Keywords
agglomerationeconomieseco-industrialparksindustrialecosystemsKalundborgrecycling
urbanizationeconomies
Addresscorrespondenceto:PierreDesrochers
MontrealEconomicInstitute6418St-Hubert,2ndfloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2S2M2desrocp@yahoo.com
᭧MassachusettsCopyright2002Institutebythe
ofTechnologyandYaleUniversityVolume5,Number4
http://mitpress.mit.edu/JIECitiesandIndustrialSymbiosis
SomeHistoricalPerspectivesandPolicyImplications
PierreDesrochers
Summary
Theexchangeofwastes,by-products,andenergyamongcloselysituatedfirmsintheDanishcityofKalundborghasbecometheimpetustoandmaintemplateforthemovementtoplaneco-industrialparks.Inrecentyears,however,similarby-productex-changepatternshavebeenobservedinotherregionsofEuropeandNorthAmerica.Evidencealsoindicatesthatcitieshavehis-toricallyplayedanimportantroleinfacilitatingthecreationofrecyclinglinkagesbetweendifferentindustries.IfKalundborgandothernewlydocumentedcasesoflocalizedinterfirmrecyclinglinkagesarebutcontemporarymanifestationsofmucholderpro-cesses,thenwhatarethepolicyimplicationsforcurrentattemptstoplaneco-industrialparks?
Thisarticleexploresthisissuebylookingattheeconomicincentivesthathavealwaysledtotheformationofcitiesandin-terfirmrecyclinglinkagesatboththelocalandinterregionallevels.AcritiqueofcurrentinterpretationsandpolicyprescriptionsbasedontheKalundborgcaseisthenoffered.Iarguethatcurrentattemptstofosterthedevelopmentofeco-industrialparksandeco-industrialnetworksaretoonarrowintheirgeographicalscope,thatpublicplanningisunlikelytoprovemoreefficientthanprivateinitiatives,andthatperhapsthemostimportantlessontobelearnedfromKalundborgisthevalueofaflexibleregulatoryframework.
JournalofIndustrialEcology29
FORUM
Introduction
Theexchangeofwastes,by-products,anden-ergyamongcloselysituatedfirmsintheDanishcityofKalundborghasdrawnmuchinterestonthepartofenvironmentalresearchers,especiallyindustrialecologistswhohavelabeleditacaseof“industrialsymbiosis.”1AccordingtoChertow(2000,314)theexpression“symbiosis”inthiscontext“buildsonthenotionofbiologicalsym-bioticrelationshipsinnature,inwhichatleasttwootherwiseunrelatedspeciesexchangema-terials,energy,orinformationinamutuallyben-eficialmanner—thespecifictypeofsymbiosisknownasmutualism.So,too,industrialsymbi-osisconsistsofplace-basedexchangesamongdif-ferententities.”Kalundborghassinceservedasthemaintemplatefortheplanningoflocalizedby-productlinkagesbetweenseparatedindustrialoperations,betterknownas“eco-industrialparks”(Andrews1999;Chertow2000;Schlarb2001).
Inrecentyears,however,someresearchershavedocumentedsimilarprocessesintheAus-trianprovinceofStyria,theRuhrregionofGer-many,theJyva¨skyla¨regionofFinland,andthepetrochemicalcomplexesofLosAngeles,Hous-ton,andSarnia(Canada).InasimilarfashiontotheKalundborgrecyclinglinkages,thesecaseswerethespontaneousresultsofprivateentrepre-neurialactionsthatwereprimarilytriggeredbycostcalculations.Ineachoftheseregions,themostcommonargumentgivenforsupplyingwasteasarawmaterialtootherindustriesistheadditionalrevenueearnedasaresultofthistransactionand/oravoidanceofwastedisposalcostsortaxes.Atthesametime,thesubstitutionofprimarymaterialsbyrecycledwastehasre-sultedinareductionofcostsfortheacceptingcompanies(Loweetal.1996;EhrenfeldandGert-ler1997;SchwarzandSteininger1997;PeckandAssociates1998;Korhonenetal.1999;Chertow2000).Astheseeconomicincentiveshaveex-istedforalongtime,oneofthemaincontentionsofthisarticleisthatthegeographicalconcen-trationofeconomicactivitieshasoftenfosteredthekindofresourcerecoverylinkagesthathavebeenobservedinKalundborg.Furthermore,Iar-guethatcurrentattemptstoplaneco-industrial
30JournalofIndustrialEcology
parksresttosomeextentonamisreadingoftheKalundborgexperience.
ThefirstsectionofthisarticledescribesthecommonfeaturesofKalundborg,Styria,Jyva¨s-kyla¨,andSarnia.Insightsfromeconomicgeog-raphyandurbaneconomicsarethenprovidedalongwithhistoricalevidencetoillustratetheuniversalityoflocalizedinterindustryrecyclinglinkages.Thethirdsectionexaminestheopen-endednatureofcitiesandillustratesthatinter-firmrecyclinglinkageshaveprobablyneverbeenconfinedtoonegeographicalarea.Thelastsec-tionprovidesacritiqueofcurrentinterpretationsofKalundborgandarguesthatcurrentattemptstofosterthedevelopmentofeco-industrialparksandeco-industrialnetworksaretoonarrowintheirgeographicalscope,thatpublicplanningisunlikelytoprovemoreefficientthanprivateini-tiatives,andthatperhapsthemostimportantles-sontobelearnedfromKalundborgisthevalueofaflexibleregulatoryframework.
ContemporaryCasesof
LocalizedIndustrialSymbiosis
Theplace-basedexchangesofindustrialby-productsthatspontaneouslydevelopedoverthelastthreedecadesamongfourlargeindustrialplants,themunicipality,andafewsmallerbusi-nessesintheDanishindustrialtownofKalund-borghasdrawnmuchattentiononthepartofindustrialecologists.Tosummarize,theprimarypartnersinKalundborgareapowerstation(As-næs),apharmaceuticalplant(NovoNordisk),agypsumboardfacility(Gyproc),anoilrefinery(Statoil),andtheCityofKalundborg;theyex-changeavarietyofresidues,intheprocessturn-ingthemintovaluableinputs.Amongotherlinkages,thepowercompanysuppliesresidualsteamtotherefineryand,inexchange,receivesrefinerygasthatwasformerlyflaredaswaste.Thepowerplantburnstherefinerygastogenerateelectricityandsteam.Itsendstheexcesstoafishfarm,toadistrictheatingsystemthatserves3,500homes,andtothepharmaceuticalplant.Thepowerplantsendsflyashtoacementcom-pany,andgypsumproducedbythepowerplant’sdesulfurizationprocessgoestoagypsumwall-boardcompany.Theoilrefineryremovessulfur
FORUM
fromitsnaturalgasandsellsittoKemira,asul-furicacidmanufacturer.Thewasteexchangesaloneamounttosome2.9Mtofmaterial/yr,whereaswaterconsumptionhasbeenreducedbyacollective25%(EhrenfeldandGertler1997;Chertow2000).
Theseinterfirmrecyclinglinkagesarewidelydeemedthespontaneousresultofseveraldis-tinct,bilateraldealsbetweencompanieswhosoughttoreducewastetreatmentanddisposalcosts,togainaccesstocheapermaterialsanden-ergy,andtogenerateincomefromproductionresidues.JorgenChristensen,aspokespersonforNovoNordisk,wasexplicitonthispoint:“IwasaskedtospeakonhowyoudesignedKalundborg.Wedidn’tdesignthewholething.Itwasn’tde-signedatall.Ithappenedovertime”(quotedinLowe1995,15).HenningGrann(1997,117),aStatoilemployee,reinforcesthisview:“Thesym-biosisprojectisoriginallynottheresultofacare-fulenvironmentalplanningprocess.Itisrathertheresultofagradualdevelopmentofco-operationbetweenfourneighbouringindustriesandtheKalundborgMunicipality.”ErlingPed-ersen,thechiefexecutiveofficeroftheIndustrialDevelopmentCouncilintheKalundborgregion,concurswiththisevaluation:
TheindustrialsymbiosisinKalundborg...wasnotaplannednetwork,butase-riesofprojectsinitiallyquiteindepen-dentfromoneanother.Therewasnooriginaljointmanagement,butratherbi-lateralagreementsbetweenindependentpartners.And,mostinteresting,thenet-workdidnotevolvewithanyacademicknowledgeofscientificenvironmentalnetworktheories,butasgoodandeco-nomicalmanagementpractice.Allproj-ectsrequiredinvestmentsandresultedinrevenuesorsavingsforthepartiesin-volved.(Pedersen1999,98)
EhrenfeldandGertler(1997,69)similarlyar-guethat“Thesymbiosesevolvedgradually...andwithoutagranddesignoverthepasttwenty-fiveyears,asthefirmssoughttomakeeconomicuseoftheirby-products,”buttheyalsoaddthatanotherfactorwastheattempt“tominimizethecostofcompliancewithnew,ever-stricterenvi-
ronmentalregulations,”apointthathasbeenmentionedbyothercommentators(Parto2000).Otherresearchersclaimtohavediscoveredsimilarindustrialsymbiosesin,amongotherplaces,Austria,Germany,Finland,andvariousAmericanandEuropeanpetrochemicalcom-plexes.
