R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Barriers to Promoting Eco-Industrial Parks

Development in China
Perspectives from Senior Officials at National Industrial Parks
Qinghua Zhu, Yong Geng, Joseph Sarkis, and Kee-Hung Lai

Keywords:
eco-industrial park (EIP)
ecological modernization
factor analysis
industrial ecology
resource dependence theory (RDT)
technological development
Summary
For at least the past two decades, eco-industrial parks (EIPs) have been promoted as policy
and commercial instruments for achieving industrial sustainable development. Yet, few EIPs
have seen successful operational implementation, especially if they begin as standard indus-
trial parks. Rapid economic growth, commensurate with increasing environmental damage
in China, has resulted in officials’ further pursuing EIP policy as a significant element of
the broader circular economy and ecological modernization efforts. This article examines
the barriers for EIP development from industrial park senior manager perspectives. Using
resource dependence theory and the resource-based view as theoretical lenses, we inves-
tigate the external and internal barriers for EIP development in 51 Chinese industrial parks.
A number of barriers are identified and grouped through a factor analysis. Cluster analy-
sis is utilized to help categorize and evaluate the perceived levels of barriers and hardships
experienced by various senior officials that manage the EIPs. It is found that few respondents
encounter no significant barriers. Barriers related to technological development and capac-
ity building are the most prevalent. These results highlight the relative importance of various
activities that may be necessary by policy makers and other stakeholders to overcome the
barriers. For example, cooperation in developing technological solutions for EIPs seems to
be a major thrust that should be pursued by EIP development stakeholders. Other policy
and managerial insights based on the general findings of this study are also presented.

Introduction Few studies have examined barriers restraining the success of

EIPs. Symbiotic relationships, information sharing and aware-
Eco-industrial parks (EIPs) have been a mainstay of indus-
ness, financial benefits, organizational structure, and legal and
trial ecology (Kirschner 1995). Industrialized countries initiated
regulatory frameworks are the key to successful development of
EIP projects to stimulate sustainable development (Lambert and
EIPs (Sakr et al. 2011). Too much governmental intervention
Boons 2002). As environmental issues gained greater impor-
and misunderstanding of EIPs may hamper successful imple-
tance, especially issues related to climate change, the EIP con-
mentation of EIP projects (Heeres et al. 2004; Roberts 2004).
cept continued its emergence with successful instances (Lowitt
China initiated EIP demonstration projects in 2001 (Shi
2008). Part of this emergence included traditional industrial
et al. 2012). Experiences from the Tianjin Economic and Tech-
parks efforts to become EIPs (Lim and Park 2010). However,
nological Development Area, one of the top three national EIPs
fully developed EIPs have yet to exist (Sakr et al. 2011).

Address correspondence to: Yong Geng, Professor, School of Environmental Science and Technology, Shanghai 200240, P.R. China. Email: ygeng@sjtu.edu.cn

© 2014 by Yale University

DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12176 Editor managing review: Olli Salmi

Volume 19, Number 3

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jie Journal of Industrial Ecology 457

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
in China (Shi et al. 2010), show that strong support from senior
officials in the zone is critical for promoting EIP development.
However, empirical evidence on this relationship is still miss-
ing. Thus, it is an opportune time for examining the attitudes of
policy making and management officials toward the promotion
of EIPs. This examination is worthwhile for practical policy
recommendations.
Using survey data from 210 senior officials at 51 national
industrial parks in China, this article identifies barriers, both
external and internal, to developing Chinese EIPs. This study
fills the research gap and builds upon the limited studies on
EIP development barriers. The study results provide insights for
policy makers to better promote EIPs not only in developing
countries such as China, but also in developed countries.
Literature Review
Eco-Industrial Parks in China
China initiated EIP demonstration projects in 2001 with
60 zones approved, including 15 national demonstration EIPs
and 45 national trial EIPs (Shi et al. 2012). The evolution of
EIP development in China can be broadly summarized in three
stages.
The first stage was from 1997 to 2001. China became aware
of the EIP concept in 1997 when the United Nations Envi-
ronmental Programme (UNEP) first published a special issue
on EIPs in its Chinese journal Industry and Environment (Geng
and Cote 2004). During that stage, the State Environmental
Protection Administration (SEPA; changed to the Ministry of
Environmental Protection [MEP] on 25 March 2008) promoted
EIPs to alleviate environmental degradation from rapid indus-
trial development (Shi et al. 2003). In August 2001, SEPA
approved the Guangxi Guigang Sugar-making Complex as the
first National Trial EIP (Zhu et al. 2007).
The second stage was the 5-year time period from 2001 to
2006, which focused on policy development. On 31 Decem-
ber 2004, SEPA introduced two EIP policies. The first was
the “Provisional Method on the Application, Designation and
Management of National Demonstration Eco-Industrial Parks,”
and the other was the “Provisional Guidelines for Planning Na-
tional Demonstration Eco-Industrial Parks.” On 1 September
2006, SEPA publicized a new national standard for EIPs, the
first one in the world, to evaluate the industrial performance of
EIP projects (Geng et al. 2009).
Beginning in 2007, additional ministries participated in the
third stage of national EIP development. The central Chinese
government recognized that technological development was
a key issue for EIP development. As a result, the MEP, to-
gether with the Ministry of Commerce (MOC; supervising the
development of National Economic and Technological Devel-
opment Zones), and the Ministry of Science and Technology
issued an official document (No. 1359) titled “Notice on Pro-
moting the Development of a Low Carbon Economy in Na-
tional Demonstration Eco-industrial Parks” on 21 December
2009. This document requires that industrial parks should ex-
458 Journal of Industrial Ecology
pand policies and measures on technological innovation, ca-
pacity building, and mechanism development to promote EIP
development (Geng et al. 2012).
China realizes that EIP development is not simply an envi-
ronmental strategy, but also an economic development strat-
egy. Thus, since 2004, the National Development and Reform
Commission (NDRC), cooperating with the MEP, initiated
the circular economy demonstration program, in which circu-
lar material and energy flow industrial parks have been proposed
together with quantitative standards (Su et al. 2013; Geng
et al. 2012). These standards overlap with EIP indicators
and requirements as proposed by the MEP (Zhang et al.
2010).
For EIP development in China, the park administrative au-
thority (PAA) takes the responsibility to prepare various devel-
opment plans and monitor their implementation. For instance,
the PAA can determine what businesses should be recruited by
considering the local industrial structure, resource endowment,
ecological carrying capacity, and infrastructure scale (Geng and
Zhao 2009). With regard to the EIP plan, according to both
MEP and NDRC criteria, materials flow analysis at the in-
dustrial park level should be conducted so that key industrial
symbiosis (IS) opportunities among different tenant companies
can be recognized (Zhang et al. 2010). Then, the PAA would
inform these tenant companies and help them build up linkages.
In some cases, the PAA even invests on necessary infrastruc-
ture facilities for by-products exchange, waste treatment, and
disposal, such as pipelines and pump stations for water recycling
(Shi et al. 2010). Another mission of the PAA is to promote the
concept and knowledge on EIP to their staff, tenant companies,
and local residents through various capacity-building efforts, in-
cluding television promotions, newsletters, and workshops. This
is particularly important in China because, in general, the pub-
lic’s environmental awareness is still at a very low level (Harris
2006). In addition, in order to further promote IS, the MEP
requires that all the PAAs at national EIP sites should build up
their environmental information platform so that a material-use
database can be served to all the existing companies and po-
tential candidates and advanced environmental technologies
on pollution prevention and eco-design can be shared (MEP
2009).
For companies in an EIP, they need to integrate environ-
mental requirements from the PAA into their purchasing, pro-
duction, and products. Besides, they need to report their waste
production and potential needs for reused products and recy-
cling materials. With such management models, successful EIP
development has emerged (Shi et al. 2010).
Barriers toward Promoting the Development of
Eco-Industrial Parks
Transitioning industrial parks into EIPs is far from a trivial
exercise, and this transition may experience both external and
internal barriers. Two general organizational theories, resource
dependence theory (RDT) and the resource-based view (RBV),

