ABSTRACT 
 
 
 
 
Title of Document: A DECISION-BASED DESIGN PROCESS 
FOR ECO-INDUSTRIAL PARKS 
  
 Time O. Aigbe, Master of Science, May 2011 
  
Directed By: Dr. Jeffrey Herrmann, Mechanical Engineering 
and Institute for Systems Research 
 
 
This thesis presents a new process for designing eco-industrial parks (i.e., 
EIPs) that identifies the decisions that need to be made during each phase.  A 
literature review about the different EIP development processes in the U.S. and 
worldwide is conducted to create a general EIP development process.  A careful 
analysis of 21 EIP development processes was conducted to illuminate the different 
routines associated with each step in these processes.  This thesis presents a revised 
EIP development process that follows the decision-based design principle of aligning 
all decisions with the involved organizations? most important objectives. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A DECISION-BASED DESIGN PROCESS FOR ECO-INDUSTRIAL PARKS  
 
 
 
By 
 
 
Time O. Aigbe 
 
 
 
 
 
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the  
University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment 
of the requirements for the degree of 
Master of Science 
2011 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advisory Committee: 
Associate Professor Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Chair 
Associate Professor Linda C. Schmidt 
Professor Reinhard K. Radermacher 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
? Copyright by 
Time O. Aigbe 
2011 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
Acknowledgements 
I would like to thank a number of people for making the completion of this 
Thesis possible.  I would like to thank my graduate advisor: Dr. Jeffrey W. Herrmann, 
for making himself available for consultation on a frequent basis, for providing 
technical support on the nature of engineering decision making and much more.  I 
would like to thank my family for encouraging me to continue on to graduate study 
and playing a much needed supporting role outside of school.  I would like to thank 
my Thesis Committee members for taking the time out of their busy schedules to read 
and review my thesis, as well as participating in my Thesis Defense.  I would like to 
thank the professors of the graduate courses I participated in for helping me build the 
knowledge base necessary to conduct research and compose this thesis.  I would like 
to thank the Sustainable South Bronx and Green Worker Cooperatives for providing 
me with the technical and non-technical information needed to produce an example 
from South Bronx?s Oak Point Eco-Industrial Park.  Lastly, I would like to thank the 
Bridge to the Doctorate Fellowship Program for providing me with funding and the 
opportunity to partake in guided, independent research of my choosing. 
 
 iii 
 
Table of Contents 
 
 
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... ii 
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... iii 
List of Tables ............................................................................................................... vi 
List of Figures ............................................................................................................ viii 
Chapter 1: Introduction: Background on Sustainability, Industrial Ecology, and Eco-
 Industrial Parks ............................................................................................................. 1 
1.1 ?Sustainability..................................................................................................... 1 
1.1.1 ? Sustainable Development.......................................................................... 1 
1.1.2 ? Triple Bottom Line ................................................................................... 6 
1.2 ? Industrial Ecology ............................................................................................ 7 
1.2.1 ? Principles and Purpose of Industrial Ecology ........................................... 7 
1.2.2 ? Eco-Industrial Development as an Application of Industrial Ecology ... 11 
1.3 ? Eco-Industrial Parks ....................................................................................... 12 
1.3.1 ? Vision and Goal of Eco-Industrial Parks: How they Ensure Sustainable 
Development ....................................................................................................... 16 
1.3.2 ? Road Blocks to Eco-Industrial Development ......................................... 18 
1.3.3 ? EIP borne Benefits to Community, Inhabitants, and Environment ........ 22 
1.4 ? Examples of EIP Development Worldwide ................................................... 27 
1.4.1 ? Kalundborg, Denmark ............................................................................. 27 
1.4.2 ? Netherlands ............................................................................................. 32 
1.4.3 ? China ....................................................................................................... 35 
1.4.4 ? Australia .................................................................................................. 42 
1.5 - Examples of EIP Development in the United States ...................................... 47 
1.5.1 ? Devens, MA ............................................................................................ 49 
1.5.2 ? Londonderry, NH .................................................................................... 54 
1.6 ? Research Questions ........................................................................................ 57 
1.7 ? Thesis Overview ............................................................................................ 57 
Chapter 2: The Eco-Industrial Park Design and Development Process ..................... 60 
2.1 ? Planning for Development Methodologies: Industrial Parks vs. EIPs ........... 61 
2.1.1 ? Planning an Industrial Park ..................................................................... 61 
2.1.2 ? Planning an Eco-Industrial Park ............................................................. 62 
2.2 ? Characteristics and Responsibilities of Decision-Makers and Stakeholders . 68 
2.2.1 ? The Government ..................................................................................... 68 
2.2.2 ? Private Investors and Development Teams............................................. 72 
2.2.3 ? The Community, Non-Governmental Community Organizations, and 
Educational Institutions ...................................................................................... 74 
2.2.4 ? EIP Inhabitants ........................................................................................ 77 
2.3 ? Important Objectives of EIP Development Projects ...................................... 82 
2.4 ? Analysis of EIP Development Processes ....................................................... 87 
Chapter 3: The General EIP Development Process .................................................. 114 
3.1 ? Phases of the GEIPDP ................................................................................. 116 
 
 iv 
 
3.1.1 - Phase 0A ? Identifying Primary Actors and Establishing the EIP 
Development Team ........................................................................................... 116 
3.1.2 - Phase 0B ? Gaining Consensus and Establishing Goals, Scope, and 
Implementation Strategy ................................................................................... 118 
3.1.3 - Phase 1 ? Locating a Suitable Site for EIP ............................................ 119 
3.1.4 - Phase 2 ? Identifying an Anchor Tenant ............................................... 122 
3.1.5 - Phase 3 ? Identifying Compatible Industrial Clusters ........................... 124 
3.1.6 - Phase 4 ? Identifying Tenant Organizations .......................................... 127 
3.1.7 - Phase 5 ? Determining Optimal Layout ................................................ 129 
3.1.8 - Determining Need for Revisions to GEIPDP ........................................ 134 
3.2 ? Development of Revised General EIP Development Process ..................... 137 
3.2.1 - Modification of Original Phase 1 (now REIPDP Phase 2) .................... 140 
3.2.2 - Omission of Original Phase 2 ................................................................ 141 
3.2.3 - Revised Phase 1 ? Developing Action Plan .......................................... 142 
3.2.4 - Revised Phase 2 ? Conducting the Site Search, Acquisition, and 
Preparation ........................................................................................................ 143 
3.2.5 ? Additional Phase: Phase 6 ? Delegation of Regulatory and Managerial 
Responsibilities ? Formation of EIP Management Board ................................ 145 
3.2.6 ? Additional Phase: Phase Omega ? Implementation and Construction . 147 
3.3 ? Validation of REIPDP against Analyzed EIP Development Processes ....... 149 
3.4 ? Determining how well the EIP Development Projects and the REIPDP 
Advance the Triple Bottom Line Objectives ........................................................ 154 
Chapter 4: Determining Decision-Based Design Methods for Phases of the Revised 
EIP Development Process ......................................................................................... 167 
4.1: The Contingency Decision-Making Framework: Classifying Decision-Making 
Problems and Determining the Appropriate Decision-Making Procedure ........... 167 
4.2: Selection of Decision-Making Procedure for each Phase in the Revised EIP 
Development Process ............................................................................................ 172 
4.2.1: Decision-Making Process of Phase 0A ................................................... 173 
4.2.2: Decision-Making Process of Phase 0B ................................................... 174 
4.2.3: Decision-Making Process of Phase 1...................................................... 175 
4.2.4: Decision-Making Process of Phase 2...................................................... 176 
4.2.5: Decision-Making Process of Phase 3...................................................... 177 
4.2.6: Decision-Making Process of Phase 4...................................................... 178 
4.2.7: Decision-Making Process of Phase 5...................................................... 179 
4.2.8: Decision-Making Process of Phase 6...................................................... 179 
4.2.9: Decision-Making Process of Phase Omega ............................................ 180 
Chapter 5: Deciding which Tenants to include in Oak Point EIP ? A Detailed 
Example of Phase 4 ................................................................................................... 182 
5.1 Assumptions .................................................................................................... 182 
5.2 - Identification Phase: Determining Decision-Makers and Stakeholders ....... 183 
5.3 - Identification Phase: Defining the Problem .................................................. 185 
5.4 - Identification Phase: Determining the Requirements ................................... 187 
5.5 - Identification Phase: Establishing the Goals ................................................ 190 
5.6 - Development Phase: Identifying the Alternatives ........................................ 191 
5.7 - Development Phase: Developing the Evaluation Criteria ............................ 194 
 
 v 
 
5.7.1 - Creating the Criteria: ............................................................................. 194 
5.7.2 ? Gathering of Data to Assess Performance of Alternatives versus Criteria:
 ........................................................................................................................... 198 
5.8 - Development Phase: Selecting a Decision-Making Tool ............................. 199 
5.9 - Selection Phase: Evaluating the Alternatives against Criteria...................... 199 
5.9.1 ? Ranking, Pair-wise Comparison, and Comparison Matrix of Criteria .. 200 
5.9.2 ? Pair-wise Comparisons, and Comparison Matrices of Alternatives ..... 203 
5.9.3 ? Determining the Total Normalized Score of Each Alternative ............. 204 
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Contributions ............................................................... 207 
6.1 ? Summary of Findings ................................................................................... 208 
6.2 - Limitations .................................................................................................... 209 
6.2.1 ? Training in Risk Analysis ..................................................................... 209 
6.2.2 ? Lack of Return on Assets Calculation .................................................. 210 
6.2.3 ? Proprietary Information Dissemination ................................................ 211 
6.3 ? Contributions................................................................................................ 212 
6.4 ? Future Work ................................................................................................. 213 
6.4.1 ?Government Agency Involvement ......................................................... 214 
6.4.2 ? More Communication of Experiences between Past and Present EIP 
Development Teams ......................................................................................... 215 
Appendices ................................................................................................................ 217 
Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 233 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 vi 
 
List of Tables 
 
Table 1: Trational Industrial Park Development vs. Eco-Industrial Park Development 
Baseline Analyses (Nolan, 2004) ................................................................................ 65 
Table 2: Responsibilities of EIP Management Board (UNEP, 1996) ......................... 80 
Table 3: 21 EIP projects studied and their locations (EIP Design Process #1 courtesy 
of: (Nolan, 2004). EIP Design Process #2 courtesy of: (Lowe, 1997).EIP Design 
Process #3 courtesy of: (Wasserman, 2001). EIP Design Process #4 courtesy of: 
(Koenig, 2005).) .......................................................................................................... 94 
Table 4: 21 studied EIP projects and the decision makers leading their development 95 
Table 5: Categorizing of EIP Development Processes with respect to Strategic 
Decision Process? Routines (Template courtesy of Mintzberg et al. (1976)) ........... 100 
Table 6: EIP design processes categorized with respect to Mintzberg et al.?s decision 
process types (i.e., type of stimuli, process type, and solution type). ....................... 105 
Table 7: Distribution of high-level fundamental objectives that are satisfied by each 
of the 21 EIP development projects studied ............................................................. 113 
Table 8: Literature about EIP Development Methods and the GEIPDP phases they 
inspired ...................................................................................................................... 115 
Table 9: Decisions Made during each Phase of the GEIPDP and their associated 
constraints. ................................................................................................................ 133 
Table 10: EIP #17 - Cape Charles Sustainable Technology Park's Decision Process 
(Kim, 2009) ............................................................................................................... 134 
Table 11: Comparison of GEIPDP to EIP #17 - Cape Charles Sustainable Technology 
Park's Decision Process ............................................................................................ 135 
Table 12: Correlation between GEIPDP and the 21 EIP development processes 
studied ....................................................................................................................... 136 
Table 13: Comparison between Phases in GEIPDP (on left) and the REIPDP (on 
right) .......................................................................................................................... 139 
Table 14: Correlation between REIPDP phases and steps in 21 EIP development 
decision processes studied ........................................................................................ 151 
Table 15: REIPDP Phases and the Decision-Objectives associated with each ........ 152 
Table 16: Attribute 1's score scale and scoring rationale .......................................... 156 
Table 17: Attribute 2's score scale and scoring rationale .......................................... 156 
Table 18: Attribute 3's score scale and scoring rationale .......................................... 156 
Table 19: Attribute 4's score scale and scoring rationale .......................................... 157 
Table 20: A means-objective chain created from the TBL's fundamental and means 
objective hierarchy (in tabular form ? adapted from EIP Process #9) ...................... 158 
Table 21: Ranking of attributes that are used to determine a Criterion 1 grade. ...... 159 
Table 22: Pairwise Comparisons and the Pairwise Comparison Matrix ................... 160 
Table 23: Random Consistency Index (RI) .............................................................. 161 
Table 24: Attribute scores received by EIP development process #9?s Phase 7 and the 
scoring justifications per attribute ............................................................................. 161 
Table 25: Performance of EIP development processes with respect to Criteria 1 & 2.
 ................................................................................................................................... 163 
 
 vii 
 
Table 26: Scatter Plots Showing EIP Development Process Grades versus 
Distribution of Phases that Advance the TBL's High-Level Fund. Objectives ........ 165 
Table 27: REIPDP Phases and Presence/Absence of Technical Knowledge and 
Problem Consensus ................................................................................................... 173 
Table 28: Requirements for prospective EIP tenants ................................................ 188 
Table 29: Goals for each prospective tenant ............................................................. 191 
Table 30: Criteria for proposed tenants .................................................................... 197 
Table 31: Tenant Alternatives' measures of effectiveness ratings ............................ 198 
Table 32: Continuation of Table 4, two least important criteria ............................... 198 
Table 33: Ranking of criteria prior to pair-wise comparison .................................... 200 
Table 34: Nine-Point Scale used for pair-wise comparison ...................................... 200 
Table 35: Pair-wise Comparison of Criteria ............................................................. 201 
Table 36: Normalized matrix generated to determine Criteria's normalized weight of 
importance................................................................................................................. 202 
Table 37: Pair-wise comparison of the alternatives with respect to env1 ................. 203 
Table 38: Comparison Matrix for alternatives on the attribute env1 ........................ 204 
Table 39: Oak Point EIP Evaluation Criteria and the resulting Consistency Ratios 
after the alternative tenants have been compared. .................................................... 204 
Table 40: Common Industry Inputs and Outputs ...................................................... 218 
Table 41: Main Features of US EIPs from Interview Survey (Gibbs and Deutz, 2005)
 ................................................................................................................................... 220 
Table 42: Categorizing of an EIP Development Process with respect to the Strategic 
Decision Process (EIP development process provided by (Nolan, 2004) and the 
Strategic Decision Process provided by (Mintzberg, 1976)) .................................... 221 
Table 41: Fundamental & Means Objective Network for the REIPDP ? Phases 0A 
and 0B ....................................................................................................................... 222 
Table 43: Fundamental & Means Objective Network for REIPDP - Phases 1 -3 .... 223 
Table 44: Fundamental & Means Objective Network for the REIPDP ? Phases 4 & 5
 ................................................................................................................................... 224 
Table 45: Fundamental & Means Objective Network for the REIPDP ? Phases 6 and 
Omega ....................................................................................................................... 225 
Table 46: Oak Point EIP, Potential Tenant Data for Incoming byproducts and 
materials .................................................................................................................... 228 
Table 47: Oak Point EIP, Potential Tenant Data for Outgoing byproducts and 
materials (including the number of jobs created) ..................................................... 229 
Table 48: Oak Point EIP, Potential Tenant Data for Outgoing byproducts and 
materials (including the number of jobs created) (Continued) ................................. 230 
 
 
 viii 
 
List of Figures 
Figure 1: Scheme of sustainable development ? three components of a typical ecology 
and four beneficial intersections (sustainability being the ultimate goal) (UCN, 2006)
 ....................................................................................................................................... 3 
Figure 2: Comparison of the Actors and Activities within Natural Ecosystems (left) 
and Industrial Ecosystems (right) (C?t? et al., 1994) ................................................... 8 
Figure 3: Scalability of Industrial Ecology with respect to known Information 
(Diwekar and Small, 2002) ......................................................................................... 10 
Figure 4: The Multi-scale depiction of Industrial Ecology (Cohen-Rosenthal and 
Musnikow, 2003) ........................................................................................................ 10 
Figure 5: Hypothetical Linkages between EIP Tenants and Anchor Facility ............. 16 
Figure 6: Summary of Benefits to each member of the Industrial Ecology (Koenig, 
2005) ........................................................................................................................... 27 
Figure 7: Kalundborg Industrial Symbiosis ................................................................ 28 
Figure 8: Kalundborg Industrial Symbiosis - Historical Tracking of symbiotic 
linkages as of 2009 (Industrial Symbiosis Institute, 2009) ......................................... 32 
Figure 9: SCIP Byproduct Exchange System Proposed by Projects. MMA = methyl 
methacrylate acid; MDI = methylene diisocyanate; TDI = toluene diisocyanate; HDI: 
hexamethylene diisocyanate. (Jiang, 2005) ................................................................ 39 
Figure 10: SCIP Byproduct Exchange on Regional Level (Jiang, 2005) ................... 39 
Figure 11: Tenant Layout at Londonderry EIP (Garron, 2009) .................................. 55 
Figure 12: TBL's high-level fundamental objectives .................................................. 85 
Figure 13: TBL's objectives that contribute to the societal bottom line ..................... 86 
Figure 14: TBL's objectives that contribute to the environmental bottom line .......... 86 
Figure 15: TBL's objectives that contribute to the economic bottom line .................. 87 
Figure 16: Structure of General Decision-Making Process (Mintzberg et al., 1976) . 89 
Figure 17: Means Objective Network (Clemen and Reilly, 2001) ........................... 108 
Figure 18: Fundamental Objectives Hierarchy (Clemen and Reilly, 2001) ............. 109 
Figure 19: Part of the Means-Objective Network for EIP #8 - Devens EIP (Steps 1 
and 2) (created on the basis of contributions from (Hollander and Lowitt, 2000)) .. 111 
Figure 20: Contingency Framework for using Decision Making Methods (Daft, 2001)
 ................................................................................................................................... 168 
Figure 21: Choice Processes in the Carnegie Model (Daft, 2001) ........................... 170 
Figure 22: Connectance Diagram for the C & D Recycling Facility ........................ 196 
Figure 23: Total Normalized Score of Each Alternative Tenant; the top four scoring 
alternatives would be heavily considered for entrance into EIP ............................... 206 
Figure 24: SCIP site plan (Lowe et al., 2005)........................................................... 219 
Figure 25: Connectance Diagram for the Plastic Product Manufacturer (PP) .......... 226 
Figure 26: Connectance Diagram for Paper Converting Operation (PC) ................. 226 
Figure 27: Connectance Diagram for Wood Salvage and Re-milling Operation (WS)
 ................................................................................................................................... 227 
Figure 28: Connectance Diagram for Glass Powder Manufacturing Facility (GP) .. 227 
Figure 29: Normalized Score of Alternative Tenants vs. Criterion Sym2 ................ 231 
Figure 30: Normalized Score of Alternative Tenants vs. Criterion Eco1 ................. 231 
 
 ix 
 
Figure 31: Normalized Score of Alternative Tenants vs. Criterion Com1 ............... 231 
Figure 32: Normalized Score of Alternative Tenants vs. Criterion Env1................. 231 
Figure 33: Normalized Score of Alternative Tenants vs. Criterion Sym1 ................ 232 
Figure 34: Normalized Score of Alternative Tenants vs. Criterion Eco2 ................. 232 
 
 
 
 1 
 
Chapter 1: Introduction: Background on Sustainability, 
Industrial Ecology, and Eco-Industrial Parks 
 
1.1 ?Sustainability 
1.1.1 ? Sustainable Development 
Current economic trends and industrial production methods focus on 
maximization of two quantities: the value added to customers and corporate profits.  
These principles have led to industrial systems that extract renewable and non-
 renewable resources for feedstock and eject the production process?s waste into 
landfills and other terminal waste disposal areas (decreasing the Earth?s carrying 
capacity).  Some industries (both within the United States and around the world) fail 
to replenish these renewable resources at a rate faster than they consume them 
(Spriggs et al., 2004).  Even though this strategy has propelled the United States into 
such a prominent economic position in the world, it fails to address how we, as 
human beings, intend to ensure that future generations will have the renewable (and 
non-renewable) resources that we enjoy today (Gertler, 1995).  To combat this 
dilemma, a new goal for industrial system developers has come into focus: 
sustainability.  Many definitions exist for the word ?sustainability,? but Reap (2004) 
provides an effective definition that encompasses the foundation and goals of 
sustainability: 
 
 
 2 
 
?Sustainability (a working definition) ? a persistent state of a coupled 
ecological and economic system that preserves biotic integrity and stability 
while simultaneously allowing human inhabitants [both current and future] ?to 
be well off.? 
 
In essence, employing sustainable principles would lead developers of 
industrial systems to design systems that require fewer resources for production 
processes and reduce the amount of waste being (1) produced and (2) diverted to 
landfills and other waste disposal sites.  Because considering the goal of sustainability 
is applicable to all countries, it is no surprise that it has caught the attention of the 
United Nations.  In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development 
(WCED) (an entity of the United Nations) met at the World Environment and 
Development Conference and defined sustainable development as (WCED, 1987): 
 
??. . . [a] development seeking to meet the need of the present generation 
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own 
needs. It aims at assuring the ongoing productivity of exploitable natural 
resources and conserving all species of fauna and flora.?? 
 
 Following this definition, a number of socio-environmental directives were 
established and adopted by the participating countries.  These directives called for the 
adoption of sustainable development principles in the form of political and 
management strategies that focus on balancing social equity, environmental integrity, 
 
 3 
 
and economic efficiency (Rosenthal et al., 2003).  A useful Venn diagram can be seen 
in Figure 1. 
 
 
Figure 1: Scheme of sustainable development ? three components of a typical ecology and four 
beneficial intersections (sustainability being the ultimate goal) (UCN, 2006) 
 
 Figure 1 demonstrates beneficial results from relationships between society, 
the economy (i.e. financial well being of stakeholders and decision-makers), and the 
environment.  When careful planning and design of industrial (and other 
consumptive) systems are implemented, viable, bearable, and equitable solutions 
create two-way positive relationships between their respective entities (i.e. overlap 
between just two global entities).  Ideally, when planning and design of industrial 
(and other) systems are executed with all three entities in full consideration, a three-
 way intersection is met, and a sustainable system is born.  While ensuring the 
feasibility of the project, industrial systems should be designed with sustainability 
being a top goal. 
 Efforts to attain sustainable development can be seen through the creation of 
the ISO14000 series in 1996 (ISO 14000 / ISO 14001 Environmental Management 
Standard) by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).  As proof of 
 
 4 
 
its popularity, by 2008, this set of standards was adopted globally by over 130,000 
organizations worldwide (Nawroka and Parker, 2008).  ISO14000 is a series of 
international standards on environmental management that provides a framework for 
the development of an environmental management system (EMS) and the supporting 
audit program.  The cornerstone standard of the 16 standard series is ISO14001.  This 
standard is a framework for companies looking to set up their own EMS so they can 
achieve their economic and environmental goals.  According to ISO, an EMS is: 
 
?. . . part of the overall management system, that includes organizational 
structure, planning activities, responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes 
and resources for developing, implementing, achieving and maintaining the 
environmental policy? 
 
 In addition, ISO14001 uses the Plan-Do-Check-Act methodology to ensure 
that economic and environmental performance is improving from year to year 
(Federal Facilities Council Report, 1999).  In theory, this series of standards seems to 
improve the sustainability of industrial system developers who choose to cooperate 
with it.  However, there are some weaknesses associated with ISO14000.  One 
conference held by the EPA in 1996, and documented in McCloskey (1996), 
illuminates a few of these problems: 
? ?It is quite unclear as to how much bad performance can slip through the 
process-oriented net of ISO 14000. Systems could be set up with poor goals 
and commitments could be disregarded. Audits could reflect this under- 
 
 5 
 
achievement (since companies are registered), but would there be any ISO 
violation? 
? ISO cannot be credible if rogue companies can misuse it. Will the currency be 
debased, particularly in developing countries? When large sums of money are 
at stake, which company member will stand firm to make sure that ISO does 
not become a refuge for poor performers? 
? Firms can become certified simply by self-declaration; they do not have to go 
through a third party registrar. How can consumers place any faith in claims 
which are not independently verified? 
? The same problem also applies to auditing. Firms are not obliged to use 
qualified third parties to audit their operations. They can audit themselves. 
How much credibility will these have? 
? Moreover, firms are not required to make the results of their audits public. 
Nor do they have to make most of their ISO required documents public. What 
kind of accountability is that? 
? In fact, there is a basic question about the legitimacy of ISO 14000 standards 
themselves since they have come out of a process which has not been open 
and inclusive. Key stakeholders were not involved at formative stages. 
Basically this was a self-regulation process run by transnational corporations 
in the first world. There is no semblance of democratic account-ability about 
it.? 
 
 
 6 
 
With all these problems inherent in the ISO 14000 series, industrial ecology must 
gain popularity in the minds of decision-makers and, following implementation, be 
effectively measured by EMS?s worldwide. 
1.1.2 ? Triple Bottom Line 
The triple bottom line can best be described as a corporate performance measurement 
standard within the context of sustainable development.  It can be thought of as a 
multi-objective optimization problem that implicitly sets the ??simultaneous pursuit 
of economic prosperity, environmental quality and social equity? as goals for every 
company (Elkington, 1998).  The metrics used to measure value for each particular 
entity are not always obvious; money flow fluctuations can divulge economic impact, 
but it is up to the company in question to determine suitable societal and 
environmental measures of effectiveness.  This can be done by looking at the physical 
effects on the environment (like waste disposal rate, or resource consumption rate); 
however, there is some difficulty in determining the boundary of the industrial system 
and its respective effluents and needed feedstock.  Life cycle analysis could be 
conducted to determine how a particular company is impacting its surroundings.  
Societal benefits and impacts can be measured by considering the stakeholders 
(people in the surrounding communities, business communities and others directly or 
indirectly affected by the industrial system in question).  An increase in tax base to 
the region, newly created high-skill level jobs, increase in traffic to complementary 
industries, re-growth of renewable resources (or revived public property), decreases 
in utilization of local landfills, and similar measures can all be considered as useful 
indicators for increasing social equity (Gertler, 1995). 
 
 7 
 
1.2 ? Industrial Ecology  
1.2.1 ? Principles and Purpose of Industrial Ecology 
Industrial ecology is the study of the flows of materials and energy in 
industrial and consumer activities, of the effects of these flows on the environment, 
and of the influences of economic, political, regulatory, and social factors on the use, 
transformation, and disposition of resources (White, 1994).  Through the comparison 
of material and energy flows, industrial entities (factories, industrial parks, industrial 
networks, etc.), consumer markets, and waste management services are modeled as 
organisms that exist in nature.  These entities possess industrial metabolisms (i.e., an 
intake of needed substances and subsequent discharge of waste substances) and inter-
 entity relationships that mimic their organic analogies.  Figure 2 illustrates the 
comparison between the players involved in a natural ecosystem and an industrial 
ecosystem. 
 
 8 
 
 
Figure 2: Comparison of the Actors and Activities within Natural Ecosystems (left) and 
Industrial Ecosystems (right) (C?t? et al., 1994) 
 
This concept was first discussed by Frosch and Gallopoulos (1989).  The 
primary goal of industrial ecology focuses on transformation from a linear, wasteful 
economy to a closed-loop system of production and consumption. In such a system 
industrial, governmental, and consumer discards would be reused, recycled, and 
remanufactured at the highest values possible (Lowe et al., 1997). 
 
 9 
 
In addition, industrial ecology is scalable.  That is, it can be applied to a single 
industrial park or an entire region of a country or state, but it ultimately relies on the 
availability of information (see Figure 3).  This information can be used in 
conjunction with material and energy balance to analyze the positive and negative 
impacts that well-defined ecological systems, or scaled-industrial unit operations, 
may have on the surrounding environment and communities (Diwekar, 2005).  Figure 
4 graphically demonstrates the different scales of industrial ecology (and eco-
 industrial development for that matter).  At the lowest level, a manufacturing firm 
(i.e., ?factory?) conducts its operations and requires input resources to transform into 
useful output products.  These inputs can be gathered from neighboring factories 
(within the eco-industrial park) or firms within the regional eco-industrial network.  
Simultaneously, the factory?s marketable output can be sold to anyone in demand, 
while the undesirable output (e.g. waste, hazardous material, excess heat generated, 
grey water, etc.) can be reprocessed and sold or given away to participants within 
industrial ecology. 
 
 10 
 
 
Figure 3: Scalability of Industrial Ecology with respect to known Information (Diwekar and 
Small, 2002) 
 
 
Figure 4: The Multi-scale depiction of Industrial Ecology (Cohen-Rosenthal and Musnikow, 
2003) 
 
 11 
 
The overarching purpose of industrial ecology is to unite the requirements of 
industrial and natural systems and determine how the industrial system can achieve 
higher efficiencies (at lower cost if possible) and lower pollution rates (e.g., closed 
loop production systems).  This is done by mimicking the natural ecology model.  For 
example, in nature, every waste is used by some other organism within the ecosystem. 
In an industrial ecology model, this means that first a business minimizes its resource 
usage; any remaining waste is used as a resource by another business within the 
system.  Waste (energy or material) is diverted from landfills and other terminating 
locations that do harm to the environment and nearby communities.  This diversion 
leads to the utilization of wastes as reusable feed-stock material (or an energy source) 
by another industrial system (Nolan, 2004).  In the end, industrial ecology is the study 
of material and energy flows with its most important application being in the realm of 
eco-industrial development.  ?The ultimate goal of industrial ecology is to reuse, 
repair, recover, remanufacture, or recycle products and byproducts on a very large 
scale (Desrochers, 2001).? 
1.2.2 ? Eco-Industrial Development as an Application of Industrial 
Ecology 
 
 Eco-industrial development is a term describing the process used to analyze, 
design, and develop an industrial ecosystem.  Eco-industrial developments apply the 
concepts of industrial ecology through implementation of industrial symbiosis.  The 
term ?symbiosis? designates relationships within nature where at least two otherwise 
unrelated species exchange materials, energy or information in a manner that results 
in synergies (i.e., benefits through a combined and complementary effort) for all 
 
 12 
 
involved parties (Veiga and Magrini, 2009).  In the context of industrial systems, an 
eco-industrial development would try to match companies that have the proven 
capability to exercise industrial symbiosis between one another.  The industrial 
symbiosis between the industrial system?s participants would be an exchange of by-
 products (from production processes), information (to find new by-product or energy 
exchanges), or energy (i.e. waste heat, steam, or heated water that is normally 
disposed of) that is not readily available.  The recycling and reuse of materials, water, 
and energy are the means by which eco-industrial development, where applied 
correctly, attempts to reach its goal of a more beneficial triple bottom line.  In the 
United States, the President?s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) began in 
June of 1993 to encourage the establishment of demonstration sites (i.e. projects 
intended to become eco-industrial parks or networks).  To make the effort more 
concrete, the National Center for Eco-Industrial Development was established as a 
research and information center at the University of Southern California, funded by 
the U.S. Department of Commerce?s Economic Development Administration, the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection 
Agency.  The council was disbanded in June, 1999 (Gibz and Deutz, 2004). 
1.3 ? Eco-Industrial Parks 
 In the literature on this topic, many authors have defined what an eco-
 industrial park (EIP) is.  However, it may be helpful to first remove any common 
misconceptions of what an EIP is supposed to be.  Lowe (2001) presents several 
characteristics of industrial parks that seem surprisingly close to elements employed 
by actual EIPs: 
 
 13 
 
?To be a real [EIP,] a development must be more than: 
? A single by-product exchange or network of exchanges; 
? A recycling business cluster; 
? A collection of environmental technology; 
? A collection of companies making ?green? products; 
? An industrial park designed around a single environmental theme (i.e., a solar 
energy driven park); 
? A park with environmentally friendly infrastructure or construction; 
? A mixed-use development (industrial, commercial, and residential).? 
 