AlreadyfamiliarwiththeKalundborgcase,SchwarzandSteininger(1997)conductedade-tailedsurveyofwasterecyclinglinkagesintheAustrianprovinceofStyria,amorediversifiedregionaleconomy.Indoingso,theresearchersdocumentedamorecomplexanddynamicinter-industryrecyclingstructurethanintheDanishcity.Theyobserved,“numerouswastesthatcan-notbeutilizedinoneindustryareeconomicallyrecyclableforcompaniesthroughthecoordina-tionofinter-industrysolutions”;thisisbecauseanumberofcompanieseitheroffervarioustypesofwasteorareable“toacceptmanifoldwastesbasedondivergentproductionprogramsandpro-cedures”(SchwarzandSteininger1997,50).Specifically,theauthorsfoundthefollowing:In1992,thefollowingaggregatedamountswererecycled:34,000tonsofpowerplantgypsum,Ͼ200,000tonsofsteelmillslag,ϳ85,000tonsofblastfur-naceslag,28,300tonsofsawdust(fineground),15,600tonsofsawdustfromun-coatedwood,100,820tonsofrecyclablepaperandboard,445,000tonsofresidualwood,28,000tonsofbark,310tonsofwastetextiles,650tonsofshives,5,500tonsofusedtiresandtirechips,4,500tonsofoilcoke,5,400tonsofslaughterhouseandmeatwaste,45,000tonsofspentmalt,3,100tonsoffodderyear,350tonsofrapeseedcake,130,000tonsofnonalloyironscrap.Also,districtheat-ing,flyash,usedoil,halogen-freesol-vents,whey,plastics,andgrapecakeweredistributedthroughthenetwork.
(SchwarzandSteininger1995quotedbyChertow2000,318)
TheauthorswritethatStyriaandKalundborgdoexhibitsomesimilarities,mostnotablythateachdevelopedaroundoneormorefocalenter-prises,withmostfocalenterprisesfunctioningas
Desrochers,CitiesandIndustrialSymbiosis31
FORUM
wasteacceptors.Furthermore,companiesinbothsystemsdevelopedwasterelationsbasedonin-dividualbusinessinterests.Styria,however,doesexhibitalargerproportionofshort-termorin-directrelationshipsbetweencompanies,anditsparticipants,unlikethoseinKalundborg,werenotcollectivelyawareofthecomprehensivenessoftheregionalflowsofby-products.Thesefind-ingstriggeredananalysisintheRuhrregionofGermanythatresultedinqualitativelysimilarre-sults.Astheauthorsconclude,
Thus,afirstconclusionofboththesecasestudiesisthatrecyclingstructuressuchasthosediscoveredinKalundborgin1989havedevelopedinvariousplaces.Analysisrevealedthatitiseconomicforcesthathavedriventhecreationofrecyclingstructuresandhavegivenrisetospecialformsoforganization.(SchwarzandSteininger1997,50)
SimilarclaimshavemorerecentlybeenmadeabouttheFinnishcityofJyva¨skyla¨,acommunitywhoseindustrialcoreismadeupmostlyofex-tractiveandlightindustries.Beginninginthe1960s,someindustrialandforestrywasteandwasteenergyflowswereconvertedintovaluableinputsbyotherfirmsintheregion.Today,forexample,theindustrialsteamgeneratedbyaRauhalahtipowerplantisusedbyaKangaspapermill.Thepapermill,inturn,providesthelocalgreenhouseenvironmentaleducationcenterwithheatenergythroughreturninghotwater.Asuburbansawmillprovidesthepowerplantwithwoodleftoversandreceivesenergy(electricity)inreturn.Thesawmillalsoutilizesthewoodleft-overslocallyinaboilerplantandprovidesthehouseholdsandbuildingsintheimmediatevi-cinitywithheat.Finally,theashfromtheRau-halahtipowerplantiscurrentlybeingusedtobuildamodelforgreengardeningandgreencon-structioninalocaldemonstrationproject.AsKorhonenandcolleagues(1999,63)pointedout,therewasno“designfromscratch”efforttocre-ateaneco-industrialparkinJyva¨skyla¨.Rather,thisindustrialecosystemevolvedaroundtheex-istingeconomicandenergysupplysystemstruc-turesandemergedbecausetheuseofwastesprovedprofitable:“Thesystemevolvedgradually,32JournalofIndustrialEcology
startinginthe1960s....Economicreasonsformedthebasisonwhichthesystemwasgrad-uallyestablished.Environmentalpressurewasnotaspecificcauseforthedevelopmentofthesystem”(Korhonenetal.1999,63).Theauthorsnonethelessaddthatcurrentconcernsaboutairqualityandtheanticipatedtighteningofemis-sionstandardsmightprovideadditionalincen-tivesforfurtherdevelopmentofsymbioticprac-tices.
Similarpatternshavelongbeenobservedinpetrochemicalcomplexes(O’Rourkeetal.1996).AsEhrenfeldandGertler(1997,71)pointedout:“Theavailabilityofaby-productstreamcanbeamajorfactorinsiteselection....Theinherentflexibilityofpetrochemicalpro-cessestoacceptabroadrangeoffeedstocksisanimportantfactorleadingtowidespreadover-the-fencearrangements.”OnecaserecentlystudiedinmuchdetailisSarnia,along-establishedoil-refiningcityintheCanadianprovinceofOn-tario.Itwasfoundthat,historically,companiesintheareahavebeeneffectivein“forgingpart-nershipstoconserveresourcesandcascadepro-cessresiduals”;additionally,thesecompaniesde-voted“considerableefforttoidentifyinganddevelopingnewopportunities”(VentaandNis-bet1997,5).Asaresult,projectsthatdevelopedthroughthecompanies’voluntaryactionhavesuccessfullyreducedenergyconsumptionandre-latedemissionsandhavefoundusesformaterialsthatotherwisemighthavegonetolandfills.An-otherimportantfindingisthattechnologyhasneverbeenarealimpedimenttousingpollutionpreventionandrecyclingstrategies,butthatin-stitutional/regulatorybarriershavebeen,mostlyinthecaseofby-productexportstotheUnitedStates.
Tosummarize,inrecentdecadeslocalizedin-terindustryrecyclinglinkagesspontaneouslyde-velopedinseveralEuropeanandAmericancitiesprimarilybecausetheymadegoodbusinesssenseandonlysecondarilybecausetheyproduceden-vironmentallypositiveeffects.Ineachcase,cre-ativeindividualsexaminedthepotentialvalueofindustryby-productsandeventuallyfoundprof-itableusesforthem,sometimesaftermuchre-searchanddevelopmentaleffort.Asillustratednext,itcanbearguedthatcitiesandreasonably
FORUM
developedregionaleconomieshavefrequentlyexhibitedsimilarresourcerecoverypatternsinthepast.
CitiesandIndustrialSymbiosis:SomeTheoreticalandHistoricalPerspectives
Entrepreneurialactionsthroughwhichtheby-productsofoneindustrybecomethevaluableinputsofanotherwereimportantinthepastforreasonssimilartothosethathavebeenidentifiedinrecentyears(Desrochers2000a).Asdemon-stratedhere,manyauthorshavestressedtheim-portanceofthegeographicalproximityofdiffer-entindustriesforeconomicallysuccessfulindustrialresourcerecovery.Inessence,therea-sonsgivenfortheexistenceoftheselocalizedinterindustryrecyclinglinkageswerenodifferentthanthosegivenfortheexistenceofcitiesanddiversifiedregionaleconomies.Somepioneersoflocationanalysis,economicgeography,andur-baneconomicsevenwroteafewpagesonthistopic.