are generally used to examine external and internal resource
management, respectively (Weele and van Raaij 2014). Thus,
these two theories can provide an explanatory reason for this
difficult transition: One theory is used to focus on external
barriers and the other on internal barriers.
RDT is one of the most influential theories to examine how
external barriers can have influence on organizational practices
in organizational theories and strategic management (Hillman
et al. 2009). The seminal RDT work by Pfeffer and Salancik
(1978) characterizes an organization as a system and suggests
that external support is necessary for an organization to ensure
its ongoing improvement. Thus, we consider an industrial zone
(IZ) as a system and use the RDT as the theoretical base to
examine external barriers of EIP development. The RBV has
been developed with many empirical studies as a promising the-
ory to examine internal needs to implement innovative prac-
tices for an organization (Hauschild and Knyphausen-Aufsess
2013). The RBV proposes that internal needs include tangible
resources as well as intangible resources and capabilities (Kraai-
jenbrink et al. 2010). These capabilities and resources allow the
organization (in this case, an IZ) to build competitive advan-
tage, which is the core outcome sought by RBV. An IZ may seek
to attract companies from other regions, or general industrial
parks, and thus seek a competitive differentiator based on inter-
nal resources and capabilities, some of which require external
support.
Lack of external support is a major barrier for EIP develop-
ment. External linkages with, and support from, communities,
private and public organizations, and political agents are all
needed. General socioeconomic, cultural, and regional idiosyn-
crasies also play a role in EIP development. For example, proper
government policies are needed to successfully promote EIP
development (Kim 2007). Political, economic, and environ-
mental policies related to EIPs are different in developed and
developing countries (Chiu and Geng 2004). Although China
initiated EIPs in 2001 and developed EIP standards in 2006, reg-
ulatory and bureaucratic issues are still key obstacles to promote
industrial innovation toward sustainable development (Matus
et al. 2012). Lack of channels for communication and coordi-
nation among EIPs are also key challenges for EIP development
(Park and Won 2007).
Alternatively, a lack of internal resources and/or capabili-
ties can be a major barrier for industrial parks’ successful EIP
development. Conflicts with financial gains, lack of a tech-
nical workforce, and lack of research funding are all barriers
within China for promoting sustainable industrial development
(Matus et al. 2012). Difficulty in information dissemination and
communication (Tudor et al. 2007) and unavailable resources,
such as lack of technologies and financial support (Chiu and
Geng 2004), are internal barriers for EIP development. Lack of
resources and motivation to develop resource capacities may be
a result of a lessened focus on developing a competitive advan-
tage, or a finding that no competitive advantage exists for EIP
development. Thus, using RBV, internal resources may not be
developed, causing a major internal barrier for successful EIP
development.
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
Methodology
In this section, we describe the research methodology used
in this study. The development of the survey instrument is
detailed. In the survey development discussion, the diverse
variables and their operationalizations are introduced. Then,
the data collection process is described along with respondent
and sample characteristics. We also include a preliminary ex-
ploratory factor analysis to set the stage for the constructs based
on RDT and RBV.
Questionnaire Development and Data Collection
Questionnaire Development and Variable Operationaliza-
tion
As discussed in the Barriers toward Promoting the Develop-
ment of Eco-Industrial Parks section of this article, barriers for
successful EIP development include lack of external support as
well as internal resources and capabilities limitations. Noting
these practical and theory-based observations, we developed
our survey questionnaire in three stages.
First, we developed a framework for the questionnaire. An
industrial park can be broadly considered as an organization
managed by senior industrial park management officials (Geng
et al. 2009). Thus, we use the RDT to develop dimensions of
external barriers, whereas the RBV informs internal barriers
dimensions development. The RBV clearly proposes three in-
ternal needs: they are tangible resources, intangible resources,
and capabilities (Kraaijenbrink et al. 2010). Thus, we develop
three dimensions for internal barriers. The RDT does not clearly
indicate dimensions of external barriers. We develop three di-
mensions based on the literature reviews in the Barriers toward
Promoting the Development of Eco-Industrial Parks section as well
as site visits and interview of IZs for EIP development: they are
capital, policy, and informational support barriers.
Then, we constructed a draft questionnaire using the liter-
ature as a guideline in addition to practical experience from
participating in the planning and implementation of EIP
demonstration projects, such as the Tianjin Economic and
Technological Development Area and the Dalian Economic
and Technological Development Area. These two projects were
among the first three EIP demonstration projects approved by
the MEP.
In the third stage of survey instrument development, officials
from the Ministry of Commerce in charge of national industrial
parks and international researchers in environmental manage-
ment reviewed the draft questionnaire. Suggestions on adding
and deleting several questions occurred during this step.
The final questions on external barriers are shown in table 1,
and the questions on internal barriers are shown in table 2. All
questions are measured by 5-point scales: 1 = no effect at all;
2 = some, but insignificant; 3 = marginal effect; 4 = significant
effect; and 5 = Key effect.
Data Collection
The MOC provided institutional support for survey data
collection. Currently, 140 national economic technological
Zhu et al., Barriers toward Promoting EIPs in China 459
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Table 1 Rotated component matrixa on external barriers for promoting eco-industrial parks