Although Lowe (2001) presents solid examples of implementation strategies that an 
EIP may exercise, if any one characteristic is employed alone, the result is not 
necessarily an EIP.  Recall the purpose of eco-industrial development is to help the 
region in question (i.e., business community, residential community, surrounding 
environment, and park tenants) achieve the triple bottom line.  Each of these 
characteristics can contribute to portions of the triple bottom line improving.  For 
example, a collection of companies making ?green? products would benefit society 
and the environment in the long run by making environmentally friendly products that 
meet the demands of society.  However, the ?green producers? would not necessarily 
see a large economic benefit.  Like traditional industrial park arrangements, the 
economies of scope that are associated with the co-location of a collection of 
companies making ?green? products includes shared common resources (i.e., water, 
energy, some common feedstock, etc.), shared services that are complementary to 
 
 14 
 
operations (i.e., waste management services, medical services, cafeteria services, 
etc.), and shared common infrastructure (i.e., roads, parking lots, telephone lines, 
internet access, warehouses, etc.) (Cohen-Rosenthal and Musnikow, 2003).  
However, the interactions between the tenants and the surrounding community are not 
enhanced if the concept of multiple by-product exchanges (and the associated 
benefits) is not implemented to the fullest. 
Now that it is clear what an EIP is not, PCSD (1996) presents a sensible 
definition of what they are: 
 
?[An EIP is] a community of businesses that co-operate with each other and 
with the local community to efficiently share resources (information, 
materials, water, energy, infrastructure, and natural habitat), leading to 
economic gains, gains in environmental quality and equitable enhancement of 
human resources for the business and local community.? 
 
It is important to realize that this definition highlights two important principles of an 
EIP: (1) co-operation between the tenants and the local community in the form of 
sharing and (2) the utilization of the triple bottom line approach.  If either of these 
principles is not implemented in practice, then the industrial entity in question is not 
an example of eco-industrial development. 
Eco-industrial developments are typically centered on a ?theme? that takes 
full advantage of the resources available to the region in question.  This organization 
is typically deemed the ?anchor facility? (or just ?anchor?) of the EIP.  The anchor 
 
 15 
 
typically has a symbiotic linkage with a majority or all of the tenants within the EIP.  
It is important to realize that the byproducts required and produced by the anchor 
serve as attracting mechanisms that draw potential tenants into the EIP.  Additionally, 
new byproduct exchanges can develop from exchanges exclusively between the 
anchor and each tenant to exchanges between ordinary tenants?which is ideal (Lowe 
et al., 1997).  A hypothetical EIP can be seen in Figure 5 .  It demonstrates a number 
of real, potential linkages involving popular byproducts that?assuming compatible 
local regulations, industry presence, and technological capability?can be 
implemented by an anchor and the EIP tenants associated with the industrial sectors 
shown.  Within the appendix, Table 40 provides a more in-depth description of the 
more popular industrial clusters and the byproducts associated with them. 
 
 
 16 
 
Cement Mfgr
 Cluster
 ANCHOR:
 Combined Heating
 and Power
 Refinery
 Agricultural
 Products
 Mfgr Cluster
 Fly ash
 Coal
 Usable
 Water
 Bottom Ash/Boiler Slag, Sludge
 Paper Products
 Mfgr
 ClusterCausticizing
 Material (lime)
 Sorbent (cement
 kiln dust)
 Foundry
 Gypsum
 Compost and Soil Amendment
 High Energy
 Water
 Cooling &
 Waste Water
 Foundry
 Sand
 Foundry
 Slag
 Baghouse 
Dust
 Furnace & 
Ladle
 Refractory
 Foundry Sand
 Metal Product
 Mfgr Cluster Scrap Metal
 (Alloys)
 Steam
 Waste Water
 Treatment Plant
 Treatable Water from EIP inhabitants
 Additional
 Needed Water
 External Flows (inputs and outputs)
 Internal Flows
 Crude Oil, 
Water, 
Electricity
 Finished Motor 
Gasoline, 
Kerosene-Type Jet 
Fuel, Distillate Fuel 
Oil, Residual Fuel 
Oil, 
Propane/Propylene 
Metal raw materials, 
alloys, refractories, 
Water, Energy
 Ferrous and 
non-ferrous 
metal alloys, 
Water, Energy
 fly ash, foundry sand,
 Baghouse dust, 
refractories, causticizing 
residue, scrap tires, and 
mine tailings, water and 
energy
 pulp from wood & 
recycled paper (sources 
of fiber), water, energy, 
and residuals from 
Wastewater Treatment 
Plant
 Water, energy, 
organic waste, waste 
solidification
 Excess: Fly ash, 
bottom slag, bottom 
ash, flue gas 
desulferization
 Excess 
Cement 
Kiln 
Dust
 Excess 
Scrap 
metalExcess 
Scrap 
Metal
 Water, energy, 
biomass, etc.
  
Figure 5: Hypothetical Linkages between EIP Tenants and Anchor Facility 
 
1.3.1 ? Vision and Goal of Eco-Industrial Parks: How they Ensure 
Sustainable Development 
 
The vision statement of an EIP is responsible for portraying what the EIP 
decision-makers and stakeholders consider their purpose and guiding beliefs for how 
things should be done.  Through an effective vision statement, the sustainable 
development objectives can be made clear.  Advertising the vision of the EIP to 
potential tenants makes it clear what they should strive for in order to be deemed a 
benefit to the EIP (Lowe et al., 1997).  North and Giannini-Spohn (1999) list several 
exemplary vision statements that are associated with existing EIPs: 
? Physically connect businesses into a network, with a goal of zero emissions; 
 
 17 
 
? Restrict park to companies that generate no pollution or environmental 
technology firms; 
? Restrict park to companies with environmental management systems in place 
and with excellent regulatory histories; 
? Focus on park infrastructure, with energy-saving ?green? buildings, buildings 
designed for re-use, recycled or deconstructed buildings, and xeriscaping 
(landscaping for maximum water conservation). 
 
The goal of an EIP is aligned with the goal to sustainably develop a given 
region.  This means improvement of economic performance by participating 
companies, improvement of social equity (i.e., added benefit to neighboring 
community), and the minimization of environmental impacts. Design elements of 
eco-industrial parks include green design of park infrastructure and facilities (new or 
retrofitted); cleaner production; pollution prevention; energy efficiency; and 
intercompany partnering/sharing (e.g. symbiotic exchanges of materials, energy, and 
water) (Lowe, 2001).  According to Dunn (1995), EIPs should contain the following 
elements: 
 
? Industry match: in terms of inputs and outputs. 
? Size match: companies should be of comparable size in terms of their material 
exchanges. 
? This reduces the need to send materials to a party offsite, minimizing 
transaction costs and improving efficiency. 
 
 18 
 
? Close physical distance between firms: close physical distance minimizes loss 
of materials in exchange processes, reduces transportation needs and costs, 
and reduces operating costs. 
? Close proximity facilitates communication and information exchange among 
management and employees, resulting in more secure partnerships. 
1.3.2 ? Road Blocks to Eco-Industrial Development 
 Eco-Industrial Park development is a complex, multi-disciplinary project that 
one should expect would be accompanied with its own set of ?road blocks.?  These 
?road blocks? make it more difficult to establish an eco-industrial park, and their 
influence should be considered realistically through a feasibility study of the region in 
question prior to getting deeply involved (especially monetarily) with an EIP 
development project.  When considering the human component of sustainable 
development and EIP projects, the complexity arises with such a large number of 
different decision-makers and stakeholders (crossing multiple organizations; each 
with their own respective intentions).  The wide array of preferences held by decision 
makers and stakeholders can make maintaining consensus, information flow, and 
overall project organization quite challenging.  More generally, Spriggs et al. (2004) 
categorizes the spectrum of challenges into two types: technical/economic and 
organizational/commercial/political. 
 The technical/economic challenge is ?how to integrate mass and energy flows 
economically ? both locally within a processing unit and globally among many 
processing units and even companies? (Spriggs et al., 2004).  Unlike conventional 
industrial parks or business clusters, EIP designs must promote by-product exchange 
 
 19 
 
and have a cost-effective way of doing so.  The integration of intermediate material, 
product, and byproduct flows must be established between tenants and the 
surrounding community.  This integration, in addition to physical-infrastructural 
connections, must be carried out in a manner that will not scare tenants away (via 
high upfront ?move-in? costs), or impose a too-large burden on government and 
investor funding.  In other words, the EIP concept must achieve mass and energy 
balance and the symbiotic linkages must prove economically beneficial for all tenants 
involved (Spriggs et al., 2004).  Other factors adding difficulty to eco-industrial 
development include the high transaction cost associated with working with the 
community and other businesses (especially competitors), in terms of time, labor, 
transportation, labor, recovery and exchange infrastructure, communication, and 
monitoring (Pelletiere, 1999).  Since each byproduct is responsible for creating a new 
market, it will be challenging to assess the value of these byproducts in an equitable 
manner; tenants need to be compensated for the byproducts they offer other tenants 
and community members, however, these byproducts must not be more expensive 
than conventional sources of the underlying feedstock or energy source that the 
byproduct is replacing. 
 Spriggs et al. (2004) emphasizes the organizational/commercial/political 
challenges associated with creating a byproduct exchange by bringing up the 
following issues: 
 
? What level of integration should be promoted among individual companies? 
? Who owns what production units? 
 
 20 
 
? Who owns the infrastructure? 
? What are the commercial arrangements among the integrated parties? 
? What are the regulatory and legal obstacles to this type of integration and 
what types of changes are required to provide incentives for greater 
integration (for example, tax subsidies)? 
 
Even though these questions can be answered by the participating decision-makers, 
the answers cannot be generated with full certainty; constant change in a dynamic 
business climate, changing market trends, and evolving government regulations make 
these questions more difficult to answer.  The challenge faced by EIP tenants involves 
having business models that are flexible and agile enough to cope with supply-side 
and market changes (Spriggs et al., 2004).  In addition, since EIPs are designed with 
respect to the region they reside in, it is not possible to simply mimic another country 
or region?s EIP development methodology.  Resource availability, industrial 
presence, community product and service demands, renewable energy feasibility, and 
many more factors are heavily reliant on the geography and the social identity of the 
proposed region. 
 Accounting for the number of existing eco-industrial projects with very few 
years of operational experience, and the fact that many eco-industrial parks never 
survive infancy, makes it clear that there are a set of real and perceived uncertainties 
and risks associated with the design and development of eco-industrial parks.  In 
addition to the challenges associated with eco-industrial development, it is also 
important to consider the risks.  The first risk that developers must consider is 
 
 21 
 
financial.  The lack of proven successes on which to assess risk and a potentially 
longer payback period may cause the financial community to be reluctant to support 
eco-industrial development projects (North and Giannini-Spohn, 1999).  In addition, 
materials exchange agreements (involving tenants and possibly even external 
businesses) that outline the trade of recovered byproducts (e.g., prices and guaranteed 
quantities of materials, energy and water) will gain approval only if the recovered - 
and, if necessary, reprocessed - byproducts cost less than either their disposal cost or 
the price of comparable virgin materials. Secondly, the material and energy 
interdependence between neighboring tenants (and even between the park and the 
community) is a real risk (Pelletiere, 1999).  The quantity and quality of byproduct 
supply can only be estimated because there is a degree of uncertainty (with respect to 
shifts in production) that is a function of market demands (Schlarb, 2001).  Once 
infrastructure and additional processes to facilitate a byproduct exchange between 
two or more firms have been fully developed, these firms will not want to relocate or 
innovate.  Relocation of a firm out of the EIP will nullify the money invested in 
infrastructure and additional processes.  Innovation is at risk, because firms will not 
want to change the materials they use or the production processes they employ in 
order to maintain byproduct exchange agreements and the cost savings associated 
with them (Lowe, 2001).  If EIP firms innovate only with respect to byproduct 
exchange, then these efforts may yield high cost savings on materials, production 
process steps, or needed personnel.  However, this switch in innovation direction can 
prevent breakthroughs (in terms of time and money) in cleaner production and 
pollution prevention methods that may be more beneficial than the byproduct 
 
 22 
 
exchange for the environment; thus, the environmental bottom line is at risk.  Thirdly, 
EIP developers must identify the risks of liability or confusion over definitions of 
hazardous wastes.  The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), for 
example, limits handling and use (or, in this case, reuse) of some hazardous waste 
materials.  In fact, about 1/3 of industrial byproducts have been given the ?hazardous 
label? (Gertler, 1995).This can deters businesses from entering into a materials 
exchange agreement, because one firm?s chief output material may be on the RCRA?s 
list of hazardous waste materials, which bars the firm from selling its byproducts to 
neighboring tenants and the surrounding community (Schlarb, 2001). 
 
1.3.3 ? EIP borne Benefits to Community, Inhabitants, and 
Environment 
 
 Eco-Industrial Parks are beneficial to the communities surrounding them 
because the interests of the firms within the park become aligned with the interests of 
the community and the environment.  As mentioned earlier, this alignment is typically 
reflected in the goals of each eco-industrial park project.  In order for the firms within 
the park to benefit most (with respect to profit margins and an eco-friendly 
reputation), they must perform operations that add value to waste byproducts 
generated by the park inhabitants and the community, and transform them into 
marketable outputs (in the form of a service or product).  The benefits extend to 
others besides the EIP tenants, which is the source of their added benefit.  Positive 
externalities ensue from a successful EIP, and the community shows its appreciation 
for the EIP by buying its marketable products, or providing the EIP with a qualified 
 
 23 
 
work force.  The environment appreciates the EIP and continues to regenerate 
renewable resources for the EIP. 
 
Benefits to EIP Tenants 
 The tenants of the EIP receive the benefit of economic efficiency and 
profitability.  Economic efficiency is realized in the sale and purchase of byproducts, 
sharing the burden of expenses for infrastructure and services, and improvements in 
reputation as an eco-friendly organization. 
The byproducts that each firm purchases are only beneficial if all costs 
associated with that byproduct (e.g., the cost of the byproduct from the provider; the 
cost to reprocess, remanufacture, or transform the byproduct into a usable or 
marketable condition; the cost to transport the byproduct from its source; and other 
costs) are less than the cost of purchasing and transporting a substitute material from 
conventional suppliers.  In addition, the resale of waste translates to the elimination of 
disposal fees that would be imposed on what used to be waste (Schlarb, 2001).  So 
essentially, a liability has been converted into an asset. 
Common to tenants of industrial parks, eco-industrial park tenants would see 
benefits from shared infrastructure and services.  These include business services 
(like cafeteria staff), waste management, purchasing, training and recruitment, 
recreation and childcare facilities, transportation (e.g., shuttle service), and other 
common costs of doing business (Schlarb, 2001).  The co-location would also benefit 
firms that are exchanging byproducts by reducing the amount of energy spent 
gathering and transporting resources, since the source of these resources is within the 
 
 24 
 
park itself.  Lastly, tenants may see a decrease in some research and development 
costs (Lowe et al., 1997).  For example, if firm A has a byproduct that has reuse 
potential (i.e. ability to be used as a feedstock, energy source, etc.) in the eyes of 
firms B and C, then firms B and C may collaborate on the research pertaining to 
restoration of firm A?s byproduct.  Sharing infrastructure and services certainly adds 
benefit to the tenants, which explains why conventional industrial parks flourish 
today. 
 
Benefits to Community 
 The EIP impacts the community in a number of ways.  The first benefit 
observed by the community is an increase in higher paying, high-skill level jobs and 
businesses.  Although the tenants typically do not move their corporate offices to the 
EIP, they will be looking to fill positions for manufacturing/production technicians, 
management, engineers, and a whole host of other occupations that the firm in 
question needs to run its business locally.  In fact, the Green Institute in Minneapolis, 
Minnesota, and the Cape Charles Sustainable Technology Park in Cape Charles, 
Virginia, provide incentives to tenants within the EIP who hire local workers 
(Schlarb, 2001).  As the employment rate increases, the community also sees an 
increase in the standard of living and a higher tax base (which can be reinvested in the 
community and lead to additional benefits).  Along with new jobs within the EIP, new 
businesses may be created inside and outside of the EIP to take advantage of, or even 
help facilitate, byproduct exchanges.  These third-party businesses (e.g., recycling 
centers and waste water treatment facilities) are called upon to reprocess a byproduct 
for utilization by another firm or the community (Schlarb, 2001).   
 
 25 
 
The second benefit observed by the community is overall community 
development.  In fact, ?many eco-industrial park projects have incorporated 
incentives for training and hiring minorities and women, salary improvement 
programs, and family-friendly policies? that add benefit to individuals within the 
community directly (Schlarb, 2001).  Similarly, cleaner air, cleaner water, and an 
?emphasis on green design [capable of improving] indoor workspace quality, [results 
in improved] worker health and productivity? (Lowe et al., 1997).  If the local EIP 
contains a low-cost power (or renewable energy) generation company, then the next 
direct benefit observed by the community would be a collective decrease in their 
electricity bill.  This is assuming the power generation company is purchasing 
unwanted byproducts at bargain prices (i.e. prices lower than the cost of coal) and 
reprocessing them to produce power, cascading energy from another firm?s nearby 
high-energy production process, or simply utilizing a renewable energy source (Lowe 
et al., 1997). 
Lastly, the incorporation of an EIP would benefit the community by 
increasing the gross regional domestic product (GRDP).  An increase in the GRDP 
usually leads to an increase in the average standard of living, but this increase in the 
standard of living is not uniform throughout the community.  Either way, the 
increased GRDP would consequently increase the tax base of the region in question.  
These additional taxes are in the control of the government, but reinvestment of these 
tax revenues can benefit the community through improved community infrastructure 
(e.g., more street lamps, better roads, sidewalks, etc.), improvement of community 
development programs, or increased spending on programs and projects that will 
 
 26 
 
benefit the community directly (or indirectly).  In general, if the EIP is operating 
within safety regulations, then the community will see an increase in their society?s 
bottom line. 
Benefits to Environment 
 Considering the ultimate goal of EIP strategy is to ?reduce the use of virgin 
materials, decrease pollution, increase energy efficiency, reduce water use, and 
decrease the volume of waste products requiring disposal in landfills? and other areas 
of waste termination, it should come as no surprise that the benefits observed by the 
environment are large (Schlarb, 2001).  Since the EIP is attempting to recover 
resources from byproduct streams belonging to the community, tenants, and local 
businesses, a decrease in the demand for natural resources is observed.  Concurrently, 
this diversion of byproducts leads to a reduction of the waste that is appearing in 
environmentally detrimental areas (e.g., sewer system, landfill, hazardous waste 
treatment facilities, chemical waste storage, etc.).  With fewer wastes being emitted 
from the industrial ecosystem (which would include the surrounding businesses and 
the community) into the regional ecosystem, the environment is more capable of 
rejuvenating itself and flourishing in a sustainable manner.  Lastly, since co-location 
is in effect, fewer supply vehicles (like dump loaders, rail barges, and 16-wheeler 
trucks) will have to regularly transport needed resources to the EIP inhabitants; the 
symbiotic linkage infrastructure reduces stress on a heavily polluting transportation 
system (Lowe et al., 1997).  A summary of benefits to the environment, community, 
and companies involved can be seen in Figure 6. 
 
 27 
 
 
Figure 6: Summary of Benefits to each member of the Industrial Ecology (Koenig, 2005) 
 
1.4 ? Examples of EIP Development Worldwide 
1.4.1 ? Kalundborg, Denmark 
 Kalundborg, Denmark, has been noted as one of the most influential eco-
 industrial networks because it was the first one ever formed.  Contrary to popular 
belief, Kalundborg is not defined as an eco-industrial park; the most accurate 
description of it is an industrial symbiosis network.  The reason Kalundborg is more 
of a network than a park is because there is no common management group, all the 
relations are bilateral (i.e., a contract or agreement that obligates each party to provide 
a good, service, or monetary amount in return for a good, service, or monetary 
amount), and, most importantly, the relationships stretch across the region, rather than 
 
 28 
 
being contained in one park (Cohen-Rosenthal and Musnikow, 2003).  Figure 7 
shows the different companies within the network and the byproducts that they 
exchange.  These exchanges were initiated spontaneously and without governmental 
or private investor planning.  Through strong inter-management relationships, 
dedication to cooperation, and an unusual degree of trust between company 
managers, discussions began to arise as to how to reuse byproducts that were being 
thrown out.  These discussions turned into actions that made it possible for one of the 
most complicated networks of waste and energy exchange to take shape (Industrial 
Symbiosis Institute, 2009). 
 
Figure 7: Kalundborg Industrial Symbiosis 
 
 Kalundborg?s network consists of several key players (a few of which can be 
seen in Figure 7): Asnaes Power Station, Gyproc (the plasterboard manufacturer), 
 
 29 
 
Novo Nordisk (the pharmaceutical manufacturer), Novozymes (the enzyme 
manufacturer), Statoil (the oil refinery), RGS 9O (the soil remediation company), 
Kara/Noveren (the waste collection company), and the Kalundborg municipality.  
Asnaes serves as the anchor facility (i.e., the most important tenant in the park that 
serves as symbiotic leader and is typically connected to most of tenants and relevant 
community members) (Industrial Symbiosis Institute, 2008). 
The coal-fired Asnaes Power Station produces 10% of the energy in Denmark 
alone (a reported 1500 MW) (Industrial Symbiosis Institute, 2008).  The excess heat 
generated during electricity production is fed through a system of underground pipes 
and reused by neighboring tenants and as central heat for city inhabitants.  The central 
heat supplied by Asnaes allows the city to reduce its oil consumption by 19,000 tons 
per year (Wasserman, 2001).  On another front, Novo Nordisk and Novozymes 
receive 1.5 million GJ of steam annually.  This is enough to cover all of Novo 
Nordisk?s steam needs for an entire year and saves Novo Nordisk $1 million annually 
(Wasserman, 2001).  In comparison, this amount of process steam would require an 
energy generation process that would emit 240,000 tons of CO2 (Industrial Symbiosis 
Institute, 2008).  Nearby, the power station delivers warm water to a fish farm 
capable of producing 250 tons per year.  This fish farm?s operations produce sludge 
that is sold to the nearby farming community for fertilizer.  In another direction, 
Asnaes sells industrial gypsum (from the calcium sulfate that is recovered from the 
power plant?s scrubber system) to Gyproc, meeting two-thirds of its annual input 
requirements.  Even though Asnaes chose to utilize the slightly more expensive 
calcium hydroxide scrubber system to decrease its sulfur emissions, the cost of 
 
 30 
 
operating the scrubber system is almost entirely paid for through the bilateral 
agreement with Gyproc.  The last byproduct Asnaes produces after the combustion 
process is fly ash and clinker.  170,000 tons of fly ash and 30,000 tons of clinker are 
sold to neighboring builders for road construction and cement production 
(Wasserman, 2001). 
Statoil refinery produces petroleum products and, as an effluent, emits flare 
gas (i.e., burnt off ethane and methane) into the atmosphere.  As early as 1972, Statoil 
decided to quit burning off the flare gas and instead sell it to Gyproc.  The 
plasterboard manufacturer uses the flare gas as a fuel for drying their wallboard 
product because it is cheaper than oil and easier to maintain.  The significance of this 
symbiotic link is that the flare gas produced by Statoil substitutes for 30,000 tons of 
coal that Asnaes would have recover.  In addition, the sulfur that Statoil removes 
from the flare gas (before selling the gas to Asnaes) is also sold to a nearby business 
producing sulfuric acid.  An even more substantial symbiotic innovation was 
developed by Statoil and Asnaes to address Kalundborg?s water shortage problems.  
In 1987, the two companies devised a plan to annually redirect 700,000 cubic meters 
of Statoil cooling water to Asnaes? water boiler.  This led to an environmental 
improvement in the neighboring fjord, which is no longer forced to receive 
unnaturally warm water coming from Statoil?s operations.  In total, Kalundborg?s 
annual intake of new water is 7 million m3 per year.  Through the recycling and reuse 
of water between entities in Kalundborg, Mother Nature observes a savings of 3 
million m3 of water per year (Wasserman, 2001). 
 
 31 
 
Another early contributor to the industrial symbiosis at Kalundborg is Novo 
Nordisk.  This company has piped 3000 cubic meters of sludge per day to farmers 
(who use the biomass as fertilizer) within 40 miles of their facility for free since 1976.  
This amount of fertilizer being derived from a byproduct results in an annual savings 
of approximately $50,000 per year per farm.  In addition, the infrastructure for these 
pipes was paid for by Novo Nordisk because the sludge disposal cost (under Danish 
environmental regulations) is fairly high.  The money saved from decades of avoided 
disposal costs more than pays for the infrastructure needed to deliver the sludge.  
These sludge regulations, and many other Danish regulations that would be 
considered strict in other parts of the world, led to innovation and market realization 
that would not be capable without the concept of industrial symbiosis and industrial 
ecology more generally (Wasserman, 2001). 
For brevity, not all the parties involved in industrial symbiosis at Kalundborg 
will be discussed.  Asnaes, Statoil, and Norvo Nordisk represent some of the earliest 
and most important tenants in Kalundborg?s pursuit of an optimal triple bottom line.  
For this reason, they deserve special attention that explains how they contribute to the 
eco-industrial network at Kalundborg.  Figure 8 shows a plethora of all the industrial 
symbioses occurring at Kalundborg and when they were initiated. 
 
 
 32 
 
 
Figure 8: Kalundborg Industrial Symbiosis - Historical Tracking of symbiotic linkages as of 2009 
(Industrial Symbiosis Institute, 2009) 
1.4.2 ? Netherlands 
 The most notable eco-industrial park project in the Netherlands is the 
INdustrial Eco-System project (INES).  In 1994, INES was initiated by an 
entrepreneur?s association (Deltalinqs) in conjunction with 69 industrial firms, local, 
regional, and national government, a university, and consulting agencies.  Funding for 
planning costs was provided equally by the government agencies and companies 
involved.  Based on official project publications, the realization costs were in excess 
of US $100 million.  Project management and planning group participation were 
largely headed by Deltalinqs in association with the 69 firms.  Before sites were even 
considered (from 1991 to 1994) for development, Deltalinqs supervised the 
development and implementation of environmental management systems within the 
industrial firms.  In contrast to Kalundborg, no local champion or anchor tenant was 
named because Deltalinqs wanted to avoid the idea of favoritism among companies; 
 
 33 
 
considering they were all generally suitable for the job.  The site selected was a 
brownfield site (the Rotterdam Harbour and Industry Complex) over 7,413 acres large 
and located in a harbor (Heeres et al., 2004, Baas and Boons, 2004). 
At the onset, fifteen different industrial ecology projects were identified.  Of 
these fifteen, only three were selected for future feasibility studies, one was 
commercialized separately, and one more project (the Demand and supply of steam 
project) was explored beyond the INES project.  At the second phase of the project 
(running from 1999 to 2002), the INES project became the INES Mainport project 
and was given a new key objective: ?to initiate and support activities within the 
Mainport that contribute to sustainability of industrial operations and future port 
development? (Baas and Boons, 2004).  The main difference between the INES 
Mainport project and the original INES project (lasting from 1994 to 1997) was in 
their strategy for decision-making.  The original project was operated by a small team 
consisting of two university researchers; the Deltalinqs project leader, a consultant, 
and a company representative.  The later project initiated a strategic decision-making 
platform that included the following participants (Baas, 2008): 
? Deltalinqs ? supervising the projects; 
? Representatives from major companies in the area; 
? The Dutch National Industry Association; 
? The Dutch National Ministries of Economic Affairs (EZ), and 
Environment & Spatial Planning (VROM); 
? Province of Zuid-Holland; 
? The Municipal Port Authority; 
 
 34 
 
? The Regional Environmental Agency (DCMR); 
? Regional Water Management Agency (RWS/directory Zuid-Holland); 
? Provincial Environmental Association (MFZH); and  
? The Erasmus University. 
 
In 2000, approximately 2200 MW of waste heat were emitted to the air and between 
4000 and 6000 MW of waste heat was emitted to the surface water.  To take 
advantage of this negative environmental impact, the demand and supply of steam 
project turned into a full energy and waste heat exchange on a cluster basis.  A cluster 
basis was implemented because, as the size of the industrial park grows, it becomes 
more expensive to build piping greater distances in the effort to fully network INES.  
Clustering the piping networks allowed for energy and waste heat exchange between 
nearby groups of localized firms, as opposed to linking relatively distant firms 
interested in exchange. 
Ironically, a compressed air supplier, outside of the park, learned about the 
initial compressed air project that was started as one of the original INES sub-
 projects.  This project was abandoned because the tenants and their suppliers thought 
it would be too complicated and risky a system to implement.  The compressed air 
supplier mentioned earlier learned of this project and decided it was feasible if trust 
was built between small numbers of companies.  So this compressed air supplier built 
trust amongst four INES companies in order to exchange knowledge about 
operations.  By focusing on a smaller number of companies, the scale of the project 
was dramatically decreased, making it even more feasible.  The compressed air 
 
 35 
 
supplier invested in the installation of pipelines, runs the process, maintains the 
system and is responsible for a continuous supply of compressed air.  As a result, 
savings of 20% in both costs and energy, and a reduction in CO2 emissions (from 
reduced energy usage) to 4150 metric tons per year have been observed in 
preliminary studies.  The four firms were connected and operating in collaboration 
with the compressed air supplier in 2000, and by 2003, fourteen companies were 
participating in the compressed air network (Baas and Boons, 2004). 
This compressed air network exemplifies what can happen if individual 
companies take the initiative to learn how byproduct exchanges can occur by starting 
on a smaller ?cluster? basis, and scaling up as demand grows and economies of scale 
increase.  However, to make more sweeping changes, the Dutch make it clear that 
industrial associations must play a big role in building trust, managing information 
flow that will stimulate byproduct exchange, and lobbying for governmental support 
(both in the form of funding and eco-industrial regulations/policies).  This would 
explain why the Rotterdam harbor area continues to serve as home to a growing eco-
 industrial network and a growing number of industrial symbioses projects to this day 
(Baas 2008). 
1.4.3 ? China 
 China is home to a concept that is strikingly similar to industrial ecology.  
Andreas Koenig created a guide for Chinese government officials and industrial park 
managers in support of the EU (European Union) ? China Environmental 
Management Cooperation Programme.  Koenig (2005) defines the circular economy 
as: 
 
 36 
 
 
?a holistic economic concept which seeks efficiency in resource use through 
the integration of cleaner production and industrial ecology into a broader 
system encompassing industrial firms, networks or chains of firms, eco-
 industrial parks, and regional infrastructure to support resource optimization.? 
 
