INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY:A Work in Progress for Sustainably Connecting the Environment, Economy, Government, and

Society

Image taken from Pollution Issues.com

Kenneth Rosales12/12/12UrbP 200 Prevetti

INTRODUCTION

The main rationale behind this literature review is to discover what industrial ecology

is, its shortcomings, advantages, and its importance in politics, economics, planning, and

society. By duplicating nature’s “closed-loop” system of handling waste, industrial ecology

can bring sustainability in all sectors of modern civilization (Lowe 1992, 418). Several forms

of industrial ecology exist, but only the most general ones are discussed in this literature

review. They are:

Sustainability as a framework of industrial ecology Descriptive vs prescriptive models Life Cycle Assessment/Analysis (LCA) Total Cost Assessment/Analysis (TCA) Life Cycle Cost Assessment/Analysis Industrial Metabolism Systems Analysis Design for Environment (DfE) Eco-Industrial Park Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

Most publications in this literature review focus on what industrial ecology has

achieved, how it can be accomplished, where it has failed, and how to avoid shortcomings.

Filled with rich information of recommendations in many peer-reviewed articles, industrial

ecology is a concept that has mixed between successes and failures throughout

industrialized and developing countries. Case study analyses on industrial ecological

practices are addressed in this literature review and include the countries of Demark, China,

and the United States of America. Several political, economic, and social factors have all

played significant roles in industrial ecology’s developmental outcomes, which are all

instrumental to its success.

SUSTAINABILITY AS A FRAMEWORK OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY

Industrial ecology is primarily composed of various frameworks that all focus on the

centralized theme of sustainability. It is claimed that the industrial sector and its structure

simultaneously affects and is impacted by its environment (Lowe 1992, 418). Thus, the main

purpose of industrial ecology is to restructure the industrial sector from being dichotomous

to the global natural environment to being in accord with the global ecosystem (Lowe 1992,

p. 418). Industrial ecology’s cornerstone roots from the concept of biological ecology where

nature utilizes resources in a cyclic-like function (e.g. producers, primary consumers,

secondary consumers, tertiary consumers, scavengers, decomposers, and detritivores)

which could theoretically solve problems of resource scarcity and environmental pollution in

industrial practices (Tiejun 2010, 442). Through both analytical and systemic functions,

industrial ecology is an attempt of reaching global carrying capacity of the human species

(Lowe and Evans 1995, 48). An example of an analytical function would involve the

measurements on the impacts a systemic function has had on the environment (Seager and

Theis 2002, 226-227). Industrial ecology, however, primarily functions on the premise of

imitating the best practices from biological systems (Boons and Bass 1997, 80). Therefore,

an example of a biological-systemic function could take the form of holistic communities

(industry, residential, public, and commercial) involved in a well-organized, cooperative and

symbiotic system to reduce environmental impact (Ehrenfield 2004, 825).

MAIN THEMES AND DEBATES:

DESCRIPTVE VS PRESCRIPTIVE MODELS

Many concepts in industrial ecology were uniformly described by various authors.

However, the categorization and the definitions for some of those concepts were missing or

had been assumed to be one single article, when in fact they were separate. A prime

example of the disarray in concept, definition, and categorization occurred with the LCA tool

of industrial metabolism, which will be explained in further detail ahead. Fortunately, Seager

and Theis (2002) took the time to publish a journal article that attempted to clear the mass

confusion. Their organizational structure of terms and definitions set forth a logical structure

of the multi-dimensional concepts industrial ecology brings forth. Therefore, Seager and

Theis (2002, 226-227) separated Industrial ecology into two different models. They are:

descriptive and prescriptive. Descriptive models describe the way things are and do not

make recommendations on the way things should be (Seager and Theis 2002, 226-227). An

example of a descriptive model in industrial ecology is a Life Cycle Analysis (Seager and

Theis 2002, 226-227). Prescriptive models explain how things should be done and an

example of a prescriptive model would be systems analysis (Seager and Theis 2002, 226-

227).

Under the descriptions of LCAs and systems analysis exists a diversity of

methodologies to their applications. These methodologies and applications of LCA and

systems analysis are introduced and defined under the explanation of the model (LCA or

systems analysis) itself. If it weren’t for Seager and Theis (2002) and their introduction of a

two-branched categorization of industrial ecology, this literature review would have been

scattered with a variety of simple and complex models and theories.