OntheEconomicRationaleofCitiesandDiversifiedRegionalEconomiesThegeographicalconcentrationofeconomicactivitiesisoneofthemostpervasivecharacter-isticsofallgrowingeconomies.2AstheFrenchhistorianFernandBraudel([1979]1992,479)ar-gued:“Allmajorburstsofgrowthareexpressedbyanurbanexplosion....Whereveritmaybe,atownisinseparablefromcertainrealitiesandprocesses,certainregularandrecurringfeatures.”Economicgeographers,urbaneconomists,andotherexpertsofregionaleconomicdevelopmenthavelongexplainedthespontaneouscolocationofindustrialactivitiesastheresultoftheinter-playofeconomicforcessuchasfactorcosts(la-bor,land,energy,etc.),proximitytomarketsandrawmaterials(i.e.,transportationcosts),localtaxes(ortaxincentives),regulations,infrastruc-ture,andthepreferenceoftheentrepreneur.Thepersistencethroughouthistoryofurban-izedpatternsofeconomicdevelopmentdem-onstratesthatthesavingsand/orproductivityadvantagesderivedfromthegeographicalcon-
centrationofindustriesareoftenmoreimportantthanincreasedland,housing,commuting,pol-lution,andotherurbanizationcosts.Theseposi-tiveexternalitiesareknownas“agglomerationeconomies”andareoftwotypes,thoserelatingtotheagglomerationoffirmsofthesameindustryinonearea(localizationeconomies)andthoserelatingtotheagglomerationofvariousindus-triesinonelocation(urbanizationeconomies).Inshort,localizationeconomiesareeconomiesofscalethatareexternaltoafirm,butinternaltoitsindustry.Forexample,ageographicalclus-terofrelatedfirmscantypicallyexploitecono-miesofscaleinherentintheproductionofspe-cializedintermediateinputs,supportaninputsupplier,cutdownontransportationcosts,andfacilitateface-to-facecontactbetweenindivid-uals.Theconcentratedlabormarketinaclusterofsimilarbusinessesalsomakesiteasierforfirmstofillvacanciesandforspecializedworkerstofindamarketfortheirparticularskill.Urbani-zationeconomies,ontheotherhand,occurwhenafirmbenefitsfromthecloseproximityoffirmswhosemainlinesofbusinessareseeminglyunrelatedtoitsown.Firmsindiversifiedurbanareascanthusbenefitfromconcentratedinter-mediateinputsthatarenotspecifictoanypar-ticularindustry,suchaslaw,accounting,andsoft-wareservices,alongwiththeoperationofinfrastructuressuchasportsandairports.Theconcentrationofdiversefirmscanalsofacilitatetheexchangeofideasbetweenseeminglyunre-latedindustrieswhilesimultaneouslylesseningtheregionalimpactresultingfromthedeclineofonelineofbusiness.
Whateverthelocationortime,allgrowingeconomieshavealwaysexhibitedstrongtenden-ciestowardthegeographicalconcentrationofeconomicactivities.Inowillustratethatindus-trialsymbiosisisatypeofurbanizationeconomythatwaspervasiveandwellunderstoodinthepast.
IndustrialSymbiosisasaTypeofUrbanizationEconomy
Severalnineteenth-centuryParisianwriterssuchasCharles-PierreBaudelaire,VictorHugo,
´mileZolawrotemovingtributestotheag-andE
Desrochers,CitiesandIndustrialSymbiosis33
FORUM
riculturalusesoftheurbanwasteoftheFrenchcapital(DeSilguy1989).Someeconomistssi-multaneouslyaddressedthetopicinamorean-alyticalway.TheGermanpioneeroflocationanalysis,JohannHeinrichvonThu¨nen(1780–1850),thuspointedouthowusingmanureasfertilizeronlymadeeconomicsensewithinashortdistanceofitssource,theanimalsandhu-mansinthecity,becausewhatmarginalreturncouldbegainedfromusingmanurewasquicklyeatenupbythehighcostoftransportingandspreadingit(Pelletiere2001).TheAmericaneconomistHenryCharlesCarey(1793–1879)alsowrotemuchonthetopic(Perelman1999)andmade,amongothers,thefollowingpoint:InBelgium,whichsustainsapopulationof336tothesquaremile,onetoeveryarableacreinthekingdom,which,ac-cordingtoMr.McCulloch,“producescommonlymorethandoublethequan-tityofcornrequiredfortheconsumptionofitsinhabitants;”andwhereimmensenumbersofcattlearestall-fedforthesakeoftheirmanure,theliquidexcre-mentsofasinglecowsellfortendollarsayear.ThepeopleofBelgiumareable,bymakingtheirownpopulation,animalandhuman,themostdenseofanycoun-tryintheworld,toraisebeef,mutton,pork,butter,andgrain,cheaplyenoughtoadmitoftheirexportationtoEngland,tofeedpeoplewhobelieveinoverpopu-lation.(Carey[1858]1883,275)
CareywasnonethelessforcedtoadmitthatBritishentrepreneurswerealsoquiteefficientinthisrespectwhenheobservedthatthe“manureannuallyappliedtothesoilofGreatBritain,atitsmarketprices,wasestimatedin1850at£103,369,139,asummuchexceedingtheentirevalueofitsforeigntrade.”
OtherauthorsnowlesswellknownthanvonThu¨nenandCareyalsodealtmorespecificallyandapparentlyindependentlyofeachotherwiththeimportanceofcitiestosuccessfulinterfirmrecyclinglinkages.Simmonds(1876,4)noticedthatlargefactorieswereatanadvantage“incon-sequenceofthelargerquantityofresiduesattheircommand,andwhichnecessitatespecialmachineryforworkinguporutilizing,”buthe
34
JournalofIndustrialEcology
alsoadded,“ingreatindustrialcentres,too,thewasteproductsofalargenumberofworksmaybeeasilycollected.”Inanearlyessayontheeco-nomicfactorsexplainingthelocationofindus-tries,Ross(1896,256)wroteabout“theclusterofsideindustriesthatgrowupaboutpackinges-tablishments,refineries,orgas-works,engagedinturningrefuseintobyproducts.”Devas(1901,98)explainedtheconcentrationofindustriesby,amongotherfactors,the“greatergrowthofsub-sidiaryindustries,suchnamelyassupplymateri-alsandutilizerefuse,todowhichforasinglefactorywouldnotbeworthwhile.”Talbot(1920,303)pointedoutthat,inordertobesuccessful,“co-operativeandindividualmethods[ofre-sourcerecovery]...canonlybeconductedupontherequisitescaleintheverylargestcitieswherethevolumeofmaterialtobehandledisrelativelyheavy”because“wastemustbeforthcominginasteadystreamofuniformvolumetojustifyitsex-ploitation,andthefashioningandmaintenanceofthesestreamsisthesupremedifficulty.”
Afewdecadeslater,theurbantheoristJaneJacobs(1969)arguedthatinthenot-too-distantfuturecitieswouldoperateas“waste-yieldingmines”thatwouldsupplytheneedsofnationaleconomies,butshepointedoutthat,unliketyp-icalmines,whoseresourcesmaybedepletedovertime,citieswouldbecomericherthemoreac-tivelyandlongertheywereexploited.Thisisbe-causenewveins,formerlyoverlooked,wouldbecontinuallyopened.Shealsoadded:“Thelargest,mostprosperouscitieswillbetherichest,themosteasilyworked,andthemostinexhaustiblemines.”
Moredetailedillustrationscanalsobeusedtodemonstratetheimportanceofpasturbaninter-industryrecyclinglinkages.Forexample,Sim-monds(1876,29)wrotethattheLondonPost-OfficeDirectoryof1873listedupwardof2,100“Manufacturers,orDealers,inWaste”(table1),butthatthisnumberwascertainlyfarbelowtherealtotalinpartbecauseitonlyenumeratedhouseholdersandexcludedmanymanufacturerslocatedinthesuburbs.
Onecanlookattheby-productsofbreweriesanddistilleriesforotherillustrations.Forin-stance,intheearlyhistoryofeasternAmericancities,swinewerefrequentlyraisednearliquordistilleries,wheretheywerefedonthemash(Bo-
FORUM
Table1Manufacturersand/ordealersinwaste,London,1873
Bladderandsausage-skindealersBlooddriers
Bonedealers,boilers,andcrushersChimneysweepersCoaldustmakers
Cokemakers(gasworks)
CorkbedandcorkcarpetmanufacturersCorkcutters
CottonwastemerchantsEspartomerchantsFeatherpurifiersFellmongersFeltmakersFentdealers
Flockmanufacturers
Fuel(patent)manufacturersGelatinemakersGlueandsizemakersGluepricemerchants
GlycerinemanufacturersoragentsGoldbeaters’skinmakers
Greasemanufacturersforcoaches,carts,railways,axles,etc.Guanomerchants
HumanhairmerchantsandmanufacturersHornandbonemerchants
Ivory-blackandlamp-blackmakersLintmanufacturers
ManuremerchantsandmanufacturersMarinestoredealers(rags,phials,andbottles,etc.)
MeltersandtallowchandlersMopmakers
NaphthadistillersOakummanufacturers
OilrefinersandseedcrushersOrangepeelcutters
Plasterers’hairmanufacturersRagmerchants
Rubbishcartersandroadanddustcontractors
SandandgravelmerchantsSawdustcontractorsScumboilersShipbreakers
ShoddymanufacturersSootmerchantsTanners
Tripedressers
WardrobedealersandoldclothessalesmenWastepaperdealers
Wasteivory,bone,andtortoiseshelldealersYeastmerchants
Note:DatafromSimmonds1876.
