EC O - I N D U S T R I A L P A R K S

A background report for the eco-industrial park

project at Rantasalmi

PUBLICATIONS OF REGIONAL COUNCIL OF ETELÄ-SAVO 71:2006

E CO-INDUSTRIAL PARKS

A background report for the eco-industrial park

project at Rantasalmi

Laura Saikku
Research Institute for Social Sciences,
University of Tampere

PUBLICATIONS OF REGIONAL COUNCIL OF ETELÄ-SAVO 71:2006

ECO-INDUSTRIAL PARKS
A background report for the eco-industrial park project at Rantasalmi

Publications of Regional Council of Etelä-Savo 71:2006

AO-PAINO

Cover picture Rantasalmi station, Rantasalmen Silva Oy

Circulation 200 pieces

Mikkeli 2006

Regional Council of Etelä-Savo

Hallituskatu 3 A, 50100 Mikkeli, Finland
Tel. +358 15 321 130; E-mail: info@esavo.fi; Telefax +358 15 321 1359

ISBN 952-5093-50-6
ISSN 1455-2930
CONTENTS

1 Introduction 1
1.1 ProMidNord 1
1.2 Eco-industrial park of Rantasalmi 2
1.2.1 Background 2
1.2.2 Aims 2
1.2.3 Measures to be taken 4
1.3 Aims of this report 5
1.4 Material used in this report 5

2 Industrial ecology 6

3 Eco-industrial parks 7
3.1 Definitions 7
3.2 Evolutionary processes of eco-industrial parks 8
3.3 Benefits and strengths of the eco-industrial park concept 9
3.4 Some challenges to the concept of eco-industrial parks 9
3.5 Design principles for eco-industrial parks 10
3.6 Factors affecting the success of an eco-industrial park 11
3.6.1 Companies that fit the eco-industrial park concept
and how to attract them 11
3.6.2 Trust, participation and commitment 12
3.6.3 Information and know-how 13
3.6.4 Organisational factors 13
3.6.5 Champions and coordination agents 14
3.6.6 Vision 15
3.7 Management of an eco-industrial park 15
3.7.1 Functions of eco-industrial park management 15
3.7.2 Management structures 17
3.7.3 Examples of management models in eco-industrial
parks 18

4 Case studies of eco-industrial parks 21

4.1 Case studies in the world 21
4.1.1 Kalundborg, Denmark 21
4.1.2 Styria, Austria 25
4.1.3 Rotterdam, the Netherlands 25
4.1.4 Landskrona, Sweden 26
4.1.5 National Industrial Symbiosis Programme, UK 27
4.2 Case studies in Finland 29
4.2.1 Introduction 29
4.2.2 Uimaharju 30
4.2.3 Jyväskylä 32
4.2.4 Harjavalta 33

References 35

APPENDIX 1 Eco-industrial park case-studies

Summary
The concept of an eco-industrial park is a sector of industrial ecology,
which draws analogies from natural ecosystems to human industrial
systems. The most important viewpoints are closing the material flows
and energy cascading. An eco-industrial park is a clearly defined area
where materials, energy and information exchange occur between
various companies and actors. Implementing an eco-industrial park
can bring environmental, social and economic benefits. Material and
energy exchanges between different actors in the area can evolve by
themselves over a long period of time (e.g. Kalundborg, Denmark).
On the other hand, eco-industrial parks can be intentionally planned
for a totally new area or around already existing operations.

The quality, continuity and quantity of interconnected material and

energy flows and the close proximity of firms are important cha-
racteristics in successful eco-industrial networking and management.
Trust, communication and strong ties between plant managers are
also important. An anchor tenant or driver and a coordinating body
are often needed in an eco-industrial park. A vision of the network is
also important. An eco-industrial park needs to give the companies
clear benefits. An eco-industrial park is best suited for companies
already environmentally mature, and to complement the internal
environmental work of the actors involved. Previously existing in-
stitutional platforms or linkages also help in implementing an eco-
industrial park.

This report serves as background for the first planned eco-industrial

park in Finland, at Rantasalmi municipality. At Rantasalmi the eco-
industrial park involves mainly small mechanical wood processing
companies.
1 Introduction
1.1 ProMidNord
The Rantasalmi eco-industrial park project is a
part of a ProMidNord -project. ProMidNord –
Sustainable Development in the Mid-Nordic Re-
gion – is a project of the Mid-Nordic Committee
in The Baltic Sea Region (BSR) INTERREG II-
IB Neighbourhood Programme. One of its aims is
to support the eco-competitiveness of companies
and enhance a balanced and sustainable develop-
ment of Europe.
The implementation of eco-industrial parks is in-
cluded in the Working Package 2 (WP2) of the
ProMidNord’s Eco-competitiveness -project. Be-
sides Rantasalmi, an eco-industrial project is also
conducted in Jämtland, Sweden. And in Mikkeli,
Finland, the industrial area of Pursiala is surveyed
Figure 1. The Mid-Nordic Region.
to find out how willing the companies in the area
might be to engage in an eco-industrial park pro-
ject. The ProMidNord project intends to conduct
a survey of potential areas for an eco-industrial
park in Mid-Nordic areas of Finland.
The Mid-Nordic Region (Fig. 1) reaches from the
West Atlantic over the Norwegian mountains to
Sweden, across the Bothnian Sea and the Finnish
coast towards the eastern interior of Finland. The
region encompasses a number of neighbouring
provinces in the mid-regions of Norway, Sweden
and Finland:
- Pohjanmaa (Österbotten), Etelä-Pohjanmaa, Kes-
ki-Suomi and Etelä-Savo provinces in Finland;
- Jämtland and Västernorrland provinces in Swe-
den and
- North and South Tröndelag provinces in Norway.

1.2 Eco-industrial park of
Rantasalmi
1.2.1 Background
Finnish eco-industrial parks have been described
to some extent. In general, and as a research and
practical theme, this area is very new and fresh
and has not been institutionalised. The parks that
have been studied have evolved basically of their
own accord. Thus, they are self-organised into fea-
tures and characteristics classified in literature un-
der the emerging concept of eco-industrial parks.
That is, there has been no conscious or internatio-
nal vision, plan, objective or project to deliberately
achieve an eco-industrial park. The Finnish cases
usually consist of forest industry businesses which
use their wood-derived wastes for energy, selling
electricity to the community, utilising residual he-
at from electricity generation for industrial process
steam and district heat for residential areas.
The Rantasalmi eco-industrial park project can,
however, be considered the first attempt to plan
and organise an eco-industrial park in Finland.
Based on a competitive bidding the Regional
Council of Etelä-Savo has chosen the engineering
office Rejlers Oy to lead the project. Rejlers Oy
works as a coordinator in the eco-industrial park
until the end of the project in July 2007.
The focus of the Rantasalmi eco-industrial park is
the Rantasalmi station area (Figs. 2 & 3). There
is a concentration of mechanical wood processing
companies in the area, altogether seven compa-
nies. Real Estate Rantasalmen Silva Oy manages
and maintains the land and premises. Real Estate
Rantasalmen Silva Oy also acts as a development
company in the region and one of the aims is to
generate a strong knowledge and business concen-
tration in the area. It is owned by Rantasalmi mu-
nicipality (49%), Rantasalmi Oy (49%) and Spik-
era Oy (2%).
Rantasalmi Oy with its hundred employees is the
largest company in the region. Rantasalmi Oy was
founded in 1946 and it is the fourth biggest log-
house manufacturer in Finland. Around 60% of its
turnover comes from export. The company has a
strong network at Rantasalmi as well as with com-
panies situated elsewhere. Sil-Kas Oy is a wood-

processing company founded in 1993. It manufac-
tures e.g. window frames from pine. Around 60%
of its turnover comes from export. Korpihonka
is wood product company founded in 1998. The
company manufactures windows, doors and sauna
components for Rantasalmi Oy’s needs. Carpentry
company Raitaranta has made fine carpentry for lo-
cal residents since 1995. Myllys Ky is a family firm
founded in 1959. It provides transport and fork-
lift truck services and maintains the wood drier of
the area. JK-Terämet Ky founded 2003 is a com-
pany that provides blade maintenance in the region.
Kanttiini Seija Partinen is a local restaurant.
There are many co-operation partners outside the
Rantasalmi station area whose activities can be
seen as beneficial to the Rantasalmi station indus-
trial area and its companies where energy/materi-
al efficiency, logistics, storage, etc. are concerned.
The eco-industrial park can later expand to in-
clude them as well. For example Parlatuote Oy is
a fine carpenter company, founded in 1986. Su-
ur-Savon Sähkö Oy is the regional energy compa-
ny. Ascus Tech Oy manufactures and markets pre-
cut houses. The firm was founded in 1989. The
houses are manufactured in the premises of Ran-
tasalmi Oy with a hired staff. Continuous coop-
eration also takes place with LK-puu Oy (surface
treatment and wood products), Wood carpenter
H. Rautiainen and the wood suppliers Rantawood
and A. Nissinen ja Pojat.
1.2.2 Aims
The starting point in the Rantasalmi eco-indust-
rial park project was to develop functional coope-
ration in the area and to economically benefit the
whole area through improvements in cost-effi-
ciency. The aims of this eco-industrial park pro-
ject are to increase the competitiveness, attracti-
veness and environmental image of the firms in
the region as well as to reduce the environmental
effects of the activities. Increasing material effi-
ciency, decreasing the amount of waste to land-
fills, increasing energy efficiency and decreasing
environmental emissions are more specific objec-
tives. The project also emphasizes aiming at con-
tinuous improvement, increasing collaboration
between firms and achieving collective benefits.
To achieve these goals the firms ought to commit
themselves to the project and carry on implemen-
ting the collective goals.
Figure 2. Eco-Industrial Park Rantasalmi, flows among the Park companies and some of the partners (amounts per year, the
picture is not perfect). Some of the waste wood goes to the private use. The Sil-Kas Oy delivers the waste wood
also to the other energy companies. The woodchip heating plant of the Suur-Savon Sähkö Oy is located in the same
industrial-area as the eco-industrial park.



