. R.
Moran, “Eco-Industrial Parks: A Case Study and Analysis of Economic,
Environmental, Technical and Regulatory Issues,” Urban Stud. Plan. Commons,
1996.
[43] Huang B, Yong G, Zhao J, Domenech T, Liu Z, Chiu SF, et al. Review of the
development of China’s Eco-industrial Park standard system. Resour Conserv
Recycl 2019;140:137–44.
[44] Eilering JAM, Vermeulen WJV. Eco-industrial parks: toward industrial symbiosis
and utility sharing in practice. Prog Ind Ecol 2004;1(1–3):245–70. https://doi.
org/10.1504/PIE.2004.004681.
[45] Deutz P, Gibbs D. Industrial Ecology and Regional Development: Eco-Industrial
Development as Cluster Policy. Reg Stud 2008;42(10):1313–28.
[46] Valenzuela-Venegas G, Henríquez-Henríquez F, Boix M, Montastruc L, ArenasAraya F, Miranda-Pérez J, et al. A resilience indicator for Eco-Industrial Parks.
J Clean Prod 2018;174:807–20.
[47] Heeres RR, Vermeulen WJV, De Walle FB. Eco-industrial park initiatives in the
USA and the Netherlands: First lessons. J Clean Prod 2004;12(8–10):985–95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.02.014.
[48] A. Hewes and D. Lyons, “The Humanistic Side of EIPs.pdf,” Reg. Stud., vol. 42, no.
10, 2008, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701654079.
[49] Gibbs D. Trust and Networking in Inter-firm relations: the Case of Eco-Industrial
Development. Local Econ 2003;18(3):222–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0269094032000114595.
[50] Veleva V, Todorova S, Lowitt P, Angus N, Neely D. Understanding and addressing
business needs and sustainability challenges: Lessons from Devens eco-industrial
park. J Clean Prod 2015;87(1):375–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2014.09.014.
[51] Lowe EA. Creating by-product resource exchanges: Strategies for eco-industrial
parks. J Clean Prod Jan. 1997;5(1–2):57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S09596526(97)00017-6.
[52] Chertow MR. The Eco-industrial Park Model Reconsidered. J Ind Ecol Jun.1998;2
(3):8–10. https://doi.org/10.1162/jiec.1998.2.3.8.
[53] Taddeo R, Simboli A, Morgante A. Implementing eco-industrial parks in existing
clusters. Findings from a historical Italian chemical site. J Clean Prod 2012;33
(September 2012):22–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.011.
[54] Chertow MR. ‘Uncovering’ Industrial Symbiosis. J Ind Ecol Oct. 2008;11(1):
11–30. https://doi.org/10.1162/jiec.2007.1110.
[55] B. Roberts, “The application of industrial ecology principles and planning
guidelines for the development of eco-industrial parks : an Australian case study,”
vol. 12, pp. 997–1010, 2004, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.02.037.
[56] Sodhi M, Schulze F, Bissett C, Rivero-Hudec M. Modeling Eco-Industrial
Networks–-A Representative Literature Review and Design Requirements.
Enhancing Future Skills and Entrepreneurship 2020:139–47.
[57] J. R. Ehrenfeld and M. R. Chertow, “Industrial symbiosis: the legacy of
Kalundborg,” in A Handbook of Industrial Ecology, Edward Elgar Publishing.
[58] Potts Carr AJ. Choctaw Eco-Industrial Park: An ecological approach to industrial
land-use planning and design. Landsc Urban Plan 1998;42(2–4):239–57. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00090-5.
[59] Van Berkel R, Fujita T, Hashimoto S, Fujii M. Quantitative assessment of urban
and industrial symbiosis in Kawasaki, Japan. Environ Sci Technol 2009;43(5):
1271–81. https://doi.org/10.1021/es803319r.
[60] Behera SK, Kim JH, Lee SY, Suh S, Park HS. Evolution of ‘designed’ industrial
symbiosis networks in the Ulsan Eco-industrial Park: ‘Research and development
into business’ as the enabling framework. J Clean Prod 2012;29–30(July):
103–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.009.
[61] Chertow MR. Industrial Symbiosis. Encicl energy 2004;3(1):407–15. https://doi.
org/10.1162/jiec.2007.1110.
[62] Domenech T, Bleischwitz R, Panayotopoulos D, Roman L, Doranova A. Mapping
Industrial Symbiosis Development in Europe_ typologies of networks,
characteristics, performance and contribution to the Circular Economy. Resour
Conserv Recycl 2018;141(March 2018):76–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2018.09.016.
[63] Cohen-rosenthal E, Mcgalliard T, Bell M. Designing Eco-Industrial Parks. Ind
Environ 1996;19:1–16.
[64] Elabras Veiga LB, Magrini A. Eco industrial parks in Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil: a
proposal for brownfield revitalization. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 2010;141:
195–205. https://doi.org/10.2495/BF100.