Factors
Questionnaire items
1 2 3

National and regional energy-saving and pollution reduction promotion policies are not enough. 0.139 0.805 0.293
National and regional regulations for energy saving and pollution reduction are imperfect. 0.305 0.828 0.255
National and regional enforcement level for energy saving and pollution reduction is not high enough. 0.398 0.794 0.119
Potential investment groups have no environmental preference. 0.804 0.214 0.172
Potential investment groups have no technologies or measures for energy saving and pollution reduction. 0.800 0.272 0.175
Market lacks preference for energy-saving and pollution reduction products. 0.646 0.157 0.566
Preference for energy-saving and pollution reduction products is unstable. 0.753 0.131 0.398
Enterprises cannot get external production technologies for energy saving and pollution reduction. 0.744 0.351 0.248
Enterprises cannot get external materials technologies for energy saving and pollution reduction. 0.742 0.342 0.229
Lack of information about international and domestic benchmarking eco-industrial parks. 0.319 0.344 0.810
Lack of ways to learn from benchmarking eco-industrial parks. 0.261 0.250 0.857

Note: Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization.
a Rotation converged in six iterations.

Table 2 Rotated component matrixa on internal barriers for eco-industrial parks

Component
Questionnaire items
1 2 3

Energy saving and pollution reduction has conflicts with GDP/tax 0.772 0.264 0.243
growth.
High cost for energy saving and pollution reduction infrastructure. 0.822 0.253 0.180
High requirement for energy saving and pollution reduction affects 0.765 0.262 0.268
investment attraction.
As a result of the limited attention by national and regional 0.383 0.134 0.729
governments, zone does not do enough evaluation on energy saving and
pollution reduction (compared to economic evaluation such as GDP).
Zone lacks data collection and management on materials and energy 0.181 0.211 0.821
flow.
Difficulty to clearly allocate responsibilities on energy saving and 0.171 0.415 0.683
pollution reduction to different bureaus in the zone.
Zone lacks human resources for eco-industrial park management. 0.176 0.735 0.440
Zone lacks fund to support energy saving and pollution reduction. 0.382 0.798 0.178
Enterprises lack capabilities on energy saving and pollution reduction for 0.285 0.756 0.189
technological development.
Note: Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization.
a Rotation converged in six iterations.

GDP = gross domestic product.

development zones are national industrial parks. Most of these
industrial parks are located in Eastern China; in order to achieve
geographical balance, the MOC also required investigation of
several locations in western provinces. National policy pro-
vides substantial “preferences” for the under-represented and
less-developed industrial parks in Western China. Because of
the difficulty in administering this questionnaire survey in all
the national industrial parks and variations in their develop-
ment stages and data availability, 100 of the 140 zones were
targeted for data collection. The sample sites include 50 from
Eastern China, 30 from Central China, and 20 from Western
China. This sample dispersion roughly matches the geograph-
ical distribution of the 140 national industrial parks, which
include 73 parks in Eastern China, 40 parks in Central China,
and 27 parks in Western China. Figure 1 shows the locations
of 140 national industrial parks, including the 100 investigated
parks.
Between 5 and 10 senior managing officials from each
zone were asked to complete the questionnaire. Respon-
dents typically included the general director, the vice gen-
eral director in charge of environmental protection and
energy savings, and directors from three related bureaus,
including the environmental protection bureau, the plan-
ning bureau, and the financial bureau. These officials are
critical for promoting EIPs because of their administrative
authority.

460 Journal of Industrial Ecology


Figure 1 Locations of national industrial parks in China. (Note: The circles represent the investigated parks, whereas the triangles
represent parks that were not investigated.)
Data acquisition occurred in two rounds. The first round of
surveys was conducted from 9 April to 10 May 2012. The MOC
delivered the questionnaire together with an official letter to
100 zones, explaining the targets and basic requirements of this
survey. Thirty-three zones, including 16 from the eastern area,
nine from the central area, and eight from the western area,
returned a total of 314 questionnaires.
Because of the limited responses from targeted parks, a sec-
ond round of survey collection was conducted from 15 to 31
May 2012. The high involvement of the MOC at this stage was
crucial because many national industrial parks did not prioritize
the completion of this survey. During this process, the MOC
provided the contact information of one responsible vice gen-
eral director and the office director of each targeted national
industrial park. Research team members phoned the remain-
ing 67 parks that did not return questionnaires during the first
round. In the end, 20 more zones, including 11 from the eastern
area, five from the central area, and four from the western area,
returned for a total of 138 questionnaires.
By deleting questionnaires with missing values, 210 usable
questionnaires from 51 zones were included in the final sample.
These final complete surveys included 106 from the eastern
region, 50 from the central region, and 54 from the western
region. To better understand the barriers, we did follow-up
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
interviews among five IZs (three from Eastern China, one from
Central China, and one from Western China) with 3 to 5
senior officials for each industry, mainly based on our findings
from statistical analysis of the survey data. Each of five IZs has
one contact person, and we have frequently spoken with these
persons by phone or e-mails.
Factor Analysis
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA), using maximum like-
lihood with a varimax rotation, was used to extract the theo-
retical dimensions (factors) of external and internal barriers for
EIP development. Both the scree test and initial eigenvalue test
indicates three factors for external barriers, explaining 77.9%
of the inherent variation.
Loadings for external barrier items are shown in table 1. Ac-
cording to item characteristics, we labeled the three factors as
capital,1 policy, and informational resource dependence barri-
ers. A further reliability test was conducted to examine whether
the items should be grouped into their respective factors. If a
reliability coefficient alpha value is over the benchmark value
of 0.70, we can conclude that items grouped into respective fac-
tors are valid (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). The reliability
coefficient alpha values in this study for the groups of items are
Zhu et al., Barriers toward Promoting EIPs in China 461
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