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)

Life Cycle Analysis is a descriptive system and a tool in industrial ecology that

assesses the environmental impacts of a particular product from its origins of extraction,

production, consumption, and to the disposal and/or recycling of the product. LCAs are also

used to make mitigation measures. (Boons and Bass 1997, 82). However, they are mainly

applicable to industrial metabolism where thermodynamic properties in the form of entropy

and exergy are measured (Seager and Theis 2002, 226 and Ehrenfield 2004, 827). There

are usually four steps to conducting research with LCAs: scoping (intents, purpose, and

focus), inventory analysis (estimating the resources needed for life and death/repurpose of a

product), impact assessment (environmental effects), and improvement assessment

[mitigation measures] (Seager and Theis 2002, 227).

Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) A Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) has been produced

by systems engineers to measure the costs behind all points of a system or product from

extraction/design, manufacturing/production, distribution, use, maintenance, and disposal. It

is very similar to an LCA, but it focuses on costs as opposed to environmental impact. LCCA

is currently used as a complement to LCAs and can measure environmental impacts based

on costs (Utne 2009,335).

Total Cost Assessment (TCA) A Total Cost Analysis is used to measure all possible

(uncertain and certain) costs to make informed decisions in an industrial firm. TCAs include,

but are not limited to: litigation, remediation for toxic spills, company image, employee

misbehavior, or disposal costs (Seager and Theis 2002, 230). TCAs are similar to LCAs in the

event that it measures as many impacts as possible, except more in the perspective of

keeping a company prosperous and void of overbearing costs in operations.

Industrial Metabolism Industrial metabolism is applied to LCAs in the form of

measuring thermodynamic properties. Those thermodynamic properties are in the form of

exergy. Exergy is a binding of the first and second laws of thermodynamics that allows the

availability of energy to perform work to be measured (Ayre 2004, 426 and 428 and Seager

and Theis 2002, 230). Exergy can be found in the following forms: pressure, heat exchange,

chemical, kinetic, and potential (Seager and Theis 2002, 230).

Industrial metabolism is used to bridge LCA and systems analysis through

thermodynamics. With the knowledge of how much energy needs to be used in order to

perform work, quantifiable measurements can be made monetarily, thus, applications to a

structure (policy, reduction of environmental impacts, cost reductions, etc) can also be

created (Seager and Theis 2002, 230 and Ehrenfield 2004, 827).

It must be noted that in light of the research conducted in this literature review,

industrial metabolism and industrial ecology were interchangeably defined (Ayre 2004, 426

and Seager and Theis 2002, 226). For example, (Ayre 2004, 426) describes industrial

ecology and industrial metabolism as the same thing, “in recent years, another

protodiscipline, Industrial Ecology (or Industrial Metabolism) has emerged.” Lowe and Evans

(1995, 48) on the other hand, termed industrial metabolism as a tool and subset of industrial

ecology, “some policy-makers and industrial managers are using IE-based tools, such as

dynamic input-output models, industrial metabolism analysis and design for environment.”

Seager and Theis (2002) unmarried the two concepts and made industrial metabolism a sub-

category of industrial ecology like Lowe and Evans (1995) had done to make a clear

distinction between the two due to their different levels of focus.

Systems Analysis

Systems analysis is a prescriptive model and an apparatus in industrial ecology that

focuses on enhancing or making organizational structure, decision making, and relationships

between stakeholders sustainable and efficient (Seager and Theis 227). Systems analysis

conventionally utilizes a quantitative model to measure the structure of a system being used

in industrial ecology in the form of some unit (a monetary unit would be an example). The

structure is a chain of relationships in coordination and cooperation between or within

stakeholders in the form of (but not limited to) firms, residents, and government all focused

on an objective [e.g. reducing the cost of manufacturing, minimizing environmental hazards,

policy framework, resource management plans, or all] (Seager and Theis 228 and Ehrenfield

2004, 827).

Design for Environment (DfE) Design for Environment is the application of the

mitigated component of an LCA for a particular product where environmental impacts are

reduced [lower energy usage, reduced utilization of materials for production, greenhouse

gas emissions reduction, reduction in water usage, increased recyclability rate, etc] (Lowe

1992, 420). DfE, however, has been found to have another definition in the sense that it

solely focuses on pollution prevention. “DfE utilizes pollution prevention approach to ensure

that, during the earliest stages of a new process or product (the design stage), the

environmental impacts are elucidated and incorporated into the development of technology”

(Anastas, and Breen 1997, 98). DfE’s key trait is nonetheless, whether pollution prevention

or LCA, reducing environmental impacts. Ultimately, DfE is considered a systems analysis

because as Lowe (1992, 420) explains “DfE offers systems analysis tools to integrate

decision making across all environmental implications of a product” and “enables designers

to consider traditional design issues of cost, quality and efficiency as part of the same

decision system.”