Essentially, the circular economy defines a vision for eco-industrial development on a 
national level.  The circular economy can benefit countries like China because it is 
the world?s most populous country with an estimated 1,330,141,295 people (The 
World Factbook 2011).  For this reason, the application of the circular economy is 
being supported by the Environmental Management Cooperation Programme 
(EMCP) in collaboration with China?s State Environmental Protection Administration 
(SEPA).  By mid-2005, SEPA had approved 12 EIP demonstration projects.  To show 
further support, the EMCP and SEPA supported four pilot projects; the largest and 
most promising EIP project being the Shanghai Chemical Industrial Park (SCIP) 
(Koenig, 2005). 
 The SCIP development started in 2001 on the southern coast of Shanghai and 
serves as their first industrial zone to specialize in petrochemical and fine chemistry 
plants.  With a total area of 7,265 acres (see site plan in Figure 24 of the Appendix), it 
is one of China?s largest industrial development projects, making it the ideal first 
candidate for eco-industrial development.  Three central entities comprise the SCIP?s 
management structure: the SCIP Leadership Group (the "Leadership Group"); the 
SCIP Administration Committee (the "Administration Committee"); and the SCIP 
 
 37 
 
Development Co., Ltd. (the "Development Company").  The Leadership Group is the 
highest authority of the three and is responsible for establishing general policies and 
principles for SCIP.  The Administration Committee is the ?arm of the Shanghai 
government? and takes precedence over the SCIP Development Company in 
decision-making.  The Administration Committee is responsible for development 
planning, industrial policies, land-use planning, administration of construction 
projects, evaluation and approval of investment projects, coordination relations 
between site companies and public agencies, and provides general guidance and 
service to park inhabitants.  The Development Company is the liability body for the 
development and construction of the EIP and mostly consists of members from 
Shanghai Petrochemical and Shanghai Huayi (Group).  The Development Company 
receives government investment to fund the EIP development project.  This 
Development Company uses these funds to develop infrastructure in SCIP, recruiting 
tenant companies, facilitates approval of potential tenant companies, and provides 
services for inhabitants of SCIP (Lowe et al., 2005). 
In 2004, the Shanghai Municipal Development and Reform Commission 
instructed SCIP management to begin transforming the chemical industrial park into 
an eco-industrial park (Lowe et al., 2005).  To promote byproduct exchange 
immediately, the SCIP hosted an International Green Chemistry conference in 2004 
to enable recruitment of specialty chemical companies interested in exploring 
byproduct exchanges between chemical companies (Koenig, 2005).  From this, and 
other industrial networking activities, SCIP management has elected 40 global 
 
 38 
 
companies to co-locate into SCIP; the following companies play larger roles in the 
byproduct exchange projects at SCIP (Lowe et al., 2005): 
? Multi-national Companies: British Petroleum (or, BP), BASF, Bayer, 
Huntsman, Air Products and Chemicals, Ltd.,  Degussa Specialty Chemicals 
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd , Lamberti Chemical Specialties (Shanghai) Co, and other 
international petrochemical and utilities corporations. 
? Chinese Companies: SINOPEC, GPCC, SHYG, SCAC, Shanghai Shenxing 
Chemical Co, Shanghai Tianyuan Group, Shanghai Chlor-Alkali Chemical 
Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Coking. 
? Utilities Companies: SUEZ, Vopak Shanghai Logistics, Air Liquide, and 
Praxair. 
 
These companies contribute the most by funding a large number of byproduct 
exchange projects.  These projects work in their favor; potentially leading to 
marketable products produced from low cost byproducts.  However, these projects 
require large investment capital, time and resources in developing the conceptual 
processes and operations proposed by the projects.  Of the many projects underway at 
SCIP, eight stand out as essential.  A product flow chain of these byproduct 
exchanges can be seen in Figure 9, while a more comprehensive diagram describing 
the byproducts flows internal to and external to SCIP can be seen in Figure 10. 
 
 39 
 
 
Figure 9: SCIP Byproduct Exchange System Proposed by Projects. MMA = methyl methacrylate 
acid; MDI = methylene diisocyanate; TDI = toluene diisocyanate; HDI: hexamethylene 
diisocyanate. (Jiang, 2005) 
 
 
Figure 10: SCIP Byproduct Exchange on Regional Level (Jiang, 2005) 
 
The 900,000 tonnes/annum (t/a or metric tons per year) Ethylene Cracker Project 
includes SINOPEC (anchor), Shanghai Petrochemical Company, and British 
 
 40 
 
Petroleum East China Investment Co., Ltd and required a total investment of US$2.73 
billion.  The partnership of companies formed around this project is called SECCO.  
This process stream begins upstream with SECCO where the anchor ethylene plant 
produces the following primary products (valuable for their ?building-block? like 
chemical properties and capabilities): 
? Ethylene produced at a rate of 900,000 t/a; 
? Butadiene (and Butenes) produced at a rate of 90,000 t/a; 
? BTX aromatics (or Naphtha) produced at a rate of 500,000 t/a; 
? Propylene Polymers (or Polypropylene (PP)) produced at a rate of 250,000 
t/a; 
 
Shanghai Petrochemical Company partakes in oil refining (i.e., ?Refinery Naphtha? 
in Figure 9) and subsequent ethane production as the initiator of upstream projects.  
These upstream projects produce byproduct chemicals that feed into midstream 
projects focusing on the production of polycarbonates.  Later, these midstream 
projects produce byproduct chemicals that flow into downstream projects focused on 
the production of polyisocyanates and specialty-chemical products (e.g., automotive 
coatings, battery materials, semiconductor materials, and LCD monitor materials) 
(Lowe et al., 2005). 
 In addition to these projects, several other non-chemical production related 
projects are underway at SCIP.  The Residual Heat Electricity Generation Project was 
initiated to utilize wasted steam from production processes and hazardous waste 
disposal procedures at the park.  Its chief goal is to reduce the amount of heat 
 
 41 
 
pollution experienced by the surrounding environment.  The Constructed Wetland for 
Sewage Treatment Project was introduced to provide tertiary treatment for sewage.  
This treatment would occur on account of natural biological actions conducted by 
plants, microbes, and soil in the wetland.  The Ecological Forest Shelter Belt Project 
was developed to reduce emissions of air pollutants into the surrounding region.  The 
SCIP utilities personnel would plant a shelter belt consisting of a tree zone, a shrub 
zone, and a grass zone; each zone containing plant species that are scientifically 
proven to absorb emissions.  In fact, designers predicted that the dense forest shelter 
could reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide by 20%, carbon monoxide by 35% and 
carbolic acid by 26%.  The Gray Water Recycling Project planned for the building of 
a gray water recycling pipeline network that would collect water from each facility at 
SCIP, send the water to a water treatment facility, and recycle the now treated water 
for irrigation, cleaning, landscape design, and a host of other non-potable water 
activities.  The Sludge Dehydration and Comprehensive Utilization Project was 
initiated to transform non-poisonous waste sludge, using dehydration treatment, into a 
feedstock raw material for roadbeds, fire resistant materials, or floor tiles.  The 
Comprehensive Utilization of Hydrochloric Acid By-Product Project was initiated to 
take advantage of the excess hydrochloric acid being produced at SCIP.  The 
byproduct hydrochloric acid can be electrolyzed to produce chlorine and hydrogen.  
Lastly, one of EMCP?s pilot projects led to development of the unique Emergency 
Response System.  This system consists of an Emergency Response Center (ERC) 
and a health clinic (providing economies of scale for all inhabitants) that work in 
collaboration with public security (police), fire-fighting, and other relevant 
 
 42 
 
emergency personnel.  The functions of the ERC include information collection, 
transmission, local safety monitoring, accident prevention, emergency response 
command, treatment (Lowe et al., 2005). 
 SCIP serves as an example of how to apply industrial ecology on a large and 
complicated level.  Chemical processes produce a large number of byproducts that are 
often disposed of in environmentally unfriendly ways.  An EIP like SCIP 
demonstrates that it is possible to find alternative uses for these byproduct chemicals 
as long as the production chain is designed with care and consideration.  SCIP takes 
advantage of symbiotic chemical byproduct streams, but at a high initial investment 
cost.  However, for the companies willing to invest in co-location and take advantage 
of the byproduct exchange projects ongoing at SCIP, the reward is a winning triple 
bottom line and the designation as a contributor to China?s Circular Economy. 
 
1.4.4 ? Australia 
 During the early 1990?s, Australia was experiencing a national problem with 
its waste management system.  On a more localized level, most states and local 
government agencies had policies and procedures designed to encourage recycling 
and reduce the rate of waste creation.  However, even with these measures in place, 
Australia still needed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in order to be in 
compliance with the Kyoto Protocol defined targets.  Recall that the Kyoto Protocol 
calls upon each nation in the United Nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emission 
rate to a percentage relative to how industrialized the nation in question is.  By 1996, 
the Queensland State Government attempted to reduce waste and emissions, produced 
 
 43 
 
mainly by industrially zoned areas, by seeking advice on how to synthesize industrial 
ecology with their economic and community development plan (Roberts, 2004). 
In 1997, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) began 
a two part research project investigating the feasibility for EIP development in 
Synergy Park?s region (or industrial ecosystem).  The first part of the research was 
essentially an industrial ecology literature review.  This was necessary because it 
helped the research team develop principles and planning guidelines for the 
development of the EIP.  The second part of the research took the research team to 
the industrial ecosystem in question.  The research team was responsible for 
conducting surveys and interviews with firm managers located on, and community 
groups living adjacent to, the industrial parks in southeast Queensland.  The results 
were not pleasing.  Even though it was expected that these two groups would not be 
knowledgeable about the (then) young concept of industrial ecology, the research 
team did not expect to find opposition from both business and community groups.  
More specifically, the business groups disliked the idea of co-locating two or more 
industrial activities that their experience helped them conclude were incompatible.  In 
addition, the classic ?not in my back yard? viewpoint (i.e., public sentiment towards 
new large-scale developments [typically industrial or utility related] intending on 
initiating near residential and commercial zones) came to represent the majority of 
thoughts coming from residential and commercial community members in the area 
(Roberts, 2004). 
The second research effort demonstrated a lack of consensus.  If not addressed 
early enough within the design and development process, a lack of consensus 
 
 44 
 
between stakeholders and decision-makers can lead to significant delays.  For 
example, political delays can be initiated by community groups who have convinced 
government officials that their community is at risk if the development continues 
(Mintzberg et al., 1976).  During the time, uncertainty and unfamiliarity initially 
impeded EIP development, in that part of Australia because industrial ecology?s body 
of knowledge ? describing success stories, proven benefits, and core principals ? was 
not made readily available to community groups and members prior to the survey and 
interviews.  In addition, the nationwide attitude towards the manufacturing industry 
may have been negative because of the increase in outsourcing of manufacturing jobs 
(as a result of very low foreign labor costs).  However, it is still important to note that, 
generally, if developers teach the principals of industrial ecology to community 
groups early enough and allow community leaders to share a role in decision-making, 
then this will develop trust and community support for the development project 
(Roberts, 2004). 
In 1998, the Department of State Development, a local council, and a private 
developer began planning and development for Australia?s first EIP: the Synergy 
Park (located in southeast Queensland, roughly 13.7 miles west of Brisbane).  This 
project intended to transform a 91.4 acre industrial parcel within Carole Park (an 
industrial park constructed during the 1960?s) into an EIP.  Later that year, the 
Synergy Park Unit Trust was formed to develop, recruit tenants for (i.e., interview, 
screen, evaluate, select, and draft lease for incoming tenants) and market Synergy 
Park, while the role of the state and local government was to administrate town 
planning, provide services and infrastructure, and to engage in community 
 
 45 
 
consultation.  The Synergy Park Unit Trust decided to focus on the food and beverage 
industry for recruitment because of the region?s following characteristics (Roberts, 
2004): 
? Lockyer and Bremer valleys, the most fertile agricultural area in Australia, 
lay west of Synergy Park; 
? Carole Park possessed water and sewage capacity already (saving on 
infrastructure development costs); 
? Carole Park possessed excellent transportation linkages; and 
? A previously unemployed workforce (from nearby Ipswich), familiar with 
many diverse manufacturing processes, can be trained with Carole Park?s 
training infrastructure and adapted to the food and beverage industry. 
 
Four sub-projects have emerged from the development of Synergy Park and have led 
to growing economies of scale for inhabitants and waste diversion from the 
environment.  The first sub-project planned development of a central warehouse that 
networks with the logistics management system project.  The central warehouse will 
operate on a per-kilo, carton, or pallet rate so tenants can use it on an as-needed basis.  
This warehousing system reduces overall vacancy within the warehouse, which 
translates to lower maintenance and utility costs (Roberts, 2004). 
The second sub-project is the logistics management system.  At the very least, 
the shared logistics and routed vehicle management system makes it possible for a 
delivery truck (i.e., an auxiliary service provider) to deliver more than one company?s 
goods to a common destination, utilizing the truck?s capacity and reducing the trip 
length.  The system will give inhabitant manufacturers (whose products are bought in 
 
 46 
 
a supermarket or grocery store) the ability to register their products by bar code to 
collect sales data.  This data can be relayed back to them and used to strategically 
determine what quantity and product they need to produce for the next day?s just-in 
time delivery.  This continually updated system is quite expensive and hard for 
individual firms to acquire, making co-location that much more beneficial (Roberts, 
2004). 
The third economy of scale is in the area of energy supply.  A co-generation 
plant (to be developed circa 2004) provides inhabitants with electrical energy and 
heat.  To generate heat for park inhabitants, steam typically vented into the 
atmosphere is redirected so its energy content can be reused.  This saves inhabitants 
from having to invest in land, capital, and operational costs that are required to 
possess its own boiler.  Each inhabitant is not limited to the amount/form of energy 
they may receive from the co-generation plant; this can account for the colder winter 
and fall months (Roberts, 2004). 
The last sub-project focuses on the effluent disposal and treatment network  
This network begins at the tail end of each tenant and is where different effluent 
streams are segregated early.  Trade waste (i.e. contaminated, non-reusable water) 
and high quality waste water are piped separately to the pre-treatment plant.  At the 
pre-treatment plant, the trade wastes are treated with respect to local standards and 
transferred to the Council sewage treatment plant.  The high quality waste water, on 
the other hand, will be treated and reintroduced to factories for non-potable water 
activities (e.g. wash downs or water source for steam generation at co-generation 
plant) (Roberts, 2004). 
 
 47 
 
As of 2010, there are an estimated 193 EIP and EIN projects outside of the 
United States that are currently in their pre-development, feasibility analysis, or 
project support building phase.  Of the 193 projects outside of the U.S., only 61 are 
operational and actively recruiting tenants and an additional 11 are under construction 
(Davis, 2010). 
 
1.5 - Examples of EIP Development in the United States 
As of 2010, there are an estimated 34 EIP and EIN projects within the United 
States that are currently in their pre-development, feasibility analysis, or project 
support building phase.  Of these 34 projects within the U.S., only six are operational 
and actively recruiting tenants, while one is still under construction.  The following is 
a list of these six operational (and one under construction) EIPs and their current 
statuses (Davis, 2010): 
1. Cabazon Resource Recovery Park in Indio, California; 
2. Catawba County Regional EcoComplex and Resource Recovery Facility 
in Catawba, North Carolina; 
3. Devens Planned Community in Devens Massachusetts; 
4. Guayama Eco-Industrial Park in Guayama, Puerto Rico; 
5. Kansas City Regional By-Product Synergy Project in Kansas City, 
Kansas; 
6. Stoneyfield Londonderry Eco-Industrial Park in Londonderry, New 
Hampshire; and 
 
 48 
 
7. (Under Construction) Brownsville Eco-Industrial Park in Brownsville, 
Texas. 
Due to government decisions (that unsuccessfully promote industrial ecology 
development or unintentionally hinder eco-industrial development teams), a large 
percentage of the thirty EIP projects initiated no longer exist today.  For example, the 
EPA?s Eco-Industrial Park Project Implementation Plan (?Implementation Plan?) 
initiated in 1994 failed because it never addressed who (i.e., what entities and 
organizations) will do what eco-industrial development activities and never fully 
defines what an EIP is. The EPA may have based their Implementation Plan on 
international eco-industrial development examples (e.g. Kalundborg, the INdustrial 
Eco-System in Netherlands, etc.) that exhibited private developers autonomously 
initiating eco-industrial development projects.  However, a vast majority of EIPs are 
initiated by the government.  In fact, EIPs in which government agencies participate 
beyond the project initiation and funding phase (i.e., during subsequent EIP design 
and development phases) experience fewer failure rates.  According to Gertler (1995), 
The Implementation Plan seemed to be a ?patchwork expression of stakeholder 
interests.?  The Implementation Plan should be a comprehensive set of guidelines that 
defines design strategies of EIPs while ensuring consensus between decision-makers 
and stakeholders by synthesizing their interests. 
As a second example, the outdated (enacted in 1976) Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA) limits the use of potentially reusable byproducts in order 
to protect citizens from known dangers that may have existed then but may no longer 
exist today (thanks to evolving manufacturing processes and advancements in 
 
 49 
 
materials production and utilization research).  Because of the RCRA, about one-third 
of the industrial byproducts produced have been given the ?hazardous label,? and 
deemed non-reusable (Gertler, 1995). 
Based on the international EIP examples presented in earlier, it appears that 
the government can help byproduct exchange in a number of ways.  For example, to 
improve the U.S.?s EIP success rate, each state?s environmental protection agency 
should be given the ability to override RCRA ordinances governing reuse and 
recycling activities.  For state environmental protection agencies to gain the ability to 
override RCRA ordinances, they would have to sponsor a scientific investigation 
proving that a previously defined hazardous byproduct can be treated, rendered non-
 hazardous, and safely used in consumer products without negative impacts on 
stakeholders (relative to negative impacts caused by the byproduct?s substitute virgin 
material). 
 
1.5.1 ? Devens, MA 
 The Devens Regional Enterprise Zone (?Devens?) serves as the first eco-
 industrial park development project conducted in the United States.  In 1994, part of a 
former Army base in Massachusetts (i.e., Ft. Devens) was chosen to be redeveloped 
into an eco-industrial park and sustainable mixed use community.  The Devens 
Enterprise Commission (?Commission?) found leadership from Peter Lowitt of 
Indigo Development (an eco-industrial development company).  The Commission 
acts as a regulatory and permitting authority for Devens.  In other words, the 
Commission functions as a ?board of health, conservation commission, zoning board 
 
 50 
 
of adjustment, and planning board.?  The twelve commissioners are unpaid and live 
within the communities surrounding Devens.  Six of these commissioners are 
nominated by the town meetings of Ayer, Harvard, and Shirley, and the remaining six 
commissioners are elected by the Governor (Hollander and Lowitt, 2000).  The 
Commission decided to redevelop 1,800 acres of the total 4,400 acres available.  The 
project met qualifications for designation as a Superfund site, and was granted $300 
million to begin cleanup and infrastructure development.  The Superfund was set up 
by the US-EPA to offer financial support to brownfield site redevelopment projects 
that require site remediation and extensive environmental cleanup prior to EIP 
construction.  In addition to public funding, The Commission gained over $2.1 billion 
in private investment support for new facilities at the site.  The 98 companies that 
decided to participate in the project brought with them 5,000 EIP employee positions 
(NJMEP, 2010). 
An important component to Devens? environmental awareness is the EcoStar 
environmental program.  The EcoStar program is located in the Devens Eco-
 Efficiency Center and uses 25 standards to evaluate company environmental 
performance.  It is the tool through which the Commission supports business 
collaboration to utilize byproducts, promotes sharing of training costs through multi-
 tenant joint training (by offering training facilities at the Devens Eco-Efficiency 
Center), share transportation resources, and hold meetings and activities that promote 
EIP cohesion (NJMEP, 2010). 
 From October 1999 to February 2000, surveys were distributed to companies 
operating in Devens to determine potential opportunities for industrial symbiosis.  
 
 51 
 
These surveys focused on defining both existing and future industrial activities that 
could be altered to fit the industrial ecosystem approach.  The results from this survey 
comprised of confidential data about each tenant?s production and operations 
systems; this information was kept secret and aggregated with other tenants? data to 
form general trends useful during EIP design.  The Commission concluded that five 
major themes should define Devens: (1) material, water, and energy flows; (2) 
companies within close proximity; (3) strong informal ties between plant managers; 
(4) minor retrofitting of existing infrastructure; and (5) one or more anchor tenants 
(Hollander and Lowitt, 2000). 
 From the results provided by the survey in early 2000, twelve Devens tenants 
were found responsible for using, discarding, recycling, consuming, producing, or 
purchasing the largest volume of materials that flows through the EIP.  These 
materials include the following (in order of volume consumed): corrugated cardboard, 
paper, plastic, metal scrap and chips, wooden palettes, and machine oil.  To 
implement industrial ecology, the Commission needs to close these six major material 
flows and establish symbiotic connections among existing tenants, while 
simultaneously seeking new tenants that can create symbiotic connections between 
tenants and the community via material processing.  For example, a company could 
be recruited to reprocess plastic.  If the reprocessed plastic is, for example, a 
thermoplastic, then this material could be used by the plastic reprocessing tenant to 
create their own family of plastic products, or it can be sold to tenants for their 
production needs (as long as it meets quality requirements).  Either way, the plastics 
material flow would serve as one example of a closed loop within the walls of 
 
 52 
 
Devens.  In addition to materials flows, Devens has plans for water cascading.  Water 
cascading is a process that takes grey water from one company, sends it to a water 
treatment plant for treatment, and forwards the treated grey water to a second 
company for their non-potable water needs.  This process of recycling, treating, and 
redistributing water between companies can be extended throughout Devens and can 
contribute to lower water usage on a park-wide level.  Using the same theories as 
water cascading, energy cascading has been investigated to see how wastes (typically 
in the form of heat loss) from high quality electricity can be recaptured and utilized 
for low quality electricity needs (Hollander and Lowitt, 2000). 
The next major theme that Devens is focused on is having companies in close 
proximity.  Devens utilized industrial clustering by creating the following six separate 
industrial areas: Jackson Technology Park, Robbins Pond Industrial Park, Devens 
Industrial Park East, Devens Industrial Park West, and the Environmental Business 
Zone.  The participating companies are in close proximity within these industrial 
clusters and, in some cases, even co-located.  Each industrial area is well connected 
with the others by roadway (Hollander and Lowitt, 2000). 
Thirdly, the Commission promotes strong informal ties between plant 
managers at Devens in order to catalyze symbiotic opportunities.  This is being 
promoted because plant managers do not know one another personally; however, at 
Kalundborg, personal relationships between managers have proven to be a commonly 
overlooked contributor to success.  To do this in an inviting manner, the Commission 
utilizes the Devens Eco-Efficiency Center to hold semi-monthly luncheons where 
guest speakers address plant managers about operations and management topics.  This 
 
 53 
 
luncheon may unite plant managers with common problems, give them guidance from 
knowledgeable guest speakers, and promote a more collaborative park environment 
(Hollander and Lowitt, 2000). 
Fourth, the Commission promotes minor retrofitting of existing infrastructure.  
To maximize the return on investment for their firm, tenants typically need to modify 
their operations and processes in order for a more reusable byproduct to be introduced 
into the EIP material flow loop, or to enable the use of a byproduct flowing in from 
another tenant.  Prior to retrofitting, a park-wide water, energy, and material balance 
must be conducted to determine the most economically efficient way to implement 
the needed infrastructure (Hollander and Lowitt, 2000). 
The last theme the Commission promotes is the inclusion of one or more 
anchor tenants.  The Devens Regional Enterprise Zone is currently in possession of 
one tenant that can play this role: the wastewater treatment facility.  In general, an 
anchor is necessary to capitalize on a missing link in one of the existing open-loop 
material flows.  At Devens, the wastewater treatment facility is ideal because it 
physically connects with each tenant in Devens and, after upgrades, will have the 
ability to process both water and waste flows.  If the reprocessed water meets quality 
requirements, then it can be reused for non-potable activity by the tenants and the 
surrounding communities, thereby closing the regional water loop (Hollander and 
Lowitt, 2000). 
Today, Devens Regional Enterprise Zone is still thriving and recruitment for 
light to medium industrial tenants is stronger than ever.  The Devens EIP has come a 
long way; from a governor created (in 1991) Fort Devens Redevelopment Board to a 
 
 54 
 
fully functional Devens Enterprise Commission (which is ?vested with broad 
regulatory authority related to land use planning and permitting functions?) (Lowitt, 
2009).  Within the park, roads and infrastructure continue to be developed, the 
Commission continues to grant permits, and regulations begin to change for the 
better.  It is important to note how effective a community-based design and 
development commission (or authority), like the Devens Enterprise Commission, can 
be in implementing an EIP when working closely with a private consultant or 
development corporation. 
 
1.5.2 ? Londonderry, NH 
 Forty miles north of Boston, there is a sub-urbanizing community of roughly 
27,000 people called Londonderry, New Hampshire (Deutz et al., 2004).  All the eco-
 industrial development rumors began before 1996, when a plastics recycling company 
approached Stonyfield Farms Yogurt (a New Hampshire leader in sustainable 
business practice) about reusing its grey water to rinse plastics.  In addition to the 
grey water collection, the plastics recycling company also wanted to set up a 
recycling operation (that they one day hoped to turn into a full eco-industrial park), 
on the vacant town-owned land nearby Stonyfield Farms Yogurt.  This caught the 
attention of the Town of Londonderry; fortunately, they fully supported the eco-
 industrial park proposal.  In 1996, a vision statement was established; leading to the 
development of a set of covenants and governance system soon thereafter (NJMEP, 
2010).  This body of work detailed what was expected of future tenants seeking to 
develop within the Londonderry Eco-Industrial Park (LEIP).  For example, future 
 
 55 
 
tenants were expected ?to develop an environmental management system, track their 
resource use, set environmental performance goals, perform third party ecological 
audits, and report progress to the Community Stewardship Board [(i.e., a citizen 
committee)]? (Deutz et al., 2004). 
 
Figure 11: Tenant Layout at Londonderry EIP (Garron, 2009) 
 
Even though the LEIP is still open Stonyfield Farms Yogurt has moved from the 
LEIP site to a highly sustainable production facility called the Yogurt Works Facility 
(?Our Yogurt Works Facility, Water, Waste, Green Building, Energy, People,? 2011).  
An updated layout of the LEIP can be seen in Figure 11.  Lately, the LEIP has 
recruited AES ? a power company that will develop a 720 MW combined cycle 
natural gas power plant. AES will even introduce an inter-regional symbiotic link to 
 
 56 
 
the LEIP by accepting treated wastewater pumped from the City of Manchester?s 
Waste Water Treatment Facility for power production processes.  In addition to AES, 
a medical supply distribution firm (Gulf South Medical Supply), software firms, and 
Bosch Thermo-technology Corp. (heating and hot water products) are located within 
the LEIP.  It is still relatively early in LEIP?s timeline, so the single symbiotic link 
should come as no surprise.  However, the Town of Londonderry is still supporting 
the LEIP and has not abandoned its vision.  In fact, the Manchester-Boston Regional 
Airport access road project is due for completion in 2012.  Once completed, it will 
provide access to over 1,000 acres of commercial and industrial ?to be developed? 
land (Garron, 2009). 
Londonderry EIP and Devens Regional Enterprise Zone represent two 
relatively successful EIP development examples.  A growing interest continues to 
form around industrial ecology here in the U.S., and there are a number of EIP 
projects being initiated to create real industrial ecologies.  It is important to note a 
common theme that most EIPs continue to exhibit: a central information sharing 
center where the community can connect with the EIP (e.g. via community and 
business association meetings, EIP open houses, and other public events); where the 
EIP tenant managers can connect with one another (e.g., during design charrettes, 
monthly luncheons, or EIP management board meetings); and where the EIP 
employees across different firms can connect with one another (e.g., at the cafeteria, 
at the medical wing, during joint-tenant training exercises, or during other multi-
 tenant collaborative meetings).  The human side of industrial ecology is often 
overlooked, but central-common facilities like the Devens? Eco-Efficiency Center 
 
 57 
 
play an important role in developing and maintaining trust filled and lasting 
connections between the human members of the EIP and the members of the 
surrounding community.  For more information on the United States? efforts towards 
eco-industrial development (up to 2005), one may refer to Table 41 of the Appendix. 
1.6 ? Research Questions 
 The research questions this thesis intends to answer are as follows: 
? How are EIPs currently developed? 
? What are the most important objectives of EIP development projects? 
? What are the key decisions that need to be made during EIP development 
projects? 
? How can these decisions be organized into an EIP design process that is more 
consistent with (and more capable of advancing) the most important 
objectives? 
1.7 ? Thesis Overview 
 Chapter 1 has just presented a background on what sustainable development, 
industrial ecology, the triple bottom line, and EIPs are.  It presented the benefits that 
can be experienced after an EIP begins operations.  In addition this chapter discusses 
a few real-world examples of EIP development projects from the U.S. and around the 
world that have advanced triple bottom line (or TBL) objectives. 
 Chapter 2 goes into more detail about the concept of EIPs and discusses the 
EIP design and development process.  The difference between planning for and 
developing a regular industrial park, versus planning for and developing an eco-
 
 58 
 
industrial park, are discussed.  Common decision makers, stakeholders, steps taken 
during development, and important objectives are discussed for a better 
understanding of the EIP development process.  Next, an analysis of 21 EIP 
development projects is presented and it highlights each of the projects? routines, 
decision process types, stimuli, and solutions.  Much of this analysis follows 
Mintzberg et al. (1976) and their Structured Decision Process. 
 Chapter 3 discusses the general EIP development process (or the GEIPDP).  
This chapter will present how the GEIPDP was created why it expresses a sequence 
of decisions that are aligned with the triple bottom line.  It will then explain why there 
was a need for revisions to this general development process followed by a discussion 
about how the revised EIP development process (or, the REIPDP) does a better job of 
ensuring advancement of TBL objectives.  An explanation over key decisions made 
during EIP development processes and how they link (directly and indirectly) to the 
TBL objectives is also discussed. 
 Once a general EIP development process has been agreed upon (i.e., the 
REIPDP), chapter 4 presents what the contingency decision making framework (or, 
the CDMF) is and how it can be utilized to ensure that the correct decision making 
method is being used during each phase of the REIPDP. 
 Chapter 5 presents a detailed example of a key decision that the EIP 
development team must make: selection of business and auxiliary service tenants for 
empty lots within the EIP.  This example is based on real-world data from an Oak 
Point EIP feasibility study that was created to promote eco-industrial development in 
the South Bronx area.  Assumptions and simplifications are discussed as well. 
 