[65] M. Osako, K. Yoshikawa, and K. Urashima, “Trends in Japanese Zero Emission
Systems that Lead the World on Materials Industries —,” Sci. Technol. Trends,
2004.
[66] Pellenbarg PH. Sustainable business sites in the netherlands: a review *. J Environ
Plan Manag 2002;45:59–84.
[67] Chae SH, Kim SH, Yoon SG, Park S. Optimization of a waste heat utilization
network in an eco-industrial park. Appl Energy 2010;87(6):1978–88. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.12.003.
[68] Park HS, Rene ER, Choi SM, Chiu ASF. Strategies for sustainable development of
industrial park in Ulsan, South Korea-From spontaneous evolution to systematic
expansion of industrial symbiosis. J Environ Manage 2008;87(1):1–13. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.045.
[69] Singhal S, Kapur A. Industrial estate planning and management in India—an
integrated approach towards industrial ecology. J Environ Manage 2002;66(1):
19–29. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2002.0571.
[70] Chiu ASF, Yong G. On the industrial ecology potential in Asian developing
countries. J Clean Prod 2004;12(8–10):1037–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2004.02.013.
[71] Geng Y, Haight M, Zhu Q. Empirical analysis of eco-industrial development in
China. Sustain Dev 2007;15(2):121–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.306.
[72] Tian J, Liu W, Lai B, Li X, Chen L. Study of the performance of eco-industrial park
development in China. J Clean Prod 2014;64(September):486–94. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.005.
[73] Zhang L, Yuan Z, Bi J, Zhang B, Liu B. Eco-industrial parks: national pilot
practices in China. J Clean Prod 2010;18(5):504–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2009.11.018.
[74] Mathews JA, Tan H. Progress toward a circular economy in China: The drivers
(and inhibitors) of eco-industrial initiative. J Ind Ecol 2011;15(3):435–57.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00332.x.
[75] Zhu Q, Lowe EA, Wei Y-a, Barnes D. Industrial Symbiosis in China A Case Study of
the Guitang Group. J Ind Ecol 2007;11(1):31–42.
[76] Liu Z, Adams M, Wen Z, Massard G, Dong H. Review of eco-industrial
development around the globe: Recent progress and continuing challenges.
Resour Conserv Recycl 2019;143(December 2018):111–3. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.12.027.
[77] Geng Y, Zhang P, Côté RP, Fujita T. Assessment of the national eco-industrial park
standard for promoting industrial symbiosis in China. J Ind Ecol 2009;13(1):
15–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00071.x.
[78] Elabras Veiga LB, Magrini A. Eco-industrial park development in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil: a tool for sustainable development. J Clean Prod 2009;17(7):653–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.11.009.
[79] Sakr D, Baas L, El-Haggar S, Huisingh D. Critical success and limiting factors for
eco-industrial parks: Global trends and Egyptian context. J Clean Prod 2011;19
(11):1158–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.01.001.
[80] G. Hairston and A. Layton, “An Eco-Industrial Park-Based Method for Net Zero
Community Creation,” Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1115/DETC2021-71440.
[81] Layton A, Bras B, Weissburg M. Improving performance of eco-industrial parks.
Int J Sustain Eng 2017;10(4–5):250–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19397038.2017.1317874.
[82] Brehm C, Layton A. Designing eco-industrial parks in a nested structure to mimic
mutualistic ecological networks. Procedia CIRP 2019;80:590–5. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.procir.2018.12.011.
[83] Zhang Y, Zheng H, Fath BD. Ecological network analysis of an industrial
symbiosis system: A case study of the Shandong Lubei eco-industrial park. Ecol
Modell 2015;306:174–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.05.005.
[84] Bain A, Shenoy M, Ashton W, Chertow M. Industrial symbiosis and waste
recovery in an Indian industrial area. Resour Conserv Recycl 2010;54(12):
1278–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.04.007.
[85] Xiang P, Yuan T. A collaboration-driven mode for improving sustainable
cooperation in smart industrial parks. Resour Conserv Recycl 2019;141
(November 2018):273–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.037.
[86] Mirata M, Emtairah T. Industrial symbiosis networks and the contribution to
environmental innovation: The case of the Landskrona industrial symbiosis
13
D.V. Perrucci et al.
[87]
[88]
[89]
[90]
[91]
[92]
[93]
[94]
[95]
[96]
[97]
[98]
City and Environment Interactions 16 (2022) 100086
[99] Boix M, Montastruc L, Azzaro-Pantel C, Domenech S. Optimization methods
applied to the design of eco-industrial parks: A literature review. J Clean Prod
2015;87(1):303–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.032.
[100] Afshari H, Farel R, Peng Q. Challenges of value creation in Eco-Industrial Parks
(EIPs): A stakeholder perspective for optimizing energy exchanges. Resour
Conserv Recycl 2018;139(September):315–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2018.09.002.