142161803184501781215161791214588321732141310765604662124552121331514426135411333751316
gart1936).AccordingtoDechesne(1945),be-ginningintheearlynineteenthcentury,mostBelgiandistilleriesrelocatedfromthecountry-sidetocitiesinordertosecuremarketsfortheirby-products.Atthesametime,mostofNewYorkCity’smilkwasproducedin260urbanstablesbycowslivingontheswilloflocaldistilleries(Miller1998).
Inhisclassicstudy“TheEconomicBasisofUrbanConcentration,”conductedintheearlytwentiethcentury,Haig(1926,191)documentedsimilarprocessesand,amongotherillustrations,explainedthenatureofNewYorkCity’scanningindustryinthefollowingway:
Thusifarticleswhichspoilquicklyaretobepreservedbydryingorcanning,theseprocessesareusuallybestperformednearthepointofextraction.NewYorkCity’scanneriesprove,uponanalysis,tobe,forthemostpart,salvageplantsdesignedtopreservethesurplussuppliesoftemporar-ilygluttedmarkets,supplieswhichwouldotherwisedecayandbewasted.Perish-abilityduringsomeintermediateprocessoffabricationtendstobindprocessesto-getheratoneplace.
Thefactthatcitiesorregionaleconomies(howeverdefined)haveprobablyalwaysexhib-itedlocalizedinterindustryrecyclinglinkagesseemshighlyplausible.AsInowargue,however,regionaleconomieshaveneverexistedinageo-graphicalvacuumandhavealwaysdependedtosomeextentoninterregionaltrade,includingthatofby-products.
OntheImportanceofInterregionalRecyclingLinkages
Kalundborg’sindustrialsymbiosisisoftende-scribedasalocalnetwork,butitisworthpoint-ingoutthatitisneitherself-sufficientnorlimitedtowhatcouldbelabeledalocaleconomy.Forexample,Statoil(sulfur)andAsnæs(flyashandclinker),bothlocatedinKalundborg,sellsomeoftheirby-productstoKemiraandtheAalborgportlandcementcompany,whoseplantsarelo-catedontheJutlandpeninsula.AlmostathirdofGyproc’ssupplyofvirgingypsumwasimported
35
Desrochers,CitiesandIndustrialSymbiosis
FORUM
fromanotherscrubberatasimilarpowerplantlocatedinsouthernGermany,whereasalesserquantitywasimportedfromSpain.Intheearly1990s,Asnæs’sfishfarmsexportedtotheFrenchmarketmostofthe200tonsoftroutandturbottheyproducedannually.3Furthermore,manyofKalundborg’splantsaresubsidiariesofforeign-ownedcorporations(forexample,StatoilisaNorwegianfirm,andGyprocisownedbyaDutchcompany)(Gertler1995;Loweetal.1996;Eh-renfeldandGertler1997).
Muchhistoricalevidenceonby-productre-coverysimilarlysuggeststhatinterregionaltradehasalwaysbeensignificant.Wastepaperisacaseinpoint.AsawriterfromTheCommercialBul-letinofBoston(quotedinSimmonds1876,6)pointedout:“Oftheseveralkindsofjunk,alargepercentageofthepaperstockofthe[American]South[was]accumulatedattheseaportsandshippedtoBoston.Thechiefpointofcollection[was]NewOrleans,whence[came]toonefirminthiscityoverthreehundredthousanddollars’worthpermonth.”4Agenerationlater,Strachan(1918,4)describedinthefollowingwaythein-ternationaltradeinwastepaperbeforeitwasin-terruptedbytheFirstWorldWar:
Theexportofwaste-paperfromGlasgow,LiverpoolandLondontoAmericaandtheContinentwasaveryextensivebusi-ness,whichdemonstratesthefactthattheforeignpaper-makerwasnotslowtoavailhimselfofsuchavaluablerawma-terialrefusedbytheBritishpaper-maker.OntheContinenttheinfluenceoftheGermanpaper-makerextendedbeyondhisowncountrytoHollandandBelgiuminthesystematicutilizationofwaste-paperonpurelyeconomicgrounds....ThedemandforpaperintheUnitedStateswassuchthattheirnaturalsourcesofsupplywereinsufficientandhadtobeekedoutbyimportedrawmaterials
amongwhichwaste-paperwasanimpor-tantitem.
Textileby-productsexhibitedsimilarpat-terns.IntheUnitedKingdom,thecityofDews-bury(Yorkshire)becametheworld’scenterforthedisposalofoldclothesandwoollenrags,whereconvergedfromalloverEuropeandNorthAmerica“allthestreamsbearingabandonedflot-36
JournalofIndustrialEcology
samandjetsamintothepreparationofwhichwoolhasentered”(Talbot1920,18).Ofcourse,largequantitiesof“ragsandothermaterialsformakingpaper”(exclusiveofwoollenrags)werealsoimportedeveryyearinGreatBritain.Forinstance,16,122tonsofsuchby-productswereimportedin1860fromthelocationslistedinta-ble2.
ThesamepatterncouldalsobeobservedinmanyBritishmanufactureswithsilkwaste,aby-productthathadtobeimportedfromregionswithmorefavorableweatherconditions.AsoneBritishcommentatorobservedinthemiddleofthenineteenthcentury:
Thecocoons,afterhavinghadalltheserviceablesilkreeledfromthem,wereformerlythrownawayasworthless,buttheyarenowshippedtoManchesterfromtheContinentinconsiderable
quantities....Theyarecardedandmadeintosilkenthread,usedforthelowerde-scriptionofsilkgoods....Ofthewasteorslavesilk,calledbythetradehere“hubsandhusks,”alargequantityisim-portedannuallyfromFrance,China,theEastIndies,Italy,&c....ThereisalargesilkmanufactoryinLeeds,whichemploys550handsinmanufacturingwastesilk.(Ure1861,651)
Cottonwastefollowedasimilarpattern.AsThornley(1912,1)wrote:
Table2Britishimportsofragsandothermaterialsformakingpaper(exclusiveofwoollenrags),1860
Averagepriceperton
Source
TonsPoundsShillingsPenceRussia2,23821189Prussia4,1162240Bremen2332150Hamburg3,02022161Holland23523100Tuscany
92420100PapalTerritories40220100Egypt
2,48312158BritishIndia48715189Australia53013130Other1,45420
2
10
Total
16,122
Source:Simmonds(1862).
FORUM
NotonlydoesGermanyimportafairamountofcottonwastefrom[England],butalsoafarlargeramountfromtheUnitedStates.ItisnomoreconvenienttoblendthewastesfromAmerica,withthosefromEgyptianandSeaIslandscot-tonthanitistomixthesewidelydiffer-entcottonsinordinarycottonspinning,andtheGermanimportsofcottonwastefromAmericacangenerallyberelieduponforreasonableuniformityinthisre-spect.IntheGermanmarketthereisadistinctpreferenceforimportedsoftwaste,andGermanyappearstobemorethanableandwillingtoabsorbpracti-callyallthesoftcottonwasteobtainablefromFrance,England,andAmerica.Accordingtothesameauthor,itwasstatedinaconsularreportthatin1907Germanyim-portedlintersandcottonwastefrommillstotheextentof38,000,000poundsfromtheUnitedStates,14,000,000poundsfromIndia,and1,250,000poundsfromEngland(Thornley1912,1–2).Healsoadded:“SeveralcountriesshipsomesortsofwastetoGermany,andimportotherkindstherefrom.GermanypurchasesallkindsofcottonwastefromtheUnitedStates,butinparticularsoftwastessuchassweepings,flyandstrips.Someofthisgoestomakecoarsetowel-lings,scrubbingcloths,dishrags,cheapcottonblankets,andflannelettes.”
Perhapsmorewellknowntocontemporaryanalystsistheextentoftheinterregionalandinternationaltradeinscrapironandsteel.Thegrowingimportanceoftheinterregional,butcitybased,AmericanscraptradewasnotlostontheeconomicgeographytextbookwriterBernhardOstrolenk(1941,21):
Eventhesourcesofimportantrawcom-moditiesarechanging....ThetimeisnotfardistantwhenNewYork,withitsgrowingproductionofscrapironandscrapcopperfromjunkedbuildings,ma-chinery,automobiles,etc.,willbeasim-portantasourceofrawmaterialformetalindustriesasistheMesabiRangeorAna-conda.