 59 
 
 The final chapter discusses the summary of findings, limitations, 
contributions, and future work. 
 
 60 
 
Chapter 2: The Eco-Industrial Park Design and 
Development Process 
 
The EIP design and development process involves a great number of 
professional individuals belonging to government agencies, private investor 
organizations, development corporations, various community groups, industrial 
association members, business representatives, regional service provider 
representatives (e.g., solid and water waste management, regional recycling and 
resource recovery services, utility companies, and more), and leading industrial 
producers within the region in question.  From all these differing backgrounds, one 
should expect a great deal of technical knowledge to exist, however, the body of 
knowledge that is attributed to these individuals may not be enough to design and 
develop an EIP that will improve the region?s triple bottom line.  An eco-industrial 
park development team needs to possess a great depth of knowledge and experience 
within the fields of eco-industrial development and industrial ecology (among other 
things).  Without the relevant personnel controlling critical aspects of the project, the 
proper goals and objectives may not even be established at the onset of the EIP design 
and development project, and success (i.e., the advancement of the region?s triple 
bottom line) will not be as likely to ensue.   
The discussion in this chapter is based on a thorough review of the literature 
describing EIP development processes.  At the onset of this chapter, the difference in 
planning for an industrial park vs. an EIP will be discussed with respect to authors 
known for publishing great bodies of knowledge within industrial ecology and eco-
 industrial development.  This will be followed by a discussion on the characteristics 
 
 61 
 
and responsibilities of decision makers and stakeholders of an EIP project.  Next, the 
important objectives (i.e., both general and triple bottom line specific objectives) of 
EIP development projects will be discussed to present a clear view of what an EIP is 
attempting to do.  Lastly, a presentation and demonstration of how to analyze an EIP 
development process for alignment with the triple bottom line?s objectives will be 
discussed. 
 
2.1 ? Planning for Development Methodologies: Industrial Parks vs. 
EIPs 
 
2.1.1 ? Planning an Industrial Park 
The main function of an industrial park is similar to the function of an eco-
 industrial park: to provide the tenants with the infrastructure needed at a discount by 
sharing resources with other firms (e.g., buying feedstock materials in bulk to achieve 
economies of scale or sharing common third party service personnel to achieve 
economies of scope).  The primary actors, at the earliest stages, are the land owner(s), 
a planning/development team (i.e. private consulting firm or public development 
agency), the local government (state department), and the community. 
The first step in planning an industrial park is to hire a planning team (from 
here on referred to as the consulting firm). In the United States, public development 
agencies have taken responsibility for most US industrial parks with larger scale (and 
often more polluting) manufacturing industries (Lowe, 2001).  Private developers 
tend to focus on parks developed for light industry, warehousing, and distribution.  
The developer will help the owner manage the complex processes of acquiring land, 
 
 62 
 
managing, planning, feasibility studies, and the assembly of an investment strategy 
(Lowe, 2001).  The more important role of the consulting firm is to ensure that the 
firms requesting to enter the industrial park will be compatible with every other 
inhabitant included with respect to available resources and infrastructure.  
Conventional industrial park developers recruit companies on the basis of access to 
supplies, markets (i.e. demand), workforce capabilities, workforce costs (e.g. labor 
burdens), transportation access, economic incentives, and quality of life (to the 
surrounding community members) (Lowe, 2001).  Once a location has been chosen, 
the land can be purchased and zoned as ?industrial? by the local government.  
Depending on the targeted, expected, and existing inhabitants, restrictions will be 
placed on the industrial zone accordingly. 
2.1.2 ? Planning an Eco-Industrial Park  
 Lowe (2001) provides a great deal of insight into the characteristics of a 
general development process used for EIPs: 
 
?Eco-industrial park development calls for asking new questions within the 
context of traditional industrial development processes. Developing any 
industrial park requires several rounds of planning and design. The team tests 
project feasibility in greater detail with each stage. The project must satisfy 
financial, economic development, public planning/zoning, environmental, and 
technical criteria at each step. Your eco-industrial park team will follow the 
traditional process, while considering new design options in each phase of 
project planning.? 
 
 63 
 
 
 The main difference between an EIP and an industrial park is that EIPs 
provide the involved firms with the ability to exchange byproducts freely and 
encourage innovation of byproduct usage amongst park inhabitants and external 
businesses (Lowe, 2001).  Many of the planning for development steps are extremely 
similar, but when it comes to recruiting tenants, EIP developers have to consider 
several more factors (Lowe, 2001): 
- traditional marketing strategies and an EIP?s unique advantages; 
- economic and environmental goals; 
- filling the park and getting the right mix of companies for by-product 
exchanges; and 
- external recruitment (along with internal growth) and local business 
development. 
An EIP development team must consider the characteristics of the local and 
regional ecosystem, the site?s suitability for industrial development, and potential 
constraints to the pattern of development. This ecological evaluation complements the 
usual evaluation of transportation, infrastructure, zoning, and other human systems.  
Developers of EIPs are primarily focused on developing brownfield site (i.e., an EIP 
developed after mandatory site remediation of an existing industrial-scale facility or 
former industrial park) as opposed to a greenfield site (i.e., an EIP constructed on 
undisturbed land from ground up) with the intention of reducing the use of virgin 
materials to construct and operate the EIP.  The incentive is provided by the 
government, who can offer tax exemptions or subsidies to owners and developers 
 
 64 
 
looking to establish a brownfield site EIP.  This incentive would need to cover at least 
the cost of remediation and cleanup of contaminated land and facilities that will be 
used (Lowe, 2001). 
One difference between industrial park planning and eco-industrial park 
planning rests in the amount of input that eco-industrial park development relies upon 
from the community.  The following quote from Timothy Nolan?s presentation at the 
Eco-Industrial Networking Roundtable (District of North Vancouver, BC ? 2004) 
demonstrates this: 
 
?Communities contemplating eco-industrial development first need to identify 
specific goals, the resources needed to meet those goals, and obstacles to 
meeting goals. Then they must prioritize the goals and the strategies for 
meeting those goals.? 
 
Identification of goals for the EIP development project with respect to the community 
that it will exist in will help ensure that viewpoints from stakeholders are not being 
overlooked.  Additionally, if the community knows that it is being heard and that its 
opinion is being respected (by decision makers), then it will be more likely to reach 
consensus and offer support for decision makers at various points during the EIP 
development project (Nolan, 2004). 
 Going beyond the establishment of priorities, prospective challenges, and 
goals requires an eco-industrial baseline analysis.  Without this baseline analysis, it is 
difficult to plan an EIP development project.  Table 1 elaborates on components of a 
 
 65 
 
baseline analysis with (1) respect to industrial parks and (2) eco-industrial parks 
(Nolan, 2004). 
 
Table 1: Traditional Industrial Park Development vs. Eco-Industrial Park Development Baseline 
Analyses (Nolan, 2004) 
TRADITIONAL 
Baseline Analysis 
EID (Eco-Industrial Development) 
Baseline Analysis 
Assess land 
availability - and 
consistency with the 
comprehensive plan.  
Evaluate 
infrastructural 
capacity. sewer, water, 
transportation, electric, 
storm water.  
Analyze access to 
markets. local markets, 
regional markets, 
national markets, 
obstacles to moving 
goods and services.  
Analyze access to 
capital. public sources, 
private and venture 
capital, local sources of 
capital.  
Analyze labor force. 
size and training level 
of local workforce, 
market wages, 
availability of housing, 
and access to 
transportation routes or 
transit. 
Analyze regional industrial resource flows - Gather 
information on material, energy and water flows (inputs and 
outputs) within a geographic region targeted for EID. Match 
with projected industrial loads based on profiles of preferred 
candidate tenants.  
Inventory regional and site-specific amenities and 
infrastructure - Identify existing and proposed industrial 
infrastructure, utilities and facilities in region. This would 
include an analysis of water supplies, existing and potential 
renewable energy options (thermal and electric). Qualify access 
to transportation networks and appropriate scale for new 
industrial ventures.  
Collect and analyze data on existing businesses and 
production activities in community. What kinds of 
manufacturing processes and technologies does the existing 
industrial development use? What technologies could allow both 
retooling of existing industry for greater resource and economic 
efficiency, while allowing new industrial development?  
Collect and analyze data on material flows in community . 
inputs, by-products and wastes, product output. What are the 
existing household, industrial, commercial, and agricultural 
waste streams that could be a feedstock for new industrial 
development, or that could be co-managed more effectively with 
new industrial infrastructure?  
Develop site evaluation and profiles. Conduct assessments of 
potential industrial sites in the region to determine options for 
EID. Determine the feasibility of each site or combination of 
sites for locating processing and conversion facilities along with 
manufacturing ventures. Site profiles will include materials 
handling and storage options, infrastructure assessments, 
existing assets, community development capabilities, alignment 
with local policies, and compatibility with regional suppliers. 
Determine preferred .eco-industrial. site characteristics.  
Identify end-users of by-products and wastes produced 
within the community.  
 
 
 66 
 
 
Create an energy profile for the community . production, 
demand, prices, environmental aspects. What kinds and 
capacity of distribution, generation, and transmission system 
infrastructure currently exist in the community? How could 
existing infrastructure facilitate use of waste heat, co-generation 
systems, distributed generation, or aggregation of energy use?  
Natural resources available for development. What 
underutilized resources can be sustainably harvested, including 
forest resources, agricultural resources, minerals, and water 
resources?  
Inventory of local suppliers and services. What kinds of 
locally produced goods and services can be used in new 
businesses, locally capturing the added value of existing 
businesses? 
Review and characterize previous related planning work. 
 
 
Recruiting tenants for an EIP is different from recruiting tenants for a regular 
industrial park because it requires recruiting by degree.  EIP developers may choose 
to start by finding a versatile anchor facility and observing its inputs and outputs.  
These inputs will define the next tier of tenants that can be coupled with the anchor 
tenant (Lowe, 2001).  Anchor tenants are favorable because they serve as a 
foundation for what types of byproduct, energy, and waste water flows are possible 
(given the right businesses and service providers are entering the EIP and engaging in 
these sustainable projects).  However, EIP developments are not required to have a 
functioning anchor tenant and, in fact, many EIPs do not even contain a designated 
anchor tenant. 
Prior to finding a suitable anchor tenant, a successful EIP development project 
will require participation from the following stakeholders and decision-makers early 
in the process (Heeres et al., 2004): 
 
 67 
 
? public sector stakeholders from local, regional and national government 
agencies; 
? representatives of local companies and potential future tenants in the EIP; 
? leaders in the industrial and financial community; 
? local chamber of commerce; 
? labor representatives; 
? educational institutions; 
? practitioners with the full complement of capabilities needed in the project 
([i.e., development team members]): architecture, engineering, ecology, 
environmental management, and education and training; and 
? community and environmental organizations. 
 
Planning an EIP requires selecting pollution prevention projects, and, thus, 
organizations need to share information between one another that will be used to 
determine the ?nature and number of pollution prevention projects that [can 
potentially] make up the EIP development? (Heeres et al., 2004).  This information 
can be gathered in the form of a survey or interview that addresses areas like basic 
company information; products and markets (the company is affiliated with); 
employee information; raw materials (used in operations and production processes); 
waste streams; energy usage data; environmental management system statistics (if it 
exists [highly attractive to tenant recruiters]); manufacturing networks it may belong 
to; industrial association(s) it is associated with; and future plans for company 
development (Heeres et al., 2004). 
 
 68 
 
2.2 ? Characteristics and Responsibilities of Decision-Makers and 
Stakeholders 
 
2.2.1 ? The Government 
 The government?s role is particularly important in the EIP development 
process.  Their primary goal is to ?advocate for maximizing the public value 
[through] investments in production? and in ensuring that businesses are operating in 
a responsible manner (Cohen-Rosenthal and Musnikow, 2003).  The government 
promotes increases in public value and tries to reduce negative externalities 
(associated with industrial production) by implementing pro-sustainability public 
policies, imposing taxes on unsustainable actions, and distributing subsidies, grants, 
and other financial support instruments to EIP tenants who can prove that they?re 
meeting sustainable development requirements (Cohen-Rosenthal and Musnikow, 
2003). 
 The policy climate should improve environmental performance of 
conventional industry and help achieve the triple bottom line for the region.  Policy 
makers need to incorporate EID strategies and systems analysis into their economic 
development and planning activities.  According to Cohen-Rosenthal and Musnikow 
(2003), such policies: 
1. establish a baseline ?floor? of environmental performance that protects human 
health and safety, the environment, and that enforce it uniformly; 
2. price resource use and waste disposal realistically to include the costs of 
adverse ecological and health impacts; 
 
 69 
 
3. promote access to information about voluntary strategies to improve resource 
efficiency industrial ecology education among )]; 
4. encourage material exchange; 
5. promote proximity to sources of labor [(to reduce employee transportation to 
and from work)]; and 
6. facilitate the [integration] of industrial practices into the urban fabric through 
cleaner production and use of less toxic processes, intermodal transportation 
([e.g., sending/receiving of freight via two or more different modes of 
transportation]) access, and modern infrastructure networks. 
 
The taxes imposed by the government deter tenant actions that would 
consequently produce negative externalities.  This ensures that tenants are focusing 
on the impacts their operations may have on the environment and the surrounding 
community and implementing systems that protect their well being.  As an example, 
the landfill tax provides a landfill tax credit scheme, which enables landfill operators 
to gain tax credits when they contribute with environmental initiatives (Eco-
 Efficiency Centre, 2004).  This tax credit would not benefit the EIP directly, but it 
would motivate environmentally friendly efforts by a business partner of the EIP.  
Even though taxes are a great mechanism for directing firms towards favorable 
economic development, the government has to take great care in how it imposes 
them.  For example, if the government decides to tax byproducts (like fly ash and 
other coal combustion products harmful to the environment) coming from power 
generating Company A, then there will be intended and unintended consequences in 
result.  The intended result will be the implementation of an improved system for 
 
 70 
 
capturing coal combustion products, the development of a process that uses different 
technology (and possibly even a different input resource) to produce power, or a long 
term investment in renewable energy sources.  Either way, Company A will be 
motivated to produce less coal combustion products and will set goals in that 
direction.  The unintended result will be observed from Company B.  Company B is 
an EIP neighbor of Company A and entered the EIP primarily to capitalize on the 
coal combustion byproducts produced by Company A.  If the government taxes coal 
combustion products (i.e., a carbon tax), then Company A may reduce its output of 
coal combustion products to a level that may not satisfy Company B?s requirements.  
Company B would be hurt by a byproduct tax because it may have to purchase more 
expensive supplier materials to supplement what it receives from Company A, 
restructure its production system to accommodate this resource switch, and 
experience an overall decrease in economic efficiency as a result.  For government 
taxation to be beneficial, policy makers must take into account both intentional and 
unintentional consequences that may arise. 
 In addition to policy making, the government also holds the responsibility of 
providing funding for eco-industrial development projects.  According to Heeres et al. 
(2004), the government is typically the project initiator/commissioner, the project 
manager, and/or a member of the planning group.  Typically, most EIP projects are 
initiated through distribution of government funded grants (Lowe et al., 1997).  van 
Leeuwen et al. (2003) describes the Dutch government as executioners of planning 
design and developers of a ?road map.? This roadmap is ?a means to develop an EIP 
that fits [the regional] landscape, has high standard[s] [for] facilities, and is flexible 
 
 71 
 
for future expansion? (van Leeuwen et al., 2003).  Furthermore, they must conduct 
specific administrative duties that are associated with preliminary planning, service 
provision (e.g., providing funding for infrastructure required by EIP tenants at low or 
no cost), citizen services, sale and distribution of land leases, promotion of 
networking between companies to uncover potential symbiotic linkages, and even 
some consulting services (e.g. the Department of Commerce?s Economic 
Development Administration providing local economic development offices with 
guidelines and procedures for EIP projects) (Heeres et al., 2004).  Martin et al. (1996) 
and van Leeuwen et al. (2003) describe the local government as providing regional 
information for potential tenants and investors as well; and communicating 
information pertaining to regulations, available brownfield site locations, envisioned 
performance requirements, community labor outlook, and regional virgin resources 
data. 
 In some cases (typically in Asia and countries where the private sector is not 
capable of financing such projects), the local government may decide to set up a 
public authority to lead the development efforts.  Public authorities are very similar to 
development corporations, except their existence is initiated by the government.  
Public authorities include members from community organizations but primarily 
consist of multi-disciplinary personnel from local environmental protection agencies, 
economic development agencies, ?green? design consultants, and industrial park 
consultants.  These authorities serve as an extensive administrative structure for 
planning, recruitment, construction, environmental management, and maintenance.  
They play a critical role in cross-industry networking between potential tenant firms 
 
 72 
 
and serve to catalyze the exploration of regional symbiotic linkages.  In the long run, 
public authorities cannot guarantee the success of the EIP. To ensure the EIP is 
upholding industrially ecological principles, the public authority will appoint several 
of its members to the EIP management board (Koenig, 2005). 
 
2.2.2 ? Private Investors and Development Teams 
 Private investors decide to invest in EIP projects based on the probability of 
success and the degree of uncertainty and risk involved in the project.  Before doing 
this, they typically consult government agencies, as described in the previous section, 
for information that will allow them to assess how feasible such a project would be 
for the region in question.  More often than not, private investors will hire a 
consulting team to conduct the feasibility study and analyze how economically 
beneficial (to the private investors) and sustainable an EIP could be.  In other cases, 
the investor would accept business proposals or a pro forma (i.e., a document 
projecting the costs and revenues over the life of the project to determine its 
economic feasibility) from an EIP development team or the potential tenant firms 
themselves (Desrochers, 2001). 
 In the case where the government chooses to participate in an EIP 
development project, a development ?team? would be assembled to actually execute 
the planned design and development tasks (Lowe et al., 1997).  Similar to private 
investors, development corporations (also known as just ?Developers?) put together 
teams to engage in the EIP design and development process.  The development team 
typically consists of a mix of hired industrial development consultants, members from 
 
 73 
 
the relevant government agencies (e.g., local environmental protection and economic 
development administrations), and members from non-governmental community and 
business organizations.  Development teams typically partake in the strategic 
planning and decision-making implementation that is required to produce the EIP.  To 
be more specific, they ?manage the complex process of acquiring land, managing and 
planning of feasibility studies, and assembling of investment strategies? (Lowe et al., 
1997). 
One interesting example of development team practice comes from the 
Netherlands, where four different development systems are most often executed.  The 
?Eco-classification system? requires that Dutch development teams create a master 
plan of the EIP in collaboration with other decision-makers (e.g., government 
agencies, potential tenants, and community leaders) and stakeholders.  This plan for 
development focuses on two groups of themes: themes focusing on how EIP affects 
its surroundings and themes focusing on construction of the EIP itself.  The 
?Environmental Grading System? instructs Dutch development teams to implement 
three packages.  The first package responds to municipal obligations by meeting 
environmental requirements presented to them by local regulatory agencies.  The 
obligatory-second package requires development teams to provide individual firms 
(looking to enter the EIP) with all mandatory criteria for involvement in the EIP.  
These criteria would be aligned with achieving a beneficial triple bottom line and are 
derived from requirements the potential tenant firm must meet.  The non-obligatory 
third package presents development teams with the opportunity to provide individual 
firms with additional rules and to suggest product and process innovations.  The 
 
 74 
 
?Sustainability Scan? system instructs Dutch development teams to gather 
information and interview potential tenant firms to assess their realistic carrying 
capacity and willingness to take action.  The research and subsequent interviews help 
paint a picture of how feasible a potential tenant would be with respect to existing and 
probable tenants already in the EIP.  Similar to the ?Sustainability Scan? system, the 
?Helping Hand? system encourages symbiosis through communication, decision 
points, and steering roles of each participating actor.  This system aims to develop 
enough carrying capacity (i.e., region?s ability to deal with EIP?s industrial 
metabolism) for EIP tenants within five steps: (1) initiation, (2) orientation, (3) 
decision-making, (4) design and (5) implementation.  The last system commonly 
employed by Dutch development teams is the ?Roadmap and Quick-scan? system.  
Like the name implies, the development team uses a ?roadmap? (developed in 
conjunction with the appropriate government agency as a means to the design and 
development process) to conduct a ?quick-scan.?  The ?quick-scan? was developed so 
development teams could make a qualitative assessment of an industrial park.  Thus, 
the ?quick-scan? serves as the methodology for assessing how a firm would fit into an 
EIP whose criteria for entry are contained in the ?road map.?  From the preceding 
Dutch development team examples, it is clear that they are responsible for assessing 
the firms that plan on entering the EIP; for assessing the carrying capacity of the 
proposed region; for recruiting tenant firms; and for promoting the EIP concept 
among community members (van Leeuwen et al., 2003). 
2.2.3 ? The Community, Non-Governmental Community 
Organizations, and Educational Institutions 
 
 
 75 
 
 Typically, communities are thought of as a grouping of people that have 
something in common.  There are three types of communities that exist (Tropman et 
al., 2001):  
1. Geographic communities range from local neighborhoods, suburbs, villages, 
towns or cities, regions, nations and even the planet as a whole. These refer to 
communities of location. 
2. Communities of culture range from the local clique, sub-culture, ethnic group, 
religion, or the global community of cultures. They may be included as 
communities of need or identity, such as disabled persons, or the elderly. 
3. Community organizations range from informal family or kinship networks, to 
more formal incorporated associations, political decision-making structures, 
economic enterprises, or professional associations at a small, national or 
international scale. 
In the context of this thesis, ?community? refers to the non-governmental 
community organizations that proactively represent geographic community members 
(e.g., the town hall meeting participants), business community members, and the local 
non-human living organism community.  These community organizations can be 
thought of as the voice of the stakeholders, because they typically collaborate with 
EIP developers and government agencies (the decision-makers) during the design and 
development of EIP projects.  The decision-makers need to consult with community 
organizations to learn how community members are reacting to decisions and actions 
occurring during the EIP design and development process (Martin et al., 1996).  
 
 76 
 
Community organizations are not responsible for funding the EIP project; however, 
they do hold the power to exercise political routines.  These political routines are 
carried out when the community organization feels its constituents will be negatively 
impacted by the authorization of a decision and decides to block or mitigate the 
authorization.  This typically leads to bargaining between the community 
organization and the decision-makers (Mintzberg et al., 1976).  Open house or town 
hall meetings serve as a suitable arena for bargaining to occur, typically resulting in 
consensus building between decision-makers and stakeholders.  Before political 
interrupts can harm the development process, decision-makers may issue EIP 
informational packages (highlighting the benefits, drawbacks, principles, and plan of 
development associated with the EIP project) and surveys directly to community 
members (or at least community organization members) in order to gain valuable 
feedback from the community before opposition can form (Lowe, 2001). 
 Educational institutions play an important research based role in the design 
and development process of EIPs.  These institutions are often sponsored by the state 
government to conduct research that will produce tools for design and analysis of 
industrial eco-systems.  Faculty and staff from business, engineering, environmental 
sciences, architecture, and other disciplines could support planning, conduct action 
research on the project, provide technical and management training, and even provide 
students for internship or work study programs (i.e., lower cost temporary 
employees).  To support planning, these institutions often conduct feasibility studies 
to determine what industrial clusters are suitable for the region?s proposed EIP.  
Many partnerships can be formed between tenants and educational institutions that 
 
 77 
 
would benefit both organizations.  For example, if an EIP recruited a renewable 
energy tenant, then that tenant could benefit from a partnership with a nearby 
university by gaining access to the university?s body of work in the areas of 
renewable energy and industrial ecology.  This partnership would benefit the 
university by providing them with a source of renewable energy industry perspective 
that can help align faculty research focus and current industry needs (Lowe, 2001).  
Universities can even play a leadership role by forming multi-disciplinary teams that 
educate industry leaders, community organizations, and contribute directly to 
research and development efforts.  As an example, Nova Scotia?s Burnside Industrial 
Park was initiated by a multi-disciplinary team based at Dalhousie University?s 
School of Resource and Environmental Studies.  Another example brings us to 
Fairfield Eco-Industrial Park in Baltimore, Maryland.  The earliest research and 
development efforts were conducted by Cornell University in conjunction with 
Baltimore Development Corporation. 
 
2.2.4 ? EIP Inhabitants 
 Prior to entering the EIP, potential tenant firms are responsible for several 
tasks.  Design charrettes are large workshops initiated by community organizations, 
government agencies, or private sector organizations to address a particular design 
issue.  Potential tenant firms, investors and stakeholders are invited alike.  These 
charrettes are primarily responsible for encouraging agreement on project goals, 
saving time by collaborating on ideas, issues, and concerns early in the design process 
(to help avoid costly iterative redesign activities later), and to formally initiate the EIP 
 
 78 
 
design process.  In addition, the design charrettes introduces industrial ecology to 
those unfamiliar with it and establishes planning and design actions to be taken by 
decision-makers (Todd, 2009).  Potential firms must participate in design charrettes to 
gain an early idea as to how entering an EIP would benefit, or harm, the company, 
and to show an early interest in the project.  If tenant criteria have not been developed 
by the EIP development team yet, then the potential tenant should analyze their 
business operations to see if they meet (or can feasibly change to meet) tenant 
criteria.  This is an important self assessment that can be carried out by the 
environmental management system personnel of a potential tenant.  While 
determining if a potential tenant meets the EIP tenant criteria, an analysis to 
determine whether they should even enter the EIP is conducted, with the firm?s best 
interests guiding the analysis.  This analysis is based on symbiotic compatibility with 
other finalized tenant firms (or, more generally, the prominent industrial sectors 
represented at the design charrette), existing industrial-scale production regulations 
and ordinances, the anticipated financial burden, and any anticipated risks and 
uncertainties (and their associated magnitude).  The next task potential tenants are 
faced with, is providing operational requirement information to the EIP development 
team.  Potential tenants must be careful not to divulge proprietary information to 
industry competitors while reporting production system characteristics and 
requirements.  (Lowe et al., 1997). 
 Once a tenant firm has been given a lease and the permission to operate within 
the EIP, several more responsibilities arise.  The tenant firm must provide funds for 
facility construction on land they have selected to lease.  If the tenant doesn?t have 
 
 79 
 
enough capital to fund land leasing and construction, then investors can be solicited to 
help cover these costs.  If infrastructure is not paid for by the government, then tenant 
firm needs to collaborate with neighboring tenant firms as to who will pay for each 
required structural element and to determine an overall infrastructure construction 
plan.  Before construction of facilities and infrastructure can initiate, tenant firms 
need to determine what changes to their operations and production processes are 
required to ensure symbiotic compatibility with neighboring firms and the 
surrounding community.  This is typically done in collaboration with the neighbors 
the tenant firm intends on entering bilateral agreements with (Koenig, 2005).  On a 
higher level, tenant firms must collaborate with the EIP development team on action 
points contained in the master plan.  The master plan is created by the development 
team and describes the layout design of the EIP, the involved partnerships, the site 
architecture, landscape design, vegetation distribution (also called ?plant palette?), 
signage, lighting, site amenities, and EIP transportation and circulation (Potts-Carr, 
1998).  In the long term, each tenant must ensure that there is room for growth for 
their company.  This typically requires building co-owned warehousing or storage 
units, purchasing more land than needed initially, and continually looking for new 
byproduct exchange opportunities.  New byproduct exchanges should always be 
searched for in case existing neighbors move away or decide to change their 
production scheme that would, in the process, eliminate a byproduct supply flow (into 
the tenant) or a byproduct demand flow (out from the tenant) that existed before.  
Considering the surrounding community, a loss in demand for the tenant?s products 
 
 80 
 
or services or an interruption in the flow of reusable waste into the tenant could lead 
to an increase in input resource costs (Nolan, 2004). 
Once the development team is finished with its design, development, and 
implementation tasks, it is time for an EIP management board to be formed.  As 
mentioned earlier, this board typically consists of government agency members, 
development team members, and a capable manager from each EIP tenant.  During 
the EIP development process, the management board is responsible for the tasks 
listed in Table 2. 
 
Table 2: Responsibilities of EIP Management Board (UNEP, 1996) 
1. Planning 
 
? identify possible sites 
? conduct environmental impact assessments 
? select sites (from pool of potential greenfield and brownfield site alternatives) 
? undertake pre-planning 
? present conceptual design layouts and decide which layout fits the 
community, environment, and neighboring companies best 
? develop an environmental policy and set environmental performance 
objectives 
? locate sources of funding to finance the project 
? attract industry leaders who have ability to invest in byproduct exchange 
projects with other symbiotic industrial leaders 
2. Operating 
 
? manage construction of infrastructure and services (in cooperation with 
contractors and EIP inhabitants) 
? coordinate operation of infrastructure and services between EIP inhabitants 
? design individual facility sites 
? construct facilities 
? landscape sites 
? market environmental quality to ensure that all EIP participants are aware of 
expectations, to ease the community about how EIP will impact them, and to 
make community more aware of how it can contribute to resource reuse, 
recycling, and recovery 
? transport of goods, materials, and people 
? facilitating networks between companies within and outside of EIP 
3. Control 
? monitor rate of emissions and media quality 
? motivate tenants to perform for environmental achievement and provide 
incentives for positive results 
? enforce regulations or covenants 
? audit environmental performance 
? report on environmental performance of companies and park 
? attend to common safety issues and ensure the facilities are safe to conduct 
business in. 
 
 81 
 
? establish a regulatory framework (e.g., codes, covenants, and restrictions) 
 
 No matter how talented the EIP management board is, there is little hope for 
proper development of an EIP that will improve a region?s triple bottom line without 
the determination of a set of EIP project deliverables early by EIP developers.  These 
deliverables should overlap significantly with what the stakeholders and decision 
makers consider to be important objectives of the EIP project.  Some standard 
deliverables from EIP design and development projects include (but are not limited 
to) the following (van Beers, 2008): 
? Industrial Ecology Feasibility Analysis (of the region in question):  Takes into 
account and clearly define the resource pool of the region, the existing 
business makeup (ranging from small business to industrial scale production 
centers), potential regulatory drawbacks, and potential for by-product, energy, 
water, or other ecologically-friendly symbiotic exchanges; 
? Action Plan: Acknowledges challenges, notes benefits, creates initial 
estimates (for land required and cost of infrastructure, utilities, etc.), and 
mentions possible sources of funding and why those entities would be 
interested (e.g. ROI, regional economic revitalization, job creation, 
environmental waste reduction, etc.). Also highlights roles and responsibilities 
of decision makers in the project; 
? Symbiosis Network (web-based): Public (or by registration to preserve 
companies? valuable production information) disclosure of available 
byproduct materials, available alternative or recovered energy, non-potable 
water, or any other items or ?waste? that may be considered for a symbiotic 
 
 82 
 
exchange.  May be organized with respect to industry, business type, needed 
byproducts, or by byproducts that would need to be donated or sold; 
? Improvements to infrastructure nearby EIP site; and 
? Introduction of new, lower cost, and less environmentally harmful utilities or 
services that would be provided by new EIP tenants (depending on what 
organizations and businesses enter the EIP). 
 