Figure 3. Rantasalmi station (as.) is located 9km from the
actual town of Rantasalmi. The nearest cities are
Savonlinna (45km) and Mikkeli (75km).
1.2.3 Measures to be taken
Environmental reporting and energy surveys are
conducted for each individual firm during the
course of the project. An environmental policy
and environmental goals are determined for the
whole industrial area to strengthen collective mo-
tivation and mutual trust. Environmental policies
and goals will also be established individually for
each company. Material efficiency and environ-
mental impacts of one example product are eva-
luated with the help of the MIPS -method (Ma-
terial Input per Service Unit) and life cycle ana-
lysis. Some improvement and development pro-
cedures will be suggested and follow-up after the
launching period are being planned for the whole
park and for individual companies.
EcoStart
A less formal EMS (Environmental Management
System) called EcoStart will be used to find out the
possibilities of improving the material and ener-
gy efficiency of the industrial area and individual
enterprises. EcoStart is a subsidised service model
developed by the Regional Council of Etelä-Savo,
Jyväskylä Regional Development Company Jykes
Ltd and the Employment and Economic Deve-
lopment Centres of Etelä-Savo and Keski-Suomi.
EcoStart follows the ISO 14001-standard but for
instance documentation is much lighter. The pos-
sibilities for improvement will be found out toget-
her with the representatives of the companies and
a consultant at several workshops (Environmental
aspects of a product, Production and maintenan-
ce, Material efficiency and transportation, Ener-

gy). Environmental report and policy preparation
will be included at this stage. On the whole the
basic programme includes six to ten consultancy
days and the total prise is 3,000 to 5,000 euros.
The subsidy, up to 80 %, granted to the enterprise
by the Employment and Economic Development
Centre, depends on the size of the enterprise.
Management
The management body of the first phase will be an
eco-industrial park committee that works under
Real Estate Rantasalmen Silva Oy. The committee
expresses views on and promotes e.g.:
• Collective environmental policies of the com-
panies
• Communication material and plan
• Regular meetings of all the companies
• Practical actions to strengthen business coope-
ration
• Planning and launching a follow-up project
• Implementation of a final management structure
Environmental policy
Collective decision in cooperation will commit
the companies in the park to:
• developing cooperation to increase material
and energy efficiency,
• preventing environmental degradation
• minimising the environmental load,
• enhancing the involvement of the personnel and
• following environmental legislation.
Economic responsibility
”We promote the cost-effectiveness and competitive-
ness of the companies in the park and participate in
producing welfare for the region of Rantasalmi.”
Ecological responsibility
“We take care of our environment, use natural
resources economically and develop material ef-
ficiency inside our company network. We aim at
using renewable, ecologically produced raw mate-
rials and energy.”
Social responsibility
“We cherish good relationships with our interest
groups, take care of the well-being of our person-
nel and the safety of our products. We enhance the
social cohesion in our neighbourhoods with open
information and by contributing to the develop-
ment of the area.”
Figure 4. Rantasalmi Oy
1.3 Aims of this report
The aim of this report is to serve as a research-
based initial review for the Rantasalmi eco-indust-
rial park project and other possible future develop-
ment projects. This report gives an overview of the
concept of eco-industrial parks:
1) The field of industrial ecology is discussed and
the concept of eco-industrial parks within the
field of industrial ecology is described.
2) A few case studies in Finland and abroad are
reviewed.
This report gives an overview of the scientific con-
cept of eco-industrial parks for the benefit of the
stakeholders of the Rantasalmi eco-industrial park
project and for other future eco-industrial park
projects. Experiences gleaned from previous cases
should facilitate the planning and implementati-
on of the Rantasalmi eco-industrial park. The key
challenge is to accommodate and apply the con-
cept of eco-industrial parks and international expe-
rience into the specific features of the Rantasalmi
network and those of its individual participants.
1.4 Material used in this report
This report uses material from peer reviewed
scientific journals. These sources are the best re-
search resource for a report of this kind and serve
to illustrate the latest and state of the art know-
ledge and information about eco-industrial parks.
Internet sites of various case-study projects have
also been used.
A number of review articles have been published
about the field and the following have been consi-
dered and used in this report: Den Hond (2000),
Chertow (2000), Eilering & Vermeulen (2004),
Gibbs & Deutz (2004), Heeres et al. (2004) and
O’Rourke et al. (1996). A review on the organi-
sational factors of eco-industrial networking has
been conducted in a master’s thesis (Starlander
2003). See full list of references below.
The research team of the University of Tampe-
re has been involved in industrial ecology jour-
nal production and editing processes. These in-
ternational journals include Progress in Industrial
Ecology – International Journal, special issue in
Journal of Cleaner Production vol. 12 no. 8–10,
and special issue in Business Strategy and Environ-
ment vol. 13 no. 5.
The research team is closely involved in the interna-
tional research scene; the team organised the 11th An-
nual Sustainable Development Research Conference
2005 in Helsinki and was involved in the member
board of the International Society for Industrial Eco-
logy 2005 conference held in Stockholm.

2 Industrial ecology
Industrial ecology introduces the possibility to
learn from natural ecosystems to design and en-
gineer industrial systems to reduce the ecological
impact of human activity to levels natural systems
can sustain. In ecological systems the flow of mate-
rials is cyclic, the wastes are recycled and energy is
cascading. On the contrary, industrial ecosystems
often emphasize the throughput of materials. Ec-
ological systems put emphasis on interaction and
interdependence related to the stability of the sys-
tems. Industrial systems emphasize independence
and competition. Biological analogy is useful in
framing industrial ecology. However, the ultimate
differences between ecological systems and hu-
man systems should be considered; e.g. biological
systems evolve through biology and culture, hu-
man systems also through technology. Moreover,
industrial systems are dependent on the resources
and services provided by the biosphere (Jelinski et
al. 1992, Graedel & Allenby 1995).
Industrial ecology takes a material and energy flow
approach to human society; it does not regard so-
ciety merely from the point of view of organiza-
tional and social monetary and production proc-

esses. Subsequently, materials, energy and infor-
mation are flowing in ideal industrial systems the
way they do in ecosystems. The use of energy and
material is optimized and the generation of waste
minimized. Wastes from one process can be used
as raw materials in another (Frosch & Gallopou-
los 1989). Industrial ecology seeks strategies to in-
crease efficiency and reduce the impact of these
flows.
Industrial ecology takes a systems approach to
flows. This is convenient as material and energy
flows do not respect the general boundaries of re-
gions, countries etc; the flows can even be global.
The contribution of industrial ecology to regu-
lar environmental management is that the analy-
sis crosses boarders of countries and goes beyond
individual products. Industrial ecology can have
a few approaches: it can concentrate on products
and materials or it can have a regional industrial
ecosystem approach (Korhonen 2002). The first
approach uses tools like material flow analysis in-
cluding substance flow analysis, life cycle analysis
and design for environment. A local approach is
taken in studying eco-industrial parks.
3 Eco-industrial parks
3.1 Definitions
Eco-industrial parks pay attention to material
and energy exchanges between companies in local
and regional economies. It concentrates on clos-
ing the loop of materials and enhancing energy
cascading in industrial areas. Close synonyms for
eco-industrial park are e.g. industrial ecosystem,
industrial symbiosis, eco-industrial estate, eco-
industrial network, eco-industrial development,
etc. Different concepts imply different objectives,
operational characteristics and system boundaries.
For example, ‘industrial ecosystems’ enhance the
analogy to natural ecosystems, ‘industrial sym-
biosis’ gives attention to symbiotic and synergis-
tic linkages between companies whereas ‘eco-in-
dustrial networking’ emphasises cooperation and
can sometimes be used as an umbrella term for
a number of concepts. ‘Eco-industrial parks’ can
also be seen as a form of symbiotic industrial rela-
tionships. This report mainly uses the expression
‘eco-industrial park’ as a general term and other
related words are used as its synonyms.
Eco-industrial parks can be best defined as a com-
munity in cooperation and interaction, efficien-
cy in the use of natural resources and through its
system view (Cote and Cohen-Rosenthal 1998).
The environmental impact is reduced at a regional
level, not only separately in individual companies.
Industrial symbiosis engages traditionally separate
industries in a collective approach to a competi-
tive advantage involving a physical exchange of
materials, energy, water, and by-products (Cher-
tow 2000). New unexpected connections between
diverse types of industries or even outside indus-
trial production can occur in eco-industrial parks
thanks to the physixal proximity of the actors
(Heeres et al 2004). Eco-industrial parks can be
defined as follows:
“An eco-industrial park is a community of manu-
facturing and service businesses located together
on a common property. Member businesses seek
enhanced environmental, economic, and social
performance through collaboration in managing
environmental and resource issues. By working to-
gether, the community of businesses seeks a collec-
tive benefit that is greater than the sum of individ-
ual benefits each company would realize by only
optimizing its individual performance. An eco-in-
dustrial park also looks for benefits for neighbor-
ing communities to assure that the net impact of
its development is positive.” (Lowe 2001.)
Some developers and communities have used the
term eco-industrial park in a relatively loose fash-
ion. In order for an industrial area to be a real
eco-industrial park real waste or energy exchanges
must occur between organisations (table 1).
Table 1.
Chertow (2000) separates five types of eco-in-
dustrial parks according to their geographic
area and quality of exchanges.
Type 1 EIP:
Through waste exchanges.
Recovered materials are sold or given away by third party
dealers to other firms or organizations.
Type 2 EIP:
Within a facility, firm or organization.
Usually one-way exchange. This type includes material
or product exchange within a single organisation but
different units.
Type 3 EIP:
Among co-located firms in a defined industrial area.
This type includes materials, waste or energy exchange
between organisations in close proximity. Exchanges oc-
cur primarily in a defined industrial area (e.g. Londonder-
ry, Riverside, Burnside).
Type 4 EIP:
Among near-by firms not co-located .
Linking together existing businesses with an opportunity
to fill in some new ones (e. g. Kalundborg).
Type 5 EIP:
Among firms organized across a broader region.
This type includes exchanges in a broad spatial region
and a larger number of firms. These types of eco-indust-
rial parks had not been yet realised, although some vir-
tual exchanges has been studied.

To be a real eco-industrial park a development
must be more than:
• a single by-product exchange or network of
exchanges,
• a recycling business cluster,
• a collection of environmental technology
companies,
• a collection of companies making “green” pro-
ducts,
• an industrial park designed around a single
environmental theme (i.e. a solar energy dri-
ven park),
• a park with environmentally friendly infra-
structure or construction or
• a mixed-use development (industrial, com-
mercial, and residential) (Lowe 2001).
Experiences of establishing parks in the US (Gibbs
& Deutz 2004).
According to the empirical material from U.S.
parks, Gibbs and Deutz (2004) concluded that the
eco-parks have easily adopted some eco-industrial
park design elements but “inter-firm networking
and collaboration in the form of materials inter-
change and energy cascading are either absent or
in the early planning stages”. Moreover, one other
problem that they notice is that the “eco” label
may provide a means of regional differentiation in
a competitive market for inward investment and
the “eco” is simply used as market tool.
sibly a large number of these relatively old parks as
yet unstudied and undocumented. The forest in-
dustry, energy supply systems and food industries
provide many examples (Lowe 2001).
New eco-industrial parks can be constructed
around already existing operations or built from
scratch. Cooperation that develops over time is
needed to implement and keep eco-industrial
parks running. Therefore an evolutionary appro-
ach should be adopted. It can be useful to start
constructing eco-industrial parks around alrea-
dy existing materials and by-products exchanges.
In this stream-based approach linkages are made
based on the flow of specific physical resources. In
the business-based approach the companies come
first. The developer looks for companies that are
interested in the project and tries to fit them in the
eco-industrial park concept. The idea is to utilize
existing organisational relationships and coopera-
tion networks. The model preferred would com-
bine both stream-based and business-based appro-
aches and companies would be proposed to join
the park on the basis of their streams. The network
can also be built around one large industry. It can
work as a central element, as an anchor tenant
for an eco-industrial park. Power plants are often
good examples of this (Chertow 2000).

3.2 Evolutionary processes of

eco-industrial parks
Two types of evolutionary processes can emerge
in eco-industrial parks. Some parks are self-orga-
nised. The other type is the constructed or desig-
ned park. Self-organised eco-industrial parks have
evolved spontaneously without any policy mana-
gement or administrative plans to develop coope-
ration. These systems have become eco-industrial
parks by accident, because of independent linka-
ges between its actors. Networks come together
when necessary to meet certain internal and cus-
Figure 5. Energy E2 Asnaes power plant in Kalundborg. Ka-
tomer needs as independent actors that choose a
lundborg industrial symbiosis is the best-known
mutually advantageous interdependent activity example of self-evolved eco-industrial parks
(Cote & Cohen-Rosenthal 1998). There are pos- (Photo: Timo J. Lehtonen 2005).