high, with 0.92, 0.87, and 0.91 for external capital, policy, and respondents are assigned to cluster 1, 26 to cluster 2, and 9 to
informational resource dependent barriers, respectively. cluster 3. To assess whether the mean values of all the factors
Similarly, EFA was used to identify three factors for inter- and items were significantly different across the three clusters,
nal barriers, which explain 73.4% of the inherent variations. one-way analysis of variance tests were performed (see results
Loadings for internal barriers are shown in table 2. According in table 3). The results in table 3 show that all factors and items
to the item characteristics, the three factors are labeled as tan- are significantly different among the three clusters at p < .001.
gible resources, capabilities, and intangible resources barriers. Further evaluation of table 3 shows that most responses (172
The reliability coefficient alpha values for three factors are 0.84, of 210) appear in cluster 1 and have mean values between 3.08
0.82, and 0.77, respectively. and 3.35 for the six factors, as well as values between 3.04 and
3.46 over all the items. We can label these respondents as stan-
dard managerial impressions. Twenty-six (12.38%) responses
Results, Discussions, and Implications in cluster 2 perceived few (relatively insignificant) barriers for
all factors, with mean values between 1.72 and 2.29. We label
In this section, the results of the statistical analyses are pre-
cluster 2 respondents as less-stressed managerial impressions.
sented. General descriptive results and cluster analysis results
Cluster 3 respondents (9 of 210; 4.29%) perceived significant
are presented in this initial section. Discussion of these results
barriers across all factors, with mean values above 4.41. We label
follows, with implications delineated in the final subsection of
these respondents as highly stressed managerial impressions.
this section.
Responses in both cluster 1 and 2 have similar regional dis-
tributions to the sample of 51 industrial parks across eastern,
Results central, and western. Seven of nine responses in cluster 3 appear
from respondents located in the less-developed regions. Such
General Descriptive Statistics
results indicate that officials from less-developed areas, though
The descriptive results, including mean and standard devia-
having a low percentage of the total sample, perceive greater
tion values for each barrier factor and their respective items, are
barriers as a result of both lack of external support and internal
shown in table 3. Six factors have similar values between 2.97
resources and capabilities to promote EIP development.
and 3.23, approximately in the middle of the effect range scale.
Such results show that all barrier factors have partly significant
effects on EIP development. Discussion and Implications
Capital support dependency barriers have the highest mean
In this section, we analyze the statistical results from the
value of 3.23 from among the three external factors, whereas
previous section. First, we discuss the overall factorial and de-
capability has the highest mean value of 3.21 from the three
scriptive statistical analysis. Then, the discussion turns to that
internal factors. We further check this factor of capital support
of the results and implications from the cluster analyses. In the
dependency barrier. Three items within this factor are related
end, we discuss a mechanism on how to overcome barriers in a
to technology and achieve the highest mean values, ranging
systemic way.
from 3.25 to 3.36, whereas the other three items have similar
mean values as the other two external factors.
Discussions and Implications Related to Factorial and
One internal item related to technology—enterprises lack-
Descriptive Results
ing capabilities on energy saving and pollution reduction for
The survey results identify technologies and capability bar-
technological development—achieves the highest mean value
riers as two key issues for EIP development. Thus, these issues
of 3.34 from among all external and internal items.
are the focus of the discussion and implications.
The importance of appropriate technology policies for de-
Cluster Analysis Results
veloping EIPs cannot be understated (Adamides and Mouza-
To further investigate the effect of barriers on EIP devel-
kitis 2009). A successful EIP requires a variety of technologies
opment, we perform a cluster analysis to examine whether dif-
to help in their operational and economic feasibility. Substi-
ferent clusters exist based on the six factors. Both hierarchical
tution, reuse or recycling of raw materials, and energy- and
and nonhierarchical cluster methods are used in the analysis
by-products-oriented technologies are needed to ease the tran-
(Hair et al. 2010). Hierarchical analysis is used to identify the
sitions to EIPs (Yang and Lay 2004). In China, many companies
cluster number. Using the agglomeration schedule for the coef-
develop core technologies through their internal capabilities,
ficient changes of individual clusters, a three-cluster solution is
even though they are located in industrial clusters (Wang et al.
deemed most appropriate. The sample Chinese officials are then
2010). China has made some progress on developing EIPs by
assigned to the three clusters. After the hierarchical analysis,
using clean technologies for materials and energy recycling as
a K-mean cluster analysis (a nonhierarchical clustering tech-
well as cleaner production (Lin et al. 2004). Unfortunately, in-
nique) of the six factors was used to make this assignment of
ternal industrial park capabilities for energy conservation and
the industrial park management officials into clusters.
pollution reduction are limited. Thus, these capabilities, and
The results in table 3 show that 207 of the total of 210
the need to develop them, is a significant barrier for developing
responses are assigned to each one of the three clusters—172
EIPs in China.