2.3 ? Important Objectives of EIP Development Projects 
 Typically, businesses advertise their concern for society and the environment 
in order to increase their customer base.  This advertisement attracts environmentally-
 conscious customers who prefer companies that abide by the ?recycle, reduce and 
reuse? ideology and expect the companies they do business with to do the same (U.S. 
EPA, 2010).  In today?s world, sustainable development is beginning to gain more 
attention because resources (both renewable and non-renewable) are being used at a 
rate proportional to global population growth.  Since the global population is 
growing, the consumption rate of non-renewable resources will increase and, in 
addition, the consumption rate of renewable resources may outpace the generation 
rate of renewable resources (Nassos, 2010).  With an increase in resource 
consumption rate, the cost of these resources will increase as well, especially where 
scarcities appear first.  A current example of this can be seen in the European 
automobile industry.  Compact vehicles that consume less fuel are gaining popularity 
because the cost of fuel (which is dependent on the availability of oil) is increasing 
 
 83 
 
higher than it is in other countries (like the United States) where the cost of fuel is not 
as high.  This increase in the cost of resources will only hurt the economic bottom 
line of companies reliant on those resources and, on a macro-level, the communities 
that have to pay higher prices for the same products or services.  Thus, to continue 
successful growth of their business, companies reliant on physical-resources (e.g., 
small, medium, and large size manufacturers, chemical producers, building materials 
producers, and other resource intensive industries) must determine what measures 
will yield the most efficient use of the available resources and ensure that these 
resources will still be available in the future. 
The practice of sustainable development is one way to combat the increasing 
resource scarcity problem.  As mentioned in the Introduction, sustainable 
development ensures the well-being of present communities (both human, and non-
 human), without harming the benefits of future communities and the environment.  
One way to measure how sustainable business operations are is to use the triple 
bottom line accounting methodology.  It is one of many accounting measures that 
considers the ??simultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity, environmental quality 
and social equity? as goals for a given organization (Elkington, 1998).  The metrics 
used to measure value for each particular entity are not always obvious, but they need 
to divulge how the EIP is achieving its fundamental objectives and maximizing the 
triple bottom line.  Money flow fluctuations (recorded in company income 
statements, balance sheets and cash flow sheets) can describe how the EIP is 
maximizing its economic bottom line, but it is up to the EIP tenant management to 
 
 84 
 
determine suitable societal and environmental measures of effectiveness that will 
portray a maximized bottom line. 
Environmental measures of effectiveness can be found by looking at the 
physical and biological effects on the environment (like waste disposal rate, or 
resource consumption rate); however, there is some difficulty in determining the 
boundary of the industrial system.  Environmental measures of effectiveness need to 
measure how much: 
? water is being reused by the EIP (over a given amount of time); 
? water is being disposed of by the EIP; 
? greenhouse gas is being emitted from the EIP and not being captured; 
? greenhouse gas is being reused by other tenants or community members 
adjacent to the EIP; 
? waste material is being terminally disposed of by EIP tenants. 
Societal benefits and impacts can be measured by considering the stakeholders 
(people in the surrounding communities, business communities and others directly or 
indirectly affected by the industrial system in question).  An increase in tax base to 
the region, newly created high-skill level jobs, increase in traffic to complementary 
industries, re-growth of renewable resources (or revived public property), decreases 
in utilization of local landfills, and similar measures can all be considered as useful 
indicators for increasing social equity (Gertler, 1995). 
In order to assess how well a particular EIP development project will perform 
with respect to maximizing a region?s TBL, the objectives of the EIP development 
decisions must be analyzed for alignment with the TBL objectives.  To do this, a 
 
 85 
 
rubric was created to categorize and score the objectives of decisions made by EIP 
development teams during EIP development projects.  Each decision objective in the 
EIP development process is evaluated with respect to two criteria: (1) their 
performance with respect to four attributes (which results in a ?grade?) and (2) how 
equally the decision?s objectives attempt to advance the TBL?s three high-level 
fundamental objectives.  These criteria and the rubric will be discussed in full within 
section 3.4.  The TBL?s objectives (i.e., means, low-level fundamental and high-level 
fundamental objectives) are connected with respect to how they are advanced or 
being advanced by others.  The means-objectives are objectives that help achieve 
other objectives (either other means-objectives or fundamental objectives), where as 
fundamental-objectives are objectives that are important because they reflect what 
really needs to be accomplished (March and Simon, 1958).  The connections are 
represented by lines connecting the objectives.  The many different means-objective 
chains and can be seen in Figure 12 through Figure 15.  
 
Figure 12: TBL's high-level fundamental objectives 
 
 
 86 
 
 
Figure 13: TBL's objectives that contribute to the societal bottom line 
 
Figure 14: TBL's objectives that contribute to the environmental bottom line 
 
 
 87 
 
 
Figure 15: TBL's objectives that contribute to the economic bottom line 
 
The objectives in Figures 13, 14, and 15 list different means to maximizing 
the triple bottom line.  The EIP development team must generate EIP project goals 
and initiatives that will maximize the triple bottom line of the region in question, not 
just their own financial bottom line.  This means that the objectives of the EIP focus 
on maximizing benefit to the environment, society, and the regional economy.  An 
EIP can serve to enhance benefits for its inhabitants, society, and the environment, 
thus, ensuring sustainable development of the region in question. 
 
2.4 ? Analysis of EIP Development Processes  
2.4.1 ? The Structured Decision Process 
 
 The structured decision process identified by Mintzberg et al. (1976) consists 
of twelve elements: three central phases (i.e., identification, development, and 
 
 88 
 
selection), three sets of supporting routines (i.e., decision control routines, design 
communication routines, and political routines), and six sets of dynamic factors that 
help explain the relationship among the central and supporting routines (i.e., 
interrupts, scheduling delays, timing delays and speedups, feedback delays, 
comprehension cycles [i.e., learning that occurs with respect to the decision-making 
problem?s constraints, requirements, alternatives, and other information after multiple 
iterations of the design, search, screening, or evaluation of choice routines are 
experienced], and failure recycles).  This paper conducted an excellent study that 
utilized graduate student teams to conduct interviews with decision-makers within 25 
different organizations.  The decision-makers answered 21 questions (either during 
the decision-making process or toward the end of it) that were intended to 
comprehensively define the ?unstructured? decision process that they conducted 
(Mintzberg et al., 1976).  Mintzberg et al. (1976) defines a decision as a specific 
commitment to action (e.g., resource allocation) and defines a decision process as a 
set of actions and dynamic factors that begins with the identification of a stimulus for 
action and ends with the specific commitment to action.  In addition, it is important to 
note that Mintzberg et al. (1976) defines an unstructured decision process as a 
process that has not been encountered in quite the same way by the organization in 
question.  This implies that the organization conducting an unstructured decision 
process will not have a predetermined set of ordered responses (e.g. a set of heuristics 
to help solve a commonly faced production problem) and that they will be making a 
decision under ambiguity (where almost nothing is given or easily determined at the 
onset of the decision process).  For the sake of time, each of these elements will not 
 
 89 
 
be discussed here, but how they relate can be seen in Figure 16.  With respect to eco-
 industrial development, the stimulus is typically of the opportunity type because the 
EIP project initiators are not acting under intense pressures (i.e., when a ?crisis? 
stimulus arises); instead, they?re attempting to improve a situation that could be 
improved. 
 
 
Figure 16: Structure of General Decision-Making Process (Mintzberg et al., 1976) 
 
The top portion of Figure 16 identifies the primary phases: identification, 
development, and selection.  Each shaded block in Figure 16 represents a routine 
carried out by the decision-makers, while the straight arrows represent the transition 
to a new routine within the process.  The curved arrows represent inherent delays that 
occur after a routine; these include scheduling, feedback, and timing delays.  Each 
circular node separating transitions between routines represents a decision that needs 
to be made to determine the next course of action (i.e., a meta-decision), and are 
based on available information, potential for interrupts, overall time to complete 
 
 90 
 
entire decision process, and authorizations or permissions that may be required before 
selecting and moving on to the next routine.  Mintzberg et al. (1976) uses the 12 
elements of structured decision-making to differentiate the 25 examined strategic 
decision processes and place them into the following seven categories (also referred 
to as strategic decision types): 
 
1) Simple impasse decision processes ? begins with recognition 
(triggered by stimuli); followed by diagnosis; some internal interrupts, 
and the evaluation and selection of choices. 
2) Political design decision process ? begins with recognition, followed 
by diagnosis, design of solution, political interrupts (internal or 
external), and evaluation of choices.  Political interruptions lead to 
more redesign (to counter political interruptions).  Evaluation of 
Choices, after redesign, is required, so the analysis and bargaining 
routines are performed extensively before a selection is made. 
3) Basic search decision process ? begins with recognition, followed by 
search.  Search typically contains one or two nested steps; search 
flowing into the evaluation of choices routine followed by continued 
search).  Some interrupts typically occur, so the selection of phase 
involves the analysis and bargaining routines.  This process concludes 
with the selection routine. 
4) Modified search decision process ? this process includes development 
activity that requires modifications (limited design activities) to ready-
 
 91 
 
made alternatives (e.g. retrofitting or remanufacturing).  The process 
begins with the recognition routine, followed by design, evaluation of 
choices, search for more choices, further evaluation of choices (i.e., 
nested iteration between search, design, and evaluation of choices (or, 
just ?nested design?)), and finally authorization. 
5) Basic Design Decision Processes (marketing) ? this process focuses on 
extensive design activity that leads to complex and innovative custom-
 made solutions (e.g. EIP development projects).  This process is 
usually observed when opportunities or relatively mild problems arise.  
The process is of short duration with no political interference ? 
commercial decisions taken by business or business-like, 
organizations; measurable factors of profit clearly out-weight political 
considerations.  Typically, this process begins with recognition, 
followed by design, evaluation of choices, nested design, and finally 
ending with authorization. 
6) Blocked design decision processes (public works) ? this decision 
process is similar to basic design decision processes, except final 
stages (selection phase) are hindered by outside groups (e.g., 
community groups demonstrating opposition to a public or private 
development project that they believe will have negative impacts on 
their community).  The selection phase would typically include 
analysis and bargaining routines (in an iterative manner) so decision-
 
 92 
 
makers can form consensus with the opposing stakeholders.  This 
process would then conclude with the authorization routine.  
7) Dynamic Design decision processes (facilities) ? these decision 
processes are the most complicated.  They typically encounter multiple 
interrupts, usually of the problem or problem-crisis type (i.e., 
unpredictable and potentially detrimental to the project), and last 
roughly 1 to 4 years.  The dynamic nature of these facilities? decisions 
reflects (a) the relatively large investment needed, (b) the complex 
design activity involved in such facilities, and, paradoxically, (c) the 
likelihood of new option interrupts because of the availability of 
ready-made structures (e.g. brownfield sites, facility layouts, building 
material availability, etc.).  This decision process typically involves 
recognition, design, evaluation of choice, interrupts (internal and/or 
external), and further nested evaluation of choice (with, judgment, 
analysis, and bargaining routines being exercised heavily).  The 
evaluation of choice routine is followed by more design, and search 
routines, or flows into the authorization routine.  All nested activities 
occur in reaction or in anticipation of interrupts. 
Mintzberg et al. (1976) shows that any unstructured decision-making process can be 
classified as one of these seven types of decision-making processes. It is important to 
realize that these categories were constructed from synthesis of the 12 elements 
contained in the general decision process (or strategic decision process); these 
elements serve as the building blocks to the general decision process.  By using the 
 
 93 
 
same approach employed by the graduate teams in Mintzberg et al. (1976), the 12 
elements (or at least the six routines) of their general decision process can be used to 
categorize the decisions made during the EIP design and development processes. 
2.4.2 ? The 21 EIP Development Processes and the Structured Decision 
Process 
 
The EIP development process, the parties involved, and the objectives of EIP 
projects have been described up to this point.  Now, it is time to focus more on the 
design and development process used by development teams to bring EIP projects 
into the implementation phase.  Research was conducted to identify 21 EIPs.  Next, 
was the documentation of the development processes belonging to the 21 EIPs 
worldwide and in the U.S..  The documents that were studied include informational 
brochures (attempting to market EIPs), presentations given by EIP developers, 
feasibility studies, journal articles that analyze EIP development projects, journal 
articles that present and analyze EIP case studies, government publications (that 
included everything from guidelines to EIP development to case studies around the 
world), news articles, and websites advertising specific EIP development projects.  
The properties of these 21 EIP projects are summarized in the tables below.  Table 3 
states where the EIP development project takes place and Table 4 explains the 
participant decision making entities for each EIP project. 
 
 94 
 
Table 3: 21 EIP projects studied and their locations (EIP Design Process #1 courtesy of: (Nolan, 
2004). EIP Design Process #2 courtesy of: (Lowe, 1997).EIP Design Process #3 courtesy of: 
(Wasserman, 2001). EIP Design Process #4 courtesy of: (Koenig, 2005).) 
 
 
 
 
 95 
 
 
Table 4: 21 studied EIP projects and the decision makers leading their development 
EIP 
Design 
Process # 
Decision Making Entities 
1 
Community, EID team, local/potential/involved businesses, regulatory 
agencies 
2 
Organizing Team (Industrial Development Authority if gov't initiates; 
Development Corporation otherwise), Tenants, Personnel from 
Environmental Protection, local Universities, and Economic Development 
Agencies, Recruiters, Investment Recovery Specialists, Multi-disciplinary 
consulting organizations 
3 
Developers, Architects, Landscape Architects, Construction Managers, Firm 
(tenant) Mgmt, Local and State Gov't (economic and environmental dept.s), 
EIP mgmt entity, University IE research centers, Private sector brokering or 
scavenger firms, private firms (consultants) 
4 
EIP Planning Office (Team Leader/Director), Municipal Sustainable Dev. Pilot 
Region Mgmt Office (Registered Planner and vice team leader), Municipal 
Environmental Protection Bureau (EPB) (Senior Engineer), Municipal 
Planning Bureau (Registered Planner), EIP EPB (Manager), EIP Economic 
Development Bureau (EDB) (Vice Manager), EIP Planning and Construction 
Mgmt Office (Specialized Consultants/Contractors), EIP Planning Academy, 
Professional Technology School (Vice Dean), Representative engineers and 
mgmt from tenants 
5 
Saint Peter Community Development Corporation, Saint Peter Ambassadors 
(Community representatives),  
Saint Peter Chamber of Commerce, NRG Inc. (a private energy provider), 
Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, The City of St. Peters, and a 
newly created EID Advisory Committee/Board 
6 
University of California Center for Economic Development, National Center 
for Eco-Industrial Development (NCEID), GERE Properties Inc. (builders of 
materials recovery facility), Perry Ridge Landfill Inc., Perry County, Union 
Pacific Corporation (rail lines for transloading operation), Illinois EPA 
Administrative Region Seven 
NOTE: The report primarily focused on potential regional tenants, business 
partners, and very few gov't organizations since it was a feasibility study 
focusing on the byproduct exchanges and financing 
7 
Businesses, community leaders, government agencies (e.g. the Business 
Council for Sustainable Development - Gulf of Mexico (BCSD-GM), EPA, 
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), trade 
organizations, etc.), consulting firms,  
8 
Devens Enterprise Commission (12 elected member volunteers from 
community) (DEC), Towns of Ayer, Harvard, Lancaster, and Shirley, 
Massachusetts Government Land Bank, Division of Capital Planning and 
Operations (DCPO), Joint Boards of Selectmen (from the 4 participating 
towns), Land Use Administrator (appointed by DEC), Involved/Perspective 
Tenants 
9 
FCM Green Municipal Funds, Town mayor and council (Town of Hinton 
Council), planning & engineering staff (e.g. Development Officer and 
Municipal Planning Commission), Local Environmental Groups, Local 
 
 96 
 
industry representatives, Herold Development Services Ltd (so called 
Development Authority), Holland Barrs Planning Group, Western Economic 
Diversification, Climate Change Central 
10 
Wood Buffalo Housing and Development Corporation, Eco-Industrial 
Solutions Ltd, Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB), Dillon 
Consulting Ltd, Natural Resources Canada (funding), TD - Alberta 
Commercial Banking Group, Business Development Bank of Canada 
11 
EIN members: BC Hydro, Burns Bog Conservation Society, CAPTIN, Delta 
Chamber of Commerce, Delta Recycling Society (DRS) Earthwise, Fraser 
Basin Council, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, Nature's Path 
Foods, Pistol & Burnes, Taylor Munro Energy Systems, Terasen Gas Inc., 
The Corporation of Delta, West Bay Son Ship Yachts, the Eco-Industrial 
Group, and Schenker Pacific Logistics 
12 
Ross Businesses (currently 500 businesses in existing industrial park), City 
of Regina, Regina Eco-Industrial Networking Association (REINA), Transport 
Canada ? Moving on Sustainable Transportation (funding), Regina-based 
Communities of Tomorrow - Partners for Sustainability (funding), 
Saskatchewan Environment, and the University of Regina 
13 
Golden LEAF, Research Triangle Regional Partnership, University of North 
Carolina at Chapel Hill (Office of Economic Development), Kerr-Tar (Northern 
Tier) Council of Governments, Department of Commerce, Industrial leaders 
in region, General Assembly, EPA, U.S. Economic Development 
Administration, and the Governor's Economic Development Board 
14 
Regional Council of Etel?-Savo, Rejlers Oy Engineering (project lead and 
EIP coordinator until July 2007), Real Estate Rantasalmen Silva Oy 
{(manages and maintains the land and premises and acts as a development 
company in the region) (owned by Rantasalmi municipality (49%), 
Rantasalmi Oy (49%) and Spikera Oy (2%))}, Rantasalmi Oy (loghouse mfg), 
Sil-Kas Oy (wood processing company), Korpihonka (wood product 
company), Raitaranta (carpentry company), Myllys Ky (family company 
providing transport and forklift truck services; maintains local wood drier), JK-
 Ter?met Ky (regional blade maintenance), and Kanttiini Seija Partinen 
(restaurant) 
15 
Colmac Energy, Inc. (a biomass-fueled power generation plant). First Nation 
Recovery Inc. (a crumb rubber manufacturer from old tires), Non-Profit 
Development and Park management (w/ board of directors from tenant 
businesses), Public Agencies (EPA, economic development department, 
City, etc.), Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (landowners; Planning 
Department carries out actions),  
16 
Daejeon Metropolitan City (administrative support), Hanwha Group 
(management support and operation of support programs for tenants), Korea 
Development Bank (financial support) 
17 
Northampton County, Community (non-profit committee or council members), 
Official Planning Team (consists of: designers, architects and engineers; 
federal, state, and local government regulatory and support agencies; public 
and private potential investors; potential corporate tenants) 
18 
Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand (IEAT) (envisions projects that 
incorporate by-product exchange, resource recovery, cleaner production, 
community programs and the development of eco-industrial networks) , 
German Technical Co-operation Organization (GTZ) (assists through 
technical transfer and policy development), Department of Industrial Works 
(helps w/ policy and regulation), Ministry of Science, Technology and the 
Environment (helps w/ policy and regulation), current estate tenants (from 5 
 
 97 
 
pilot industrial parks) 
 
19 
 
State of Washington (Washington State Department of Transportation, 
Washington State Community Economic Revitalization Board), Port of 
Columbia (Columbia County), Pacific Power, City of Dayton,  USKH 
Architecture and Engineering firm, and potential tenants 
20 
Community Redevelopment Agency, the City of Los Angeles (Community 
Planning Bureau), the County of Los Angeles, Community Stakeholders 
(Hyde Park Organization for Empowerment, Park Mesa Heights Community 
Council, View Park Community Association, Hyde Park Community Advisory 
Committee, Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative (LANI), and other 
neighborhood councils), Private Developers, a Community Development 
Corporation (such as West Angeles CDC), Hyde Park Merchants 
Association, Economic Development Administration 
21 
Santa Cruz County (Board of Supervisors and staff within Department of 
Public Works, and Planning Dept.), HDR/Brown, Vence and Associates 
(HDR/BVA), Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD).  *** 
Considering waste transfer station in 2008, but EIP as a whole deemed not 
feasible in mid-2009 by Board of Supervisors ***  
 
We rely upon the findings of Mintzberg et al. (1976) for the analyses.  First, 
the decisions used in each of the EIP development processes are categorized by the 
type of Mintzberg et al. (1976) routine they are.  Then, the EIP development process 
itself is categorized by process type, project initiating stimuli, and solution 
characteristics. 
 
 98 
 
2.4.3 - Micro-analysis: Classification of EIP Development Process 
Decisions with Respect to Mintzberg et al. (1976) Routines 
 
 Even though the decisions made during EIP design and development 
processes are not always clearly presented, documented action items and plans for the 
future can be used to implicitly determine the EIP design and development decision-
 makers and their respective decisions.  Once the development process used to develop 
each EIP was determined, each individual decision is categorized by the structured 
decision process phase (i.e. identification, development, or selection) during which it 
would occur, and then carefully matched with its corresponding routine.  Table 5 
demonstrates each of the 21 EIP development processes studied and how they are 
classified with respect to the routines of Mintzberg et al. (1976). 
 
 99 
 
Table 5: Categorizing of EIP Development Processes with respect to Strategic Decision Process? 
Routines (Template courtesy of Mintzberg et al. (1976)) 
EIP Design 
Process # 
Number of Mintzberg et al Decision Steps/Routines Reported 
Identification Phase Development Phase Selection Phase 
Recognition Diagnosis Search Design Eval. Choice Authoriz. 
1 1 4 3 6 1 1 
2 4 7 4 5 2 1 
3 1 3 3 4 3 2 
4 3 6 7 5 3 2 
5 2 6 9 2 4 3 
6 2 6 5 4 2 1 
7 4 9 5 1 4 2 
8 2 4 3 3 4 2 
9 2 7 2 7 5 3 
10 3 3 4 10 1 5 
11 2 3 2 0 0 0 
12 1 3 4 2 4 3 
13 1 4 3 3 6 4 
14 2 4 4 8 3 5 
15 1 5 3 2 5 3 
16 1 7 3 9 6 7 
17 2 3 5 4 4 4 
18 1 5 2 3 3 1 
19 1 4 1 8 4 3 
20 3 9 8 12 6 10 
21 3 9 3 3 6 6 
TOTALS: 42 111 83 101 76 68 
AVERAGES: 2.0 5.3 4.0 4.8 3.6 3.2 
 
 Each row represents a different EIP design process.  Each column to the right 
of column one represents distinct decision process routine categories (which each 
belong to one of the three decision process phases).  Each time an EIP design process 
achieves a step within their process, it is carefully categorized as one (or more) of the 
six types of routines.  Each number (other than those in column one) in Table 8 
represents the number of times a reported step within a given EIP design process 
performs the routine it is categorized under.  In some cases, a reported step may be 
categorized under more than one routine, and, in even more rare cases (where the step 
 
 100 
 
is very involved), a EIP design process step may cross over more than one Mintzberg 
et. al phase.  As a general example, if an EIP development team reports conducting a 
feasibility study of the region in question, then that activity would first be categorized 
into the identification phase because it deals with identifying the decision-making 
problem.  Afterward, the feasibility study activity can be categorized as a diagnosis 
routine because the characteristics of conducting a feasibility study (i.e., the gathering 
of information, determining the root of the problem, identifying what needs to be 
corrected or improved, and determining whether it can be achieved with the resources 
and technology available) match the characteristics of a diagnosis routine (i.e., 
identifying the problem or opportunity for improvement and gathering information 
about it to further clarify it) (Mintzberg et al., 1976). 
 
2.4.4 - Macro-analysis: Classification of EIP Development Processes with 
Respect to Mintzberg et al. (1976) Strategic Decision Types, Stimuli, and 
Solution 
 
 Once each EIP design and development process has been decomposed into a 
series of decisions which were then categorized into the strategic decision process 
routines, it is time to take a new perspective and consider what types of decision 
processes the EIP development processes are.  This information may be helpful in the 
future by providing a searchable set of classifiers that categorize the different types of 
EIP design and development processes by (1) their associated stimuli, (2) the type of 
solution, and (3) the type of decision process observed (with respect to the seven 
types of processes identified earlier). 
 
 101 
 
The initial set of decision classifications depend on the type of stimuli that is 
received by the decision-maker(s).  Stimuli generally occur during the recognition 
routine.  The stimulus is how the need for a decision gets recognized by decision-
 makers and sets the tone for the decision process ahead.  An opportunity decision is 
the most optimistic of the three classified by stimuli; it is initiated on a purely 
voluntary basis with intentions of improving an already secure situation (e.g., the 
introduction of a new product).  A crisis decision is initiated by stimuli that carry 
intense pressures with it and require immediate attention.  An example of this type of 
decision stimulus would be a fire or a bankruptcy.  The last type of decision 
categorized by stimuli is a problem decision.  These stimuli are less severe than crisis 
stimuli, and typically require more than one problem stimulus before the recognition 
routine can begin.  It is typically at the decision-makers? discretion as to whether a 
problem decision needs to be addressed within a reasonable time frame, or even at all 
(Mintzberg et al., 1976). 
The second set of decision classifications depends on the type of solution that 
the decision-makers choose.  The least likely solution to be found by EIP 
development teams is the given decision solution.  This occurs when the solution is 
already fully developed at the start of the process.  The second type of solution 
decision is a ready-made decision solution.  The ready-made solution is fully 
developed in the environment.  An example of this type of solution would be the 
purchasing of an aircraft that is already designed and built; no modification will be 
done to the aircraft before it is put to use.  The third type of decision solution is a 
custom-made solution.  Custom-made solutions are those that are developed 
 
 102 
 
specifically for the decision at hand.  For example, construction of a new 
headquarters building would only satisfy that particular ?need for new headquarters? 
decision process, but if that same company wanted to build a new factory, this 
decision process would be different because the building requirements and functions 
are fairly different.  The last type of decision solution is a modified solution.  These 
solutions are a combination between ready-made solutions and custom-made 
solutions.  These solutions contain ready-made components that are modified to fit 
the particular situation or design.  An example of this would be a solution that 
requires retrofitting of a facility?s combustion exhaust system (using known 
technology that needs to be modified to interface properly with the plant?s equipment) 
to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere (Mintzberg et al., 1976). 
The third set of decision classifications depends on the type of decision 
process used to arrive at the solution found or developed (i.e. which strategic decision 
process best approximates the decision process in question).  This can be determined 
once the decision process has been completed and the decisions have been 
categorized by their associated routines.  The decision process in question can be 
classified by identifying which of the seven decision process types contains the same 
ordering of its routines as the design process in question (i.e., ask which of the 
Mintzberg et al. strategic decision processes contains routines most closely correlates 
with the EIP decision process in question?s development steps) (Mintzberg et al., 
1976).  Please refer to the list of strategic decision types presented earlier in this 
section. 
 
 103 
 
 With each type of decision classification defined, the 21 EIP development 
processes studied can be categorized.  An example of an EIP development process 
being categorized in terms of the strategic decision process?s routines can be seen in 
Table 42 of the Appendix.  This categorizing is repeated for each of the 21 EIP 
development processes and used to determine what type of decision process they are.  
A summary of the categorizing of each EIP design process is summarized in Table 6. 
 
 104 
 
 
Table 6: EIP design processes categorized with respect to Mintzberg et al.?s decision process 
types (i.e., type of stimuli, process type, and solution type). 
EIP Design 
Process # 
Type of Decision Process 
By Stimuli By Process By Solution 
1 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
2 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
3 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
4 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
5 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
6 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
7 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
8 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
9 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
10 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
11 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
12 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
13 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
14 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
15 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
16 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
17 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
18 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
19 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
20 Opportunity Dynamic Design Modified 
21 Problem Dynamic Design Modified 
 
From this analysis, it is clear that most EIP design and development projects: 
1. Are opportunity problems (after categorizing by stimuli); 
2. Require a dynamic design decision process (after categorizing by 
decision process); and  
3. Lead to the development of a modified solution (after categorizing by 
solution type). 
The classifications of 21 EIP development decision processes has led to the 
conclusion that most of these decision processes belong to the same three categories 
(i.e. opportunity problem requiring a dynamic design decision process and resulting 
 
 105 
 
in a modified solution) and, thus, can be approached, from a decision process 
standpoint, in the same manner.  The only special case out of these 21 EIP 
development processes is EIPDP #21.  EIPDP #21 has a ?problem? stimulus instead 
of the typical ?opportunity? stimulus because the Santa Cruz County Officials 
(namely, the Monterey Regional Waste Management District Board of Directors) 
identified their current landfill, the Buena Vista Landfill, as both aging and nearing 
capacity.  Their aims were to create a byproduct-exchanging Zero-Waste Eco-Park 
where the initial development would be a conversion technology facility, but, in mid-
 2009, the Eco-Park was deemed infeasible due to a lack of public and private funding 
(ZBS Radio (2008), Laska (2009)).  Even with a differing decision process stimulus, 
all 21 of the studied EIP development processes will be revisited to create the Revised 
EIP Development Process (the REIPDP). 
 
 106 
 
 
2.4.5 - Analysis of how Decisions in Studied EIP Development Processes 
Lack Consistency with the Triple Bottom Line 
 
 To be considered a sustainable development project, the developers need to 
include representatives from the regional community, environmental organizations, 
and local industry leaders and make sure to meet each of their needs without 
compromising another?s.  A sustainable development project will be consistent with 
the maximization of a region?s triple bottom line if the EIP development team follows 
a development plan that addresses all three of the TBL?s high level fundamental-
 objectives.  In the 21 EIP development processes studied, this is not always the case.  
To analyze the 21 EIP development processes, a fundamental and means-objective 
network was created for each project to determine which steps (i.e., means) are 
actually contributing to a beneficial triple bottom line (i.e., the objective), and which 
ones do not.  These fundamental and means-objective networks were created based 
on the careful study of the documents describing each EIP?s development process.
  The means-objective network consists of means objectives and one (or more) 
fundamental objective.  The fundamental objective is the goal of the project or 
process and can also be referred to as the ends.  The means objectives are the ways 
that a given project or process will utilize in order to try to achieve the fundamental 
objective.  A chain of means objectives demonstrates how the means objectives 
connect with one another in a combined effort to advance the fundamental objective.  
An example of a means objective network can be seen in Figure 17 (Clemen and 
Reilly, 2001). 
 