3.3 Benefits and strengths of the
eco-industrial park concept
Eco-industrial parks aim at achieving economic,
environmental and social benefits (Fig. 6). Eco-in-
dustrial parks seek to increase business competiti-
veness. Reduced raw material, waste, energy and
emission control costs reduce the costs of com-
panies. Compared with more wasteful competi-
tors a higher environmental and business perfor-
mance is a way of achieving cost competitiveness
and business advantages. Consequently, seeking
competitive advantages is one of the main reasons
for companies to want to engage in eco-industrial
park networking. Networking may provide com-
panies with competitive advantages mainly by gi-
ving them access to critical resources and by al-
lowing for cost savings and inter-organisational
learning (Starlander 2003). There are also bene-
fits based on nonmaterial linkages like transpor-
tation networks, sharing offices and information,
and security services (Chertow 2000). Eco-indust-
rial parks use resources effectively and are flexible
actors in the market. Networks usually adapt fle-
xibly to strain and change. They are organised to
use information and resources optimally.
Virgin raw materials and energy use are reduced
and replaced by wastes and by-products produ-
ced in the area. Emissions are also reduced. And
the biodiversity of the area is cherished. The social
benefits in the area create more jobs and improve
working conditions. Attention is paid to the total
well-being of the community.
3.4 Some challenges to the
concept of eco-industrial parks
One challenge to the concept of eco-industrial
parks is the definition of system boundaries. Do-

Figure 6. Environmental, economic and social ‘wins’ related to material and energy flows in the vision of a successful eco-
industrial park. Inputs to the system and outputs from the system are smaller than the round-put flows within the
system between industrial firms, other private and public organisations, agriculture and consumers.


es the system encompass only the few key firms
that are involved in the construction of the park
or does it include a wider area like a local commu-
nity or a regional district? Physical flows of mate-
rials and energy extend over product, process, and
company level boundaries, as well as local, regio-
nal and national borders. In one defined system
there are imports and exports of products. Mo-
reover, production and its environmental impacts
are often separated from consumption. On the ot-
her hand, the environmental impacts of producti-
on can spread a long way from their sources. The
system boundaries define largely the management
and administration structures of the system.
Another challenge is the role of individual com-
panies contra the park as a whole. When the aim
is to increase the environmental performance of
the whole park, the environmental performance of
one specific firm may sometimes decline. In view
of the park as a whole, it may be beneficial for cer-
tain companies to increase their waste producti-
on or use wastes as energy instead of reducing the
amount of wastes. This is particularly true if the
wastes replace non-renewable materials or energy
in other companies.
Optimising waste cascades constitutes a design
guideline. Minimizing material throughputs by
designing processes around existing waste streams,
even creating new ones, may hold back the tran-
sition to more sustainable technologies and lead
to a so-called technological lock-in (O’Rourke et
al. 1996). For example in Kalundborg, the cent-
ral element in the synergistic networks saving na-
tural resources and virgin materials is a coal-fired
plant maintaining the use of fossil fuels and pro-
ducing CO2.
3.5 Design principles for
eco-industrial parks
The design guidelines for a specific eco-industrial
park are usually either developed by perspectives
of a multi-disciplinary research team or provided
by a multi-stakeholder group of people with vary-
ing interests (Côté and Cohen-Rosenthal 1998).
There is a lot of variability in ecological and eco-
nomic conditions in different areas, and as projects
are site-specific, there are no general codes that
could be applied everywhere (Chertow 2000).
10
Some general principles can still be found. Infor-
mation is gathered in the early phase of a new
project. This information determines the amount
and character of pollution prevention projects
that make up the eco-industrial park development
scheme (Heeres et al. 2004). A new development
project should identify ways of reducing the to-
tal impact on the local systems. Linking existing
businesses to an eco-industrial park and reducing
their waste load could diminish the environmental
burden (Lowe 2001). Côté and Cohen-Rosenthal
(1998) have made a synthesis based on a litera-
ture review and they propose that an eco-indus-
trial park compared with normal industrial park
in general would:
1. Define the community of interests and involve that
community in the design of the park.
2. Reduce environmental impact or ecological
footprint through substitution of toxic materials,
absorption of carbon dioxide, material exchanges
and integrated treatment of wastes.
3. Maximize energy efficiency through facility design
and construction, co-generation, and cascading.
4. Conserve materials through facility design and
construction, reuse, recovery and recycling.
5. Link or network companies with suppliers and cus-
tomers in the wider community in which the eco-
industrial park is situated.
6. Continuously improve the environmental perfor-
mance of the individual businesses and the com-
munity as a whole.
7. Have a regulatory system that permits some flexi-
bility while encouraging companies to meet per-
formance goals.
8. Use economic instruments that discourage waste
and pollution.
9. Employ an information management system that
facilitates the flow of energy and materials within
a more or less closed loop.
10. Create a mechanism, which seeks to train and
educate managers and workers in new strategies,
tools and technologies to improve the system.
11. Orient its marketing to attract companies which
fill niches and complement other businesses.
3.6 Factors affecting the success
of an eco-industrial park
Diverse factors have an effect on the outcome of
an eco-industrial park network. There are many
challenges when establishing an eco-industrial
park. Nevertheless, there are also many potential
measures to cross barriers.
When establishing symbiotic relationships barriers
can be categorized in five different types (Heeres et
al. 2004, see also Mirata 2004):
1. Technical barriers occur when exchanges are
not viable.
2. Economic barriers include economically un-
sound or risky exchanges.
3. Informational barriers arise when the right
people and the right information do not
meet.
4. Organisational barriers occur when the exchan-
ges intended do not fit the current corporate
organisational structure.
5. Regulatory or legal barriers also exist.
Barrier classification can also be based on levels
of action (Fichtner et al. 2005, literature analy-
sis and interviews with decision makers). Personal
barriers are related to knowledge and motivation.
Enterprise level barriers relate to communication,
attitude and resource. On the inter-company level
there are barriers to cooperation and to connec-
ting material and energy flows. There are political
and organisational measures to cross these barriers.
Political action is needed to create a business envi-
ronment that supports sustainable development,
regional cooperation and networking between pri-
vate and public organisations. Research has to al-
so be encouraged to develop methods, techniques
and tools to support regional cooperation. Deci-
sion makers in firms need to implement measures
for internal conditions that support regionalisati-
on within industrial companies.
The following is a presentation of some barriers
and several key factors for successful eco-indust-
rial park development. First, conditions preferab-
le to establishing an eco-industrial park relating
to the exchanges between the companies in the
park, the role of clear economic benefits, environ-
mental maturity of firms and existing institutional
platforms are discussed. Then the important role
of trust, commitment and participation is con-
sidered. After that information-related issues are
addressed briefly. The organisational factors af-
fecting the outcome of an eco-industrial park are
many and some of them are presented here. Then
the roles of coordination agents and champions
are described. Last, the importance of a clear visi-
on is addressed.
3.6.1 Companies that fit the eco-indust-
rial park concept and how to
attract them
Physical business specific and location specific fea-
tures are central factors in successful eco-indust-
rial park design (Eilering and Vermeulen 2004).
Gibbs and Deutz (2004) conducted a survey in
US eco-industrial parks. They conclude that ex-
ternal drivers, like geographic setting and broader
economic realities of the locality, seem to play an
important role in influencing the degree of success
of an attempted eco-industrial park.
It is essential that the exchanges and flows bet-
ween companies are matching. Process waste stre-
ams and the flows of materials have to be con-
tinuous and sufficient. Regulatory control can
sometimes hinder waste exchanges (Gibbs and
Deutz 2004). For example, defining a side-pro-
duct as waste instead of material can hinder the
exchanges. Different investment cycles of compa-
nies can also hold back the flow exchanges. Flexi-
bility potentials should therefore be integrated to
the technical solutions related to flow exchanges
and the investment cycles of partners should be
brought in line. Back up units could also be deve-
loped (Fichtner et al. 2005).
Expectations for the community and location
must be realistic. Economic viability is an ulti-
mate condition for success and a prerequisite for
reaching social and environmental targets. All the
phases of the project need to be financially feasible
(Gibbs and Deutz 2004).
Eco-industrial parks are not fully aligned with bu-
siness reality. Networking is different from normal
business where companies focus on their core com-
petence and normal supply chain. In networks the
side-business has a bigger role. Moreover, some
decisions concerning companies are taken at the
11
park level. Consequently, companies may dread a
loss of autonomy and flexibility in their decision-
making process (Starlander 2003). There can al-
so be difficulties concerning new risks, financing,
mobility of capital and availability of alternative
higher payback options (Chertow 2000). There
can be additional expenses from cooperation and
the distribution of economic gains expected may
be unclear (Starlander 2003).
As a result, potential connections and their eco-
nomic viability must be tested and clear benefits
must be shown to all the partners of the eco-in-
dustrial park intended. The companies have to be
convinced of the economic and environmental
improvements to be gained when the eco-indust-
rial park is in operation. Only then can companies
be engaged actively in the project (Heeres et al
2004). In Kalundborg, each connection has been
independently negotiated and only economical-
ly viable-ones have been implemented (Ehrenfeld
& Gertler 1997). Some direct financial incenti-
ves can also be introduced, such as lower rents for
companies that engage in the project and follow
its rules (Starlander 2003).
Many companies are not fully aware of potential
savings and the competitive advantage of an effi-
cient use of natural resources and eco-industrial
networking. That is why an eco-industrial park is
at its best when it is applied to environmentally
mature companies to supplement existing envi-
ronmental work. Other companies should be ma-
de more environmentally aware, e.g. by guiding
resources to improve the enterprises’ sustainabi-
lity performance and communication within the
company. Introducing sustainability management
and information systems might also be advanta-
geous (Fichtner et al. 2005). In some eco-indust-
rial parks in USA (e.g. Londonderry eco-park and
Cape Charles technological park) the companies
have been selected on the basis of existing environ-
mental management systems. These systems often
require continuous improvement and offer moni-
toring systems and patterns needed in eco-indust-
rial networking (Starlander 2003).
Previously existing social networks and institutio-
nal platforms are essential when establishing an
eco-industrial park. These linkages form the ba-
sis of the upcoming network as sources of mutual
trust, mental proximity and social interaction bet-
12
ween the members of the network (Eilering and
Vermeulen 2004). Existing institutional platforms
can be formal or informal; they can be for instan-
ce trade associations or linkages between the ac-
tors of a network, such as a sense of community.
For example in Kalundborg, the companies had
close ties and a high degree of mental proximity
already before the symbiosis (Ehrenfeld & Gert-
ler 1997).
3.6.2 Trust, participation and commitment
Trust and mental proximity are important in a suc-
cessful eco-industrial network. Trust may accelera-
te information flows and exchanges of ideas and
know-how. Values and organisation cultures sha-
red may prevent conflicts, such as delays in delive-
ry that cause frustration. Informal contracts based
on trust and mental proximity can reduce transac-
tion costs related to formal contracts or may even
replace them. Trust may emerge when companies
have had a number of successful transactions in
the past. Trust among partners and ties between
plant managers can be developed through social
interactions, like face-to-face contacts and regu-
lar meetings. A coordination agent or the govern-
ment can stimulate cooperation (Eilering & Ver-
meulen 2004, Fichtner et al. 2005).
The involvement of the community and an active
participation of companies in the planning phase
are important. Committed and energetic partici-
pants are crucial to a network where development
takes time. The network should gain the support
of firm managers as well as the involvement of
other personnel, such as production managers,
technicians and workers. The companies need to
be active because, in the end, it is the companies
that implement the plans for the eco-industrial
park. Sometimes lack of time can limit the con-
centration for cooperation. Moreover, social inte-
raction and communication can be difficult if at-
titudes are competitive or not open enough (Star-
lander 2003). Sometimes personal interests in sus-
tainable development are lacking. There might al-
so be no orientation towards cooperation in the
companies. Planning can also be too short-term
thus decreasing personal motivation (Fichtner et
al. 2005). If the private firms are not committed
enough there is a danger that the eco-industrial
park network will fade away because of decrea-
sing interest.
A corporate culture enhancing inter-company
cooperation can be developed within the compa-
nies. The firms can also direct financial and per-
sonal resources towards regional cooperation pro-
jects. Measures towards sustainability and coope-
rative attitudes should be taken within the orga-
nisations. To overcome motivational barriers the
concepts of sustainability, cooperation and networ-
king should be included in the company’s missi-
on statement (Fichtner et al. 2005). Commitment
could be secured in the initial phase by focusing
primarily on the partnerships that provide conc-
rete and short-term benefits. Later, more compa-
ny specific and economically challenging projects
should be implemented (Heeres et al 2004). Com-
mitment might be enhanced also by the financial
participation of companies. For example, an ent-
rance fee of a feasible amount might be introdu-
ced. Partners committing to allocating a certain
amount of their time to the network activities can
also be useful. Technicians of different firms etc.
could have brainstorming and other discussion
sessions together (Starlander 2003).
Participation and trust in some eco-industrial
parks in USA and the Netherlands (Heeres et al.
2004).
In a study of three designed eco-industrial parks from
US and three from The Netherlands, the Dutch parks
(INES, RiVu Moerjdik) were found more successful than
the ones in the US (Fairfield, Brownsville, Cape Char-
les).
In the Dutch projects the participation of the companies
was active. The presence of anchor tenants or champi-
ons was found to be important. The champions were
local Dutch entrepreneurs. Projects were mainly lead
by companies receiving local and regional financial and
advisory support.
In the US cases, the most crucial thing against success
was a lack of company interest in the project. The US
parks where initiated by local governments and the
companies were not interested in the project. In Fair-
field and Brownsville, the majority of companies did not
want to invest in exchange relationships because they
saw it as financially risky and because they did not trust
the local government. In addition, politicians in those
areas saw the project merely as a job creation opportu-
nity, not as economically or environmentally beneficial.
Relationships to the surrounding community of
an eco-industrial park are important and success-
ful development needs an active participation
from many stakeholders (Heeres et al. 2004). Lo-
cal residents and the community should be encou-
raged to carry their part of the environment res-
ponsibility at home. Eco-industrial parks should
provide jobs in the area, contribute to education,
engage the community in emergency prepared-
ness and integrate services like recreation, well-
being, transport and day-care with the communi-
ty. For example, in a study conducted in the US,
local residents, especially in the low-income areas,
saw eco-industrial parks as a viable and desirable
strategy for restoring public health and economic
growth (Cote & Cohen-Rosenthal 1998).
3.6.3 Information and know-how
Lots of information and knowledge are needed to
implement a successful eco-industrial park. Com-
panies may lack the skills for networking if they
are not accustomed to it (Starlander 2003). They
might also be lacking in knowledge about the con-
cept of inter-company cooperation and potential
strategies. Moreover, there might be an unclear
understanding of the causal relationships bet-
ween cooperation and sustainability. Communi-
cation within a firm can be a barrier if the hierar-
chical structure of the company includes separated
responsibilities or if sustainability and cooperati-
on information systems are deficient. Continuo-
us training should be enhanced to increase know-
ledge within organisations. Information flows and
their efficiency can be improved by institutionali-
sing cooperation (Fichtner et al. 2005).
Sharing information can also pose a barrier if the-
re is a risk of giving away trade secrets and a need
not to disclose confidential information. Here an
external coordination agent could gather the in-
formation and help identify potential collaborati-
on areas (Starlander 2003).
3.6.4 Organisational factors
An eco-industrial park often means cooperation
with a smaller number of local suppliers. Although
there appear to be benefits in close links and re-
lationships with few suppliers only, many com-
panies are eager to follow a traditional manage-
ment theory of maximizing bargaining power and
13
profits by increasing the number of suppliers. It
can also be difficult for firms to change suppliers.
Moreover, competing with prices can be difficult
for many local small supplier companies. There
can also be problems with contracting if there is
no compensation mechanism for delivery failures
(Starlander 2003).
There is a risk of a potential power imbalance in
eco-industrial parks when companies in the net-
work are very different in size, especially if there is
one large anchor tenant and the others are much
smaller companies. That is why the contracts are
an important control mechanism for companies
to protect themselves from partners’ opportu-
nism. Networking may require contracts for all
relationships and flows, e.g. duties, volumes, time-
tables, quality etc. To avoid transaction costs caus-
ed by the contracts informal control mechanisms
are also applied (Starlander 2003). An imbalan-
ce of power might pose the threat of a monopoly
phenomenon if one company within a network
becomes the exclusive provider of a service or pro-
duct. Here the others might, for instance, threaten
to change suppliers (Starlander 2003).
Moreover, global markets and company structures
can raise barriers. If the firms are subsidiaries of a glo-
bal organisation their decision-making power might
be reduced. In addition, there might be unified glo-
bal standards for a certain product quality that do-
es not fit the eco-industrial park concept and would
hold back by-product use (Starlander 2003).
Investments with long pay back times can cause
problems as well. The problem with long periods
of repayment could be solved with contracting,
i.e. a general agreement in which a contractor ta-
kes on various tasks like planning, financing, buil-
ding, maintenance (e.g. a plant) and supply of ne-
cessary flows (e.g. energy).
3.6.5 Champions and coordination agents
Champions, or anchor tenants, are often important
actors in the network. The anchors are usually the
largest firms in the network. They can have a role in
motivating other actors like politicians, citizens, bu-
sinesses etc. They secure motivation partly by secu-
14
ring the output of their own by-product streams. An-
chors also often secure sufficient financial resources.
Champions should also gain the trust of the other
actors in the network. However, sometimes anchors
can act against the idea of eco-industrial parks. For
example in Humberside, UK, the local champion
had an interest in steam produced by a CHP plant
and so they tried to attract only companies with the
same interest into the new network (Mirata 2003,
Starlander 2003, Fichtner et al. 2005).
Besides anchor tenants, a coordination agent is a
common feature shared by eco-industrial parks. A
coordinator facilitates communication between the
actors in the network. A coordination agent can
be one of the companies or, more often, an aca-
demic institution, consultancy company together
with public bodies, or trade, entrepreneurs or emp-
loyers associations. Private companies may be the
most motivated and their management might be
the most efficient. On the other hand, a firm might
focus too much on areas where it has a direct in-
terest. A firm also requires significant resources for
coordination. A coordinator can gather informati-
on and identify potential synergies and collabora-
tion areas. It is important that the coordinator fol-
lows up meetings and discussions to keep up the
companies’ interests. A coordination agent can also
have a role in informing and motivating the com-
panies about potential benefits to be achieved. A
coordination agent should be fully committed to
the network and gain credibility from the other ac-
tors (Starlander 2003, Heeres et al. 2004).
Figure 7. The largest company, ”an anchor”, of Rantasal-
mi eco-industrial park, is Rantasalmi Oy. (Photo:
Timo J. Lehtonen)
3.6.6 Vision
There should be a clear vision of the purpose and
objectives of an eco-industrial park. The compa-
nies need to know what they themselves want and
they need to understand the motivations of others.
Agreeing on a vision on a long-term basis may gui-
de the companies on the short-term (Starlander
2003). A long-term vision must reflect the empha-
sis on networking and collaboration and that an
eco-industrial park should be a community of bu-
sinesses, not just a bunch of co-located companies
(Gibbs & Deutz 2004).
Table 2.
Success factors of an eco-industrial park
Success factors
- close proximity of companies
- matching exchanges of materials and energy
- diversity of actors
- continuity of flows
- economic viability
- low economic risks
- economic gains are shared equally
- direct expenses payable by the firms remain
low
- clear economic benefits to all actors
- existing institutional platforms
- environmental awareness in the firms
- balanced interdependence relationships be-
tween partners
- balance of power between partners
- similar organisational cultures of firms
- enough information and knowledge
- realistic expectations of firms
- active participation
- commitment
- continuing interest
- trust
- vision of the eco-industrial park’s future and
goals
- driver/coordination agent
- anchor tenant
- contracts / informal control mechanism
- legal support
- political support
3.7 Management of an eco-
industrial park
3.7.1 Functions of eco-industrial park
management
Eco-industrial parks are communities of compa-
nies with challenging management and support
systems. Administrative duties include standard
park service, recruitment, and maintenance func-
tions. In the planning phase the park management
should find new connections between companies
and look for value-adding functions. The man-
agement should cooperate actively with the com-
munity and encourage a dialogue between inter-
est groups. The management also needs to decide
which services are provided by the park manage-
ment and which are bought from public utilities
or external contractor. Park covenants should also
be developed.
Supporting and maintaining the exchanges of ma-
terials and energy among companies are important
tasks in an eco-industrial park. The management,
or sometimes a third party, e.g. a coordinator, en-
hances the flow exchanges between the compa-
nies in the park. The management maintains the
diversity of the companies and the compatibility
of by-products as companies change over time, for
instance through its recruitment responsibilities,
when a supplier or customer moves out from the
network etc.
One of the administrative duties of an eco-indus-
trial park is to support improvement in the en-
vironmental performance of individual compa-
nies and the park as a whole. The management
supports an information system to enhance in-
ter-company communications, to inform mem-
bers of the state of their local environment and to
provide feedback on the eco-industrial park’s per-
formance. In addition, the management should
develop efficient marketing strategies and tech-
niques and keep up-to-date on legislation and reg-
ulations and communicate with regulatory bodies.
The park can also maintain shared support serv-
ices such as a training centre, cafeteria, day-care
centre, offices for purchasing supplies or trans-
15
Table 3.
General management functions at an eco-industrial park and management functions in case man-
agement has two entities (Lowe 2001).