Intheend,acasecanbemadethatalthoughtransportationcostshavealwaysplayedarolein
determiningwhetheraby-productwasusedlo-callyornot,perhapsthemostimportantdeter-minantoftheinterregionaltradeinby-productswasthecapacityofindividualsinaparticularlo-cationtocreatethemostvalueoutofit.Thenineteenth-centuryinternationaltradeinbonesprovidessuchanillustration.Atthattime,theUnitedKingdom’sproductionofbonesoscillatedbetween70,000and80,000tonsannually.InviewoftheneedsofBritishindustryandagri-culture,however,anincreasinglylargequantityoftheseby-productshadtobeimported(64,000tonsin1857,66,509tonsin1861,and92,000tonsin1871)(Simmonds1862;BGBSKM1875).Mostboneby-productsthatwerenotusedformanurewenttocitiessuchasLondon,Bir-mingham,andSheffield,wheretheyweretrans-formedintoeverythingfromcombstoumbrellatops(Simmonds1875).Yet,atthesametime,someofthebestbonescollecteddailyfromthebutchersandslaughterhousesofLondonweresenttoFranceafterpreparationbyboiling,be-cause,aspointedoutbyoneobserver,FrenchboneworkerswerebetterabletomaximizetheirutilitythantheirBritishcounterparts:“Our[Brit-ish]workersinbonesknowhowtomakeabrushhandle,oranyotherarticle,butareunabletoutilizethechipsandwastecuttings.ThesetheFrenchmakerscanconvertintosmalltoys,or-naments,&c.,whicharesoldatalargeprofit”(BGBSKM1875,35).
AsIarguenext,thelackofhistoricalper-spectiveandappreciationoftheopen-endedna-tureofurbaneconomicdevelopmentisproblem-aticforsomepolicyrecommendationsthathavebeenderivedfromKalundborg’srecyclinglink-ages.
ACritiqueofCurrentEco-industrialParkPrescriptions
Contemporaryanalystshavederivedanum-berofpolicyprescriptionsfromKalundborg(An-drews1999;Chertow2000;Schlarb2001).Itisnotunfair,however,tostatethatmostresearch-ershaveassumedthattheDanishcitymarkedarupturewithpasteconomicpractices.Forex-ample,Chertow(2000,315)wrotethat“themodelofindustrialsymbiosiswasfirstfullyreal-izedintheeco-industrialparkatKalundborg,Denmark.”5Asaresultofthisbelief,manyau-37
Desrochers,CitiesandIndustrialSymbiosis
FORUM
thorshavesystematicallyunderestimatedtheca-pacityofprivatesectoremployeestospontane-ouslycreaterecyclinglinkages.Furthermore,itisprobablythecasethatthesymbiosismetaphorhasledtoemphasizeageographicalscopethatistoonarrow.Finally,animportantlessonfromtheDanishcase—thebenefitsofaflexibleregulatoryframework—hasinturnbeensomewhatunder-appreciated.Theseissuesarenowexaminedinmoredetail.
OnSomeDeficiencies
oftheSymbiosisMetaphor
Variousanalogiescanbedrawnbetweensomefunctionalaspectsofcitiesorregionalecono-mies,ontheonehand,andtheinternalprocessesoflivingsystems,animalorganizations,andeco-systemsontheother.Forexample,accordingtosomeecologists,thediversityofanecosystemiscentraltoitssustainabilitybecausediversityen-ablessomeredundancyinfunction,which,inturn,supportsthestabilityandresilienceofthesystem.Otherscientistsbelievethatthemoreconnectionsinexistence,themorestableandresilientanecosystemislikelytobe.Buildingonsuchinsights,urbantheoristJaneJacobs(1969,2000)haslongarguedthatthemorediversifiedacityoraregionaleconomyis,themoreeffi-cient,resilient,andlikelytodevelopitis.Morerecently,Wallneretal.(1996)andCoˆte´(2000)extendedtheseargumentstothestudyoflocal-izedrecyclingnetworksandpointedout,amongotherthings,thatthecomplexityofregionalsys-temsmustbeincreasedinordertodeveloptheminthedirectionofsustainability.
Atafundamentallevel,however,citiesandregionaleconomiesarewithoutparallelinnatureandcannotbelookedatthroughtheperspectivesofthephysiologist,theanimalspecialist,ortheecologist.Inshort,citiesaretheresultofauniquehumantrait:thepropensity,asAdamSmith([1776]1976,25)wrote,to“truck,barterandexchangeonethingforanother,”whichinturnleadstoanever-increasingdivisionoflabor.AsaresultofgenusHomo’spropensitytoex-change,citieshavealwaysbeennexusesoftrade,inwhichindividualsbelongingtovariousfirmsandnetworksinteractindifferentwaysandondifferentgeographicalscales.Forexample,withtheexceptionofclay,reeds,andwood,mostof
38
JournalofIndustrialEcology
therawmaterialsusedintheNeolithicsettle-mentofC¸atalHu¨yu¨k,locatedinwhatisnowTurkey,werenotlocallyavailable(Mellaart1967,212).Thesameistrueofcontemporary“industrialdistricts”or“technologyclusters”suchasSiliconValleyandRoute128,whereout-sidebuyersandsuppliersaretypicallydeemedmoreimportantbylocalfirmsthantheirsur-roundingneighbors(Malmberg1997).Althoughageographicalperspectiveiscertainlyadequatetoanalyzesomeeconomicprocesses,itshouldnotframethediscussionofurbaneconomiesinawaythatdownplaystheroleofinterregionaltradeandthelargerdivisionoflaborinwhichhumanactionsareembedded.6AcasecanbemadethatsomeanalystswhohaveexaminedKalundborg’srecyclinglinkagesthroughthesymbiosismetaphorhaveadoptedageographicalscalethatistoonarrowinscopeand/orthatpromoteslocallinkagesattheex-penseofinterregionaltrade.Forexample,al-thoughproponentsofthe“islandsofsustainabil-ity”approach(Wallneretal.1996,1770)recognizetheopen-endednatureofregionaleconomies,intheendtheyassumethat“arela-tivelyhighdegreeofself-sufficiencyof[a]region’sbasicneeds,isassumedtobemoresustainable”andconsequentlyadvocateincreasedregionallinkagesasawayto“crystallize”sustainabilityatthelocallevelfirstbeforechangingthelargereconomy.Otherperspectivesonindustrialsym-biosisthatborrowmorefromthe“learningre-gion”perspectivereachedsimilarpolicyprescrip-tions(Parto2000).
Yet,itisnotclearwhylocalrecyclinglinkagesshouldbepreferredtointerregionallinkages.Al-thoughitistruethathumankindaffectstheEarthmorethananyotherspeciesandthattrans-portationofgoodsandindividualsentailsexter-nalities,itcannotbedeniedthattradeultimatelyoccursbecauseofamoreefficientuseofinputsinaparticularlocation.Amoreefficientuseofscarceresourcesshouldbeseenasawaytoreducetheimpactofhumankindonecosystemsratherthanasignthat“regionslivefarbeyondtheirecologicalmeans”(Wallneretal.1996,1764).Indeed,onecouldarguethatgreaterrelianceon“self-sustaining”localizedeconomicsystemswouldleadnotonlytoasignificantreductioninthesizeofhumanpopulationanditsstandardofliving,butalsoareductionintheefficiencyin
FORUM
theuseofresources.Inviewofthefactthatthehumanpopulationisprojectedtoincreasebyatleast50%beforeitstabilizesandthatasubstan-tialportionofhumankindstilllacksbasicamen-itiessuchascleanwaterandsanitationfacilities,amovementawayfrominterregionaltradeseemsundesirable.
Ofcourse,notallindustrialecologistsdown-playtheroleofinterregionallinkages.Forexam-ple,Chertow(2000,314)pointsoutthat“thesymbiosesneednotoccurwithinthestrictbound-ariesofa‘park,’despitethepopularusageofthetermeco-industrialparktodescribeorganizationsengaginginexchanges.”Shefurtherdistinguishesfivedifferentmaterialexchangetypes:(1)throughwasteexchanges;(2)withinafacility,firm,oror-ganization;(3)amongfirmscolocatedinadefinedeco-industrialpark;(4)amonglocalfirmsthatarenotcolocated;(5)amongfirmsorganized“virtu-ally”acrossabroaderregion(Chertow2000).Anotherinterestingtreatmentofthe“opensys-temproblem”inlocalindustrialecologicalanal-ysisisthatofAndrews(1999,2001).Ashepointsout:“Yet,forneweco-industrialparks,theoddsofcomplementaryfirmsfindingonean-other,orevenbeingidentifiedbyarecruiter,arequitelow.Further,thefinancialrisksofbeingsotightlycoupledtoanotherfirmarequitehigh.Examplesofsymbiotesinnaturearerelativelyrare;onlyafew,suchascoralsandlichens,comequicklytomind....Ratherthanseekingtorep-licatetheconditionsinKalundberg[sic],itmaymakemoresensetoidentifyafewparticularlyattractivepairingsofactivitiesthat,likecoralsandlichens,canfindnichesworldwide”(An-drews1999,369).
Intheend,acasecanbemadethatmanyattemptstocreateeco-industrialparks(rangingfrom“zero-discharged”to“virtual”eco-industrialparks)haveadoptedageographicalscalethatistoonarrowinscopeandhavefailedtoconsiderthatfirms’locationalchoiceswillincludeeval-uationofmanyfactorsbesidestheproximatere-useofby-products.