 
 107 
 
 
Figure 17: Means Objective Network (Clemen and Reilly, 2001) 
 
To move from a lower level means to a higher level means objective (e.g., from the 
lower level means objective of Minimizing DUI?s to the higher level means objective 
of Maximizing driving quality in Figure 17), one must determine why completion of 
the lower level means objective is important in view of the higher level means 
objective (Herrmann, 2009).  More generally, each objective should be given the 
?why is that important? test (Clemen, 1996).  The progression up the means objective 
chain translates to means objectives being advanced until, finally, the fundamental 
objective of the project or process is reached and the deliverables are realized.  To 
move away from the fundamental objectives and towards the means objective, one 
must ask ?how can this objective be achieved? (Clemen, 1996).  For example, in 
Figure 17, to learn how the fundamental objective of ?[maximizing] safety? can be 
achieved, one must look at the means objectives it is connected to; by ?[maximizing] 
 
 108 
 
[the] use of Vehicle safety features? and ?[minimizing] accidents (Clemen and Reilly, 
2001).  Continually asking how to achieve the higher level means objective will 
generate more low level means objectives. 
 Fundamental objectives are constructed into hierarchies (see Figure 18).  In 
brief, the higher level fundamental objectives are very general, while the lower level 
fundamental objectives are more detailed and specific because they point out 
important elements (or describe) the higher level fundamental objectives (Clemen, 
1996).  An example of a fundamental objectives hierarchy can be seen in Figure 18. 
 
Figure 18: Fundamental Objectives Hierarchy (Clemen and Reilly, 2001) 
 
To travel downward from the high level fundamental objective to the lower level 
fundamental objectives, one must ask ?what do you mean by that??  So when 
considering the high level fundamental objective of ?[maximizing] safety,? asking 
?what is meant by that??, will lead the decision maker towards lower level 
fundamental objectives like  ?[minimizing] loss of life,? ?[minimizing serious 
injuries,? and ?[minimizing] minor injuries? (Clemen and Reilly, 2001).  In the 
reverse, if one seeks to travel up the fundamental objectives hierarchy, one must ask 
the following question: ?Of what more general objective is this an aspect?? (Clemen, 
1996).  So, when considering the lower level fundamental objective of ?adults,? one 
may see that this is an aspect belonging to the more general objective of 
 
 109 
 
?[minimizing] serious (and minor) injuries? to automobile occupants (see Figure 18) 
(Clemen and Reilly, 2001). 
It is important to distinguish not only between low level and high level 
fundamental objectives, but between means objectives and fundamental objectives as 
well.  Once the exercise of creating a fundamental objective hierarchy and a means 
objective network has been completed, it will be very clear which objectives are 
which.  Furthermore, means objective networks can be connected to fundamental 
objective hierarchies by connecting the highest level means objectives to the 
appropriate low level fundamental objectives.  Recall that valid means objectives will 
answer how to achieve the fundamental objectives that they are connected to.  In the 
reverse, valid fundamental objectives will represent a more general aspect of the 
means objectives that they are connected to (Clemens, 1996).  Thus, means objective 
chains can be connected to low-level fundamental objectives belonging to a much 
broader fundamental objective hierarchy.  This combination creates a fundamental 
and means objective network.  An example of one such network is presented in 
Figure 19 for EIP #8, Devens EIP.  This fundamental and means objective network 
only includes Steps 1 and 2 for the sake of brevity.  Figure 19 was created based on 
the report produced by Hollander and Lowitt (2000) for the Devens Enterprise 
Commission. 
 
 110 
 
 
Figure 19: Part of the Means-Objective Network for EIP #8 - Devens EIP (Steps 1 and 2) 
(created on the basis of contributions from (Hollander and Lowitt, 2000)) 
 
In the fundamental and means-objective network for EIP #8, the means are a 
set of development decisions (means) that direct the development of the EIP towards 
the equitable triple bottom line objective.  The triple bottom line is threefold to 
represent each benefactor (society, the environment, and the EIP inhabitants).  Note 
that the relationship-building activity between the EIP development team and plant 
managers involves pre-existing plant managers because part of the site (Devens 
Industrial Park) already has facilities operating on it (Hollander and Lowitt, 2000).  
This EIP development decision process does not equally benefit all of the triple 
bottom line?s fundamental-objectives because thirty of the means-objective chains 
(i.e., connection of one means objective to another until the fundamental objectives 
are reached) are focused on benefiting the environmental bottom line, but only ten 
 
 111 
 
means-objective chains are advancing the economic bottom line, and a miniscule 
eight means-objective chains are advancing the societal bottom line.  If Devens EIP 
weren?t already operational, then more decisions (i.e., means) would need to be 
incorporated into the development process to increase the efforts that will positively 
impact the societal and economic bottom lines.  For example, decisions dealing with 
how the EIP will increase jobs in the community, attend to local businesses that lose 
customers as a result of new EIP-inhabitant competition, and ensure a decrease in the 
community?s utility bills could be incorporated into the development decision process 
to ensure an increase in the societal bottom line.  A summary for each of the 21 EIP 
development processes and the distribution of their associated means-objective chains 
is presented in Table 7. 
 
 112 
 
 
Table 7: Distribution of high-level fundamental objectives that are satisfied by each of the 21 EIP 
development projects studied 
EIP Design 
Process # 
# of Steps 
Under Consid-
 eration 
# of Times High-Level Fundamental Objective is 
Advanced by Means-Objective Chain 
Environmental 
Bottom Line 
Societal Bottom 
Line 
Economic Bottom 
Line 
1 11 13 6 7 
2 12 27 4 23 
3 6 10 7 8 
4 12 15 13 11 
5 20 27 18 20 
6 10 13 7 12 
7 10 15 11 19 
8 9 30 10 8 
9 12 21 8 20 
10 14 31 11 25 
11 4 8 6 11 
12 7 16 10 17 
13 6 9 10 10 
14 11 23 7 15 
15 6 9 9 10 
16 9 18 5 8 
17 8 20 13 18 
18 4 13 4 8 
19 6 12 8 20 
20 18 27 33 18 
21 9 16 17 14 
 
This table demonstrates how many means-objective chains are centered on the 
environmental bottom line, the societal bottom line and the economic bottom line.  As 
will be discussed later when the scoring of the EIP development projects is 
conducted, it is important to notice that a ?well aligned? EIP development project will 
lead to a more evenly distributed development approach that contains decision-
 objectives that advance each of the three high-level fundamental objectives, and do 
not spend too much time and energy satisfying only one.  More on this and the 
precise definition of ?well aligned? will be discussed in Section 3.4.
 
 113 
 
 
Chapter 3: The General EIP Development Process 
 
 The development of the General Eco-Industrial Development Process (or 
GEIPDP) is centered around the literature on EIP development methods and the 
decisions and action items presented.  For example, van Leeuwen et al. (2003) 
analyzed several different Dutch methods for developing EIPs.  This paper provided a 
basis for how development methods can differ and gave a good background as to 
what EIP development processes should include. For example, the ?sustainability 
scan? involves a survey to assess the potential for sustainable development at 
brownfield sites.  The ?sustainability scan? measures the chances for development by 
looking at the carrying capacity among the companies and the municipality for each 
option.  This ?sustainability scan? approach motivated the phase within the GEIPDP 
that deals with searching for a suitable location for the EIP.  Table 8 represents a 
summary of the papers studied and the corresponding GEIPDP phase that they 
inspired. 
 Each paper represented in Table 8 presented me with key objectives that are 
associated with most EIP development projects.  A large amount of background 
information pertaining to industrially ecological practices and implementation 
strategies were discussed as well.  The key objectives typically received emphasis in 
more than one article, demonstrating their widespread appeal and importance.  The 
phases were constructed with respect to the key objectives because these key 
objectives help define what actions and decisions are being made by EIP development 
 
 114 
 
teams and how these teams are achieving results.  The popular key objectives 
identified from the articles in Table 8 served as goals for each phase of the GEIPDP. 
Table 8: Literature about EIP Development Methods and the GEIPDP phases they inspired 
EIP Development Literature GEIPDP Phase it Inspired 
?Planning Eco-Industrial Parks: 
an Analysis of Dutch Planning 
Methods? by Marcus G. van 
Leeuwen et al. [61] 
? Phase 1 ? locating sustainable area for EIP. Based 
on ?sustainability scan? planning method 
? Phase 4 ? identification of ideal tenants for entry 
into the EIP.  Based on one of the three packages of 
the ?environmental grading system? method; the 
second package stipulates mandatory criteria that a 
company must meet before entering the EIP and 
guides the EIP development team on how to recruit 
tenants 
?Eco-Industrial Park Initiatives 
in the USA and the Netherlands: 
first lessons? by R.R. Heeres et 
al. [25] 
? Phase 0A ? Identifying primary actors and 
establishing the EIP development team. Based on 
description of a successful approach to EIP 
development that lists important actors that need to 
be identified early in the process 
? Phase 2 ? identification of an anchor tenant.  Based 
on discussion of their ability to attract other 
companies (seeking byproducts or vice versa) and 
serve as a central node in the exchange network 
(where almost every tenant in the EIP is 
exchanging byproducts or services with the anchor) 
?The Application of Industrial 
Ecology Principles and 
Planning Guidelines for the 
Development of Eco-industrial 
Parks: an Australian Case 
Study.? by Brian H. Roberts 
[49] 
? Phase 3 ? determining ideal industrial clusters.  
Based on discussion on clustering of facilities and 
businesses with respect to their industry and needed 
auxiliary services that can be shared 
?Designing Eco-Industrial 
Parks: A Synthesis of Some 
Experiences? by Raymond P. 
C?t? [10] 
? Phase 0B ? development of project scope, 
guidelines, and principles that will define the EIP.  
Based on discussion about guidelines created from 
multi-disciplinary research teams and multi-
 stakeholder groups with differing interests 
(implying consensus building) 
?Model-Centered Approach to 
Early Planning and Design of an 
Eco-Industrial Park around an 
Oil Refinery? by Xiangping 
Zhang et al. [68] 
? Phase 5 ? determining the optimal layout for the 
EIP.  Based on the last five steps of the model-
 centered approach which deal with modeling of 
members and exchanges, sensitivity analysis of key 
variables, improvement of structure performance 
(via consideration of alternative strategies, 
scenarios, and EIP configurations), and conclusion 
of design. 
 
 
 115 
 
3.1 ? Phases of the GEIPDP 
The description of each phase of the GEIPDP identifies the key decisions that 
will be made and the constraints that restrict the actions and decisions in that phase. 
 
3.1.1 - Phase 0A ? Identifying Primary Actors and Establishing the 
EIP Development Team 
 
In the first phase of the GEIPDP, the project initiator (i.e. government 
authority or private developer) will identify and involve primary actors who will 
promote industrial ecology and garner support from community groups, educational 
institutions, industrial associations, and relevant regulatory agencies (Gertler, 1995).  
This phase is numbered with a zero because it is a pre-design and development phase 
that includes the preliminary decisions that need to be made before beginning the EIP 
development project.  Because most EIP development projects are initiated by 
government agencies working in conjunction with business associations and 
community organizations, this phase begins with a local government agency (e.g., a 
local environmental protection agency or a local economic development agency) 
receiving an opportunity or problem stimulus that suggests the concept of eco-
 industrial development.  The government agency reacts to an opportunity stimulus by 
deciding to create an EIP development team and determining who can help this team 
develop a successful EIP.  Before an EIP development team can be established, the 
government agency  needs to determine what relevant community groups and 
business associations will be knowledgeable about and in support of industrial 
ecology.  This decision is important because it must not leave out any members of the 
residential, commercial, or industrial community that could potentially support the 
 
 116 
 
eco-industrial development project financially, politically, or through personal 
involvement (e.g., becoming an anchor tenant or auxiliary service provider to the 
park).  Inclusion of all these different members will ensure that the societal, 
environmental, and economic interests are being upheld throughout the EIP 
development project.  These members will work to ensure that their respective bottom 
lines are maximized, leading to a beneficial triple bottom line.  This is an important 
phase, because a good EIP development team can mean the difference between a 
successful EIP development project and a failing one.  The government agency will 
typically administer a survey, hold recruitment conferences, and advertise at 
community meetings in order to determine members of the EIP development team 
(representative of community groups, the regulatory agency, and industrial 
associations) and potential tenants as well (Koenig, 2005). 
 Constraints that the newly formed EIP development team (and its associate 
government agency) must work to overcome are present.  The first constraint is the 
accessibility of actors of interest.  The EIP development team must determine how to 
find the actors (e.g., investors, industrial ecology consulting team, potential tenants, 
etc.) that will not only promote the eco-industrial development, but will play an active 
role in its design, development, and operation. 
The second constraint is a lack of inter-firm communication and trust.  A 
trusting relationship can develop through unforced communication between members 
of organizations that desire to participate in the EIP development project.  
Commitment to the EIP development project will come from organizations that 
believe fellow participants share the same economic, environmental, and societal 
 
 117 
 
goals as them.  Primary actors that communicate freely and trust one another will 
increase the likelihood of building strong symbiotic linkages. 
 
3.1.2 - Phase 0B ? Gaining Consensus and Establishing Goals, 
Scope, and Implementation Strategy 
 
 Once the EIP development team is established, the team can begin to work in 
conjunction with the project initiating government agency to start building support for 
the EIP development project within the residential, business, and industrial 
communities.  Phase 0B is concerned with establishing the goals, scope and 
implementation strategy for the EIP development project.  Phase 0B also includes a 
zero in its name because it is more of a series of actions that lead to the determination 
of goals and objectives that will build the foundation of the EIP development project, 
as opposed to a series of decisions and evaluations and creation of old and new goals 
and objectives that must be made before the next phase can begin.  Phase 0B begins 
with the EIP development team educating the members of the surrounding 
community, business associations, and members of management from the region?s 
leading industrial companies about the principles of industrial ecology and what they 
intend to accomplish through the EIP development project.  Upon receiving feedback 
and suggestions from stakeholders, the decision-makers (i.e., the EIP development 
team) must construct a proposal that defines the goals and scope of the intended 
project and estimates the expected economic, environmental, and societal impact that 
the EIP will have on the given region.  This proposal should include ideas and 
concepts that received substantial support from the primary actors and stakeholders 
during earlier consensus building events, a preliminary analysis exploring what areas 
 
 118 
 
and industries may be suitable for such a project, and important guidelines and 
principles that potential tenants and EIP business partners should be cognizant of.  
The proposal would be drafted by the EIP development team with funding from their 
associate government agency and primary actors who want to take an early lead.  The 
target audience for the proposal is potential investors, new government agencies, and 
potential tenants that could each provide funding and support for the EIP 
development project.  The solution to this phase would be a set of requirements, 
goals, limitations, an implementation strategy that strengthens consensus between 
stakeholders and decision-makers, and a proposal for investors and potential tenants. 
 Constraints that limit Phase 0B include differing opinions between decision-
 makers and stakeholders, availability and accuracy of information for preliminary 
analysis.  Differing opinions may include the ?not in my backyard? viewpoint from 
community groups.  It is up to the EIP development team to incorporate guidelines 
that reduce the presence of the EIP (e.g., reduce industrial noise levels, reduce heat or 
waste pollution coming from tenants, etc.) through regulatory actions and ecological 
design methods.  The availability of information can serve as a constraint because the 
EIP development team cannot draft a proposal that details operations at the park and 
the associated benefits from participating in the project.  Careful assumptions must be 
made with respect to the agreed upon principles and guidelines of the EIP.   
 
3.1.3 - Phase 1 ? Locating a Suitable Site for EIP 
 In Phase 1 of the GEIPDP, the EIP development team will locate a sustainable 
area, within a given nation, for EIP development.  The EIP development team will: 
 
 119 
 
decide what its criteria for a suitable site will be; determine their alternatives (e.g., 
compare available brownfield site facilities with potential greenfield development 
sites); and gather information about the nation?s industrial activity, labor market and 
resource pools.  This phase is important because it allows the EIP development team 
to conduct the search routine using a high-level perspective to determine whether the 
local industries can create symbiotic linkages (for a prolonged period of time).  At 
this point, the EIP development team would consider developing a medium for 
companies and community members to freely view each other?s byproducts and begin 
communicating ideas as to how these byproducts can be reused.  In addition to 
symbiotic linkage considerations, this team must consider whether the country can 
support industrial activity (and if so, what type), or whether the regions within the 
country have a population that is willing and able (i.e., multi-disciplinary population 
of trained professionals seeking employment) to work in the facilities located within 
the EIP.  It is safe to assume that the EIP will include some heavy industrial activity.  
With this in mind, it is necessary to search for industrially zoned land that is not too 
close to residentially or commercially zoned land.  This phase should motivate the 
EIP development team to conduct a feasibility study of the country in question to help 
organize the different issues and considerations linked to the EIP project (especially 
those of regulatory issues).  The feasibility study could be used as a tool to attract 
additional investor funding, potential tenants, and additional government grants. 
 Constraints to the site location search will help determine which alternatives 
should be excluded from future consideration.  The resource availability and 
proximity constraint would exclude sites that are not close to sources of water, energy 
 
 120 
 
(or an energy generation plant), or large scale resources that tenants within the EIP 
may require on a frequent basis.  To minimize the environmental impact of 
transporting resources, a site that is located near the country?s resource rich regions 
would be ideal; sites that are relatively isolated and difficult to reach by road, rail, or 
airport would be excluded. 
Secondly, the existing economic structure of the country where the EIP would 
be situated in would be used as a constraint.  Most EIP development projects are 
aimed at reigniting industrial and economic activity in regions of countries where the 
economy is suffering.  For example, Cape Charles was once a thriving, economically 
sound town located in Virginia?s historic Eastern Shore.  As part of a broad economic 
revitalization effort, the Northampton County Board of Supervisors and the Cape 
Charles Town Council signed a joint memorandum to create the Port of Cape Charles 
Sustainable Technologies Industrial Park.  As of 2004, the EIP has produced 395 
direct jobs, and is projected to produce more in the future (Heeres et al., 2004). 
The third constraint is the environment?s capacity for absorbing industrial 
activity.  Each of the alternative sites needs to be evaluated to determine how great an 
impact the EIP?s daily operations will have on the surrounding habitat (e.g., bodies of 
water, plant vegetation, etc.), pre-existing communities of animals, and atmosphere in 
the nation.  The regulatory agency can play a role by providing policies and 
regulations that can help define this constraint in detail. 
The fourth constraint pertains to the ability to raise community support.  
Opposition from the surrounding community can delay the EIP project or even cause 
it to fail, while support from the community can help it flourish.  A community that 
 
 121 
 
cannot be persuaded to participate in development efforts should serve as an exit flag 
for EIP development teams.  Existing industrial activity in the country can serve as a 
constraint to the number of options for industrial clusters as well.  Without a strong 
mix of industries with similar resource needs and diverse byproduct streams within 
the country, it may be difficult to convince new potential tenants to enter the EIP.  
Trade between the EIP and the surrounding community can be constrained if the EIP 
does not produce products or services that the community is in demand for.  If a site 
is not located in a business and industry friendly country, then the EIP development 
team must use this measure as a constraint for site selection. 
 
3.1.4 - Phase 2 ? Identifying an Anchor Tenant 
 Once a suitable site has been selected by the EIP development team, it is time 
to begin considering the makeup of the EIP tenants.  Phase Two of the GEIPDP is a 
search routine that identifies an ideal anchor tenant for the EIP.  As mentioned 
previously, an anchor tenant is the central figure within the EIP who engages in the 
most byproduct exchange opportunities (between tenants and the external 
community) and attracts intermediate companies to the EIP who can turn byproducts 
into useful resources for other tenants (Lowe et al., 1997).  The EIP development 
team must decide what required properties the anchor tenant must have in order to 
take full advantage of the site?s surrounding industry profile, available workforce, and 
room for sustainable growth. 
 Constraints to finding a suitable anchor tenant include raising interest level 
among potential tenants, local environmental regulations and zoning permissions.  
 
 122 
 
Gaining the attention of potential anchor tenants and giving them a reason to join the 
EIP can serve as a constraint because the company in question may not want to 
partake in the considerable amount of initial investment required (in the form of 
funding and time diverted from usual operations to join the EIP).  An anchor tenant 
must truly believe in the concept of industrial ecology (and its benefits) and be 
willing to assume the risks associated with this long term investment.  The EIP 
development team needs to search for industrial leaders who are open to change and 
have a green production initiative already in place (e.g., employing an Environmental 
Management System in alignment with the ISO14000 series).   
The next constraint to finding an EIP anchor tenant is the local environmental 
regulations.  Potential anchor tenants will be considered if their operation?s effluents 
are at levels in accordance with regional law.  Further consideration as to how this 
anchor tenant disposes of its effluents (e.g., public waste management and landfill 
system, hazardous waste storage, or byproduct exchange), will also factor in.  The 
EIP development team needs to assess regional environmental policies and zoning 
covenants to determine what types of industries would have a hard time conducting 
business freely.  If regional regulations prohibit use of a needed resource in a certain 
manner, require disposal of wastes using expensive procedures, or do not allow 
particular industrial practices within the zone the site is on, then exclusion of a series 
of potential anchor tenants will ensue. 
 
 
 123 
 
3.1.5 - Phase 3 ? Identifying Compatible Industrial Clusters 
 The third phase of the GEIPDP deals with identifying ideal cluster linkages 
that the EIP should be focused around.  This decision is dependent upon the phases 
preceding it because the site selected will already have a set of industries and 
businesses surrounding it.  Based on the location selection phase, and the anchor 
selection phase, the choices of suitable, compatible industrial clusters that will define 
the EIP can be determined.  Each industrial cluster is one or more firms in the same 
industry, who are situated nearby one another within the EIP (e.g., cement 
manufacturing companies) because they share similar needs with respect to utilities 
and auxiliary service.  Moreover, the EIP will include multiple industrial clusters with 
each of these clusters? locations being determined with respect to maximizing 
beneficial symbiotic relationships between complementary industries (i.e., byproduct, 
waste energy, or waste water exchange project).  The EIP development team must 
determine what industrial clusters, upon collocation, can maximize the number of 
byproduct, energy, and water exchanges, create the most jobs relevant to the 
surrounding workforce, and minimize waste created by the EIP.  These industrial 
clusters should be compatible with business and industrial communities outside of the 
EIP in order for symbiotic linkages to be easily identifiable.  EIP development teams 
need to conduct mass, energy, and water balance evaluations to ensure that the 
proposed symbiotic linkages can indeed exist without any one member of the network 
being put at risk from being led to rely on a temporally depleting byproduct source. 
Table 40 (in the appendix) depicts a short list of different industries, their typical 
inputs and outputs, and how these byproducts may be applicable to other industrial 
 
 124 
 
clusters.  For example, the cement industry utilizes calcium, silicon, aluminum and 
iron to produce cement.  Some byproducts from other industries may included (but 
are not limited to) fly ash, foundry sand, baghouse dust, refractories, causticizing 
residue, tire scrap, and mine tailings.  The table goes on to present how the cement 
industry produces cement kiln dust as a byproduct.  One example of how cement kiln 
dust can be reused is with respect to the agricultural industry; as a soil amendment, 
waste solidification agent, or general soil stabilizer. Figure 5 presents the different 
symbiotic linkages that could potentially arise if a combined heating and power plant 
were to serve as anchor for an EIP.  An EIP development team can use 
comprehensive industrial databases and modeling tools of this nature to develop a 
conceptual EIP that would highlight many different potential byproduct exchanges 
based on common industry practices.  However, using these databases is limited 
because each individual company within these industries can employ vastly different 
operation processes that lead to a wide range of energy, water, and material 
requirements.  Since a mass, energy, and water balance need to be conducted to 
validate the network of symbiotic linkages within the park, EIP development teams 
should exercise caution in making industry generalizations with respect to these 
variables. 
 The constraints to determining ideal industrial clusters for the EIP are as 
follows: regulations deterring byproduct suitability for reuse, changes in consumption 
rate of region?s resource pools, and community acceptance of candidate industrial 
clusters.  Regulations like the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) can 
deter byproduct exchange by limiting the types of byproducts deemed suitable for 
 
 125 
 
reuse.  This constraint will exclude the industrial clusters that typically produce 
hazardous outputs because these hazardous byproducts must adhere to the disposal or 
storage procedures outlined in the RCRA and may not permit reuse of any kind by 
any entity.  It is important for the EIP development team to be cognizant of 
regulations and policies that will make it difficult for certain industrial clusters to 
contribute to the byproduct exchange network. 
The second constraint that must be considered deals with how the potential 
industrial clusters will change the rate of consumption of the region?s resources once 
in the EIP.  If the wrong industrial cluster is participating in the EIP and consuming 
resources shared by neighboring communities and businesses, then it will only be a 
matter of years before these resources are no longer as plentiful and the cost of these 
resources increases.  Screening industrial clusters in terms of their resource 
consumption potentials will help to ensure economic and environmental viability for 
the future.  To determine whether an industrial cluster will drain the region?s resource 
pool, an industrial ecology analysis needs to be conducted and the metabolism of the 
currently existing communities, businesses, and other entities must be considered in 
conjunction with the candidate industrial clusters?.  This constraint will serve to 
eliminate industrial clusters whose producers may want to move from the EIP if 
resource costs become too high. 
The last constraint to the industrial cluster search phase involves dealing with 
community acceptance of the proposed industrial clusters.  The community may 
oppose the entry of a given industry because they feel it may hurt the surrounding 
smaller to medium sized businesses, provide jobs that they feel overqualified for, or 
 
 126 
 
because the industry has a history of negatively impacting the surrounding 
environment in other areas where it operates.  It is up to the EIP development team to 
recover feelings and opinions from community groups about what industrial clusters 
would fit more than just the EIP, but the entire region in general.  Industrial clusters 
that do not ?agree? with the existing community?s inhabitants will probably face 
problems getting permits and may even have trouble finding qualified employees for 
its tenants? facilities. 
 
3.1.6 - Phase 4 ? Identifying Tenant Organizations 
 Once a given number of industrial clusters have been selected to characterize 
the EIP, the next phase focuses on deciding what companies to fill these industrial 
clusters with.  The EIP development team needs to determine which businesses, upon 
entering the EIP, can maximize economic benefit to (1) themselves, (2) neighboring 
tenants, and (3) the surrounding community.  Typically, organizations with eco-
 friendly practices and a history of overcoming internal and external change will 
attract the attention of EIP development teams.  Resilient organizations are desirable 
tenants because they can invent new ways to utilize previously deemed useless 
byproducts and are flexible enough to adapt to changes within the EIP. 
.  Additionally, the ideal tenant would be a medium to large size company (with 
ample reserved capital) that is not afraid of the large initial investment required 
before operations can even begin.  To search for potential tenants, the EIP 
development team would continue to hold region wide design charrettes.  Design 
charrettes are events that bring together relevant leaders of industrial association, 
 
 127 
 
business leaders, and community leaders in an attempt to shed light on the 
fundamental challenges associated with developing an EIP in their particular region 
and to discuss how these challenges may be overcome.  Design charrettes also allow 
EIP development teams to gain information about different businesses (e.g., their 
annual energy, water, and material flows, their history with environmental 
management systems, and other pertinent information).  In addition, the EIP 
development team may want to set up a website highlighting the features of the EIP 
and discussing what types of tenants it?s they?re interested in recruiting.  It is 
important to consider as many alternative companies as possible, because the wrong 
company could interfere with the potential for additional byproduct exchanges on 
account of lack of creativity or conservative practices. 
 Phase Four also has a set of constraints that deal with the availability of 
proprietary information and byproduct production rates of each organization.  The 
EIP development team is responsible for managing the information that is provided to 
them by potential tenants.  If the potential tenant fears for the safety of their 
proprietary information, then they may not even apply for a vacancy, thereby limiting 
the total number of applicants and making it harder to establish byproduct exchanges.  
The EIP development team must instill trust between themselves and the potential 
tenants; as well as between the potential tenants that are applying alongside their 
industry competition.  This can be done by taking a black box approach; allowing 
potential tenants to search for potential byproduct exchange partners anonymously.  
Potential tenants would only be able to see what other companies require as inputs 
and produce as outputs (along with the associated requirements for their inputs and 
 
 128 
 
data pertaining to byproduct quality and amount).  This constraint can be managed by 
the EIP development team and the collaborative approach can be demonstrated as 
beneficial for involved tenants; however, trust building between competing 
businesses will not always work and highly independent potential tenants will not 
wish to participate. 
The second constraint factoring into this phase?s decision process is the 
consideration of byproduct production rates of each organization.  This is important, 
because most companies do not manufacture the same amount of a given product year 
round; meaning the byproduct production rate will fluctuate with respect to market 
demands.  If a company is able to produce an annual amount of a given byproduct, 
and another tenant is interested in reusing it, the tenants need to plan a byproduct 
exchange that will agree with demand and supply of that byproduct regardless of the 
time of year.  This constraint must be taken into consideration by both tenants, 
because they may find themselves disposing of excess byproduct or having to contact 
suppliers for additional resources at a higher cost (thus, reducing the economic 
advantage of engaging in the bilateral agreement).  The EIP development team should 
ensure that byproduct exchanges will be beneficial for both parties and that a 
contingency resource supplier is available for its potential tenants. 
 