Eco-Industrial Parks (EIPs) An EIP is a form of systems analysis and is claimed to be

exemplary of what industrial ecology attempts to holistically achieve (Lowe 1992, 420). EIPs

are industrial parks that function in a symbiotic relationship where multiple firms or other

buildings (residential or governmental) are using and recycling waste and emissions in a

connected web. EIPs must utilize clean and responsible production and are designed,

constructed, engineered, and architected in a sustainable manner (Roberts 2004, 1001).

Cooperation and collaboration and sharing of knowledge and technologies are critical to a

successful EIP (Roberts 2004, 1001).

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Extended Producer Responsibility is a

governmental policy framework that makes industry primarily responsible for the proper

disposal of their manufactured material. In other words, whoever is a producer, designer, or

merchant of products, they are required to take it back and sustainably deal with the

discards. Most importantly, producers are the most responsible with the handling of

products and all parties involved in the production of a material must take into consideration

of DfE principals. EPR has been adopted as a policy in the European Union as the Integrated

Product Policy (Ehrenfield 2004, 829 and CPSC 2008).

MAIN THEMES AND DEBATES:

CASE STUDIES OF SUCCESS AND FAILURES IN INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY

Since EIPs are the most frequently discussed, researched, and practiced in industrial

ecology peer-reviewed articles, they will be used to describe the benefits and drawbacks of

industrial ecology in the form of various case studies around the world.

Denmark and China’s Successes in Industrial Ecology

In Kalundborg, Denmark a functioning and successful EIP was produced where waste

and energy exchanges exist between an electric power generating plant, a biotechnology

plant, an oil refinery, a fish farm, local city administration, a plasterboard factory, sulfuric

acid producer, a sulfuric acid manufacturer, cement firms, agriculture and horticulture

activities, and district heating utilities (Lowe 1992, 420 and Gibbs and Duetz 2003, 454).

Steam generated from the power plant is transferred over to the fish farm, to the

district, the oil refinery, and the biotechnology plant (Gibbs and Duetz 2003, 454-455 and

Lowe and Evans 1995, 49). The power plant produces electricity from the combustion of the

waste gas created by the oil refinery and coal, but also utilizes energy from its own steam

production (Gibbs and Duetz 2003, 454-455 and Lowe and Evans 1995, 49). Sludge created

by the fish farm and pharmaceutical production of fertilizers and yeasts are both utilized by

agricultural and horticultural farms (Gibbs and Duetz 2003, 454-455 and Lowe and Evans

1995, 49). The electric power generated plant produces fly ash through the combustion of

gas from the oil refinery and coal (Gibbs and Duetz 2003, 454-455 and Lowe and Evans

1995, 49). The fly ash is then collected and shipped over to a cement manufacturer and the

plasterboard company for use (Gibbs and Duetz 2003, 454-455 and Lowe and Evans 1995,

49). Gypsum is also generated from the power plant through desulfurization activities and is

also sent to the plasterboard company (Gibbs and Duetz 2003, 454-455 and Lowe and Evans

1995, 49). Additionally, excess refinery gas is used by the wallboard firm and recovery of

sulfur from the oil refinery is also used as fuel for the power plant. (Gibbs and Duetz 2003,

454-455 and Lowe and Evans 1995, 49).

Approximated calculations have been generated in Kalundborg’s activities. Roughly

2.9 million tons of waste is exchanged on an annual basis with reductions of water usage by

25%, 19 x 103 tonnes of oil usage, and a decrease of 30 x 103 tonnes of coal usage (Gibbs

and Duetz 2003, 455 and Lowe and Evans 1995, 50).

The Kalundborg EIP was not initially planned as an EIP, but developed to an EIP

overtime through collaboration between companies after realizing that they could reduce

costs of production. Environmental advantages that were produced were not intentional,

but were included as an addition to the wide range of benefits (Heeres, Vermeulen, and

Walle 2004, 986).