CanPublicPlanningLeadtoIncreasedSymbiosis?7AlthoughKalundborgandothersimilarcasesdevelopedentirelythroughmarketforces,somecommentatorshavearguedthatpublicplannerscouldimproveonthespontaneousoutcomeofmarkettransactions.Thus,PaulHawken(1993,63)speculated:“Imaginewhatateamofdesign-erscouldcomeupwithiftheyweretostartfromscratch,locatingandspecifyingindustriesandfactoriesthathadpotentiallysynergisticandsymbioticrelationships.”Itisdoubtful,however,thatsuchpublicplanningeffortscanoutperformthedecentralizedcoordinationofthemarket-place.
Itcanfirstbepointedoutthatsomeauthorsdidadvocatethecentralplanningofindustrialwasterecovery(Chase1926),butwhenthisap-proachwastriedonalargescaleinEasternEu-rope,top-downapproachesprovedmuchlessef-ficientinthisrespectthanmarketeconomies(Gille2000).8Furthermore,proponentsoftop-downplanninggiveshortshrifttothesimilarrolehistoricallyplayedbywastebrokers(Strasser1999).Toassesswhethereco-industrialparkde-veloperscansignificantlyoutperformprivate-companyemployeesinamixedeconomy,how-ever,onemustconsidertheoutlookandincentivesfacingbothgroups.Thefirstdiffer-enceisthemannerinwhichtheyviewtheac-tivitiesofafirm.Planning-teammembersmustviewprivatefirmsasproducersofparticularwastesorusersofestablishedby-products.Private-companyemployees,ontheotherhand,arepaidtocreatethemostvaluefromgivenin-puts,nottoproducearegularsupplyofparticularby-products.Therefore,firmscanbeexpectedtotypicallyreducetheirwasteflowsortofindmoreproductiveusesfortheirwaste.Asaresult,wasteflowsinaparticularlocationaresubjecttocon-stantchanges.
Knowledgeofby-productsandofproductionprocessesandhowthisknowledgeaffectsre-sourcerecoverywillalsodifferbetweenaplan-ningteamandprivate-companyemployees.Thekindofknowledgethatplannerscanacquireisasynthesisofwhattheylearnaboutvariousby-productsfromindividualsworkingwithinfirms.Theyclassifythisinformationaccordingtobroadindustrialclassificationspecificationsandthenlookforpossiblelocalizedmatchesbyponderingthebestknownusesoftheseby-products(Kin-caidandOvercash2000).Incontrast,inapri-vatefirm,employeeswhohavetodealwithby-productstypicallylookatamuchsmallersetofwasteproducts.Insodoing,theycanexplore
39
Desrochers,CitiesandIndustrialSymbiosis
FORUM
morereusepossibilitiesandcontactalargenum-berofpotentialcustomers.Consider,forexam-ple,someobservationsKincaid(1999,93)madeinaby-productssurveyofproducerslocatedinandaroundNorthCarolina’sResearchTrianglearea:“Anothermeansofincreasingcreativethinkingaboutby-productswastofosterinterac-tionwithpeoplefromoutsideindividualfacili-ties.Whentheinterviewerssatdowntoreviewthesurveybookletwithfacilityrepresentatives,thediscussionusuallyresultedintheidentifica-tionofpromisingitemstoaddtosurveyre-sponses.Whentheinterviewerwasabletotakeatouroftheplant,yetmorereusableswereusu-allyidentified.Thecreativeprocesswasfurtherboostedbydiscussionsbetweentwoormorepo-tentialpartners.”Kincaidwentontoidentifytwoexamplesofexcitedbrainstormingthatresultedfromsuchmeetings:
Tworepresentativesfromatoolmanufac-turingcompanyvisitedanaminoacidsmanufacturingplanttodiscussapoten-tialacidspartnership.Aftertheydeter-minedthatanacidsexchangemightbefeasible,thetoolmanufacturingcompanyrepresentativesasked,“Whatalsodoyouhavethatwemightbeabletouse?”Thisqueryresultedinawalktowherewastefibreboarddrumswerestored.Thesedrumswerelinedwithplasticbags,andtheywereoriginallypackedwithpouchesofdesiccantinsidetokeepthecontentsdry.Thetoolmanufacturingrepresenta-tivethoughthiscompanymightbeabletousesomeofthedrums,andthetwomenstartedenthusiasticallybrainstorm-ingaboutwhoelsemightbeabletousetheplasticbagsanddesiccantpouches.ThetoolmanufacturersuggestedtheAdopt-A-Highwayprogramfortheplas-ticbagsandmarinasforthedesiccant.(Kincaid1999,93)
Ofcourse,thepreviousexamplesillustratethatindustrialsymbiosisplannerscanactasuse-fulintermediariesbetweenfirmsandsometimesdiscoverpotentiallinkagesthathavebeenover-lookedbymarketactors.Ontheotherhand,thepotentialpayoffsofsuch“matchings”isnotlikelytobeasgreatascouldbeexpectedwhenthese
40
JournalofIndustrialEcology
effortsarecarriedunderthebeliefthatpastin-dustrialdevelopmentwascharacterizedbyalin-earprocessofextraction,use,anddisposal.In-deed,linkagesthatwereestablishedthroughsuchchannelsinrecentyearshavesofarproventobeofrelativelysmallvalue(Baas2001;Kin-caidandOvercash2001).
Itisnonethelessworthpointingoutthateventhoughmanypastcommentatorsthoughtprof-itableinterfirmrecyclinglinkageswereaspon-taneousoutcomeofmarketeconomies,theycon-sideredthediffusionofinnovativerecoverypracticesaworthwhileenterprise.Forexample,PeterLundSimmonds(1876,iv)wrote:HavinglonggivenmuchattentiontothediffusionofpracticalinformationontheUtilizationofWasteandRefuse,andtheaccessoryproductsfrommanu-factures,byvariousessaysandlectures,whichhavebeenwidelycirculatedontheContinentandAmerica,Ihavehadthesatisfactiontofindmanyofthehintsandsuggestionsthusthrownouthaveledtotheestablishmentofgreatandprofita-bleeconomicindustries,andtotheusefulapplicationofnumerousformerlyne-glectednaturalproducts.9Asmanyauthorshaveunderstood,however,industrialby-productrecoveryisanongoingpro-cessofdiscoveryandimprovementratherthananoptimizationexercisebasedongivenpracticesatonepointintime.Perhapsthenindustrialecologistsshouldfocustheireffortsonthecol-lectionanddiffusionofinnovativepracticesre-latedtotherecoveryofindustrialby-productswhilesimultaneouslypointingoutthatindustrialpracticesshouldemulatenaturalsystemsinthewaytheyrecoverwaste.BarrierstoReuse
Manyauthorshavepointedoutthat,ontopoftraditionalpoliciesthatdiscouragedby-productrecovery(suchastransportationcostdis-criminationagainstsecondarymaterials,andsubsidiestotheprimarysectorprograms),mod-ernAmericanenvironmentalregulationsviewindustrialby-productsasanuisancetobede-stroyedratherthanaspotentiallyusefulre-
FORUM
sources.Theresultisthatmanyenvironmentalstatutestypicallydefinepollutionpreventioninawaythatexcludesrecyclingandreclamationwhileatthesametimeinstitutingpervadingbi-asesagainsttechnologicalinnovation(DaviesandMazurek1998;ELI1998).
Kalundborgprovidesaninterestinglessoninthisrespect.Asmanycommentatorshavepointedout,theflexibilityoftheDanishregu-latoryframeworkmadepossibleexchangesthatwouldhavebeenprohibitedintheUnitedStates(Gertler1995;EhrenfeldandGertler1997;Schlarb2001).Forexample,thepipingoffluegasfromStatoiltoGyprocandthesaleofliquidsulfurbyStatoiltoKemiraprobablywouldnothavebeenapprovedintheUnitedStatesbecausebothsubstanceswouldbeclassifiedas“hazardouswaste”undertheResourceConservationandRe-coveryAct,theU.S.federallawthatgovernsmanagementofhazardouswaste(Gertler1995),andthenewresourcescreatedfromtheseby-productsalsowouldhavebeentreatedashazard-ousunderthe“mixtureandderivefrom”rule.Furthermore,themovementofsulfurfromSta-toiltoKemiraandthemovementofscrubber-ashgypsumfromAsnæstoGyprocwouldhaveviolatedanotherResourceConservationandRe-coveryActrequirement,the90-day-storagerule,whichagaininalllikelihoodwouldpreventtheprofitablereuseoftheseby-products.