462 Journal of Industrial Ecology

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and analysis of variance results of barriers for eco-industrial parks

Means SD Means F*
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
(N = 172) (N = 26) (N = 9)

External barriers Capital support barrier 3.23 0.76 3.30 2.29 4.63 54.26
Potential investment groups have no environmental 3.13 0.97 3.20 2.19 4.44 26.92
preference.
Potential investment groups have no technologies or 3.25 0.95 3.31 2.33 4.67 29.11
measures for energy saving and pollution reduction.
Market lacks of preference for energy-saving and 3.16 0.89 3.21 2.33 3.25 31.57
pollution reduction products.
Preference for energy-saving and pollution reduction 3.21 0.88 3.27 2.41 4.44 25.41
products is unstable.
Enterprises cannot get external production technologies 3.36 0.91 3.44 2.30 4.78 42.06
for energy saving and pollution reduction.
Enterprises cannot get external materials technologies 3.26 0.88 3.34 2.19 4.78 50.18
for energy saving and pollution reduction.
Policy support barrier 3.14 0.87 3.26 1.85 4.63 76.05
National and regional energy saving and pollution 3.22 0.92 3.31 2.14 4.56 38.85
reduction promotion policies are not enough.
National and regional regulations for energy saving and 3.08 0.99 3.22 1.63 4.67 68.93
pollution reduction are imperfect.
National and regional enforcement level for energy 3.13 1.02 3.26 1.78 4.67 52.16
saving and pollution reduction is not high enough.
Informational support barrier 3.20 .89 3.30 1.98 4.78 65.10
Lack of information about international and domestic 3.18 0.92 3.27 2.04 4.78 51.79
benchmarking eco-industrial parks
Lack of ways to learn from benchmarking eco-industrial 3.21 .94 3.33 1.93 4.78 60.43
parks
Internal barriers Tangible Resources 3.13 0.84 3.21 2.05 4.81 67.80
Energy saving and pollution reduction has conflicts with 3.07 0.96 3.15 2.00 4.89 48.92
GDP/tax growth.
High cost for energy saving and pollution reduction 3.35 0.94 3.46 2.22 4.67 40.03
infrastructure
High requirement for energy saving and pollution 2.98 1.01 3.04 1.93 4.89 43.60
reduction affects investment attraction
Intangible Resources 2.97 0.82 3.08 1.72 4.59 96.03
As a result of the limited attention by national and 2.96 1.03 3.10 1.52 4.87 64.44
regional governments, zone does not do enough
evaluation on energy saving and pollution reduction
(compared to economic evaluation such as GDP).
Zone lacks data collection and management on 3.03 0.93 3.12 1.93 4.67 49.54
materials and energy flow.
Difficulty in clearly allocating responsibilities on energy 2.92 1.01 3.03 1.70 4.44 42.37
saving and pollution reduction to different bureaus in
the zone
Capabilities 3.21 0.81 3.35 1.89 4.41 85.90
Zone lacks human resources for eco-industrial park 3.14 0.94 3.28 1.78 4.33 57.17
management.
Zone lacks funds to support energy saving and pollution 3.15 1.00 3.30 1.74 4.44 54.53
reduction.
Enterprises lack capabilities on energy saving and 3.34 0.89 3.46 2.15 4.44 46.48
pollution reduction for technological development.
*p < .001.
GDP = gross domestic product.

Zhu et al., Barriers toward Promoting EIPs in China 463

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
Given that a significant portion of China’s environmental
policy is driven by both circular economy and basic ecologi-
cal modernization principles (Park et al. 2010), the importance
of technology and developing internal industrial park techno-
logical capabilities is not lost on the government. The Chi-
nese government has provided institutional support for clean
technological development (Ru et al. 2012), including a na-
tional science and technology strategy with a focus on clean
technology and funding for clean technologies research and de-
velopment (Tan 2010). Chinese governments at the national,
provincial, municipal, and industrial park levels have devel-
oped demonstration programs that provide financial support for
technological innovation on EIP development.
In addition to government effort, coordinated effort by vari-
ous organizations and stakeholders are essential for technologi-
cal development, especially for future EIP development (Jegath-
eesan et al. 2009). Technological development and diffusion is
difficult to complete by a single entity; thus, interfirm networks
and innovation within industrial parks are important for tech-
nological development (Sun and Zhou 2011).
Promoting joint technological development among enter-
prises, including those in different industrial parks, should be
strengthened. For instance, while many clean technologies have
been developed and applied at an individual company level, key
technologies that can systemically link various industrial park
organizations together through by-products exchange (IS) are
still missing. Innovative measures that can address internal ca-
pability concerns are needed for effective EIP transformation.
These include supporting technological cooperation among dif-
ferent industrial sectors, preparation of national guidelines on
promoting IS in key sectors, and developing training and bench-
marking capabilities through either centralized or decentralized
knowledge sources.
The capability internal barrier has the highest average val-
ues among the three internal factors. Besides technological con-
cerns, most industrial parks also lack both human and financial
resources to support EIP development. China has noticed the
importance of capacity building and put it in official policies,
such as No. 1359 of “Notice on Promoting the Development
of a Low Carbon Economy in National Demonstration Eco-
industrial Parks” released on 21 December 2009. However, spe-
cial financial funds and training programs are needed to educate
all stakeholders in the industrial parks, building knowledge,
and human resource capabilities. Currently, capacity building
projects focus on officials in charge of environmental protec-
tion and energy saving, as well as engineers in charge of similar
issues in key tenant companies.
EIP development requires integrated effort by many stake-
holders. For instance, it is necessary for bankers to understand
the significance of EIP development so that they can formulate
appropriate investment policies to facilitate IS. Other govern-
ment officials and even local residents also need to be knowl-
edgeable of EIPs and the EIP development process so that they
can support, or at the minimum not serve as barriers to, EIP de-
velopment. One example of another government department
requiring knowledge is tax bureau officials. These officials may
464 Journal of Industrial Ecology
be asked to consider the establishment of pollution tax so that
such money can be used to subsidize the related IS practices.
Government officials within the local propaganda and educa-
tion center can stipulate appropriate training programs to fur-
ther improve local community awareness on EIP development.
These stakeholder information and knowledge capacity build-
ing efforts are needed so that financial, human, and community
support can be nurtured and grown.
Innovation diffusion or a learning system is useful for capa-
bility building. Unfortunately, similar to EIP development in
Korea (Park and Won 2007), Chinese EIPs lack information
that can be used for multiple development and improvement
purposes, including benchmarking parks. Our analytical results
show that specific clusters within the industrial parks experience
lower barriers when seeking to promote EIP development. The
situations that cause these EIPS to effectively perceive fewer
barriers (and the assumption of going forward with EIP devel-
opment) should be investigated. The diffusion of practices that
allow them to address and reduce these barriers is something
that should be pursued. This situation will probably require a
centralized authority with the reach, resources, and power to
help in this diffusion.
One of the contextual issues that may aid or serve as an
obstacle to lowering barriers are regional differences in Chinese
economic policy, which has been confirmed to affect innovation
capacity of companies in industrial clusters (Lai et al. 2005). For
example, Eastern China has been found to have the majority of
environmental patents (Sun et al. 2008) and thus may be more
easily accessible, geographically and psychologically, to organi-
zations in those regions. It is important to establish a learning
diffusion mechanism to promote experiences for benchmarking
EIPs. Standardization and a common platform with comprehen-
sive information on EIPs, such as related technologies, in the
progress of EIP development is an example avenue that can be
established for communication and knowledge diffusion among
all industrial parks.
Discussions and Implications of Cluster Analysis
Three clusters of officials exist in terms of perception of ex-
ternal and internal barriers for EIP development. All factors
and items are significantly different among these three clusters.
Most officials in cluster 1 have a standard perception of barriers,
whereas a few officials in cluster 2 are less stressed in terms of EIP
barriers perceived. Nine officials, most from less-developed re-
gions, are highly stressed with respect to EIP barriers perceived.
China has developed regulations and policies to promote
EIP development. However, these regulations and policies are
generally voluntary (Zhu et al. 2011). In the short term, more
financial resources are needed to support EIP development, and
in the longer term, mandatory policies with fines and penalties
are required. Voluntary measures are relatively weak policy in-
struments, especially without financial incentives to stimulate
EIP development. Yet, in recent years, the central government
has developed several EIP-related demonstration projects with
0.2 billion renminbi (approximately US$30 million) for each
approved IZ. However, achievements for EIP development are