The Tianjin Economic-Technological Development Area (TEDA) is one of the top three

EIPs in China. Developed in December 1984, TEDA has formed symbiotic relationships

between 81 companies and organizations. TEDA is a combination of resource recovery

facilities, biotechnology, electronics, utilities, and automobile-related businesses. Of the 81

exchanges, 9% of them were for energy, 15% was for water, and 76% for materials (Shi,

Chertow, and Song 2010, 196)

In TEDA, a water technologies company collects sewage water, treats and filters it,

and then supplies the water to an artificial wetland, energy and automotive industries, and a

landscaping company (Shi, Chertow, and Song 2010,192, 195-197). Co-generation plants in

TEDA are principally used to produce steam for heating of several firms. Existing coal fire

power plants and a caustic soda plant are used for heating purposes either directly or

through steam production for companies to use (Shi, Chertow, and Song 2010,192, 195-

197). Landscaping and agricultural activities receive soil from sediments of the nearby bay,

sludge from the caustic soda company, and fly ash from the coal fired heating plant (Shi,

Chertow, and Song 2010,192, 195-197). Floor tiles from a flooring company were produced

from bottom ash and haydite also produced from the thermal power plants, which are

treated by a hazardous waste facility (Shi, Chertow, and Song 2010,192, 195-197). A cluster

of electronic companies exist in TEDA and exchange lead solder matter, cathode ray tube

glass, waste oil, and silver (Shi, Chertow, and Song 2010,192, 195-197). Food companies in

TEDA supply animals in nearby farms with food scraps, a starch company transfers its starch

excess to produce coal starters for a briquette company, and soy beans, lecithin, and fatty

acid remains are distributed to other food firms (Shi, Chertow, and Song 2010,192, 195-

197). Fertilizers are produced from a pharmaceutical company and utilized by local farmers.

Automobile clusters recycle scraps in the form of various metals and batteries between each

other (Shi, Chertow, and Song 2010,192, 195-197). The remaining sectors exchange wood

scraps for wood, printing products and fuel and pottery companies send excess gypsum to a

cement company (Shi, Chertow, and Song 2010,192, 195-197).

In 2006, some of the benefits of TEDA are as such: over 3,700 tons of food residuals

converted into animal feed, 1.26 million cubic meters of reclaimed water was bought and

used by factories, and 5,115 tons of lead refuse were recycled into 3,094 tons of lead alloys

(Shi, Chertow, and Song 2010, 196).

Unfortunately, an aggregate of 11 symbiotic relationships discontinued, but the

remaining 70 were still functioning as of 2009. Some of the failures of the exchanges were

due to lack of clean production, increasing prices in exchanges, environmental liability, and

bankruptcy (Shi, Chertow, and Song 2010, 197).

The United States of America‘s Shortcomings in Industrial Ecology Symbiosis information for EIPs in the United States could not be found. Therefore,

more research must be conducted to find the valuable relationships and quantifiable

benefits the United States EIPs may have. However, three EIPs have been identified as

Fairfield, Brownsville, and Cape Charles (Heeres, Vermulen, and Walle 2004, 988-989). Costs

for the respective EIPs were the following: $62 million, $250,000, and $7.5 million.

Environmental benefits could not be quantified, but Fairfield is projected to create 2,500 jobs

within a decade starting from 2004 and Cape Charles had created 395 jobs in 2004 (Heeres,

Vermulen, and Walle 2004, 988-989).

Several restraints have been identified in US EIPs from excelling. Government control

through finance, NGOs and public restraints, lack of industrial initiation, lack of collaboration

between firms, autonomy from government, and absence in environmental concern all

played individual, but binding roles in the slow development of United States’ EIPs. Further,

the United States EIPs don’t have a leading contributor of exchanges, which is also known as

a local champion or anchor tenants. Local champions are essentially the main industries that

bind entire systems together. Denmark practices the function of local champions and is the

major factor contributing to their success (Heeres, Vermulen, and Walle 2004, 991-992 and

Gibbs and Deutz 2005, 462). Ironically enough, however, is the fact that Denmark initially

did not intend on having environmental benefits through industrial ecology. The concept of

industrial ecology was not entirely known by the Kalundborg pioneers and, thus, their

primary motive was economically based (Heeres, Vermeulen, and Walle 2004, 986). An

economically focused EIP was considered to be problematic in the U.S., but not in Denmark.