AlltheselinkagesweremadepossiblebecauseDanishauthoritiesapproachenvironmentalpro-tectionbyrequiringfirmstosubmitplansdetail-ingtheircontinualeffortstoreducetheirenvi-ronmentalimpact.Theflexibilityofthisapproach,coupledwiththefactthattheDanishEnvironmentMinistryencouragesattemptstofindusesforallwastestreamsonacase-by-casebasis,allowsfirms“tofocustheirenergiesonfind-ingcreativewaystobecomemoreenvironmen-tallybenigninsteadoffightingtheregulator”(Gertler1995,unpaginated).Also,thestricterenvironmentalregulationsthathavebeenthedrivingforceforsomelinkageshavebeenper-formancestandardsratherthantechnologystan-dards.10Therefore,firmscouldchoosetechnolo-giesthatrenderedtheirwastestreamsusableasfeedstockelsewhere.OneimplicationofthesefindingsintheAmericancontextisthatregula-toryreform,andmorespecificallythedevelop-
mentofaninstitutionalframeworkthatforcesfirmsto“internalizetheirexternalities”whileleavingthemthenecessaryfreedomtodevelopnewandprofitableusesforby-products,shouldbegivenhigherprioritythantheplanningoflo-calizedindustrialsymbiosis.
ReflectionsandConclusions
Thedevelopmentofindustrialrecyclinglink-agesinandaroundtheDanishcityofKalundborghasbeenwidelyhailedasabeneficialdeparturefrompastproductionpracticesthataresaidtohavebeencharacterizedbyalinearflowofex-traction,use,anddisposal.Inrecentyears,how-ever,casessimilartotheKalundborg“industrialsymbiosis”havebeendocumentedinotherpartsofEuropeandNorthAmerica.Furthermore,anindustrialhistoryquicklyrevealssimilarcasesofinterfirmrecyclinglinkagesinvarioustimesandlocations.Whethercontemporaryorhistorical,allofthesewereprimarilytheresultofentrepre-neurialactionstriggeredbycostcalculationsthatgeneratedenvironmentalbenefits.
Howunique,then,istheKalundborgindus-trialsymbiosis?Itiscertainlyunique,butonlyinthesensethateverycity,likeeveryindividualandeverysnowflake,isunique.Otherwise,thesametypesofincentives,innovativeprocesses,andenvironmentalbenefitstobefoundinKa-lundborgoccurinprincipleinmanyotherplaces,sometimesonamuchlargerandmorediversifiedscale.Perhaps,though,Kalundborgissomewhatdifferentinthattherecoveredmassmovedinthissystemismadeupmostlyofproducts—suchasbiosludge,flaregas,sulfuricacid,andsteam—thataredifficultandcostlytotransportoutsideofashortradiusfromtheirpointofproduction.Inthissense,theKalundborgindustrialsymbiosisresemblesmorecloselythetypeoflinkagesthataretypicallyfoundinpetrochemicalcomplexesratherthaninlargecities.Also,thedegreeofawarenessofthetotalityoftheselinkagesamonglocalactorsiscertainlynowgreaterthaninmostotherplaces.Otherthanthesefactors,however,acasecanbemadethatKalundborgissimilartomanyotherinstancesofinterfirmrecyclinglink-agesresultingspontaneouslyfromentrepreneur-ialactionsaimedtocreatevalueoutofby-productsand/ortoreduceproductioncostsby
41
Desrochers,CitiesandIndustrialSymbiosis
FORUM
switchingtodifferentinputs.Itcanthereforebearguedthatthecurrentdiscussionsofindustrialsymbiosisfailtorecognizehistoricalactivityandliteratureonthetopic,andconsequentlythetra-ditionalcapacityofactorsinadecentralizedmar-keteconomyto“closetheloop”onindustrialwaste.Furthermore,althoughsomeinterfirmre-cyclinglinkageswillalwaysspontaneouslyemergeatthelocalandregionallevelinanyrea-sonablydiversifiedindustrialsetting,thesewillnevercoverthetotalityofrecyclinglinkages,norshouldtheybeforcedtodosoattheexpenseofinterregionallinkages.
Intheend,thebestwaytoreplicatetheDan-ishexperiencemightbe,ontheonehand,topromoteamorepositiveviewofindustrialby-productsandtodiffusecutting-edgeknowledgeonvariousactualandpotentialusesforindustrialwasteand,ontheother,toremovebarrierstoreuseandletrecyclinglinkagesspontaneouslyformatthelocal,regional,national,andinter-nationallevels.
Acknowledgments
Iwouldliketothankthethreerefereesandtheeditorofthisjournalforhelpfulsuggestionsandcomments.ApreviousversionofthisarticlewascompletedwhileIwasaresearchfellowatthePoliticalEconomyResearchCenter(PERC)inBozeman,Montana.IwouldliketothankPERC’sresearchassociatesandstaff,especiallyDanielBenjamin,RogerMeiners,JaneShaw,andRichardStroup.Theusualdisclaimersapply.
Notes
1.AccordingtoChertow(2000,316),theterm“in-dustrialsymbiosis”wascoinedbythepowersta-tionmanagerinKalundborg.
2.Thisdiscussionreliesonthesubdisciplinesofeco-nomicgeography,urbaneconomics,andregionalscience.See,forexample,therecenthandbookbyClarkandcolleagues(2000).
3.ItcanbepointedoutthattheDanishgovern-mentrequiredAsnæstoinitiateafish-farmingoperationasawaytoconsumeexcesssludge.Theoperationlostmoneyuntilthegovernmental-lowedsaleofthefishfarmtoanindependentop-erator,whoconverteditintoaprofitableventure.Assomeobserversnoted,fishfarming“justdidn’t
42JournalofIndustrialEcology
fit”intoAsnæs’slineofbusiness(Loweetal.1996,C12).
4.
Thisamountwouldbeworthapproximately$6milliontoday.Itmustbekeptinmind,however,thattheAmericanpopulationatthetimewasaround40million,thatis,between6and7timessmallerthanitistoday.
5.
Forsimilarcomments,seeworkbyGertler(1995),Loweandcolleagues(1996),andSchwarzandSteininger(1997),amongothers.6.
Asimilarcritiquecanbeaddressedtothe“col-lectivelearning”approachesthatdominateonebranchofeconomicgeography.Inessence,thisliteratureoncollectivelearningbuildsonthepremisethatinnovationdoesnotprimarilyderivefromindividualactionsofcombination,adapta-tion,andextension,butresultsfromembeddedprocessesthatarecollectivelyorganizedbyin-dustriesandnetworksofrelationsbetweenfirms,educationalinstitutions,andpublicauthorities.AsHansen(forthcoming,17)pointsout:“Re-gions,networks,andinformationtechnologiesarenotentitiesthatcanlearnorinnovate.Whatisrequiredaboveallarepersonswhocanrecog-nizethesignificanceofinformationandknowl-edgeandusethemtoinnovatesuccessfully.”SeetheworkofDesrochers(2001)foramoredetailedcritique.
7.Foramoredetailedexaminationofthisissue,seeworkbyDesrochers(2000b).
8.
GillearguesthatHungariancommunistswerepi-oneersintheideaofclosingthelooponindustrialby-productsandthatfollowingmarket-basedre-forms,thecurrentHungarianleadershiphasgivenupontheseideas,indicatingthatmarketswillnotworkinthisrespect.I,however,viewherevidenceasdocumentingthefailureoftop-downplannedloopclosing.
9.
ItcanalsobepointedoutthatSimmonds’sworkonwastewasconsideredhisbest-sellerbyhiscon-temporariesdespitethefactthathispopularac-countofearlyArcticexplorations(TheArcticRe-gions)wentthroughtenprintings,whilehisDictionaryofTradeProductswasstillbeingprintedafterhisdeath.
10.
Foramoredetailedexaminationofthetreatmentofindustrialby-productsbyDanishandAmeri-canauthorities,seeworkbyWallace(1995).
References
Andrews,C.J.1999.Puttingindustrialecologyinto
place:Evolvingrolesforplanners.JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation65(4):364–375.
FORUM
Andrews,C.J.2001.Overcomingtheopensystem
probleminlocalindustrialecologicalanalysis.JournalofEnvironmentalPlanningandManagement44(4):491–508.
Baas,L.2001.Developinganindustrialecosystemin
Rotterdam:Learningby...what?JournalofIn-dustrialEcology4(2):4–6.
BGBSKM(BethnalGreenBranchoftheSouthKen-singtonMuseum).1875.Descriptivecatalogueofthecollectionillustratingtheutilizationofwasteprod-ucts.London:HerMajesty’sStationeryOffice.Bogart,E.L.1936.EconomichistoryoftheAmerican
people.Secondedition.NewYork:Longmans,Green.
Braudel,F.[1979]1992.Thestructuresofeverydaylife:
Thelimitsofthepossible.Civilizationandcapitalism,15th–18thcentury,Vol.1.TranslationfromtheFrenchrevisedbySiaˆnReynolds.Berkeley:Uni-versityofCaliforniaPress.
Carey,H.C.[1858]1883.Principlesofsocialscience,
Vol.1.Philadelphia:J.B.Lippincott.
Chase,S.1926.Thetragedyofwaste.NewYork:Mac-Millan.