General management of an eco-industrial park

- finding new connections for cooperation

- enhancing the dialogue between shareholders
- maintaining and managing services
- supporting material and energy flows
- recruiting new companies
- improving the environmental performance of the park and individual companies
- maintaining an information system
- informing companies in the park
- linking companies and public organisations
- developing marketing

Management in a case of two management entities

Management of industrial park property Community self-management

- maintaining the property and infrastructure - sustaining the community
- recruiting firms - enhancing communication
- providing utilities and support services
- negotiating leases and service contracts with tenants
- financial management
- negotiating contracts with external service providers
- communication with stakeholders
- monitoring

Management of industrial park property + Community self-management

- management of material and energy exchanges
- enforcement of standards

portation logistics office. Companies can add to
their savings by sharing the costs of these services
(Lowe 2001).
Lowe (2001) divides eco-industrial park manage-
ment in two: management of property and man-
agement of community. The management of in-
dustrial park property includes mainly maintain-
ing the property and its infrastructures and pro-
viding utilities and support services. The Property
Management Company also recruits new firms for
the area. Some other property management tasks
are: negotiating rents and service contracts with
companies, financial management, negotiating
contracts with external service suppliers, commu-
nication with stakeholders and monitoring.
The main priority of the Community Self-Man-
agement System is to sustain the vitality of the
community itself and maintain the synergies be-
tween the actors. The management of a commu-
nity company includes collecting data, enhanc-
ing cooperation and arranging meetings between
managers and inter-company working groups.
External communication can be enhanced, e.g.
through a local paper.
The goals of property management and com-
munity self-management are interconnected and
there must be a clear understanding between the
two. Probably the most important responsibili-
ties shared will be the management of by-product
exchanges and the enforcement of standards. A