[101] Taskhiri MS, Behera SK, Tan RR, Park HS. Fuzzy optimization of a waste-toenergy network system in an eco-industrial park. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
2015;17(3):476–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-014-0259-5.
[102] Aviso KB, Tan RR, Culaba AB, Cruz JB. Bi-level fuzzy optimization approach for
water exchange in eco-industrial parks. Process Saf Environ Prot 2010;88(1):
31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2009.11.003.
[103] Aviso KB, Tan RR, Culaba AB, Cruz JB. Fuzzy input-output model for optimizing
eco-industrial supply chains under water footprint constraints. J Clean Prod 2011;
19(2–3):187–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.09.003.
[104] Aviso KB, Tan RR, Culaba AB. Designing eco-industrial water exchange networks
using fuzzy mathematical programming. Clean Technol Environ Policy 2010;12
(4):353–63.
[105] W. Ashton, “Understanding the Organization of Industrial A Social Network
Approach,” J. Ind. Ecol., vol. 12, no. 1, 2008, doi: 10.1111/j.15309290.2008.00002.x.
[106] Huang M, Wang Z, Chen T. Analysis on the theory and practice of industrial
symbiosis based on bibliometrics and social network analysis. J Clean Prod 2019;
213:956–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.131.
[107] Chopra SS, Khanna V. Understanding resilience in industrial symbiosis networks:
Insights from network analysis. J Environ Manage 2014;141:86–94. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.038.
[108] Domenech T, Davies M. Structure and morphology of industrial symbiosis
networks: The case of Kalundborg. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 2011;10:79–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.01.011.
[109] Song X, Geng Y, Dong H, Chen W. Social network analysis on industrial symbiosis:
A case of Gujiao eco-industrial park. J Clean Prod 2018;193(May):414–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.058.
[110] Jin R, Chen Q. Investigation of Concrete Recycling in the U.S. Construction
Industry. Procedia Eng 2015;118:894–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
proeng.2015.08.528.
[111] Lotfi S, Eggimann M, Wagner E, Mróz R, Deja J. Performance of recycled
aggregate concrete based on a new concrete recycling technology. Constr Build
Mater 2015;95:243–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.021.
[112] Perrucci DV, Baroud H. Temporary housing operations: A simulation-based
inventory management approach using the newsvendor model. Int J Disaster Risk
Reduct 2021;65(April):102512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102512.
programme. J Clean Prod 2005;13(10–11):993–1002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2004.12.010.
L. W. Baas, “Industrial Ecology in the Rotterdam Harbor and Industry Complex:
‘You need acknowledgement, vision, trust, and a long term program to make it
happen’,” Ind. Ecol. a Sustain. Futur., no. June, pp. 62–64, 2005, [Online].
Available: http://www.is4ie.org/Resources/Documents/Abstractbook-oral
050603.pdf.
Susur E, Hidalgo A, Chiaroni D. A strategic niche management perspective on
transitions to eco-industrial park development: A systematic review of case
studies. Resour Conserv Recycl 2019;140(May 2018):338–59. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.06.002.
Pierre Desrochers, “Eco-Industrial Parks,” Indep. Rev., no. 1996, pp. 1–11, 1998,
[Online]. Available: https://engineering.dartmouth.edu/~d30345d/courses/
engs171/EIPs.pdf.
Costa I, Massard G, Agarwal A. Wast Management Policies for Industrial
Symbiosis Development: Case Studies in European Countries. J Clean Prod 2010;
18(8):815–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610391936.
Korhonen J, Huisingh D, Chiu ASF. Applications of industrial ecology - An
overview of the special issue. J Clean Prod 2004;12(8–10):803–7. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.02.002.
Korhonen J, von Malmborg F, Strachan PA, Ehrenfeld JR. Management and policy
aspects of industrial ecology: an emerging research agenda. Bus Strateg Environ
2004;13(5):289–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.415.
Cao K, Feng X, Wan H. Applying agent-based modeling to the evolution of ecoindustrial systems. Ecol Econ 2009;68(11):2868–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2009.06.009.
Romero E, Ruiz MC. Proposal of an agent-based analytical model to convert
industrial areas in industrial eco-systems. Sci Total Environ 2014;468–469:
394–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.08.049.
Couto Mantese G, Capaldo Amaral D. Comparison of industrial symbiosis
indicators through agent-based modeling. J Clean Prod 2017;140:1652–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.142.
Mantese GC, Amaral DC. Agent-based simulation to evaluate and categorize
industrial symbiosis indicators. J Clean Prod 2018;186:450–64. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.142.
Fraccascia L, Yazan DM. The role of online information-sharing platforms on the
performance of industrial symbiosis networks. Resour Conserv Recycl 2018;136
(December 2017):473–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.03.009.
Ghali MR, Frayret JM, Ahabchane C. Agent-based model of self-organized
industrial symbiosis. J Clean Prod 2017;161:452–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.05.128.
14