Chertow,M.R.2000.Industrialsymbiosis:Literature
andtaxonomy.AnnualReviewofEnergyandtheEnvironment25:313–337.
Clark,G.L.,M.P.Feldman,andM.S.Gertler,eds.
2000.TheOxfordhandbookofeconomicgeography.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Coˆte´,R.P.2000.Exploringtheanalogyfurther.Journal
ofIndustrialEcology3(2/3):11–12.
Davies,J.C.andJ.Mazurek.1998.Pollutioncontrolin
theUnitedStates:Evaluatingthesystem.Washing-ton,DC:ResourcesfortheFuture.Dechesne,L.1945.Lalocalisationdesactivite´smanufac-turie`res.Bruxelles:Lese´ditionscomptables,com-ercialesetfinancie`res.
ˆgeDeSilguy,C.1989.LasagadesorduresduMoyen-A
a`nosjours.Paris:L’instant.
Desrochers,P.2000a.Marketprocessesandtheclosing
of“industrialloops”:Ahistoricalreappraisal.JournalofIndustrialEcology4(1):29–43.
Desrochers,P.2000b.Eco-industrialparks:Thecasefor
privateplanning.TheIndependentReview5(3):345–371.
Desrochers,P.2001.Localdiversity,humancreativity,
andtechnologicalinnovation.GrowthandChange32:366–394.
Devas,C.S.1901.Politicaleconomy.Secondedition.
London:Longmans,Green.
Ehrenfeld,J.andN.Gertler.1997.Industrialecology
inpractice:TheevolutionofinterdependenceatKalundborg.JournalofIndustrialEcology1(1):67–79.ELI(EnvironmentalLawInstitute).1998.Barriersto
environmentaltechnologyinnovationanduse.Washington,DC:ELI.
Gertler,N.1995.Industrialecosystems:Developing
sustainableindustrialstructures.Master’sthesis,MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,Boston.www.sustainable.doe.gov/business/gertler2.html.AccessedJune1999.
Gille,Z.2000.Legacyofwasteorwastedlegacy?The
endofindustrialecologyinpost-socialistHun-gary.EnvironmentalPolitics9(1):203–231.
Grann,H.1997.TheindustrialsymbiosisatKalund-borg,Denmark.InTheindustrialgreengame:Im-plicationsforenvironmentaldesignandmanagement,editedbyD.J.Richards.Washington,DC:Na-tionalAcademyPress.
Haig,R.M.1926.Towardanunderstandingoftheme-tropolis,Part1:Somespeculationregardingtheeconomicbasisofurbanconcentration.QuarterlyJournalofEconomics40(1):179–208.
Hansen,N.Forthcoming.Dynamicexternalitiesand
spatialinnovationdiffusion:Implicationsforpe-ripheralregions.InternationalJournalofTechnol-ogy,Policy,andManagement.
Hawken,P.1993.Theecologyofcommerce.NewYork:
HarperBusiness.
Jacobs,J.1969.Theeconomyofcities.NewYork:Ran-domHouse.
Jacobs,J.2000.Thenatureofeconomies.NewYork:The
ModernLibrary,RandomHouse.
Kincaid,J.1999.Industrialecosystemdevelopmentproject
report.ResearchTrianglePark,NC:TriangleJCouncilofGovernment.
Kincaid,J.andM.Overcash.2001.Industrialecosys-temdevelopmentatthemetropolitanlevel.Jour-nalofIndustrialEcology5(1):117–126.
Korhonen,J.,M.Wihersaari,andI.Savolainen.1999.
Industrialecologyofaregionalenergysupplysys-tem:ThecaseofJyva¨skyla¨region,Finland.GreenerManagementInternational.TheJournalofCorporateEnvironmentalStrategyandPractice26:57–67.
Lowe,E.A.1995.Theeco-industrialpark:Abusiness
environmentforasustainablefuture.Paperpre-sentedattheDesigning,FinancingandBuildingtheIndustrialParkoftheFutureWorkshop,4–5May,SanDiego.
Lowe,E.A.,S.R.Moran,andD.B.Holmes.1996.
Fieldbookforthedevelopmentofeco-industrialparks.Finalreport.ResearchTrianglePark,NC:Re-searchTriangleInstitute.
Malmberg,A.1997.Industrialgeography:Location
andlearning.ProgressinHumanGeography21(4):573–582.
Desrochers,CitiesandIndustrialSymbiosis43
FORUM
Mellaart,J.1967.C¸atalHu¨yu¨k:AneolithictowninAn-atolia.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Miller,B.1998.Fatoftheland:NewYork’swaste.
SocialResearch65(1):75–100.
O’Rourke,D.,L.Connelly,andC.P.Koshland.1996.
Industrialecology:Acriticalreview.InternationalJournalofEnvironmentPollution6(2/3):89–112.Ostrolenk,B.1941.Economicgeography.Chicago:
RichardD.Irwin.
Parto,S.2000.Industrialecologyandregionalization
ofeconomicgovernance:Anopportunityto“lo-calize”sustainability?BusinessStrategyandtheEn-vironment9:339–350.
PeckandAssociates.1998.Proceedingsofeco-industrialnetworks:Devisingpracticaltoolsforsuccess.www.peck.ca/ein/ein.htm.AccessedJune2000.
Pedersen,E.1999.Remarks.InMetaphorsforchange:
Partnerships,toolsandcivicactionforsustainability,editedbyP.Allen,C.Bonazzi,andD.Gee.Shef-field,UK:GreenleafPublishing.
Pelletiere,D.2001.Eco-restructuringandthe“friction
ofdistance.”InSustainabilityinaction:Sectoralandregionalcasestudies,editedbyJ.Ko¨hn,J.Gowdy,andJ.vanderStraaten.Cheltenham,UK:Ed-wardElgarPublishing.
Perelman,M.1999.HenryCarey’spolitical-ecological
economics.OrganizationandEnvironment12(3):280–292.
Ross,E.A.1896.Thelocationofindustries.Quarterly
JournalofEconomics10(2):247–268.
Schlarb,M.2001.Eco-industrialdevelopment:Astrategy
forbuildingsustainablecommunities.Washington,DC:U.S.EconomicDevelopmentAdministra-tion.www.cfe.cornell.edu/wei/papers/EID_litreview.pdf.AccessedJune2001.
Schwarz,E.J.andK.W.Steininger.1995.Theindus-trialrecycling-networkenhancingregionaldevelop-ment.Researchmemorandumno.9501.Graz,Austria:DepartmentofEconomics,UniversityofGraz.
Schwarz,E.J.andK.W.Steininger.1997.Implement-ingnature’slesson:Theindustrialrecyclingnet-workenhancingregionaldevelopment.JournalofCleanerProduction5(1/2):47–56.
Simmonds,P.L.1862.Wasteproductsandundeveloped
44JournalofIndustrialEcology
substances;or,hintsforenterpriseinneglectedfields.London:RobertHardwicke.
Simmonds,P.L.1875.Animalproducts:Theirprepara-tion,commercialuses,andvalue.NewYork:Scrib-ner,Welford,andArmstrong.
Simmonds,P.L.1876.Wasteproductsandundeveloped
substances:Asynopsisofprogressmadeintheireco-nomicutilisationduringthelastquarterofacenturyathomeandabroad.Thirdedition.London:Hard-wickeandBogue.
Smith,A.[1776]1976.Aninquiryintothenatureand
causesofthewealthofnations.EditedbyR.H.CampbellandA.S.Skinner,textualeditorW.B.Todd.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Strachan,J.1918.Therecoveryandre-manufactureof
waste-paper:Apracticaltreatise.Aberdeen,UK:AlbanyPress.
Strasser,S.1999.Wasteandwant:Asocialhistoryof
trash.NewYork:HenryHolt.
Talbot,F.A.1920.Millionsfromwaste.Philadelphia:
J.B.Lippincott.
Thornley,T.1912.Cottonwaste:Itsproduction,manip-ulationanduses.London:Scott,GreenwoodandSon.
Ure,A.1861.Thephilosophyofmanufactures:Or,an
expositionofthescientific,moral,andcommercialeconomyofthefactorysystemofGreatBritain.Thirdedition.London:H.G.Bohn.
Venta,G.J.andNisbet,M.1997.Opportunitiesforin-dustrialecologicalparksinCanada:CasestudyofSarnia-Lambtonindustrialcomplex.Ottawa:Envi-ronmentCanada.
Wallace,D.1995.Environmentalpolicyandindustrial
innovation:StrategiesinEurope,theUSA,andJa-pan.London:Earthscan.
Wallner,H.P.,M.Narodoslawsky,andF.Moser.1996.
Islandsofsustainability:Abottom-upapproachtowardssustainabledevelopment.EnvironmentandPlanningA28:1763–1778.
AbouttheAuthor
PierreDesrochersistheResearchDirectorofMontrealEconomicInstitute,Montreal,Quebec,Canada.
因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容