Stringent government regulation could be the leading contributor to the sluggish expansion

and progress of US EIPs since two-thirds of the projects initiated were almost fully funded by

the government, and therefore, controlled and retrained from cooperation and collaboration

between the firms (Heeres, Vermeulen, and Walle 2004, 990). The Dutch’s projects,

however, were initiated and mainly ran by the industries themselves with the government

simply assisting and providing some of the funding (Heeres, Vermeulen, and Walle 2004,

990).

MAIN THESES AND DEBATES: SECTORS AND THEIR ROLES IN INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY

Main Themes and Debates- Sectors and their Roles in Industrial Ecology

Industrial ecology can have major impacts on several sectors in cities. Therefore, a

closer examination must be taken to understand the relationships between these two

themes.

Government In industrial ecology, government is included in a variety of factors for

the successes in industrial ecology. As a regulation requirement in extended producer

responsibility for example, government must hold industry responsible in applying design for

environment practices, increasing accessibility in accepting refuse from the public, and

conducting proper disposal practices for the products that they manufacture, design, or sell

(Lowe 1992 420. Ehrenfield 2004, 829, and California Product Stewardship Council 2012).

Industrial ecology holds government accountable to incentivize industrial ecology

programs. An eco industrial park (EIPs) is an example where government should provide

means for funding. However, it has been advised that government should only fund EIPs by

half (50%) because the ultimate goal for the EIP is to self-sustain itself through collaborative

and cooperative measures (Heeres, Vermeulen, and Walle 2004, 991). Government, in this

case, can be a major restrictor of innovation, economic sustainability, and can obscure the

goals the EIPs intend on achieving (Gibbs and Duetz 2003, 458-460 and Heeres, Vermeulen,

and Walle 2004, 991).

It has been acknowledged that government’s policy-making lifecycle is analogous to

a life cycle analysis (LCA): initiation, scope, selection, implementation, evaluation, and

termination. However, policy’s greatest shortcoming, streamlined with industrial ecology, is

that its only greatest achievement is during initiation where issues are identified.

Recommendations are made to policy makers to closely study several industrial ecology

case studies at once and select the benefits while ridding of the faulty components of them

to create a well-informed and educated industrial ecology policy that is reflective of their

own locality (Lifset 2005, 2 and Salmi and Olli 2007, 99).

Economics/Industry Industrial ecology has the word ‘industry’ in it and is based on

transforming current economic frameworks of industry into one that copies nature’s cyclic

function of ‘closing loops,’ recycling of waste (produces no waste), or sustainability.

However, industry has no primary producer like nature does via photosynthesis through

solar energy, but in reality requires natural resources, labor, and money (Ayres 2004, 425,

428, and 431). Unrecycled wastes in ecological functions occur all the time in nature, such

as coal, oil, and iron formations (Ayres 2004, 425, 428, and 431). If it does not work in

nature, then all industrial wastes cannot always be economically recycled either. There is

much dissimilarity between neoclassical economics the world currently functions under

when it’s compared to nature, and thus, puts many fundamental ideologies of industrial

ecology into question such as putting monetary value into exergy and defining formal forms

of capital and labor (Ayres 2004, 425, 428, and 431). On the other hand, there has been

success in Denmark’s eco-industrial parks where cost savings were substantial by using

systems analysis and life cycle analysis (Gibbs and Duetz 2003, 455 and Lowe and Evans

1995, 50).

Planning It has been claimed that the absence of adequate planning and design in

eco-industrial parks (EIP) leads to missing opportunities in reducing costs. If environmentally

conscious planning and design practices are implemented, energy efficiency and

conservation and water conservation can be achieved (Grant 1997, 76, 77, and 78).

Following Kalundborg, Denmark as a leading example, cities can plan for eco industrial parks

in existing industrial parks that produce extensive quantities of waste heat which can be

distributed to other firms and to residential and governmental buildings (Grant 1997, 76, 77,

and 78). In essence, any type of extensive waste generated in an industrial park can be

utilized and converted to an EIP. In terms of design, EIPs are prescribed to not reflect

suburbia, but should instead strive for the application of efficiency design such as

active/passive solar design, native vegetation landscape, and land use reduction. For

example, by having firms share parking, loading docks, and storage spaces maximization of

land use can be attained while reaching habitat conservation and cost savings from reduced

construction and landscape maintenance (Grant 1997, 76, 77, and 78). Habitat conservation

can be met when more space is available for landscaping indigenous vegetation that

attracts the appropriate biota of the area (Grant 1997, 76, 77, and 78). The native

landscape, thus, does not require maintenance which reduces even more costs of the EIP by

avoiding traditional landscaping (Grant 1997, 76, 77, and 78). Permeable surfaces for water

percolation can recharge groundwater, create healthy soil, and further enhance the

treatment of producing a native habitat. Solar aquatics, vegetated bio swales,

bioremediation, and artificial wetlands can also be used to treat waste water produced by

industries (Grant 1997, 76, 77, and 78).