not included in performance evaluation for officials in IZs. But,
there are substantial burdens associated with filing applications
for demonstration project approval. The strict evaluation sys-
tem preceding the application process and after the approval
of the project makes most industrial park officials hesitant to
apply for demonstration project funding.
Twenty-six (12.38%) industrial park management official
responses appear in cluster 2 and represent less-stressed individ-
uals concerning EIP development barriers. China has promoted
EIP development since 1997. Officials in some IZs, such as the
Tianjin Economic and Technological Area, have higher envi-
ronmental awareness and thus allocate more resources to EIP
development, where these IZs have continuously been involved
in national EIP-related projects (Shi et al. 2010). Thus, these
IZs can more easily address many of the barriers resulting from
greater experience and knowledge. They have become more
adept at getting external support and also effectively allocating
internal resources for EIP development.
Some industrial parks and zones find EIP development a
novel experience; they are new to these practices. With less-
ened EIP knowledge and experiences, these zones will find the
barriers overwhelming, especially locating and attracting exter-
nal support. Part of these issues may be the lack of developing
networks and connections that may be necessary to traverse
the government bureaucracy, develop support from commu-
nities, involve industrial partners, and locate and implement
appropriate technology and processes. As a result, officials feel
high external barriers. Simultaneously, many of these IZs face
pressures to economically perform, with environmental issues
that do not contribute to direct and immediate economic ben-
efits, taking a backseat. Overall, they also lack human resource
and technological expertise, while allocating few resources to
EIP development. Given these characteristics, officials in these
zones also feel (perceive) high internal barriers.
Discussions of a Mechanism on How to Overcome Barriers
in a Systemic Way
To overcome barriers of EIP development in a systemic way,
a comprehensive driving or motivation mechanism is needed.
Officials in IZs are crucial for success of EIP development, even
more important than the natural economic self-interest of the
involved companies. Thus, it is critical to motivate these offi-
cials to make efforts on EIP development.
As the first step, indicators of efforts and performance im-
provements related to EIP development by officials in the zones
should be developed. The current national EIP indicators only
focus on both economic and environmental perspectives, lack-
ing such social indicators (Geng et al. 2012). Therefore, such
evaluation-based indicators should be included in personal eval-
uation for these officials, and evaluation results should be linked
to their promotion or even demotion.
At the same time, responsibilities should be clearly allocated
to related bureaus in the zones, including the environmental
protection bureau, the planning bureau, and the financial bu-
reau. However, in many cases, they are not working together
and sometimes do not share the same insights for the long-term
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
development of an EIP project. Consequently, it is necessary
to establish a cooperation mechanism so that a concerted ef-
fort can be gained for improving their EIP efforts. For instance,
regular meeting between all the stakeholders may be one appro-
priate channel so that different voices can be shared equally.
The upper management should join such meetings so that they
can provide necessary support and stipulate right policies. Such
a mechanism can also facilitate information sharing and ex-
changes and reduce or even avoid potential conflicts among
different stakeholders.
In addition, good communications and extensive interac-
tions between different agencies and levels are essential require-
ments. In order to encourage various stakeholders to voice their
grievances about EIP development, a number of institutional
channels should be established, including direct communica-
tion to the responsible senior officials, a dedicated telephone
line and a petition unit set up by the local environmental pro-
tection board, as well as communication through the delegates
to the municipal people’s congress and the members of the
municipal people’s political consultative conference.
Finally, international collaboration efforts should be encour-
aged so that the PAA can receive both financial and technolog-
ical supports from various international agencies. Such supports
play a catalytic role to encourage both the agencies under the
PAA and tenant companies to further improve their EIP man-
agement and can facilitate the transfer of the state-of-the-art
technologies and information on EIP from different parts of the
world to the industrial park.
Conclusions
EIPs have been globally promoted since at least 1989. How-
ever, few EIPs have been developed successfully. Senior officials
in most national industrial parks in China have been famil-
iarized with the EIP concept, but have differing experiences
in both external and internal barriers for successfully imple-
menting EIPs. Most senior officials highlighted technology and
capacity building barriers as key issues facing successful EIP im-
plementation. Few senior officials from leading industrial parks
overcome all barriers, but their experiences on how they over-
come some of the barriers can be valuable to other industrial
parks. The mechanisms to acquire and build knowledge on the
EIP implementation barriers and how they can be overcome are
not well developed and disseminated to other industrial parks.
Under such a circumstance, the Chinese government has
started to realize the importance of both technology innova-
tion and capacity building for EIP development not only at the
enterprise level, but, more important, at the IZ level. These is-
sues are highlighted in official government documents. Chinese
governments have sought to provide financial support for tech-
nological innovation on energy saving and pollution reduction;
however, how to encourage joint technological development
or cooperation among enterprises and industrial parks still re-
quires further investigation by government officials and policy