3.1.7 - Phase 5 ? Determining Optimal Layout 
 The final phase of the GEIPDP is to determine the optimal layout of the EIP.  
This involves creating several prototype scenarios that allow the EIP development 
team to explore how different arrangements of the anchor tenant, industrially 
 
 129 
 
clustered tenants, and auxiliary services can maximize economic and sociological 
benefits while minimizing environmental impacts.  The EIP development team must 
consider the effluents from each industrial cluster and decide which industrial clusters 
need to be situated next to each other.  Care must be taken to ensure that historically 
incompatible industries (e.g. food processing industrial cluster neighboring a 
hazardous chemicals industry) are not in close proximity; if ignored, the health and 
safety of the surrounding community could be at stake.  In addition, the EIP 
development team must consider landscape design strategies (e.g., buffer zones) that 
will mitigate industrial noise, air pollution, and prevent degradation of wildlife and 
native plant species in the area (Cohen-Rosenthal and Musnikow, 2003).  
Furthermore, the EIP development team should consider public accessibility to and 
from the EIP; ensuring that there is proper signage in the appropriate places, that 
nearby roads are well connected to airports, seaports, and/or train stations (for 
efficient transportation of incoming and outgoing goods), and that the roads 
connecting to the EIP are accompanied with sidewalks (i.e., for employees that like to 
walk or bike to work).  Overall, the EIP development team needs to work closely with 
management in each tenant organization to ensure that each party is satisfied with its 
neighbor and that planned and new byproduct exchanges can be implemented 
successfully. 
 Constraints associated with the EIP layout optimization phase include facility 
footprints, firm-by-firm operational requirements, shared infrastructure proximity, 
and incorporating room for tenant expansion.  Shared infrastructure proximity is a 
term used to describe the location of infrastructure and services like public 
 
 130 
 
transportation, roads, phone and internet lines, waste-water collection facilities, etc. 
that are strategically placed nearby the industrial clusters and organizations that need 
them the most in order to minimize the cost of utilizing and providing these shared 
infrastructures and services.  With the potential for each tenant to occupy more than 
one facility, and with different accommodations and amenities being required, the 
EIP development team must determine how to arrange the tenants in such a way that 
common services and infrastructure can be shared without compromising any of the 
tenant?s business operations.  The different combinations of tenant facility footprints 
will serve as a constraint limiting where the industrial clusters will be situated and 
how the tenants can be arranged within the EIP (Lowe, 2001). 
The second constraint deals with each tenant?s operational requirements.  For 
example, certain tenants may require immediate access to the road for emergency 
personnel access, higher frequency of incoming and outgoing truckloads, or other 
transportation related requirements.  If this is the case, then the tenants in question 
would be constrained to locations closest to the roads within the EIP.  If another 
tenant executes operations that produce a large amount of noise, then the EIP 
development team must situate them farther from the boundaries of the EIP to 
preserve the noise level of the EIP surroundings (Lowe, 2001). 
The third constraint deals with the proximity of tenants who must access 
shared infrastructure.  The EIP development team needs to categorize each tenant by 
what infrastructure they intend to employ to ensure that the infrastructure is relatively 
accessible to each tenant.  It is important to note that as the tenant?s facility becomes 
more and more remote from the infrastructure it needs, its operational costs will 
 
 131 
 
increase.  Shared infrastructure is dependent upon byproduct exchanges and industrial 
clusters, so this constraint may be easier to factor in on a cluster by cluster basis 
(Lowe, 2001). 
The final constraint may be the most limiting one: ensuring tenants have room 
to expand.  The EIP development team needs to work closely with each tenant?s 
management team to determine the potential forms of expansion (e.g., additional 
production plant, warehouse, increased energy usage, etc.), the probability of 
expansion, and whether such a change will occur in the short term, or in the long 
term.  Depending on feedback from each tenant, the EIP development team can 
decide how much land to set aside, and how possible it will be to situate the reserved 
land near the tenant?s current location (or at least within the same industrial cluster).  
This is difficult because a great number of uncertainties have to be taken into account 
in addition to other considerations already in play.  After several layouts have been 
conceptualized, the excess space within the EIP must be managed to allow for new 
businesses and expansion of current tenants; this constraint places a limit on how 
much the EIP can grow (in the long term) without purchasing and zoning new land. 
A summary of the decisions being made during each phase and their 
associated constraints is shown in Table 9. 
 
 132 
 
Table 9: Decisions Made during each Phase of the GEIPDP and their associated constraints. 
 
 
 133 
 
3.1.8 - Determining Need for Revisions to GEIPDP 
To determine its completeness and validity, the GEIPDP was compared to the 
steps employed by the 21 EIP development processes.  EIP #17 (Cape Charles 
Sustainable Technology Park) is one such example of the 21 EIP development 
processes studied and can be seen in Table 10.  EIP #17?s development process was 
compared, along with the other 20 EIP development processes, to the GEIPDP.  An 
example of the comparison can be seen in Table 11. 
 
Table 10: EIP #17 - Cape Charles Sustainable Technology Park's Decision Process (Kim, 2009) 
Phase/Step Exercised Activities in this Phase/Step 
1. Development Background 
Explore ways to invest while protecting natural assets 
(maximize both economy and environment) by 
developing in a manner that would benefit business, 
the environment and the county's people 
2. Sustainable Development 
Action Strategy 
2.1 Plan and hold community workshops, task forces, 
meetings and events to educate the public and 
centralize decision-makers and stakeholders 
2.2 Determine which industry sectors to target; 
Northampton chose agriculture, seafood and 
aquaculture, heritage tourism, research and 
education, arts and crafts, local product, and 
sustainable technologies (list of 3000 companies as 
prospects) 
2.3 Identify vital natural, historic and community 
assets that would need to be preserved and 
capitalized on to successfully develop and sustain the 
EIP 
3. Organize Planning Team 
3.1 Include professional members like designers, 
architects, and engineers; federal, state and local 
government regulatory and support agencies; public 
and private potential investors; potential corporate 
tenants. 
3.2. Build a diversified economic base by attracting 
and incubating new companies while retaining and 
expanding existing companies (or local potential 
tenants) 
4. Master Plan 
Develop guidelines (bylaws perhaps?) that integrate 
the park w/ the historic town and natural landscape - 
redevelopment of roads, utilities, sewers, water 
 
 134 
 
management (reuse and recovery system), wetland 
treatment for water recycling (half the site = ecological 
infrastructure), created wetlands, woodlands, and 
shrub wildlife habitat, design of natural systems (e.g. 
passive lighting and ventilation), and renewable 
power generation (wind and/or solar) 
5. Sustainable Technology 
Incubator 
Develop a multi-tenant manufacturing and office 
building that utilizes renewable energy (and cuts 
down on energy, resource, and operational costs) in 
order to invite tenant companies to move in without 
having to construct ALL their own facilities 
 
Table 11: Comparison of GEIPDP to EIP #17 - Cape Charles Sustainable Technology Park's 
Decision Process 
GEIPDP Phase 
Corresponding 
Phase/Step 
0A 
2.1 
begin 2.2 
3.1 
0B 
1 
4 
1 2.3 
2 None related 
3 finalize 2.2 
4 3.2 
5 5 
 
In this example, all but one phase within the GEIPDP corresponds to a planning step 
executed during the development of Cape Charles Sustainable Technology Park.  
Note that some of the planning steps used at Cape Charles correspond to more than 
one phase in the GEIPDP.  This occurs because some planning steps must be revisited 
later on during the process and are finalized only after other decisions have 
contributed to new information and, thus, enable the earlier planning step?s decision 
process to be conducted better.  These occurrences would represent a nested loop 
within the general decision process (recall Figure 16 from Mintzberg et al., 1976) 
because they require the decision-maker to repeat a past routine.  The fact that all of 
the planning steps used at Cape Charles match at least one item in the GEIPDP 
demonstrates a good match.  For example, the ?Organize Planning Team? and 
 
 135 
 
creating of a ?Master Plan? steps in Table 10 (Steps 3 and 4 respectively) match 
closely with the preliminary phases described by the GEIPDP?s phase 0A and 0B.  
However, this serves as only one example of a development process comparison 
between the GEIPDP and the 21 EIP development processes studied.  A full 
presentation of how the GEIPDP corresponds to the 21 EIP development processes is 
provided in Table 12. 
 
Table 12: Correlation between GEIPDP and the 21 EIP development processes studied 
EIP 
Design 
Process # 
Does the GEIPDP Phase have Corresponding Steps in this EIP 
Design Process? 
0A 0B 1 2 3 4 5 
1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
3 Yes Yes Yes No No No No 
4 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 
5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
6 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No 
7 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 
8 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
9 No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes 
10 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 
11 Yes Yes Yes N/A, EIN N/A, EIN N/A, EIN N/A, EIN 
12 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 
13 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 
14 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 
15 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 
16 Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes 
17 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 
18 Yes Yes No No Yes No No 
19 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No 
20 Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes 
21 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Totals (Yes: 113, No: 30) 
Yes: 20 21 17 8 16 17 14 
No: 1 0 4 12 4 3 6 
 
 
 136 
 
Please note that EIP design process #11 is for an eco-industrial network 
(EIN).  As mentioned earlier, EINs don?t require a common physical location for the 
participants. Since phases two through five pertain to identifying ideal inhabitants for 
the EIP and optimizing its layout, they do not directly apply to EINs.  Instead, EINs 
are typically involved with providing a medium for different regional industrial 
leaders to advertise their byproducts and allowing these same industrial leaders to 
?shop? for other potentially useful byproducts created by other businesses, 
organizations, and other communities in the region.  These later phases will be 
deemed non-applicable when dealing with EINs later as well (i.e., in Table 14).  
These results demonstrate that a total of 30 steps from every EIP development 
process studied did not find a corresponding phase in the GEIPDP, while 113 steps 
did match.  This corresponds to a 79% match rate, meaning that there is room for 
improvement of the GEIPDP.  For this reason, a revision to the GEIPDP was 
considered necessary.  The name of this new, more inclusive development process is 
called the Revised EIP Development Process (or REIPDP). 
3.2 ? Development of Revised General EIP Development Process 
 The revisions to the GEIPDP yielded the REIPDP.  These revisions were 
made by considering which steps within the 21 studied EIP decision processes were 
not being emphasized in the GEIPDP enough (or, in some cases, at all).  Phase 1 in 
the GEIPDP appeared too early in the process and, within the 21 EIP projects studied, 
was found to rely on preceding decision phases before it could initiate.  Several of the 
finalizing decisions within the 21 studied EIP decision processes (e.g., 
implementation, construction, and management board organization) were also found 
 
 137 
 
to be neglected often by the GEIPDP, so phases reflecting them are also included in 
the REIPDP.  To verify that the REIPDP more accurately portrays the 21 EIP 
decision processes studied, a matching between the phases of the REIPDP and the 
steps in each EIP decision process was made and is shown at the end of this chapter 
in Section 3.3.  A comparison between the GEIPDP and the REIPDP can be seen in 
Table 13.  It is important to notice that Phase 0A and 0B are provided with a little 
more detail in their description.  The green phases in the REIPDP of Table 13Table 
13 show which phases were newly added or modified significantly. 
 
 
 138 
 
Table 13: Comparison between Phases in GEIPDP (on left) and the REIPDP (on right) 
 
 
 139 
 
3.2.1 - Modification of Original Phase 1 (now REIPDP Phase 2) 
Originally, Phase 1 gave the EIP development team the responsibility of 
searching the entire nation in question for suitable EIP development sites.  As 
opposed to searching the entire country for ideal EIP development sites and 
conducting feasibility studies to differentiate between a large number of alternative 
sites, most EIP development teams are directed (by private developers or government 
agencies) toward a small set of industrially zoned land options within a given region 
(e.g., within a local government?s jurisdiction). Within this region-based search, 
decisions focused on which site to acquire and how economically feasible it would be 
to prepare for EIP development (i.e., how much site remediation would be required 
and how difficult will it be to acquire land before project implementation can begin).  
EIP development teams still reported having to conduct regional feasibility analyses 
investigating the byproduct exchange potential of each region, but they did not have 
to worry about whether the proposed site alternatives would be capable of gaining 
industrial zoning permits (unless the site in question was not yet designated as a 
greenfield site). In addition, this action item can be conducted in more detail during 
this phase because the solution space (i.e., all available industrially zoned sites within 
the region(s) under consideration) is reduced from searching for nationwide cities and 
towns with an industrial presence and large material, energy, and water flows, to 
searching for brownfield and greenfield sites that have already been nominated by 
funding sources or other primary actors (and are typically neighboring other industrial 
scale organizations) (Casavant, 2006). 
 
 140 
 
The narrowing of the scope of the site search allows the EIP development 
team to spend more time focusing on factors like the degree of need for site 
remediation (i.e., the level of contamination existing at each proposed brownfield 
site) and challenges associated with the site acquisition process.  In addition, less time 
will be spent determining whether the surrounding community will oppose a new 
industrial presence. For example, if the site under consideration is already an 
industrially zoned brownfield site, then it may be safe to assume that the nearby 
community would appreciate a cleaner, less noticeable and more socially beneficial 
system at that site.  The REIPDP moves Phase 1 of the GEIPDP to Phase 2 (to be 
discussed later) to account for the EIP development team?s guided regional site search 
and to include the additional decisions often associated with this search. 
3.2.2 - Omission of Original Phase 2 
 The phase involving a search for an ideal anchor tenant has been omitted from 
the REIPDP because a large number of the EIP development processes studied did 
not include a step outlining this search.  In theory, this search would be valuable to 
the EIP development team in helping narrow down ideal industrial clusters for the 
EIP.  However, a phase that does not correlate with 13 out of the 21 EIP development 
processes studied does not belong in a general EIP development process.  Because so 
few a number of EIP development teams reported a search for an anchor tenant, it is 
unreasonable to incorporate this search into the GEIPDP?s Phase 4 (the search for 
tenants to recruit into the EIP).  In support of this omission, it is important to recall 
that anchor tenants are not necessary and that, in some cases, no EIP tenant wants the 
responsibility of being the anchor because it can lead to a complex interdependence 
 
 141 
 
on other tenants within the EIP and vice versa.  This interdependence can lead to 
inflexibility in operations on the part of anchor tenants who want to keep symbiotic 
relationships intact by trying not to vary their output, but at the risk of being 
incapable of handling seasonal demand variations. 
 
3.2.3 - Revised Phase 1 ? Developing Action Plan 
 A revision to the phase occurring after Phase 0A and 0B was created to 
encompass the earlier decisions more commonly reported by the 21 EIP development 
processes studied.  After Phase 0B is complete, the development process switches to 
the Revised Phase One.  This phase deals with decisions pertaining to development of 
the action plan.  The EIP development team must use the agreed upon guidelines, 
principles, and information from the proposal (developed during Phase 0A and 0B) to 
develop an action plan for the EIP project.  This action plan must acknowledge 
challenges to development, expected benefits applicable to decision-makers and 
stakeholders (e.g., a respectable ROI, regional economic revitalization, job creation, 
environmental waste reduction, and other benefits), expected sources of funding 
(based on feedback from funding sources with respect to the proposal), and roles and 
responsibilities of decision-makers during the coming phases of the EIP project 
(Koenig, 2005). 
 Constraints to the Revised Phase One focus on uncertainties surrounding the 
prospective tenants and resource and utility cost fluctuations in the future.  Since this 
phase appears early in the development process, characteristic information 
(describing operational specifications, production processes and facility layouts) 
 
 142 
 
about the probable tenants is still not available.  Survey results received from 
potential tenants may aid in making assumptions, but without a clear industry makeup 
of the EIP, it will be quite challenging for the EIP development team to accurately 
discuss associated benefits with the project.  As with the proposal, the EIP 
development team must rely on the EIP guidelines, assumptions, and available 
information when making assumptions to estimate benefits within the action plan.  
The second constraint governing this phase focuses on resource and utility cost 
fluctuations in the future.  These costs can be estimated with relatively good 
accuracy, but it will be difficult to account for how heavily unknown tenants will 
utilize these resources and utilities.  This constraint will limit the development of an 
action plan because it will add to inaccuracies in the financial viability assessment of 
the EIP project and influence how the EIP development team approaches role and 
responsibility assignments for decision-makers and primary actors. 
3.2.4 - Revised Phase 2 ? Conducting the Site Search, Acquisition, 
and Preparation 
 
 During the Revised Phase Two, the EIP development team searches for a 
suitable site for the EIP project.  This search routine is closely followed by 
acquisition and site preparation.  As discussed earlier, the EIP development team will 
be presented with a list of industrially zoned land that the local government has 
identified as economically disadvantaged in need of revitalization.  The government 
agencies typically target sites that have been abandoned by previous owners on 
account of site degradation (e.g., hazardous material exposure, failing infrastructure, 
brownfield sites, or aging facilities) or because the company moved its operations 
 
 143 
 
elsewhere.  This is a preferred option because it does not require brand new 
construction (at a high cost) for new facilities, new zoning permits, or further 
reduction of natural undisturbed land.  In addition, the act of employing a previously 
used site (versus a new site) can be considered a large scale recycling project because 
a currently existing set of facilities is being restored and reused.  When considering 
sites, the EIP development team must use the degree of needed site remediation that 
will be required as a criterion for choosing an EIP site.  After a site has been selected, 
the acquisition procedure will begin.  This procedure may be repeated later during the 
REIPDP in order to increase the size of the site and allow for new tenants and tenant 
expansion.  The EIP development team then moves on the site preparation segment of 
this phase.  This action item requires funding from sources targeted by the proposal 
and is sometimes subsidized by government agencies to attract potential tenants.  
Once the necessary funding is secured, the EIP development team will hire site clean 
up specialists, construction management companies, and utilities companies.  These 
personnel will begin conducting site remediation efforts, installing baseline 
infrastructure and public services, building common facilities, and conducting other 
tasks that will prepare the EIP for tenant recruitment. 
 Constraints to this phase are no different than the constraints to the site 
selection phase (formerly Phase One) within the GEIPDP?s.  For the sake of brevity, 
the constraints will not be relisted here; please refer to Section 3.1.3 ? Phase One for 
details on these constraints. 
 
 144 
 
3.2.5 ? Additional Phase: Phase 6 ? Delegation of Regulatory and 
Managerial Responsibilities ? Formation of EIP Management 
Board 
 
 Phase 6 of the REIPDP represents a switch in decision-making authority: from 
the EIP development team to an EIP management board.  It is important for the EIP 
development team to determine the structure (abilities and limitations) and personnel 
of the EIP management board and regulatory liaisons affiliated with the EIP.  EIP 
development teams will create this body of management out of selected tenants? 
management board, members of the EIP development team itself, and regulatory 
agency members that played an important part in collaborating with the EIP during 
design and development.  Through proper appointments, the EIP development team 
can ensure that the important decision-makers and stakeholders remain in positions of 
influence and can play a role in ensuring the longevity of the EIP.  The EIP 
development team must be careful to determine what primary actors and decision-
 makers will continue to lead as management board members and which ones to phase 
out (Nolan, 2004).  For this phase to lead to a successful EIP, it is important to have 
complete consensus from each member of the EIP (whether it be an auxiliary service 
provider, tenant, public service provider, or any other entity within the EIP) with 
respect to the delegation of managerial responsibilities, division of costs for shared 
infrastructure and services, and regulations and policies that the EIP inhabitants must 
abide by. 
 Constraints observed during the construction of a management board pertain 
to the size of the management board, management board members? experience with 
industrial ecology, and maintaining a balance of power between the EIP management 
 
 145 
 
board and tenant managers.  The size of the management board acts as a constraint to 
this development process because the EIP does not want to deal with parallel 
management issues.  This occurs when a too many managers from too many different 
organizations are involved in the overall management effort; involving more 
managers increases the potential for loss of consensus or management-caused 
operations conflicts (from lack of communication) (Koenig, 2005).  The EIP 
development team must make sure each inhabitant within the EIP is represented on 
the management board, but must also factor in the maximum size of the management 
board constraint as well. 
The second constraint to the formation of a management board is the 
management board members? potential lack of knowledge about industrial ecology.  
This can serve as a constraint because the management board is supposed to consist 
of innovative leaders that are constantly searching for symbiotic linkages between 
tenants or community groups.  Since the management board must equally represent 
each tenant, there is a possibility for a management board member to lack experience 
in the practice of industrially ecological methods.  This constraint will limit which 
individuals will be nominated for membership on the management board; those that 
are enthusiastic about finding new byproduct exchanges for their company to engage 
in and are willing to learn how to apply industrial ecology (e.g., environmental 
management system coordinators). 
The third constraint is related to the assignment of the management board 
members? authority and responsibilities.  The EIP development team must make sure 
that no one manager on the board is given too many (or too few) responsibilities or 
 
 146 
 
too much (or too little) decision-making authority, and vice versa.  With respect to the 
rest of the park, the EIP development team must also develop a management board 
that makes sure the authority and responsibilities of each tenant?s management team 
is not infringing on any other tenant?s managerial authority and responsibilities.  In 
the event that there is a conflict between two management groups belonging to two 
different tenant facilities, the EIP development team must have an internal governing 
system in place for deciding which party is at fault, which party needs to pay the 
consequences for its actions, and what those consequences will be.  The EIP 
development team must develop a set of EIP covenants that defines all management 
level responsibilities (both for the EIP management board and individual management 
teams of each inhabitant), roles, codes of conduct, and conflict resolution system.  
These EIP covenants would apply to the EIP tenants, auxiliary service providers, and 
the management board during engagements with regulatory agencies, neighboring 
tenants, and the surrounding community members. 
3.2.6 ? Additional Phase: Phase Omega ? Implementation and 
Construction 
 
 The final phase of the REIPDP is concerned with implementing the optimal 
layout (as determined in Phase Five) and initiating construction of the park facilities.  
The phase is numbered with the omega (or ?), because this letter is the last letter in 
the Greek alphabet and, thus, is appropriate for the last phase in the REIPDP.  Permits 
authorizing the industrial operations of EIP tenants must be granted by the EIP?s 
regulatory agencies prior to tenant facility and infrastructural construction initiation.  
Upon authorization, each tenant will work closely with construction companies and 
 
 147 
 
other development personnel to decide how to apply green design initiatives to their 
facilities and infrastructure.  At this point, the EIP development team is in the middle 
of transferring its authority and responsibilities to members of the EIP management 
board, and all (or nearly all) of the site preparation actions have been completed.  In 
addition, any byproduct exchanges that have been formalized earlier on during the 
REIPDP will also be implemented.  Now that each tenant has officially co-located 
into the EIP, the EIP management board must plan more industrial ecology-based 
design charrettes, trust-building social events, and community open house events to 
strengthen ties and further educate company decision-makers and stakeholders about 
the purpose of the EIP development project.  In addition, this phase allows the EIP 
management board to begin implementing community improvement programs and 
industrial ecology education seminars to help build more support for the EIP and to 
further increase the societal bottom line. 
 The primary constraint to the implementation and construction phase pertains 
to regulations and policies included in the EIP covenants.  The regulatory agency 
works in conjunction with EIP management to create rules for the inhabitants of the 
EIP.  These rules may prohibit some processes or procedures that the tenant 
organization may be accustomed to performing at its former facilities.  It is the EIP 
management board?s responsibility to disseminate rules and regulations enforced by 
regulatory agencies to managers on the tenant level.  These rules formalize 
expectations that were developed and shared with the tenants prior to their admittance 
into the EIP.  These rules and regulations are generally established as early as Phase 
0B or Phase 1 (depending on the EIP development team and Public Agencies 
 
 148 
 
knowledge about the goals, scope, principles, and guidelines for potential tenants as 
the EIP development project continues).  Each Tenant?s managers must then 
incorporate these rules and regulations into their own set of covenants to influence 
how they conduct their business practices and prove to the EIP development team that 
they can operate within these rules and regulations.  This flow down of information is 
necessary to ensure the health and safety of the surrounding community groups and 
the environment.  The regulations and policies should be seen as long term constraints 
that are necessary to control operations by each tenant at the EIP; they are constraints 
ensuring sustainable future development of the EIP, not just the implementation and 
construction phase. 
 
3.3 ? Validation of REIPDP against Analyzed EIP Development 
Processes 
 
To ensure that it truly represents a standard for the development process used 
to create EIPs, the REIPDP was evaluated in two different ways:  
1. A comparison between the decisions and actions contained in the 
phases of the REIPDP and the steps of the 21 EIP design processes 
was conducted and; 
2. The decision-objectives belonging to the 21 EIP design processes (as 
well as the REIPDP?s decision-objectives) were analyzed to determine 
how aligned they are with the TBL?s means, low-level, and high-level 
fundamental-objectives. 
 
 149 
 
The results to the comparison between the REIPDP and the 21 EIP development 
decision processes studied can be seen in Table 14.  Following Table 14, Table 15 
depicts the decision-objectives associated with each of the REIPDP?s phases. 
 
 150 
 
 
Table 14: Correspondence between REIPDP phases and steps in 21 EIP development decision 
processes studied 
EIP 
Design 
Process 
# 
Does the REIPDP Phase have Corresponding Steps in this EIP 
Design Process? 
0A 0B 1 2 3 4 5 6 Omega 
1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
2 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
3 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes 
4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
6 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 
7 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
8 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
9 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 
11 Yes Yes No Yes Yes N/A, EIN N/A, EIN N/A, EIN N/A, EIN 
12 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
13 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 
14 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
15 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes 
16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
17 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
18 No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes 
19 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
20 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 
21 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Totals (Yes: 168, No: 17) 
Yes: 20 21 18 18 19 19 16 18 19 
No: 1 0 3 3 2 1 4 2 1 
 
 
 151 
 
 
Table 15: REIPDP Phases and the Decision-Objectives associated with each 
Phase/Step Exercised Objective(s) of Decision (What) 
Phase 0A: Identify, involve, and 
establish primary actors internally (EIP 
development team) and externally 
(within local business (resource 
exchange network, industrial 
associations, etc.), regulatory 
agencies, and community) via 
regionwide social function (conference, 
meeting, symposium, etc.) 
Identify role players; change agent can begin to 
"spread influence" and garner support from 
stakeholders. Funding for initial/pre-development 
activity (business surveys and conferences, 
community meetings, drafting of prelim. plans or 
guidelines, etc.) is typically provided by these decision 
makers 
Phase 0B: Establish goal, scope, 
implementation strategy, principles, 
guidelines for potential tenants and 
proposal for development of region's 
"ideal" EIP.  ALL stakeholders and 
decision makers should be in 
consensus by the end of this phase 
(Also called Terms of Reference) 
Define scope of the EIP project - all stakeholders and 
decision makers will be offering ideas and concepts 
and consensus is eventually reached (guidelines and 
principles are developed). Feasibility studies are 
began to determine if project can achieve 
environmental, economic, and social equity.  A 
proposal is also drafted to determine sources of 
funding and to advertise the EIP to prospective 
tenants 
Phase 1: Develop Action Plan 
Create an action plan that acknowledges challenges 
(use guidelines and principles to address), notes 
benefits, creates initial estimates (for land required 
and cost of infrastructure, utilities, etc.), and mentions 
possible sources of funding and why those entities 
would be interested (e.g. ROI, regional economic 
revitalization, job creation, environmental waste 
reduction, etc.). Also highlights roles and 
responsibilities of decision makers in the project 
Phase 2: Brownfield/Greenfield site 
search and evaluation (More Detailed 
Feasibility Analysis of Region with 
respect to its Inhabitants and 
Resources). 
Followed up with Acquisition, and 
Preparation (includes site remediation, 
infrastructure and public services 
installation, and public facility 
Determine where in region EIP can feasibly operate 
and maintain sustainable growth (i.e. Answer where 
the EIP will be able to achieve the triple bottom line?).  
 
 152 
 
construction) after authorization 
Phase 3: Identify ideal industrial-
 cluster linkages with respect to chosen 
location (also consider required 
supporting non-industrial inhabitants) 
and projected anchor(s). 
Identify which industrial clusters can be colocated in 
order to maximize economies of scale (i.e. profitable 
symbiotic linkages) and byproduct, energy, and/or 
water exchange, while minimizing waste creation.   
From this, a site-wide information management 
service could be created (e.g. EcoStar at Devens) 
Phase 4: Identify, Evaluate and Secure 
inhabitant businesses for each 
industrial (and non-industrial support 
service) cluster 
Screen and recruit businesses that can, upon 
entering, maximize benefit to (1) themselves, (2) 
others in the park, and (3) the community 
Phase 5: Determine Optimal Layout - 
EIP Prototype Scenario Exploration 
Determine layout that complements byproduct and 
energy exchange projects and maximizes the (1) 
economic, (2) environmental, and (3) sociological 
benefits created by the EIP 
Phase 6: Organize and Determine 
regulatory and managerial 
responsibilities to be held by EIP 
management and regulatory agents 
Determine structure (abilities and limitations) and 
personnel of EIP mgmt team as well as the regulatory 
liasons affiliated with the EIP.  This will ensure that 
the critical stakeholders and decision makers during 
the development process will remain in positions of 
influence 
Phase Omega: Implementation and 
Construction 
Full development of EIP:  construction of green 
design initiatives, finalization and initiation of industrial 
symbioses projects, and community 
improvement/education initiatives are begun here 
 
The total number of mismatches between the steps performed during the 21 
development processes and the phases in the REIPDP was reduced from 30 to 17.  
Thus, over the 21 development processes studied, there were 168 matches between 
the steps of these development processes and the REIPDP phases.  This represents a 
91% match in steps when they?re compared to phases between the 21 EIP 
development decision processes studied and the REIPDP; an improvement by 12% 
 
 153 
 
over the GEIPDP?s match rate.  This improvement indicates that the phases of the 
REIPDP contain phases that more accurately represent the steps performed during 
design and development decisions made during EIP projects.  With a more accurate 
depiction of the development process used to design and develop EIPs, work can 
begin towards improving this development process by applying engineering decision-
 making methods and procedures. 
 