Society Engaging the public in awareness about industrial ecology developments is

one of the key principals of its success. In industrial ecology, it is said to be imperative that

the public be informed about the overall implication of industrial ecology projects. However,

in the United States high levels of community of engagement have been correlated with

limited success in industrial ecology projects such as EIPs since it may interfere with the

overall cooperation and coordination between the firms. In Denmark, public ideas and

visions are not on the priority list and are not encouraged, but are still acknowledged.

Developments of EIPs in Denmark are influenced more by consulting agencies and

educational institutions than the public (Lowe 1992, 424 and Heeres, Vermeulen, and Walle

2004, 991).

CONCLUSION

Industrial ecology may not always be able to perfectly combine the concepts of

industry and ecology, but the intent has provided many benefits and corrective measures for

improvement. Several different systems in enhancing industrial projects through industrial

ecological practices have been created. Many of these systems have been adopted in the

form of eco industrial parks (EIPs) and have shown advantageous results primarily in

Denmark and also in China. Inadequacies in EIPs have been recognized principally in the

United States due to governmental, industrial, and public malfunctions. Government, the

economy, planning, and society are all inevitably involved in industrial ecology as an

interconnected web. As a result, further research needs to be conducted on how

government impacts economic/industrial functions of industrial ecological programs. For

example, thorough analyses on how environmental regulation and economic systems

function in Denmark and in the United States would grant a higher understanding on the

reasons as to why Denmark’s dominance over the United State’s industrial ecological

programs exist and continue to persist. Researching specific environmental laws and

regulatory agencies that ironically inhibit sustainable industrial ecological practices in the

United States is crucial because they may lead to strategies on how to break the barriers.

Discovering planning and the public’s hurdles would also be subsequently indentified and

possibly be filled with recommended solutions.

REFERENCE LIST

Anastas, Paul., and Joseph Breen. 1997. Design for the environment and green chemistry: The

heart and soul of industrial ecology. Journal of Cleaner Production 5, 1-2. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0959652697000255/1-s2.0-S0959652697000255-main.pdf?

_tid=c80d2228-4520-11e2-

8d40&acdnat=1355401967_9980706e26d39699a40d1bd6baa2fd6a00000aab0f02(accessed December 12, 2012).

Ayres, Robert U. 2004. On the life cycle metaphor: Where ecology and economics diverge. Center for the Management of Environmental Resources 48. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0921800904000187/1-s2.0-S0921800904000187-main.pdf?_tid=a469f02a-1e9d-11e2-9e48-00000aacb361&acdnat=1351167499_d3d4fd692ff1cbce53250467031ad99f (accessed October 21, 2012).

Boons, F.A.A., and L.W. Bass. 1997. Types of industrial ecology: The problem of coordination. Journal of Cleaner Production 5, no. 1-2. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0959652697000073/1-s2.0-S0959652697000073-main.pdf?_tid=2d794776-1ead-11e2-bc2d-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1351174171_e8f1621bc3b6ba502f5848c99d904bb4 (accessed October 21, 2012).

California Product Stewardship Council. The solution is product stewardship: A better way. http://www.calpsc.org/solution/index.html (accessed November 13, 2012)

Ehrenfield, John. 2004. Industrial ecology: A new field or only a metaphor? Journal of Cleaner Production 12. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S095965260400068X/1-s2.0-S095965260400068X-main.pdf?_tid=199d8f48-1e83-11e2-8e48-00000aacb35d&acdnat=1351156099_a951021a7ddce210d4d7e1e918f7633a (accessed October 21, 2012).