researchers to determine the most effective approaches.
Zhu et al., Barriers toward Promoting EIPs in China 465
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
To support the basic ecological modernization policy
through knowledge acquisition, capacity building, and technol-
ogy identification and development, the Chinese government
has encouraged and sent officials abroad and invited interna-
tional experts to share their expertise and experiences in China.
Training programs targeting EIP development have also been
developed and implemented for industrial park management.
However, EIP development is a comprehensive effort and needs
support from all stakeholders. Thus, capacity building programs
should cover not only officials, and key managers from tenant
companies, but also the public and investment organizations.
A learning system with a common platform would be helpful
for information sharing and communication among industrial
parks.
Given this emergent and evolving socioeconomic environ-
ment in China, this study fills a research gap by investigating
EIP barriers through a broad-based empirical survey and anal-
ysis. Our study also extends application of RDT and the RBV
from an organizational level to industrial-park–level analyses.
Our results provide implications for formulating more-effective
governmental policies to promote EIP development, especially
on technology innovation and capacity building. These policy
implications provide innovative insights not only for China, but
also other EIPs in both developed and developing countries.
Based on this study, there are several directions for future
research. First, we identify characteristics of less-stressed indus-
trial parks (and officials), though less than 5% overcome both
external and internal barriers for EIP development. In-depth
case studies can help to better understand successful stories in
these zones, which can also be useful references for other indus-
trial parks to learn from these leading industries as they seek to
make a business case for evolving to EIPs to their management
groups. Second, even responses from the same industry may be
different. A further examination of how similar or different the
questionnaires that were returned by the same industrial parks
can reveal more-interesting research findings. Moreover, some
of the industrial parks participating in the survey have been
pursuing EIP development, whereas others have not done so. It
will be revealing to compare and contrast the perspectives of the
managers of these two types of industrial parks toward barriers
to EIP development. Another research direction is about mech-
anism design and construction. We identify the importance of
cooperation for technological development among enterprises
and industrial parks. How to promote such cooperation and
communication needs further studies. The third direction is
related to capacity building. We suggest that capacity build-
ing should include more stakeholders, such as the public and
investment organizations. What are roles and effects of all stake-
holders? How to motivate all stakeholders to be involved? All
these questions deserve future investigation.
Acknowledgments
Prof. Zhu is supported by grants from the National Sci-
ence Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars (71025002) and
466 Journal of Industrial Ecology
the Major Program of the National Social Science Fund of
China (13&ZD147). Prof. Geng is supported by grants from
the National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Schol-
ars (71325006), the National Natural Science Foundation of
China Projects (71033004 and 71311140172), the Chinese
Academy of Sciences (2008–318), and the Ministry of Science
and Technology (2011BAJ06B01). Prof. Lai is supported by the
Research Grants Council of Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region, China (GRF 5455/11).
Note
1. This factor would include market and financial investment revenue,
financial capital, and equipment and technological capital.
References
Adamides, E. D. and Y. Mouzakitis. 2009. Industrial ecosystems as
technological niches. Journal of Cleaner Production 17(2): 172–
180.
Chiu, A. S. F. and Y. Geng. 2004. On the industrial ecology potential
in Asian developing countries. Journal of Cleaner Production 12(8–
10): 1037–1045.
Geng, Y. and R. Cote. 2004. Applying industrial ecology in rapidly
industrializing Asian countries. International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology 11(1): 69–85.
Geng, Y. and H. X. Zhao. 2009. Industrial park management in the
Chinese environment. Journal of Cleaner Production 17(14): 1289–
1294.
Geng, Y., P. Zhang, R. P. Cote, and T. Fujita. 2009. Assessment of
the national eco-industrial park standard for promoting industrial
symbiosis in China. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13(1): 15–26.
Geng, Y., J. Fu, J. Sarkis, and B. Xue. 2012. Towards a national circular
economy indicator system in China: An evaluation and critical
analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 23(1): 216–224.
Hair, J., R. Anderson, R. Tatham, and W. Black. 2010. Multivariate
data analysis. 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Harris, P. G. 2006. Environmental perspectives and behaviors in China:
Synopsis and bibliography. Environment and Behavior 38(1): 5–21.
Hauschild, S. and D. Z. Knyphausen-Aufsess. 2013. The resource-based
view of diversification success: Conceptual issues, methodological
flaws, and future directions. Review of Managerial Science 7(3):
327–363.
Heeres, R. R., W. J. V. Vermeulen, and F. B. de Walle. 2004. Eco-
industrial park initiatives in the USA and the Netherlands: First
lessons. Journal of Cleaner Production 12(8–10): 985–995.
Hillman, A. J., M. C. Withers, and B. J. Collins. 2009. Resource de-
pendence theory: A review. Journal of Management 35(6): 1404–
1427.
Jegatheesan, V., J. L. Liow, L. Shu, S. H. Kim, and C. Visvanathan.
2009. The need for global coordination in sustainable develop-
ment. Journal of Cleaner Production 17(7): 637–643.
Kim, H. 2007. Building an eco-industrial park as a public project
in South Korea. The stakeholders’ understanding of and in-
volvement in the project. Sustainable Development 15(6): 357–
369.
Kirschner, E. 1995. Eco-industrial parks find growing acceptance.
Chemical & Engineering News 73(8): 15–15.