16
member from the property management compa-
ny could help to link the two systems. Sub-com-
mittees might be organized for the main func-
tions.
3.7.2 Management structures
The management of an eco-industrial park can be
organised in many ways. An eco-industrial park
can be run as a project or led by an anchor te-
nant. The managerial organisation can be an in-
dustry association as well as a corporation that is
founded by the companies in the park. An eco-
industrial park can also be managed by a public
organisation. Also, regional cooperation could be
organised through implementing cooperative en-
vironmental management systems (e.g. Hacke-
fors, Sweden). Environmental management sys-
tems could also be implemented in cooperation
so that it would result in one collective regional
environmental management system.
The following is a discussion of a few possible
structures and organisations for regional environ-
mental management mainly based on Korhonen,
Helin and Snäkin (2003) and Lowe (2001). Lo-
we has experience in implementing eco-industrial
parks in North America. He also advises the hand-
book of Industrial Ecology (Lowe 2001) on new
projects in Asia. Lowe divides the management of
an eco-industrial park in two. In their report, Kor-
honen et al. (2003) present diverse management
systems for a region, mainly for Finnish needs.
Project
Planning and implementing a new eco-industrial
park often begins with a project of some kind.
Eco-industrial parks aim at continuous improve-
ment and that is why temporary projects always
need follow-up plans. Projects can last from one
or two years up to ten years. A project usually has
public research funding. The companies in the
area, public actors and educational units form a
board. This governing body commits the actors
but has no official decision-making power at this
point.
Company-driven management system
Companies in the eco-industrial park can set up a
body to manage the park. It can be a corporation
with some of the companies in the park as share-
holders. If there are two management entities, in-
dustrial park property can be looked after by a real
estate development company involved in build-
ing the park. The property management compa-
ny can also be an independent eco-industrial park
management company. Another possible, though
rare, property management option is a manage-
ment company set up as a joint venture between
the developer and eco-industrial park companies.
This would probably be best suited for an eco-in-
dustrial park where the companies own the facili-
ties and land.
To manage the community, eco-industrial park
companies can set up a tenants’ association to han-
dle functions for which they share a joint responsi-
bility (an owners’ association or trust if they have
purchased their sites). The property contract can
be included in the park’s rules requiring member-
ship. The association board may include represen-
tation from all larger firms and revolving seats for
members who represent smaller companies.
Network driven by an anchor tenant company
The eco-industrial network can be built around
a powerful company, an anchor tenant (see also
3.6.5). An anchor tenant can link actors in the
park through its own material and energy flows
(see e.g. Korhonen & Snäkin 2001). An anchor
tenant usually already has some cooperation with
the other members in the network. Also, an an-
chor tenant company can already have an envi-
ronmental management system of their own. An
anchor can be e.g. a combined heat and power
plant. Anchors are usually strongly committed to
the network. However, sometimes their interest
might be too focused on their own core business
and not on the whole park. In addition to the an-
chor tenant a network always needs institutional,
political and decision-making support.
Network driven by a public agency
A public agency can also serve as an “anchor” of a
network (Burström & Korhonen 2001). It could
be a communal organisation, a regional environ-
mental agency or a regional council. Boon and
Baas (1997) conclude that these kinds of autho-
ritative coordinating institutions provide a mo-
re hierarchical steering capacity and a more hori-
zontal character for the network management. A
public organisation can offer the network a deci-
17
sion-making forum, political support, informatio-
nal and educational services as well as support in
planning and infrastructure. A public organisati-
on can collect information on material and energy
flows. If the municipality serves as an anchor its st-
rength lies in the fact that the municipality itself is
often a big user of energy and materials and a pro-
vider of waste management services. And the mu-
nicipality already has to take sustainable develop-
ment issues into consideration. An eco-industrial
park could, for example, be seen as a continuum
of Local Agenda 21 development. The municipa-
lity could also develop a regional environmental
management system (REMS) that could serve as
a basis for the coordinated development of an eco-
industrial park. Existing relationships between ac-
tors could also be used as a starting point for an
eco-industrial park.
If the management is divided between two enti-
ties, property management could be run by an
economic development agency. This is especially
practical if the park is publicly owned.
Regional joint EMS
Implementing a joint environmental management
system (EMS) is one more variety of regional envi-
ronmental management. In practice, every compa-
ny has their individual environmental management
system, e.g. ISO14001 (or EcoStart). The environ-
mental management systems are implemented in
cooperation and most of the administration is cent-
ralised. A new business association could be the ad-
ministrative body. However, there is no proper col-
lective management organisation.
Hackerfors in Sweden is an example of an indust-
rial district where EMS’s have been implemented
cooperatively. The pilot project started in 1995
with 26 small and medium-sized companies. In-
dustrial production, waste recycling, transporta-
tion, construction, trade and graphical industries
were involved. The concept spread in and around
2002 and according to Ammemberg and Hjelm
(2002) 24 industrial districts applied the Hacke-
fors model.
In practice, all companies have an environmental
coordinator and they form an EMS group. A stee-
ring committee is chosen from this group which
then selects a central coordinator. The central
18
coordinator can be selected from the companies
in the network or from the outside, e.g. in Hacke-
fors it was chosen by a consulting firm. Decisions
are prepared by the steering committee and taken
by the EMS group. The central coordinator prepa-
res documents, identifies and communicates com-
mon legal requirements, raises interest and com-
mitment, calls meetings and plans environmental
training. The coordinator also heads the steering
committee. The steering committee develops the
EMS and plans environmental auditing.
Regional environmental management system,
REMS
Environmental management systems (EMS) can
be implemented cooperatively aiming at one Re-
gional Environmental Management System,
REMS (Welford 1996). The result is a collective
regional system with its own management, deci-
sion-making power and coordination. The result
can be a new company where all the member com-
panies are owners.
In this joint management system a conversion plan-
ning team deals with administrative duties and
plays a central role in developing the EMS’s. Local
communities, industry and public sectors are inclu-
ded in the conversion planning team. A wide range
of involvement ensures economic support for the
final conversion plan and a broad commitment to
the project. The conversion planning team also sets
the environmental goals and action plans for all le-
vels. A regional environmental management system
makes these plans easier to realise and relate to the
EMS’s of individual companies. A regional mana-
gement plan should also facilitate combining envi-
ronmental, social and economic goals.
3.7.3 Examples of management models
in eco-industrial parks
Chemical industry parks in Germany
Salonen (2005) presents different management
models of industrial parks and concludes that the
models are applicable in eco-industrial parks as
well. One of the models is a “major user model”,
and another one is “infrastructure company mo-
del”. In the major user model (e.g. DowValue Park
in Schopau) a major investor in the area owns the
land of the site, leases estates to companies and
works as a coordinator. In the infrastructure mo-
del (e.g. Chemical Park Leuna) the major inves-
tors are also shareholders of the managing/ope-
rating company. The administrative body can al-
so be completely independent. The infrastructure
company owns the land and leases or sometimes
sells estates to other companies.
Kalundborg, Denmark
The Kalundborg Industrial Symbiosis started with
individual cooperation between different partners
based on economic motivations (see more 4.1.1).
Nowadays, The Kalundborg Centre for Industrial
Symbiosis is a project mainly financed by the Sym-
biosis partners. Among their fields of responsibi-
lity are collecting information on the Industrial
Symbiosis and other examples of industrial ecolo-
gy, communicating experience from the Symbio-
sis Project and consulting and contributing to new
symbiosis projects.
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
The eco-industrial park concept has been applied
in the Rotterdam Harbour area by setting up an
industrial ecosystem project, INES (see 4.1.3).
The Europort/Botlek Interests (EBB) industry as-
sociation has developed an intermediary role bet-
ween the government and the industries. It brings
goals and perspectives from the national environ-
mental policy domain to its member companies.
Even though the association does not have legal
power, it has a position of “social control” to run
the development in the area. Half the land area is
looked after the Rotterdam Municipal Port Mana-
gement (RMPM). Since 1998 the decisions and
evaluation concerning different INES projects ha-
ve been made by a decision-making platform ma-
de up of members of national and regional in-
dustry associations, plant managers, national and
regional governmental organisations, an environ-
mental advocacy organisation and academia. So
far three projects have been implemented, i.e.
1994–1997, 1999–2002 and 2003–2007.
Landskrona, Sweden
The Landskrona Industrial Symbiosis Project (see
4.1.4) was introduced in 2002 by the Internatio-
nal Institute for Industrial Environmental Econo-
mics, IIIEE, at the University of Lund, Sweden.
A team of IIIEE researchers coordinated the app-
lication of a systematic approach for assisting the
development of symbiotic connections. The pro-
ject is supported by the Swedish Business Deve-
lopment Agency (NUTEK). The companies cont-
ribute to the project financially, even though the
sums contributed are relatively small.
National Industrial Symbiosis Program, NISP, Gre-
at-Britain
The National Industrial Symbiosis Programme,
NISP, is the first industrial symbiosis initiative in
the world on a national scale (see 4.1.5). NISP
is a business-led initiative and it is supported by
the UK Government and industrial organisations.
The program serves as a link between industries
and various sectors.
Industrial parks in China
In China the environmental management of in-
dustrial parks has been enhanced with the help of
EMS’s, usually ISO14001 (Geng & Côté 2003).
Comprehensive environmental management sys-
tems (CEMS) have also been implemented in the
industrial areas. EMS’s are established for indivi-
dual firms as well as for the industrial estate mana-
gement. The aim is to enhance cooperation based
on different EMS’s. CEMS tries to find similari-
ties between different EMS’s and integrates them
into common policies, activities and management
strategies.
Chinese industrial parks have governing admi-
nistrative bodies that take care of various activi-
ties, services, products and the park as a whole.
The estate administration is responsible for imple-
menting legislation and regulations, planning and
designing the park’s supply services (e.g. energy),
infrastructure and economic development. These
activities can be managed and improved meet the
ISO 14001 standard and so the estate administra-
tion or government receives the standard. The idea
is that the standard can improve the environmen-
tal management of governmental institutions. The
next step from the CEMS-system is to implement
an eco-industrial park on the estate.
Industrial parks in the United States
In the United States eco-industrial parks have
been mainly developed and financed by public
bodies (table 4). Private sectors are also involved
in some projects.
19
Table 4.
Eco-industrial parks in USA, funding and developer organisation. (Gibbs & Deutz 2004).

Park Funding Developer

Devens Planned Community, MA Public – incl. Federal Public agency

Philips Eco Enterprise Center, MN Public (State) and Private Community non-profit

Port of Cape Charles Sustainable Public (county) Public agency

Technology Park, VA

Gulf-coast By-product Synergy Private and public (Federal) Private companies,, US BCSD
Project, Freeport, TX