Gibbs, David, and Pauline Deutz. 2005. Implementing industrial ecology? Planning for eco-industrial parks in the USA. Geoforum 34. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0016718504001071/1-s2.0-S0016718504001071-main.pdf?_tid=da8eb5d6-1e76-11e2-9b4b-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1351150839_3241f4def52666dab6138af57bae0ecc (accessed October 21, 2012)

Grant, Jill. 1997. Planning and designing industrial landscapes for co-efficiency. Journal of Cleaner Technology 5, 1-2. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0959652697000085/1-s2.0-S0959652697000085-main.pdf?_tid=a4ed50e0-1e9e-11e2-9064-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1351167929_9f7b4d3c9b90ec43f55d96f8b5df395c (accessed October 21, 2012).

Heeres, R.R., W.J.V. Vermeulen, and F.B. Walle, 2004. Eco-industrial initiatives in the USA and the Netherlands: First lessons. Journal of Cleaner Production 12. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0959652604000873/1-s2.0-S0959652604000873-main.pdf?_tid=a65b1126-1e51-11e2-9a10-00000aab0f01&acdnat=1351134860_348fbb7fe0d958b797a6d042aeedf2eb (accessed October 21, 2012)

Lowe, Ernest. 1992. Discovering industrial ecology. Journal of Industrial Ecology 4: 416-431.

Lowe, Ernest, and Laurence Evans. 1995. Industrial ecology and industrial systems. Journal of

Cleaner Production 3, 1-2. http://ac.els-cdn.com/095965269500045G/1-s2.0-095965269500045G-main.pdf?_tid=55e2916e-2f82-11e2-a8b0-00000aab0f6b&acdnat=1353024940_d905f4d8aeb04e3b5075811fcf26737e

(accessed October 21, 2012).

Lifset, Reid. 2005. Industrial ecology and public policy. Journal of Industrial Ecology 9, no. 3. http://web.ebscohost.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&hid=119&sid=07fcaf15-e720-4955-89b6-00c5f0dca94d%40sessionmgr112 (accessed October 21, 2012).

Pollution Issues. Industrial Ecology. http://www.pollutionissues.com/Ho-Li/Industrial-Ecology.html

(accessed December 12, 2012)

Roberts, Brian H. 2004. The application of industrial ecology principles and planning guidelines for the development of eco-industrial parks: An Australian case study. Journal of Cleaner Production12. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S095965260400085X/1-s2.0-S095965260400085X-main.pdf?_tid=3597f7ba-1eab-11e2-80d9-00000aacb35f&acdnat=1351173326_dcca4ca3402cc165daf2f4faab7a213e (accessed October 21, 2012).

Salmi, Olli, and Aino Toppinen. 2007. Embedding science in politics: “Complex utilization” and industrial ecology as models of natural resources. Journal of Industrial Ecology 11, no. 3. http://web.ebscohost.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=07fcaf15-e720-4955-89b6-00c5f0dca94d%40sessionmgr112&vid=4&hid=119 (accessed October 21, 2012).

Seager, T.P., and T.L. Theis, 2002. A uniform and quantitative basis for industrial ecology.Journal of Cleaner Production 10.http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0959652601000403/1-s2.0-S0959652601000403-main.pdf?_tid=0d42fc66-1e1e-11e2-875b-00000aab0f6b&acdnat=1351112699_b894aafc84062ea2bd537596fecca53b(accessed October 21, 2012).

Shi, Han., Marian Chertow, and Yuyan Song. 2010. Developing country experience with eco-industrial parks: A case study of the Tianjin Economic-Technological Development in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 18.http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0959652609003242/1-s2.0-S0959652609003242-main.pdf?_tid=ee4220dc-1e39-11e2-a8fb-00000aab0f01&acdnat=1351124673_65406c5c5f724b674d84daceaed41eff(accessed October 21, 2012).

Tiejun, Dai. 2010. Two quantitative indices for the planning and evaluation of eco-industrial parks. Resource Conservation and Recycling, 52. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0921344909002237/1-s2.0-S0921344909002237-main.pdf?_tid=4f1a43c2-1eac-11e2-a85f-00000aab0f6b&acdnat=1351173798_30831fe68e1bd28886570d0e486cd21c (accessed October 21, 2012)

Utne, Ingrid. 2009. Life cycle cost (LCC) as a tool for improving sustainability in the Norwegian fish fleet. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0959652608001832/1-s2.0-S0959652608001832-main.pdf?_tid=b0bf80d2-2f83-11e2-b04a-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1353025522_97db0ffd0bc674d9b24120b9e3104d24 (accessed November 13, 2012).