Kraaijenbrink, J., J. C. Spender, and A. J. Groen. 2010. The resource-
based view: A review and assessment of its critiques. Journal of
Management 36(1): 349–372.
Lai, H. C., Y. C. Chiu, and H. D. Leu. 2005. Innovation capacity com-
parison of China’s information technology industrial clusters: The
case of Shanghai, Kunshan, Shenzhen and Dongguan. Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management 17(3): 293–315.
Lambert, A. J. D. and F. A. Boons. 2002. Eco-industrial parks: Stim-
ulating sustainable development in mixed industrial parks. Tech-
novation 22(8): 471–484.
Lim, S. R. and J. M. Park. 2010. Interfactory and intrafactory water net-
work system to remodel a conventional industrial park to a green
eco-industrial park. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
49(3): 1351–1358.
Lin, Y. J., Z. Zhang, F. Wu, and N. S. Deng. 2004. Development
of ecological industrial parks in China. Fresenius Environmental
Bulletin 13(7): 600–606.
Lowitt, P. C. 2008. Devens redevelopment—The emergence of a suc-
cessful eco-industrial park in the United States. Journal of Indus-
trial Ecology 12(4): 497–500.
Matus, K. J. M., X. Xiao, and J. B. Zimmerman. 2012. Green chemistry
and green engineering in China: Drivers, policies and barriers to
innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production 32: 193–203.
MEP (Ministry of Environmental Protection). 2009. The existing prob-
lems and future suggestions for national eco-industrial parks in 2008.
http://kjs.mep.gov.cn/stgysfyq/xcg/200902/t20090220_134484.
htm. In Chinese and accessed on 17 April 2014.
Nunnally, J. C. and I. H. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Park, H. S. and J. Y. Won. 2007. Ulsan eco-industrial park—Challenges
and opportunities. Journal of Industrial Ecology 11(3): 11–13.
Park, J., J. Sarkis, and Z. H. Wu. 2010. Creating integrated business and
environmental value within the context of China’s circular econ-
omy and ecological modernization. Journal of Cleaner Production
18(15): 1494–1501.
Pfeffer, J. and G. R. Salancik. 1978. The external control of organizations:
A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Roberts, B. H. 2004. The application of industrial ecology principles
and planning guidelines for the development of eco-industrial
parks: An Australian case study. Journal of Cleaner Production
12(8–10): 997–1010.
Ru, P., Q. Zhi, F. Zhang, X. T. Zhong, J. Q. Li, and J. Su. 2012. Behind
the development of technology: The transition of innovation
modes in China’s wind turbine manufacturing industry. Energy
Policy 43: 58–69.
Sakr, D., L. Baas, S. El-Haggar, and D. Huisingh. 2011. Critical success
and limiting factors for eco-industrial parks: Global trends and
Egyptian context. Journal of Cleaner Production 19(11): 1158–
1169.
Shi, H., Y. Moriguichi, and J. Yang. 2003. Industrial ecology in China,
part 1: Research. Journal of Industrial Ecology 6(3–4): 7–11.
Shi, H., M. Chertow, and Y. Y. Song. 2010. Developing country ex-
perience with eco-industrial parks: A case study of the Tianjin
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
Economic-Technological Development Area in China. Journal of
Cleaner Production 18(3): 191–199.
Shi, H., J. P. Tian, and L. J. Chen. 2012. China’s quest for eco-industrial
parks, part I. Journal of Industrial Ecology 16(1): 8–10.
Su, B., A. Heshmati, Y. Geng, and X. M. Yu. 2013. A review of the
circular economy in China: Moving from rhetoric to implemen-
tation. Journal of Cleaner Production 42: 215–227.
Sun, Y. F. and Y. Zhou. 2011. Innovation and inter-firm technological
networking: Evidence from China’s information communication
technology industry. Erdkunde 65(1): 55–70.
Sun, Y. M., Y. L. Lu, T. Y. Wang, H. Ma, and G. Z. He. 2008. Pattern
of patent-based environmental technology innovation in China.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75(7): 1032–1042.
Tan, X. M. 2010. Clean technology R&D and innovation in emerging
countries—Experience from China. Energy Policy 38(6): 2916–
2926.
Tudor, T., E. Adam, and M. Bates. 2007. Drivers and limitations for the
successful development and functioning of EIPs (eco-industrial
parks): A literature review. Ecological Economics 61(2–3): 199–
207.
Wang, C. C., G. C. S. Lin, and G. C. Li. 2010. Industrial clustering
and technological innovation in China: New evidence from the
ICT industry in Shenzhen. Environment and Planning A 42(8):
1987–2010.
Weele, A. V. and E. van Raaij. 2014. The future of purchasing and
supply management research: About relevance and rigor. Journal
of Supply Chain Management 50(1): 56–72.
Yang, P. P. J. and O. B. Lay. 2004. Applying ecosystem concepts to the
planning of industrial areas: A case study of Singapore’s Jurong
Island. Journal of Cleaner Production 12(8–10): 1011–1023.
Zhang, L., Z. W. Yuan, J. Bi, B. Zhang, and B. B. Liu. 2010. Eco-
industrial parks: National pilot practices in China. Journal of
Cleaner Production 18(5): 504–509.
Zhu, Q. H., E. A. Lowe, Y. A. Wei, and D. Barnes. 2007. Industrial
symbiosis in China—A case study of the Guitang Group. Journal
of Industrial Ecology 11(1): 31–42.
Zhu, Q. H., Y. Geng, J. Sarkis, and K. H. Lai. 2011. Evaluating green
supply chain management among Chinese manufacturers from
the ecological modernization perspective. Transportation Research
Part E-Logistics and Transportation Review 47(6): 808–821.
About the Authors
Qinghua Zhu is a professor in the School of Business Man-
agement at Dalian University of Technology in Dalian, Liaon-
ing Province, China. Yong Geng is a professor at the Institute
of Applied Ecology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in
Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China. Joseph Sarkis is a pro-
fessor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Worcester, MA,
USA. Kee-hung Lai is an associate professor in the Department
of Logistics and Maritime Studies at the Hong Kong Polytech-
nic University in Hong Kong, China.
Zhu et al., Barriers toward Promoting EIPs in China 467