Londonderry Eco-industrial park, NH Private Private sector

Redhills Ecoplex, MS Public Public agency

Dallas Ecoindustrial Park, TX Public (Federal)) Local authority

Ecolibrium, Computer and Electronic Public (Federal) Public sector consortium

Disposition, Austin, TX

Front Royal Eco-office Park, VA Public (Federal) Public agency

Basset Creek, MN Public (city) Consultants/local authority

20
4 Case studies of eco-industrial parks
4.1 Case studies in the world
There are few studies of eco-industrial parks in the
world. There are probably numerous self-evolved
parks that have not been identified and studied
yet. However, some research on self-evolved sys-
tems has been conducted and in many cases syner-
gies have been developed further. New eco-indust-
rial parks have been designed and engineered by
researchers, companies and developers in different
parts of the world, e.g. in the Netherlands, Austria,
Spain, Costa Rica, Namibia, South Africa, Aust-
ralia and several Asian countries, on the inspirati-
on provided by the research. Some eco-industrial
parks are listed and some internet-addresses for
further information are given in Appendix 1.
The following is an introduction of Kalund-
borg and Styria as totally self-evolved systems.
Landskrona from Sweden, Rotterdam from the
Netherlands, National industrial Symbiosis pro-
gramme of UK and its Humberside Industrial
Symbiosis programme are also introduced.
4.1.1 Kalundborg, Denmark
The Industrial Symbiosis of Kalundborg (www.
symbiosis.dk, Tibbs 1992, Ehrenfeld and Gert-
ler 1997) is a network of cooperation developed
spontaneously on a commercial basis over a num-
Figure 8. The region of Kalundborg industrial symbiosis.
(Photo: Timo J. Lehtonen 2005).
ber of decades. All projects are environmentally
and financially sustainable. The Symbiosis has
developed around eight partners: six processing
companies, a waste company and the Municipali-
ty of Kalundborg. Today the cooperation network
comprises some twenty projects.
Asnæs Energy E2 Power Station is a 1500 MW
coal-fired power plant, the largest in Denmark. It
produces heat for the town of Kalundborg (4 500
households), pharmaceutical plant Novo Nordisk,
enzyme producer Novozymes and process steam
for oil refinery Statoil. Excess heat in cooling wa-
ter goes to a fish farm.
Farms use sludge from the fish farm and the phar-
maceutical process (Novozymes) as fertilizers. No-
vo Nordisk’s insulin production produces yeast
slurry as a by-product and it is fed to 800 000 pigs.
Statoil’s desulphurisation plant creates a by-pro-
duct, ammonium-thio-sulphate (around 20,000t/
year) that is used as a liquid fertilizer. The produc-
tion equals the total consumption of fertilizers in
Denmark. The sludge from the municipal water
treatment plant is used as a nutrient in the bio-re-
mediation process. Most of the fly ash from As-
næs power plant is used up by a cement company
(30,000 t/year).
The desulphurisation plant of Asnæs Power Sta-
tion removes sulphur dioxide (SO2) from the flue
gas and forms gypsum (about 200,000t/year) as a
by-product. The gypsum is sold to Gyproc, a com-
pany that manufactures plasterboard products for
the construction industry. Gyproc also receives the
gypsum from the municipal recycling station of
Kalundborg.
Asnæs Power Station has reduced its use of water
by recycling its own wastewater. Novozymes tre-
ats all wastewater created by Novo Nordisk up to
a level corresponding to the wastewater of an or-
dinary household. The treated wastewater is pum-
ped from Novozymes to the treatment plant of
Kalundborg Municipality where a final treatment
process takes place.
21
22
 Figure 9. A-C Development of symbiotic linkages in Kalundborg. Source: Erling Pedersen.
KALUNDBORG
System area:
Kalundborg Municipality, 20,000 inhabitants
Evolution:
Spontaneously
Actors:
Kalundborg Municipality, Asnæs Power Station,
plasterboard factory BPB Gyproc A/S, pharmaceuti-
cal plant Novo Nordisk A/S, enzyme producer No-
vozymes A/S, oil refinery Statoil A/S, Bioteknisk Jor-
drens Soilrem A/S, waste company Noveren I/S
Flows: of materials each year, collective water consumpti-
Steam, heat, water, gas and gypsum, ash, fertilizer,
yeast slurry, sludge, and other waste
Administration:
The Kalundborg Centre for Industrial Symbiosis
is a project, basis financed by the Symbiosis part-
ners. The fields of responsibility of the Symbiosis
Centre are:
• Collection of information on Industrial Sym-
biosis and other examples of industrial ecology
• Communication of experience from the Sym-
biosis Project
• Organisation of visits and study tours on the
Symbiosis
• Co-ordination of studies on the Industrial Symbiosis
• Consultation on new symbiosis projects
• Contribution to forming new symbiosis projects
Driving forces:
Individual, independent agreements and activities wit-
hin the Symbiosis based on commercial principles
Achievements:
Outcome: reduced consumption of resources and
a significant reduction in environmental strain.
Waste exchange comprises some 2.9 million tons
on has been reduced by 25% and the power station
has reduced its water use by 60% through recycling.
The collaborating partners also benefit financially.
Other benefits for industries related to sharing of
personnel, equipment and information.
Challenges:
The environmental performance of the Kalund-
borg community has been studied only inside the
geographical system boundaries of Kalundborg. It
is a problem that the system relies on imported
fossil fuels.
23
Figure 10. Recycling structures in Styria, Austria

24
4.1.2 Styria, Austria
A self-evolved Industrial recycling network was
discovered in the Province of Styria, Austria, by
Erich Schwarz at Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz
(Schwarz and Steizinger 1997). Material flows in-
side the area and between various recycling struc-
tures have been studied. Styria is a good example
of how diverse these networks can be (Fig. 10).
STYRIA
System area:
Austrian province Styria, population 1.2 million.
Evolution:
Spontaneously
Actors:
Complex network of exchanges among more than
fifty facilities. Industries participating include ag-
riculture, food processing, plastics, fabrics, paper,
energy, metal processing, woodworking, building
materials, and a variety of waste processors and
dealers.
Flows:
Common recyclables like paper, gypsum, iron sc-
rap, used oil, tires and a wide range of other by-
products.
Administration:
None
Driving forces: Actors:
Economic revenues from the by-products, savings
on landfill disposal costs. In some cases the by-
products are less expensive or of higher quality
than primary materials would be.
Achievements:
Economic advantages for individual companies;
savings on raw materials, emissions are reduced
and landfill lifetimes are extended.
4.1.3 Rotterdam, the Netherlands
An Industrial Ecosystem (INES) Project was set
up in 1992 in the western part of the Rotterdam
Harbour area (Boons and Baas 1997, Heeres et
al. 2004, Baas 2005). The project was initiated by
the Europort/Botlek Interests industry association
along with some eighty industrial members. The
aim was to support the development and imple-
mentation of environmental management systems
within single companies. The project team con-
sisted of a staff member from the industry asso-
ciation, chairman of the environmental manage-
ment communication platform, a consultant and
university researchers. Several of the organisations
engage in similar activities, like oil refining and
chemicals. Dependency relations already existed
between some corporations. The natural deep-wa-
ter harbour handles 100 million tons of oil annu-
ally. Approximately 60% of the land is used by the
oil and chemicals sectors generating 14,000 direct
jobs and 66,000 indirect jobs.
There is a long-term scope in the industrial ecosys-
tem, and some improvements have actually taken
ten years to realise. The first INES project was car-
ried out in 1994–1997, the second INES Mainport
project in 1999–2002 and the latest, Rotterdam
Harbour Industry Complex Programme (HIC) in
2003–2007. The aim is to develop the area and the
final vision is a “sustainable industrial area”.
ROTTERDAM HARBOUR
System area:
Rotterdam Harbour area, 10 000 hectares.
Evolution:
Implemented by Europort/Botlek Interests in-
dustry association
Eighty industrial members; more than thirty che-
mical manufacturing companies and four refine-
ries.
Flows:
Heat, water
Administration:
Half the land area is managed by the Rotterdam Mu-
nicipal Port Management (RMPM). The decisions
and evaluations concerning the various INES pro-
jects are made by a decision-making platform con-
sisting of members of national and regional industry
associations, plant managers, national and regional
governmental organisations, an environmental ad-
vocacy organisation and academia. Europort/Botlek
Interests (EBB) industry association has an interme-
diary role between government and industries.
25
Driving forces:
INES was launched to stimulate the development
of cleaner production approaches; to perform net-
work analyses of the activities, material and energy
streams and to develop an information infrastruc-
ture to facilitate the functioning of the industrial
ecosystem in the area.
Achievements:
A joint compressed air system (17 companies in
2004), outsourcing of utilities as the core-busi-
ness of service companies, several industrial water
systems. Regional efficiency was achieved in the
industrial area during the INES Mainport -pro-
gramme.
Possibilities:
Intention to deliver 2,000 MW of heat (now
emitted to the air) to 5,000 dwellings in 2006
4.1.4 Landskrona, Sweden
Landskrona is a town with a heavy concentrati-
on of industrial activities on the coast of Öresund
Straight in South-Western Sweden. An indust-
rial symbiosis project was initiated in Landskro-
na, Sweden, in 2002 by the International Insti-
tute for Industrial Environment Economics (III-
EE) in Lund (Mirata & Emtairah 2005, Starlan-
der 2003, Maltin 2004). The project was finally
launched as a Swedish pilot project in 2003 with
the support of the Swedish Business Development
Agency (NUTEK). The project involved nineteen
companies and the Technical and Environmental
Departments and Office for Trade and Industry of
the Municipality of Landskrona.
The actors involved were required to contribute
financially to the project. The contributions we-
re, however, kept at a rather low level in order
to attract a sufficient number of companies. Mo-
re importantly, the participating companies had
to commit themselves to allocating a minimum
amount of time and dedicated personnel to the
project.
The majority of the companies are by definition
small and medium-sized with a number of emp-
loyees ranging from 4 to 550. Half the companies
in the project are subsidiaries of large internatio-
nal groups, and many companies are fairly big in
26
the Swedish context. The companies are diverse
in their activities and there are firms from prin-
ting and packaging, recycling and waste mana-
gement to agribusinesses and chemical industries
(Fig. 10). The Technical Department (Tekniska
Verken) of the Municipality of Landskrona is in-
volved through its District Heating (DH) system
and wastewater treatment plant. The companies
are located no further than four kilometres from
the other companies.
There is a clear potential for synergies in Landskro-
na: exchange of heat through District Heating,
development and exchange of alternative fuels,
exchange of chemicals and water. Other major sy-
nergy areas are transportation and logistics and
joint purchasing. There also appear to be clear
opportunities for an exchange of more intangible
resources.
LANDSKRONA
System area:
Industrial town of Landskrona, 38,000 inhabi-
tants.
Evolution:
Landskrona Industrial Symbiosis Programme
(LISP) designed the system and identified col-
laboration options. The project was initiated in
2002.
Actors:
Over twenty companies from various sectors: che-
micals, waste management, metal processing and
recycling, printing and printed packaging, motor
vehicle components, agricultural seeds, transport
and logistics. And public organisations: manage-
ment of key infrastructure and support compo-
nents e.g. district heating, environmental affairs
and business development.
Flows:
Under research (see Fig. 11)
Administration:
A team of IIIEE researchers coordinated the app-
lication of a systematic approach for assisting the
development of symbiotic connections. The pro-
ject gets support from the Swedish Business De-
velopment Agency (NUTEK).
Figure 11. Existing and potential connections associated with activities in and around Landskrona (Mirata & Emiritah 2005).
Motivation:
The companies see a certain potential for future
developments in IS, many considering it a natu-
ral evolution of industry. The companies try to be
on the forefront in terms of developing innovati-
ve solutions and concepts. They hope and expect
it to provide them with benefits. The project pro-
posal by the IIIEE was attractive as it provided an
external coordination body and funding.
Achievements:
None so far.
Possibilities:
The necessary infrastructure is being installed
enabling a printing company to use approxima-
tely 22,000m3/year of wastewater from a neigh-
bouring car glass manufacturing plant in their flue
gas cleaning system. One possibility is to establish
processes diverting over 1,500 tons/year of solid
waste from landfills to construction industry and
revalorising more than 250 tons/year of waste sol-
vents. The exchange of managerial skills, know-
ledge, and information is another area where col-
laborative action is taking place as part of LISP.
Challenges:
Developing support mechanisms sustaining the conti-
nuation of the programme after the funded period and
making the actors autonomous in working with the
network. There is a need to define the role of the public
bodies involved in the project and to involve the whole
Municipality of Landskrona into the project.
4.1.5 National Industrial Symbiosis
Programme (NISP), UK
The National Industrial Symbiosis Programme,
NISP, is the first industrial symbiosis initiative in
the world on a national scale (http://www.nisp.
org.uk/, Mirata 2004). NISP is a business-led ini-
tiative. NISP is supported by the UK Government
and by industrial organisations. The programme
facilitates links between industries from various
sectors to create sustainable commercial opportu-
nities and to improve resource efficiency.
27
The programme is not exclusive to any particular in reprocessing/ recycling with £13,300,125 made
resource and it addresses raw materials, by-pro- in additional sales. All this is on top of the achie-
ducts, human resources, logistics, services, waste, vements of the last 18 months.
energy and water. Target regions where Industrial
Symbiosis Programmes are at various stages of de-
HUMBER REGION
velopment are: Yorkshire and the Humber (Hum-
ber Industrial Symbiosis Project), West Midlands
The Humber region is located on the East coast
(West Midlands Industrial Symbiosis Project),
of England. There are chemical industries, oil re-
North West (Mersey Banks Industrial Symbio-
fineries and power stations, processing of gas, fur-
sis Project), Scotland (Grangemouth), North East
niture, iron, steel and other metals in the region.
(Teeside), South East (Southampton) and Ire-
There are also food producers and agriculture. The
land.
oil and gas companies were the first business ac-
tors in the symbiosis, as they were proposing a
The various regions are expected to gain £60 mil-
CHP plant for the region and seeking support for
lion each. Some headline outputs are listed below.
this project.
The outputs have been achieved in less than one
year. Many of the synergies identified under NISP
The programme was launched in 2000. It started
will take months or even years to reach fruition
with twenty companies. All the companies in
as they will have to go through the normal pro-
the region did not want to get involved as they
cedures of business plans, approvals, capital in-
thought the programme was meant only for large
vestments etc. Some headline outputs (March 5th,
energy users using the CHP. The project advisory
2004):
group consisted of representatives from the Busi-
- £1.5M of funding raised
ness Council for Sustainable Development United
- 170 companies participating in programme.
Kingdom (BCSD-UK), various companies, local
- Over 300 potential participants (companies
authorities and an industrial association. Howe-
contacted/attended workshops etc).
ver, there was no individual company as a cham-
- 43 companies and other organizations serving
pion encouraging other firms. The project ran out
on Programme Advisory Groups.
of funding but it was re-launched in 2003 with the
- Fully developed, bespoke data collection tool
help of new public financing. The project cham-
and data entry guides.
pion, a regional branch of multi-national chemi-
- Over 300 separate stream on the database.
cal company, was now introduced. It provided a
- Over 1,000,000 tons of material demands on
detailed coverage of various synergistic operatio-
the database.
nal partnerships. From 2004 a coordination team
- Over 1,000,000 items of demand on the data-
has been working on engaging a range of organi-
base
sations in the programme and looking for new
- 218,000 tons of material diverted from landfill
synergies.
year on year
- 700,000 tons of material ‘in negotiation’ System area:
- Over 100,000 tons’ reduction in CO2. Humber region, 882,000 inhabitants
- Over 100 jobs created or safeguarded.
- A fully developed and professionally delivered Evolution:
training course in industrial symbiosis. the NISP project, the “home” of the whole NISP
program
As the latest outputs, since April 2005, the pro-
gramme has helped to divert more than 183,636 Actors:
tons of waste from landfill sites and created 98 Chemical, oil and gas, furniture, iron and steel
new jobs. There has been a national reducti- industries.
on of 273,350 tons of CO2 with an estimated
£28,307,311 in cost savings to industry. More Flows:
than 222 jobs have been safeguarded across the Steam, process water, organic wastes, gypsum, of-
UK as a direct result of the programme and it has fal, waste edible oils, hydrogen, hydro chloric acid,
also seen £7,246,000 of private capital investment wood dust and chips

28
Figure 12. Existing, planned and possible synergies in Humber region. (Mirata 2004)
Administration:
Programme advisory group, members from com-
panies and interest groups, funding from the re-
gional development agency
Motivation:
Economical
Achievements:
Latest achievements (June 2005): 5,000 tons was-
te wood recycled into valuable mulch, creation of
new business opportunities and support for new
business start-ups, creation of two full-time jobs,
reduced waste disposal costs; diversion of waste
from landfill, inclusion of green waste improves
mulch characteristics and a further reduction in
waste and associated costs, reduction in transport
movements; reduced greenhouse gas emissions,
inward investment in the region.
Possibilities:
Substantial reductions in CO2, SO2, NOx, remo-
val of significant amounts of hazardous cargo,
substantial savings in energy costs for large energy
users, considerable increase in productive output
and employment.
4.2 Case studies in Finland
4.2.1 Introduction
Finland is a cold northern country with a lot of
heavy industry. The demand for energy is high.
District heating has become an important and ef-
ficient way to produce electricity and heat. Com-
bined heat and power production is very common
in the three northern countries Finland, Denmark
and the Netherlands. In Finland the production
of CHP started in the 1950s and in 1999 it cove-
red 35% of the total national electricity producti-
on. Finland has a large pool of natural resources;
two thirds of the land area is covered with forests
and peat lands. Finnish industry is characterised
by forest industries. The annual cutting of Finnish
forests is less that their growth. The forest ecosys-
tems can be regarded as sinkers of the total amount
of CO2. The share of forest industry of national
exports is around 30%. For instance, around 90
% of paper, the main forest industry product, is
exported, mainly to Central Europe. The forest in-
dustry generates waste that can be re-used as ener-
gy and raw materials.
29
Because of the forest industries and district heating
there are several self-evolved eco-industrial parks/
energy-recycling networks in Finland. Some of them
have been studied through the eco-industrial park
concept, e.g. Uimaharju Industrial Park (Korhonen
& Snäkin 2005), Jyväskylä Energy Supply System
(Korhonen et al. 1999, Korhonen 2002), Joensuu
Recycling Network in Energy Supply (Korhonen
et al. 2002), North Karelia Heating Energy System
(Korhonen & Snäkin 2003, Korhonen & Snäkin
2001) and Satakunta Waste Management System
(Niutanen & Korhonen 2003). Harjavalta (Heino
& Koskenkari 2004) has an industrial park related
to mining industries and studied through this con-
cept. Uimaharju, Jyväskylä and Harjavalta are pre-
sented here in more detail.
4.2.2 Uimaharju
Uimaharju Industrial Park or industrial area is lo-
cated in the small municipality of Eno (5,000 in-
habitants) in Eastern Finland. The industrial area
employs altogether more than 500 people and it is
the biggest employer in Eno municipality.
During the 1950s and 60s, (Fig. 13A) the Uimaharju
industrial area consisted only of a sawmill where the
bark waste from saw logs was combusted for energy.
In 1967–1991 (B), a pulp mill and a power plant
were built alongside the sawmill. Since then he-
at derived from wood waste has been used in the
sawmill (1). Waste wood chips serve as raw mate-
rial for pulping (2), and pulping wastes, in turn,
as fuels for energy production in the new power
plant providing the pulp mill with some power
(3), steam (4) and heat (5). The CHP plant (co-
production of heat and power) was not efficient
enough to produce the power required by the mills
and this need was met by purchasing power from
the national grid. Some sawdust (6) was supplied
to other mills outside the park as resources with va-
lue. The pulp mill needed pulping chemicals and
some industrial gases (O2, CO2) for pulp bleach-
ing. These were sourced from outside the system.
Also, plenty of water is needed in the pulp making
processes. Some roundwood was procured abroad,
mainly from the former Soviet Union.
In 1992–2003 (C) the newest actors are a waste ash
treatment plant, a wastewater treatment plant and
a gas plant. The new flows are waste ash utilisati-
30
on (9) for fertilizer, waste water sludge (11) used
as fuel, saw-mill bark (7) used as fuel in the power
plant that applies CHP, recovery and reuse of pul-
ping chemicals (10), and industrial gas recovery (8)
in the gas plant. There are also some new flows bet-
ween the system and its environment. The munici-
pality of Eno runs its municipal waste waters (12)
into the Uimaharju park to be treated efficiently in
the park’s wastewater plant. The industrial park sells
some of the unused wood wastes outside the park
(13). And finally, some surplus (green) electricity is
sold to the international grid (14).
UIMAHARJU
System area:
Uimaharju Industrial Park
Evolution:
Self-organised
Actors:
Stora Enso integrated forest product company; its
partners Enocell Oy chemical pulp mill, and Sto-
ra Enso Timber/Uimaharju saw mill. There are al-
so a waste ash treatment plant, a heat and power
plant, an industrial gas plant and a wastewater tre-
atment plant.
Flows:
Waste heat, steam, power; wood chips, bark, ash,
pulping chemicals
Administration:
None
Driving forces:
Economic factors, some political measures.
Achievements:
The industrial system has become more diverse,
and closed loops of material and energy have in-
creased.
Challenges:
Measuring the environmental performance as the
source of raw materials (imports of timber 85%
and pulp 40%) is a challenge, and the destina-
tions of end-materials (e.g. exports of paper 90 %)
extend the local and regional system boundaries
present. A number of important environmental
factors are constantly growing thanks to the deve-
lopment of Uimaharju industrial park.
174 J. Korhonen, J.-P. Snäkin / Ecological Economics 52 (2005) 169–186

Figure 13 A-C.
Flows of material and energy in the Uimaharju industrial park, development over time in three different stages. Thick arrows indi-
cate the round-put flows; thin lines indicate material and energy flows in and out of the park area (Korhonen & Snäkin 2005).

31
4.2.3 Jyväskylä
Regional Energy Supply System of Jyväskylä city,
Finland, has been studied in relation to eco-in-
dustrial parks. Jyväskylä is a city with mainly light
industries. Energy is supplied by the co-produc-
tion of heat and electricity. The main fuel is peat
(transport distance max. 90 km) followed by was-
te wood mainly from Säynätsalo paper mill and
other paper mills in the area. The regional coun-
cil of Central-Finland (cooperation agency of se-
veral municipalities) has contributed through re-
ports on energy supply and the state of the envi-
ronment. The key actor is the publicly owned po-
wer company of Jyväskylä that holds a monopoly
status as a regional energy supplier and is thus ab-
le to take risks and invest in activities like the in-
dustrial ecosystem. The anchor tenant is the Rau-
halahti power plant. There is inter-firm and inter-
industry co-operation, technological capacity and
a demand for the waste energy in the region. The
system has evolved gradually since the 1960’s.
JYVÄSKYLÄ
System area: her by using household wastes in energy production
Jyväskylä city, 80,000 inhabitants
Figure 14. Jyväskylä industrial ecosystem. (Korhonen et al. 1999)
32
Evolution:
Self-organized, evolved around existing economic
and energy supply system structures.
Actors:
Rauhalahti power plant, plywood mill & boiler
plant, Kangas paper mill (Greenlandia horticultu-
ral centre, households, services, industry).
Flows:
Heat, electricity, waste wood, ash.
Administration:
None
Driving forces:
Economic forces, concern about air quality, tigh-
tening of emission standards
Achievements:
Decrease in emissions, economic savings. The
consumption of external fuels is some 40 % less
than without CHP and waste fuels.
Possibilities:
To serve as an example of CHP, to develop the area furt-
and extending the use of forest cutting residues as fuel.
4.2.4 Harjavalta
Harjavalta is a town with mining industries. Har-
javalta Industrial Park employs over 1,000 people.
The Industrial Ecopark consists of thirteen firms.
Outokumpu copper and nickel smelters form the
heart of the area. Extra energy from their processes
is utilized as electricity, high temperature steam or
heating energy by the process plant or the town of
Harjavalta. The energy efficient autogenous flash
smelting technology was invented in Harjavalta
after World War II when there was a shortage of
energy in Finland.
H A R J A V A L TA
System area:
Harjavalta town, Harjavalta Industrial Eco-park
Area, almost 300 hectares.
Evolution:
Spontaneously
Actors:
Boliden Harjavalta Oy, OMG Harjavalta Nickel
Oy, Porin Lämpövoima Oy, AGA, Kemira, the
town of Harjavalta.
Flows:
Electricity, district heat; copper, iron; H2, N2, O2,
Ar, H2SO4, SO2, Al2SO4, NH3, Gypsum.
Administration:
None
Driving forces:
Urge to improve energy efficiency due to political
reasons. Motivation to decrease the load on the
environment and to seek collective benefits.
Achievements:
Environmental benefits, benefits in recycling,
improved energy efficiency, improved efficiency
in logistics. Improved security through strengt-
hened co-operation. The town of Harjavalta has
benefited through improvements in employment,
international relations, intellectual capital and
image.
Possibilities:
Plans to improve the environmental performance
further, utilise low temperature waste energy in a
greenhouse park; plans and research to improve
and add utilisation of copper and nickel slag. Lo-
cal wood is a potential energy source.
33
Figure 15. The material and energy exchange between the firms in the Harjavalta Industrial Area. (Heino & Koskenkari 2004)

34
References

Ammenberg, J. Börjesson, B. & Hjelm, O. 1999. Joint EMS and group

certification. A cost-effective route for SME’s to achieve ISO 141001.
GMI 28, 23–31.

Ammenberg, J. & Hjelm O. 2002. The connection between environ-

mental management systems and continual environmental performance
improvements. Corporate environmental strategy 9 (2), 183–192.

Baas, L. 2005. Industrial ecology in the Rotterdam Harbour and In-

dustry Complex: “You need acknowledgement, vision, trust and a long
term program to make it happen. Conference proceedings. The 3rd in-
ternational conference of the International Society for Industrial Ecol-
ogy, ISIE. Stockholm, Sweden, June 2005.

Boons, F. & Baas, L. 1997. Types of industrial ecology: the problem of

coordination. Journal of Cleaner Production 5 (1–2), 79–86.

Burström, F. & Korhonen, J. 2001. Municipalities and Industrial Ecol-

ogy: Reconsidering municipal environmental management. Sustainable
Development 9 (1), 36–46.

Côté, R.P. & Cohen-Rosenthal, E. 1998. Designing eco-industrial parks:

a synthesis of some experiences. Journal of Cleaner Production 6 (3–4),
181–188.

Eilering, J. & Vermeulen, W. 2004. Eco-industrial parks: toward indus-

trial symbiosis and utility sharing in practice. Progress in Industrial Ecol-
ogy 1 (1–3), 245–270.

Ehrenfeld, J. & Gertler, N. 1997. The evolution of inter-dependency at

Kalundborg. Journal of Industrial Ecology 1 (1), 67–80.

Fichtner, W., Tietze-Stöckinger, I., Frank, M. & Rentz, O. 2005. Barri-

ers of inter-organisational environmental management: two case studies
on industrial symbiosis. Progress in Industrial Ecology – an International
Journal 2 (1), 73–88.

Geng, Y. & Côté, R. 2003. Environmental management systems at the

industrial park level in China. Environmental Management 31 (6), 784–
794.

Gibbs, D. & Deutz, P. 2004. Implementing industrial ecology? Planning

for eco-industrial parks in the USA. Geoforum 36 (4), 452–464.

Gibbs, D., Deutz, P. & Proctor, A. 2005. Industrial ecology and eco-in-
dustrial development: a potential paradigm for local and regional devel-
opment? Regional Studies 39, 171–183.

35
Heeres, R., Vermeulen W. & de Walle F. 2004. Eco-industrial park ini-
tiatives in the USA and the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production
12 (8–10) 985–996.

Heino, J. & Koskenkari, T. 2004. Industrial ecology and the metallur-

gy industry. The Harjavalta industrial ecosystem. In: Pongrácz E. (ed.):
Proceedings of the Waste Minimization and Resources Use Optimization
Conference. June 10th 2004, University of Oulu, Finland. Oulu Uni-
versity Press. p.143–151. Available at: http://www.oulu.fi/resopt/was-
min/heino2.pdf

Heino, J. 2005. Harjavalta industrial park as an industrial ecosystem. In

Industrial ecology for a sustainable future. The 3rd Interenational confer-
ence of the International society for Industrial Ecology. Sweden 12–15
June 2005. Abstract book, oral sessions. p. 394–395.

Jelinski, L. W., Graedel, T. E., Laudise, R. A., McCall, D.W. & Patel, C.
K. N. 1992. Industrial ecology: Concepts and approaches. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 89: 793–797.

Korhonen J. 2001. Four ecosystem principles for an industrial ecosystem.

Journal of Cleaner Production 9, 253–259.

Korhonen, J., Wihersaari, M. & Savolainen, I. 1999. Industrial ecology

of a regional energy supply system: the case of Jyväskylä region. Journal
of Greener Management International 26, 57–67.

Korhonen, J., Niemeläinen, H. & Pulliainen, K. 2002. Regional indus-

trial recycling network in energy supply – The case of Joensuu city, Fin-
land. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management
9, 170–185.

Korhonen J. & Snäkin J.-P. 2003. Industrial ecosystem evolution of

North Karelia heating energy system. Reg Environ Change 3, 128–139

Korhonen, J. & Snäkin, J–P. 2001. An anchor tenant approach to net-

work management: considering regional material and energy flow net-
works. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Manage-
ment 1(4): 444-463.

Korhonen, J. & Snäkin, J-P. 2005. Analysing the evolution of industrial

ecosystems: concepts and application. Ecological economics 52, 169–
186.

Korhonen, J. & Helin, J. & Snäkin, J-P. 2003. Alueellinen ympäristöasi-

oiden hallintajärjestelmä REMS Varpaisjärven verkostossa. PK-yritysten
verkostojohtamisesta. Joensuun yliopisto.

Korhonen J. 2002. Two paths to industrial ecology: applying the prod-

uct-based and geographical approaches. Journal of Environmental Plan-
ning and Management 45 (1), 39–57.

36
Lambert, A. J. D. & Boons, F. A. 2002. Eco-industrial parks: stimula-
ting sustainable development in mixed industrial parks. Technovation
22, 471–484

Lowe, E. 2001. Handbook of industrial ecology. Eco-industrial Park

Handbook for Asian Developing Countries. A Report to Asian Develop-
ment Bank, Environment Department, Indigo Development, Oakland,
CA. http://www.indigodev.com/Handbook.html

Mirata, M. 2004. Experiences from early stages of a national industrial

symbiosis programme in the UK: determinants and coordination chal-
lenges. Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (8–10), 967–983.

Mirata, M. & Emtairah, T. 2005. Industrial symbiosis networks and the

contribution to environmental innovation: The case of the Landskro-
na Industrial Symbiosis Programme. Journal of Cleaner Production 13,
993–1002.

Maltin M. 2004. Industrial symbiosis and its alignement with regional

sustainability: exploring the possibilities in Landskrona, Sweden. Lund
IIIEE Reports 200:7. Lund University.
http://www.iiiee.lu.se/Publication.nsf/e36f5f3f8fa200a6c1256b4200480181/
986ea805a6863311c1256f9e0057d2be/$FILE/Marla%20Maltin.pdf

O’Rourke, D., Connelly L. & Koshland C. 1996. Industrial ecology:

a critical review. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 6
(2–3), 89–112.

Ring, I. 1997. Evolutionary strategies in environmental policy. Ecologi-

cal Economics, 240–243.

Starlander, J.-E. 2003. Industrial Symbiosis: A Closer Look on Organi-

sational Factors. A study based on the Industrial Symbiosis project in
Landskrona, Sweden. IIIEE Reports 2003:4. Masters Thesis. The In-
ternational Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics. Environ-
mental Management and Policy. Lund, Sweden.
http://www.iiiee.lu.se/Publication.nsf/e36f5f3f8fa200a6c1256b4200480181/
57afd6028bf17f7fc1256dff003320a5/$FILE/Jan-Erik_Starlander_HP.pdf

Schwarz, E. & Steizinger, K. 1997. Implementing nature’s lesson: the in-

dustrial recycling network enhancing regional development. Journal of
Cleaner Production 5 (1-2), 47– 6.

Tibbs HBC. 1992. Industrial ecology: an environmental agenda for in-

dustry. Whole Earth Review Winter; 4–19.

Welford, R. 1996. Regional development and environmental manage-

ment: new opportunities for cooperation. Scandinavian Journal of Man-
agement 12 (3), 347–357.

37
38
 Appendix 1.

Eco-Industrial Park Case-studies

There are many eco-industrial park projects going on in the world. The US parks and
from eco-industrial parks in Europe are listed below. See Gibbs et al. 2004 for further
information. The names in bold are operational Eco-industrial parks and the rest are
“green” industrial parks, eco-industrial parks under construction, eco-industrial parks
being planned or attempted parks.

Eco-industrial parks in the USA

Anaco Anacostia Ecogarden Project, Prince Georges County, Maryland
Avtex Redevelopment Project, Front Royal, Virginia
Bassett Creek, Minnesota
Brownsville Eco-Industrial Park, Brownsville, Texas
Buffalo, New York
Cabazon Resource Recovery Park, California
Civano Industrial Eco Park, Tucson, Arizona
Coffee Creek Centre, Chesterton, Indiana
Computer and Electronics Disposition Eco-Industrial Park, Austin, Texas
Eco-industrial Park, Cowpens, South Carolina
Devens Planned Community, Massachusetts
Dallas Ecopark, Dallas, Texas
Alameda County Eco-Industrial Park, San Francisco, California
Eco-industrial Park, Cheney, Washington State
Fairfield Ecological Industrial Park, Baltimore, Maryland
Franklin County Eco-Industrial Park, Youngsville, North Carolina
Hyder Enterprise Zone, Hyder, Alaska
Intervale Community Food Enterprise Center, Burlington, Vermont
Londonderry Eco-Industrial Park, Londonderry, New Hampshire
Menomonee Valley, Wisconsin
Northwest Louisiana Commerce Center, Shreveport, Louisiana
Phillips Eco-enterprise Centre, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Plattsburgh Eco-Industrial Park, New York
Port of Cape Charles Sustainable Technologies Industrial Park, Northampton
County, Virginia
Raymond Green Eco-Industrial Park, Raymond, Washington
Red Hills Ecoplex, Choctaw County, Mississippi
Renova EIP, Puerto Rico
River City Park, Newburgh, New York
St Peter, Minnesota
Skagitt County Environmental Industrial Park, Skagitt County, Washington
Shady Side Eco-Business Park, Shady Side, Maryland
Springfield, Massachusetts
Trenton Eco-Industrial Complex, Trenton, New Jersey
Triangle J Council of Governments regional IS project
Volunteer Site, Chattanooga, Tennessee

391
Eco-industrial parks in the Europe
Closed Project, Tuscany, Italy
Crewe Green Business Park, UK
Dagenham Sustainable Industrial Park, UK
Dyfi Eco-Park, UK
Ecopark Oulu, Finland
Ecosite du Pays de Thau, France
Ecotech, Swaffham, UK
Emscher Park, Germany
Green Park, Cornwall, UK
Hartberg Ökopark, Austria
Herning-Ikast Industrial Park, Denmark
Kalundborg, Denmark
London Remade eco-industrial sites, UK
Montagna-Energia Valle di Non, Italy
Parc Industriel Plaine de l’Ain (PIPA), Lyon
Righead Sustainable Industrial Estate, UK
Rotterdam Harbour Industrial Ecosystems Programme
Selkirk Eco-Industrial Project, UK
Sphere EcoIndustrie d’Alsace, France
Stockholm, Environmental Science Park, Sweden
Styrian recycling network, Austria
Sustainable Growth Park, Yorkshire, UK
Turin Environment Park, Italy
ValuePark_, Schkopau, Germany
Vreten, Sweden

Links:

Existing and Developing Eco-Industrial Park Sites in the U.S.

http://www.smartgrowth.org/library/eco_ind_case_intro.html
http://www2.ucsc.edu/gei/eco-industrial_parks.html

240