3.4 ? Determining how well the EIP Development Projects and the 
REIPDP Advance the Triple Bottom Line Objectives 
 
After this comparison is made, an evaluation to determine how closely aligned 
each of the decision-objectives are with the objectives of the TBL was conducted.  To 
be more specific, an evaluation was carried out to determine how well each of the EIP 
development processes? decision-objectives (as well as the REIPDP?s decision 
objectives) advanced each of the TBL?s means, low-level, and high-level fundamental 
objectives. 
 In order to assess how well a particular EIP development project will perform 
with respect to maximizing a region?s TBL, the objectives of the EIP development 
decisions must be analyzed for alignment with the TBL objectives.  To do this, a 
rubric was created to categorize and score the objectives of decisions made by EIP 
development teams during EIP development projects.  Each decision objective in the 
EIP development process is evaluated with respect to two criteria: (1) how equally the 
decision?s objectives attempt to advance the TBL?s three high-level fundamental 
objectives and (2) their performance with respect to four attributes (as mentioned 
 
 154 
 
earlier in Section 2.3) (which will result in one overall ?grade? per decision-
 objective).  The TBL?s objectives (i.e., means, low-level fundamental and high-level 
fundamental objectives) are connected to the decision objectives based on whether 
the decision objective actually answers how the means objective it is attempting to 
connect to will be achieved or advanced.  Recall in Section 2.3 that to move up the 
means objective chain (i.e., toward the fundamental objective), one must ask why the 
following means or fundamental objective is important.  Conversely, to move down 
the means objective chain (i.e., away from the fundamental objective), one must ask 
how the following means or low-level fundamental objective is going to be achieved 
or advanced.  The connections are represented by lines connecting the objectives.  
Please refer to Section 2.3, Figure 12, Figure 13, Figure 14, and Figure 15, to see the 
TBL?s high level, low level, and means objectives.  The score for the four attributes 
for each development process? step is determined from how well the step?s 
decision(s) (and their associated objectives) advance the connected TBL objectives. 
The scores for each of the four attributes reveal how aligned the development step is 
with the objectives that are focused on maximizing the region?s TBL.  The four 
alignment attributes are as follows: (1) the number of TBL means objectives that the 
decision's objective are related to (or "connected" to); (2) the number of low-level 
fundamental objectives advanced by the means objectives.  In some cases, the means 
objectives are those that were advanced by the EIP development team's decision 
objectives directly, and those means objectives are responsible for advancing the TBL 
objectives; (3) the strength of relevance between the decision's objective and the 
means objective(s) it addresses and; (4) the relevance between the means objectives 
 
 155 
 
and the low-level fundamental objectives they?re connected to (i.e. connected via the 
means-objective chain that is initiated by a decision-objective).  Justifications for the 
range of scores for each attribute are discussed in Table 16 through Table 19. 
Table 16: Attribute 1's score scale and scoring rationale 
SCORE
 5 or more connections between decision-objectives and TBL means-objectives observed9
 7 4 connections between decision-objectives and TBL means-objectives observed
 3 connections between decision-objectives and TBL means-objectives observed
 2 connections between decision-objectives and TBL means-objectives observed
 ATTRIBUTE 1 - # OF CONNECTIONS BETWEEN DECISION-OBJECTIVES & TBL MEANS-OBJECTIVES
 1 connection between decision-objectives and TBL means-objectives observed1
 SCORING RATIONALE
 5
 3
  
Table 17: Attribute 2's score scale and scoring rationale 
SCORE
 2 low-level fundamental objectives are contributed to by the means objectives that are advanced by the decision-objectives
 1 low-level fundamental objective is contributed to by the means objectives that are advanced by the decision-objectives
 SCORING RATIONALE
 1
 3
 ATTRIBUTE 2 - # OF LOW-LEVEL FUND. OBJ. ADVANCED BY MEANS OBJECTIVES
 5 or more low-level fundamental objectives are contributed to by the means objectives that are advanced by the decision-
 objectives
 4 low-level fundamental objectives are contributed to by the means objectives that are advanced by the decision-objectives
 3 low-level fundamental objectives are contributed to by the means objectives that are advanced by the decision-objectives
 9
 5
 7
  
Table 18: Attribute 3's score scale and scoring rationale 
SCORE
 9
 3 Low - objective of decision does poor job of addressing the TBL means-objectives it is connected to. 
Very Low - decision is not aligned or is intended for procedural or administrative purposes
 ATTRIBUTE 3 - RELEVANCE BETWEEN  DECISION'S OBJECTIVES AND TBL MEANS-OBJECTIVES
 Medium - objectives of decision indirectly address the TBL means-objectives they're connected to adequately.  Generally, a 
decision's objective indirectly addresses a means/fundamental objective by not primarily focusing on the means/fundamental 
objective in question; but the decision's objective is still related to that means/fundamental objective in some way).
 1
 Very High - decision only contains one objective and that objective directly addresses the TBL means-objectives it is 
connected to.   In other words, there are no other objectives to the decision that would address other means-objectives.  A one 
to one correspondence between decisions and means-objectives reduces the chances for disagreement (or lack of 
consensus) between EIP development team members because there is no competition between decision objectives.  More 
decision objectives leads to more competition for company resources, which dilutes the advancement of means objectives 
related to these decision objectives.  
SCORING RATIONALE
 5
 7
 High - decision contains multiple objectves.  One decision objective directly addresses the TBL means-objectives it is 
connected to, but other decision objectives address different TBL means objectives (resulting in a decision that satisfies more 
than one means objective). Gen rally, a decision's objective directly addresses a means/fundamental obje tive by including 
keywords and phrases from the means/fundamental objective in its own objective statement
  
 
 156 
 
Table 19: Attribute 4's score scale and scoring rationale 
SCORE
 3 Low - means-objectives does poor job of addressing the low-level fundamental objectives it is connected to. 
5 Medium - means-objectives indirectly advance the low-level fundamental objectives they're connected to.  
9
 Very High - means-objectives directly address the low-level fundamental objectives they're connected to and within a long-
 term time horizon (e.g. 100 years).
 1
 7
 High - means-objectives directly address the low-level fundamental objectives they're connected to and within a short-term 
time horizon (e.g. 5 years).
 Very Low - means-objectives is not aligned with the low-level fundamental objectives
 SCORING RATIONALE
 ATTRIBUTE 4 -RELEVANCE BETWEEN  TBL MEANS-OBJECTIVES AND LOW-LEVEL FUND. OBJECTIVES
  
To determine the 21 EIP development projects? scores with respect to each attribute, 
each of the documents pertaining to the EIP development processes was carefully 
read and analyzed for how, or even if, each decision made and each action item taken 
during each development process was contributing to the advancement of the TBL?s 
means objectives and low-level fundamental objectives.  The ?Why is that 
Important?? test (i.e., WITI test) was performed to determine why the completion of a 
decision?s objective needs to be accomplished in order to advance one or more of the 
TBL?s objectives (Daft, 2001).  When the connections (either indirect or direct) 
between the EIP development project?s decision objectives and the TBL?s objectives 
are more relevant, the region?s TBL will be advanced further, and the EIP will be 
more beneficial for the region.  Once it was established that a step?s objective is 
contributing to one of the TBL?s objectives, a connection has been made, and a 
means-objective chain has been initiated.  The TBL fundamental-objectives hierarchy 
(seen in Section 2.3; Figure 12, Figure 13, Figure 14, and Figure 15) shows several 
different opportunities for means-objective chains; once a decision-objective 
advances one (or more) of the TBL objectives initially, a domino effect occurs 
between TBL means-objectives until the high-level fundamental objective is 
 
 157 
 
advanced.  One example of a means-objective chain can be seen in Table 20 from EIP 
development process #9. 
Table 20: A means-objective chain created from the TBL's fundamental and means objective 
hierarchy (in tabular form ? adapted from EIP Process #9) 
 
Though some objectives may appear more than once, they are not double counted 
when determining the score for attributes one and two.  Rather, the repeating of an 
objective represents how more than one means-objective chain is advancing the same 
objective; an overlap in means-objective chains is occurring.  The arrows contained 
within a cell appear whenever a decision objective directly advances a low-level 
fundamental objective without advancing a means-objective beforehand.  The means-
 objective chain begins with the EIP development processes? decision-objective.  
These decision objectives are derived from publications that were released by 
decision makers associated with the EIP development project.  These decision 
objectives are then analyzed to see why they?re important (i.e., the WITI test) so the 
decision objective in question can be connected with the appropriate TBL means-
 objective (i.e., the TBL means-objective that the decision objective in question 
answers ?how? the TBL means-objective can be accomplished or advanced).  These 
TBL means objectives are then connected to other TBL means objectives and 
fundamental objectives that are relevant to the decision objective that started the 
means-objective chain.  An example of the progression from the decision-objective to 
 
 158 
 
the TBL means objectives and up to the TBL high level fundamental objectives can 
be seen with respect to Devens EIP (EIP #8) in Figure 19. 
In addition, the attributes need to be given weights of importance so that each 
decision-objective?s score can be calculated.  First, the attributes are ranked in order 
of importance.  This ranking can be seen in Table 21. 
Table 21: Ranking of attributes that are used to determine a Criterion 1 grade. 
Attribute Initial Ranking of Importance 
1st Attr. 2 - # of Low-Level Fund. Obj. Advanced by 
Means Objectives 
2nd Attr. 4 - Relevance Between TBL Means-Objectives 
and Low-Level Fund. Objectives 
3rd Attr. 3 - Relevance Between  Decision's Objectives 
and TBL Means-Objectives 
4th Attr. 1 - # of Connections Between Decision-
 Objectives & TBL Means-Objectives 
 
These rankings demonstrate that the TBL fundamental hierarchy may not be 
comprehensive (hence, a low ranking of attribute 1 since it scores how many TBL 
means-objectives are connected to by decision-objectives) and that relevance is 
equally as important as the number of connections made.  From these rankings, the 
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) can be used to determine the weights of each 
attribute; a pairwise comparison and a pairwise comparison matrix are used to 
determine the weights for each alignment attribute.  The pairwise comparisons and 
pairwise comparison matrix can be seen in Table 22. 
 
 159 
 
 
Table 22: Pairwise Comparisons and the Pairwise Comparison Matrix 
 
(A) 
 
(B) 
 
The consistency ratio was calculated by finding the largest eigen value of the pairwise 
comparison matrix and measuring the degree of consistency (also known as the 
consistency index) via the following equation: 
  
max
 1
 n
 CI
 n
 ? ?
 ?
 ?
  
 
(1) 
 
Where: ?max = the largest eigenvalue of the pairwise comparison   
 matrix and; 
 n = the size of the pairwise comparison matrix 
The consistency ratio is found by dividing the CI by the appropriate random 
consistency index (RI) value.  The appropriate random consistency index value 
depends on the size of the pairwise comparison matrix (i.e., the value of n) and its 
range of values can be seen in Table 23. 
 
 160 
 
Table 23: Random Consistency Index (RI) 
 
In this case, the RI is equal to 0.9 since there?s four attributes.  Notice the consistency 
ratio is low (i.e., 10% or lower), so the weighting of these attributes is acceptable.  A 
weighted sum is calculated from these four attributes and their weights to determine 
each decision's score (which can be seen in Table 22-B).  To calculate the weighted 
sum, which is the decision-objective?s score (ranging from 1 ? 9), multiply the 
attribute score by the appropriate attribute weight.  Once these four terms are 
calculated, sum them together, and the decision-objective?s score is determined.  
Next, the decision process step in question is given a score based on the weighted 
sum of four attribute scores.  The score represents the degree of alignment that the 
process step?s decision-objectives have with respect to the TBL objectives.  
Justifications for each attribute score are presented and can be seen for the same 
example as earlier (i.e., EIP development process #9) in Table 24. 
Table 24: Attribute scores received by EIP development process #9?s Phase 7 and the scoring 
justifications per attribute 
Attr. 1: 1 connection between the decision's objective 
and the TBL means-objective was observed
 Attr. 2: 5 low-level fundamental objectives are advanced 
by the means objectives (that are advanced by the 
decision-objectives)
 Attr. 3: objective of decision indirectly address the TBL 
means-objectives it is connected to adequately
 Attr. 4: means-objectives directly addresses the low-
 level fundamental objectives it is connected to and within 
a short-term time horizon
 Scoring Justification
 1 9
 Attribute 
1 Score
 Attribute 
2 Score
 5 7 7.5
 Attribute 
3 Score
 Attribute 
4 Score
 Decision Objective's 
Score (out of 9)
  
These scores represent how well, or how poorly, Step 7 (of EIP development process 
#9?s Phase 7) contributes to the region?s TBL.  The scores from all the steps are then 
aggregated (similar to how one would determine their grade point average, except on 
 
 161 
 
a scale of 9.0 instead of 4.0) to determine the EIP?s development process grade.  This 
grade reflects each EIP development process? performance with respect to Criterion 2 
(see Table 25).  To be considered as a development process that is aligned with the 
TBL, this grade must be 75% or higher.  75% was chosen because this value 
represents average quality (i.e., a ?C? is a 75% passing grade).  Thus, in our example 
with EIP development process #9, the overall grade was a 71.7%, so this EIP 
development project would (barely) be considered unaligned with the TBL?s 
objectives. 
Criterion 1 (see Table 25) describes how equally each EIP development 
process? decision advances the TBL?s three high-level fundamental objectives.  
Ideally, each EIP development process would utilize one-third of its decisions to 
advance the environmental bottom line, another one-third to advance the societal 
bottom line, and the remaining one-third to advance the economic bottom line.  Each 
decision?s objective is capable of advancing more than one high-level fundamental 
objective.  The closer the EIP development process is to dedicating its decisions to 
each of these three bottom lines equally, the more aligned the EIP development 
process will be considered.  A deviation of +/- 5% is allowable, so, to be considered a 
"well aligned" EIP development process, any one TBL high-level fundamental 
objectives must not be advanced more than 38% of the time, or less than 28% of the 
time by the time the EIP development project has concluded.  In addition, evaluation 
of the REIPDP was conducted, even though it is untested as an EIP development 
process, because it contains decision objectives and constraints like the 21 EIP 
development processes that were studied. Actual distributions of the 21 EIP 
 
 162 
 
development processes with respect to the three high-level fundamental objective of 
the TBL can be seen in Table 25. 
Table 25: Performance of EIP development processes with respect to Criteria 1 & 2. 
 
The combination of these criteria puts each EIP development process into one 
of three categories: (1) green for the processes that satisfy the criteria, (2) yellow for 
processes that only satisfy one criterion, and (3) red for processes that satisfy neither 
criterion.  Only two of the studied 21 EIP development processes could be considered 
?well aligned,? since they?re the only ones to satisfy both criteria for TBL alignment.  
As this evaluation set out to demonstrate, the REIPDP serves as an improvement on 
existing EIP development processes because it possesses a grade well above 75% and 
has a fairly even distribution of phases whose decision-objectives advance all three 
TBL high-level fundamental objectives (see Error! Reference source not found.).  
The last two rows in this table demonstrate that the REIPDP performs well above the 
 
 163 
 
average EIP development process when considering the percent deviations from the 
desired values. 
Three scatter plots are contained in Table 26.  These scatter plots show how 
each EIP performs with respect to Criterion 2 and Criterion 1 (i.e., each of the three 
TBL high-level fundamental objectives ? one scatter plot per objective).  The green 
points represent the EIP development projects (two plus the REIPDP) that satisfy 
both criteria.  The yellow points represent the EIP development projects that satisfy 
only one criterion.  Lastly, the red points represent the EIP development projects that 
did not satisfy either criterion.  Observing from the low number of EIP development 
projects that are ?well aligned? (i.e., green points in Table 26) demonstrates how 
difficult it is for EIP development projects to substantially advance the TBL?s 
objectives in a manner that accommodates the environment, economy, and 
community equally. 
 
 
 164 
 
Table 26: Scatter Plots Showing EIP Development Process Grades versus Distribution of Phases 
that Advance the TBL's High-Level Fund. Objectives 
 
 
EIP Design Process Grade vs. Distribution of Phases that 
Advance the Environmental Bottom Line
 0.0%
 10.0%
 20.0%
 30.0%
 40.0%
 50.0%
 60.0%
 70.0%
 80.0%
 90.0%
 100.0%
 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
 % Environmental
 Pr
 oc
 es
 s 
G
 ra
 de
  (%
 )
 Green
 Yellow
 Red
 
 165 
 
EIP Design Process Grade vs. Distribution of Phases that 
Advance the Economic Bottom Line
 0.0%
 10.0%
 20.0%
 30.0%
 40.0%
 50.0%
 60.0%
 70.0%
 80.0%
 90.0%
 100.0%
 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
 % Economic
 Pr
 oc
 es
 s 
G
 ra
 de
  (%
 )
 Green
 Yellow
 Red
  
 
From this evaluation, and the comparison conducted earlier, it is safe to say 
that the REIPDP can serve as an all encompassing standard for EIP development 
processes, and it is an improvement over the GEIPDP. To show that the REIPDP is 
aligned with the triple-bottom line maximization objective, a fundamental & means 
objective network was created.  The fundamental & means objective network of the 
REIPDP can be seen (in tabular form) in Table 43 through Table 46 of the appendix. 
 
 166 
 
 
Chapter 4: Determining Decision-Based Design Methods for 
Phases of the Revised EIP Development Process 
 
 Chapter 4 will demonstrate decision based design techniques that can be used 
to ensure that the REIPDP is being executed properly.  In a broader sense, what 
Section 4.1 will discuss can be applied to more than just the REIPDP.  After 
introducing the Contingency Decision Making Framework and how it works, Section 
4.2 discusses how it can be used to analyze each of the phases in the REIPDP in order 
to determine the appropriate decision making procedure for each phase.  The 
existence of technical knowledge and problem consensus can vary from one EIP 
development team (and the project personnel that they work with) to another, but the 
generalizations made in Section 4.2 with respect to possession or lack of technical 
knowledge and problem consensus are implied from the documents pertaining to the 
21 EIP development processes. 
 
4.1: The Contingency Decision-Making Framework: Classifying 
Decision-Making Problems and Determining the Appropriate Decision-
 Making Procedure 
 
 A Contingency Decision-Making Framework (CDMF) is used by decision-
 makers who must find the solution to a complex system of problems, but are unsure 
which decision-making approach to apply to the problem system.  The CDMF brings 
together the two dimensions of problem consensus and technical knowledge to help 
decision makers determine the nature of their problem, and choose a suitable 
 
 167 
 
decision-making problem to solve it (Daft, 2001).  The CDMF is represented in 
Figure 20. 
 
U
 ncert
 a
 in  
  
  
  
 T
 EC
 H
 NICA
 L KNO
 W
 L
 E
 DGE 
  
  
    C
 e
 rtai
 n
 Certain              PROBLEM CONSENSUS            Uncertain
 CELL 1: 
Management Science 
Approach
 (Optimization and
 Trade-Off Analysis)
 CELL 4:
 Carnegie and Incremental
 Decision Process Models,
 Evolving to Garbage Can
 Model
 CELL 3:
 Incremental Decision
 Process Model
 CELL 2:
 Carnegie Model
  
Figure 20: Contingency Framework for using Decision Making Methods (Daft, 2001) 
 
 The cells in Figure 20 correspond to different decision-making scenarios.  In 
cell 1, both technical knowledge and problem consensus are present.  A decision-
 making problem that fits into this category will yield a rational solution because the 
nature of the problem is agreed upon by decision makers and the cause-effect 
relationships are understood (leaving little room for uncertainty).  Because of the 
degree of understanding for this type of problem, alternatives can be identified and 
analyzed for their expected benefit as a solution, and the probability that they will 
actually achieve the intended result.  If presented as a decision-making problem of 
this sort, the EIP development team would employ the Management Science approach 
 
 168 
 
because this type of problem is open to mathematical analysis.  With variables that 
can be identified and measured, application of optimization and trade-off analysis 
would yield a rational solution; goals can be represented as an objective function and 
the information pertaining to the limits of the variables can be translated into 
constraints (Daft, 2001). 
 In cell 2 the decision-making problem exhibits a lack of consensus (due to a 
high level of uncertainty), but technical knowledge about how to solve the problem 
exists.  The Carnegie model can be used to reduce ambiguity and add consistency to 
the goals of multi-disciplinary decision-makers on the EIP development team.  
Coalition building is a useful way to achieve consensus, but does not always result in 
consensus between decision makers.  If consensus cannot be reached, coalition 
building will lead to satisficing (i.e., choosing the earliest available alternatives that 
achieve a ?satisfactory? level of performance, rather than a maximum one) and 
problemistic search (i.e., simple search procedures to find a satisficing solution rather 
than an optimal one) during decision-making periods where time will not permit 
bargaining and discussion.  However, during some situations, debate, discussion, and 
eventual bargaining will be required.  The coalition building event during the 
Carnegie model establishes the critical factors governing the problem at hand, the 
problem priorities, and leads to support for an agreed upon direction to move in to 
attain a solution.  An example of the choice processes used during the conducting of 
the Carnegie model can be seen in Figure 21.  The opportunity cost of having to 
establish consensus is the forgone attention and action with respect to other issues.  
Establishing a small number of coalitions (i.e., getting as close to problem consensus 
 
 169 
 
as possible) between decision-makers is especially important during the problem 
identification routine because it will provide clear standards and expectations for 
performance (Cyert and March, 1963; March and Simon, 1958; Daft, 2001). 
 
Uncertainty
 - Information is 
limited
 - Managers have 
many constraints
 Conflict
 - Managers have 
diverse goals, 
opinions, values, and 
experien e
 Coalition Formation
 - Hold joint discussion 
and interpret goals 
and problems
 - Share opinions
 - Establish problem 
priorities
 - Obtain social 
support for problem, 
solution
 Search
 -Conduct a simple, 
local search
 - Use established 
procedures if 
appropriate
 - Create a solution if 
needed
 Satisficing 
Decision Behavior
 - Adopt the first 
alternative that is 
acceptable to the 
coalition
  
Figure 21: Choice Processes in the Carnegie Model (Daft, 2001) 
 
 In cell 3 are decision-making problems where problems and standards of 
performance are certain (i.e., problem consensus is present), but the techniques to 
solve the problem are ill defined and poorly understood by the decision-makers.  
Decision-makers can employ the Incremental Decision Process model to identify a 
problem and perform a series of small steps that will enable the decision-makers to 
learn a solution.  Through the use of nested loops, new problems that arise can be 
handled by cycling back to an earlier routine within the Incremental Decision Process 
and evaluating in a time consuming step-by-step manner.  After sufficient experience 
has been gained by the decision-makers, a method for solving the problem(s) at hand 
will form and the goals can be accomplished (Daft, 2001). 
 
 170 
 
 In cell 4 are decision-making problems where both problem consensus and 
technical knowledge do not exist.  Under these circumstances, logical decision 
sequences starting with problem identification and ending with a bounded rational 
solution will not happen.  Instead, potential solutions will appear before a problem 
has even surfaced and, with a lack of experience on the matter, no one can predict 
whether these potential solutions will lead to the desired outcome.  A combination 
between the Carnegie and Incremental Decision Process models must be utilized on a 
decision by decision basis to continually build consensus and introduce new 
techniques for solving the problems present.  The garbage can model can then be used 
to organize decisions into four ?streams? of concurrent events; problems, participants, 
potential solutions, and choice opportunities.  As one stream produces a decision, the 
information derived from this initial decision will interact between the other four 
streams and eventually lead to the generation of decisions in those streams as well 
(Daft, 2001; Cohen et al., 1972). 
 Before Phase 0A of the EIP project begins, the project initiators are not clear 
what characteristics of an EIP would constitute a bounded rational solution; in other 
words, the project initiators lack technical knowledge to find a solution.  On the other 
hand, the project initiators have agreement amongst its members as to what the 
problem is and what the goals and outcomes to pursue are (though in a fairly high-
 level and general way).  An exemplary high-level outcome reads as follows: the 
design and development of an EIP that will enhance the region?s triple bottom line.  
According to the CDMF, the project initiators possess consensus, but lack technical 
knowledge, leading them to the application of the Incremental Decision Process.  The 
 
 171 
 
Incremental Decision Process is the same as the Strategic Decision Process; both 
introduced by Mintzberg et al. (1976).  The sub-problems created to represent each 
phase in the REIPDP are decision making problems that can be examined with the 
CDMF.  Hence, the REIPDP can be considered as a decision making application of 
the incremental decision-making approach. 
4.2: Selection of Decision-Making Procedure for each Phase in the 
Revised EIP Development Process 
 
 The EIP development team must select the correct decision-making procedure 
to enable them to conduct each phase of the REIPDP in a timely manner and to take 
advantage of problem consensus or technical knowledge amongst the decision-
 makers if either exists.  Each phase is a decision-making problem and the EIP 
development team possesses technical knowledge and consensus, possesses just one 
of these variables, or is seeking to acquire both of these variables.  A summary 
highlighting the presence of technical knowledge and problem consensus with respect 
to each phase is presented in Table 27.  Once the presence (or absence) of technical 
knowledge and problem consensus is established for each phase, the CDMF can be 
referenced to determine the appropriate decision-making method to utilize to evaluate 
the respective sub-problem.
 
 172 
 
 
Table 27: REIPDP Phases and Presence/Absence of Technical Knowledge and Problem 
Consensus 
Phase 
Technical 
Knowledge? 
Problem 
Consensus? 
Decision-Making 
Method 
0A - Identify, involve, 
and establish primary 
actors internally (EIP 
development team) and 
externally 
Yes Yes Optimization 
0B - Establish goal, 
scope, implementation 
strategy, principles, 
guidelines for potential 
tenants and proposal for 
development of region's 
"ideal" EIP. 
No Partially/No 
Carnegie Model and  
Incremental Decision 
Process 
1 - Develop Action Plan Yes Yes Optimization 
2 ? 
Brownfield/Greenfield 
site search, evaluation, 
acquisition, and 
preparation 
Yes No Carnegie Model 
3 ? Identify ideal 
industrial-cluster 
linkages 
Yes Partially/No Carnegie Model 
4 ? Identify, evaluate, 
and secure inhabitant 
businesses 
No No 
Carnegie Model and  
Incremental Decision 
Process 
5 ? Determine most 
beneficial layout w/ 
respect to EIP 
inhabitants 
No Yes 
Incremental Decision 
Process 
6 ? Organize and 
determine regulatory 
and managerial 
responsibilites 
No Yes 
Incremental Decision 
Process 
OMEGA ? 
implementation and 
construction 
Yes Yes 
Management Science 
Approach (Trade-off 
analysis) 
 
4.2.1: Decision-Making Process of Phase 0A 
 During Phase 0A, project initiators develop a set of requirements pertaining to 
project partners that can be transformed into a set of criteria.  The project initiators 
can then hold recruiting events aimed at identifying and gathering information about 
the regional ?green? leaders that would make ideal project partners (based on their 
 
 173 
 
predetermined criteria).  At this phase in the decision process, the project iniators 
possess technical knowledge because they are able to develop criteria enabling them 
to rate and rank alternative project partners against one another and are able to 
determine the characteristics of a desired set of project partners (i.e., what the solution 
or preferred outcome should look like). 
 The goal of the EIP project is to enhance the triple bottom line of the region, 
and the project initiators will try to recruit project partners that understand the means 
necessary to accomplish this goal.  Overall consensus is good, but consensus with 
respect to what the problem is and what the goals and outcomes of the phase should 
be is necessary as well. Members of the project initiating entities build consensus 
while deciding what the project partner criteria are and while deciding the relative 
important of the criteria.  Since both problem consensus and technical knowledge 
exist, the CDMF implies that the project initiators can employ a management science 
approach to carefully determine the project partners (i.e., the sub-solution) that will 
help them develop a successful EIP (i.e., the primary solution). 
4.2.2: Decision-Making Process of Phase 0B 
 During the decision-making process to Phase 0B, the EIP development team 
lacks technical knowledge.  The EIP development team needs to analyze the data 
gathered during Phase 0A and determine what relevant performance metrics to use to 
evaluate the EIP project?s feasibility; determine which proposed concepts to 
incorporate in the feasibility study; search for feasibility studies with similar 
intentions and imitate the relevant methods; and determine a basis for estimating the 
parameters that will be used in the proposal for investors. 
 
 174 
 
 In addition to a lack of technical knowledge, the EIP development team will 
need to build consensus between its members, the interested industrial associations, 
regulatory agencies, and community groups in order to develop a set of goals, the 
scope, an implementation strategy, principles and guidelines for the development of 
an ?ideal? EIP.  Since so many different parties are involved, coalition building will 
play an important role in arriving at a solution to this decision-making process.  This 
phase essentially puts all internal and external primary actors in alignment, but not 
necessarily in a sequential manner.  With a lack of consensus or technical knowledge, 
the CDMF suggests the use of the garbage can model in order to generate solutions 
meeting each of these four objectives. 
 
4.2.3: Decision-Making Process of Phase 1 
 During the decision-making process to Phase 1, the EIP development team 
needs to avoid repeated development processes that will not yield any new 
information, maximize the information flow streams between primary actors, and 
delegate roles and responsibilities that take advantage of the experience of primary 
actors.  Substantial progress on the feasibility study started in Phase 0B can provide 
detailed technical knowledge to help the EIP development team determine what 
concepts will help achieve a good triple bottom line and should be incorporated into 
the action plan.  In addition, coalition building around the establishment of goals, 
scope, an implementation strategy, principles, and guidelines for the EIP that 
occurred in the previous phase will benefit the EIP development team in reaching 
consensus on what needs to be included in the action plan.  With problem consensus 
 
 175 
 
and technical knowledge in existence, the CDMF directs the EIP development team 
to employ a management science approach to the development of the action plan.  
Use of trade-off analysis will be important to strategically allot roles and 
responsibilities to primary actors and to integrate these roles and responsibilities with 
a reliable schedule for the EIP project. 
4.2.4: Decision-Making Process of Phase 2 
 During the decision-making process to Phase 2, the EIP development team 
needs to work with the public agency to identify sites that already have industrial 
zoning permits, or will be able to receive industrial zoning permits without extra 
effort.  Technical knowledge is present because the EIP development team can rely 
on knowledge learned during the feasibility study and information used to develop the 
proposal to determine which sub-regions contain a sustainable amount of resources 
applicable to the industries present within the region.  The search routine is agreed 
upon by all members of the EIP development team, so technical knowledge can be 
said to exist.  Since there are a number of different disciplines represented on the EIP 
development team, the primary source of disagreement will probably be with regard 
to the criteria (and their associated weights) to use in identifying a suitable EIP site.  
Coalition building will play an important role in ensuring that too much compromise 
is not made in determining these criteria; each member of the EIP development team 
must try to remember that the ultimate goal of the project is to maximize the triple 
bottom line.  Since technical knowledge is present, but consensus may be absent, this 
decision-making process falls into the category of Cell 2 of the CDMF.  Thus, the EIP 
 
 176 
 
development team should apply the Carnegie model to achieve a suitable solution to 
this decision-making process. 
4.2.5: Decision-Making Process of Phase 3 
 During the decision-making process to Phase 3, the industrial associations will 
play a role in informing the EIP development team about which industries they 
anticipate will have the greatest probability of forming byproduct exchanges between 
one another.  The regulatory agency will assist in suggesting what industries won?t 
have an easy time acquiring zoning permits or that may not match the available 
workforce?s skill set.  Technical knowledge exists because the EIP development team 
understands and agrees about how to identify the suitable industrial clusters.  
Constraints provided by the regulatory agency and industrial associations will help 
limit the options and define the criteria that the EIP development team will use to 
evaluate potential industrial clusters.  In order to gain consensus between these 
planning agents and the community groups, more community meetings and 
workshops will need to be implemented.  These community reach-out events will 
help the EIP development team form a better definition of the available workforce?s 
limitations and will build community support for the EIP project if it does not yet 
exist.  If the EIP development team possesses technical knowledge and is in 
consensus internally (i.e. between development team members), then they should 
attempt a management science approach to determine the most suitable industrial 
clusters for the EIP.  However, if consensus is not attained early enough between the 
EIP development team and the community groups (e.g., the proposed industrial 
clusters are not accepted by the community groups), then the Carnegie model will 
 
 177 
 
have to be employed to discuss and debate problems the community groups have with 
the proposed industrial clusters, and to arrive at suitable alternative industrial clusters 
that are more agreeable with the surrounding community. 
4.2.6: Decision-Making Process of Phase 4 
 Even though the decision-making process to Phase 4 is accompanied with a 
large body of knowledge coming from the potential tenants (via surveys and 
recruiting events), there is still a large degree of uncertainty concerning how any one 
tenant will interact with the other tenants to produce useful byproduct exchanges and 
co-exist within the EIP without conflict.  At this point, the EIP development team is 
not in possession of technical knowledge because they need to establish the decision-
 making process priorities and a method for evaluating the alternatives.  The decision-
 making process priorities include criteria (and criteria weights) that will be used to 
evaluate the potential tenants, and the determination of constraints.  Coalition 
building must be utilized by the EIP development team to define the problem 
characteristics and to develop a method for evaluating each tenant without knowing 
who the other tenants will be.  Consensus between the EIP development members 
will be gained once these criteria for the alternatives are defined and the goal of the 
EIP is reinforced in a manner that can be implemented.  Since neither technical 
knowledge nor problem consensus exists, the decision-making process is categorized 
under Cell Four, and the Garbage Can model should be employed. 
 
 178 
 
4.2.7: Decision-Making Process of Phase 5 
 During the decision-making process to Phase 5, the EIP development team 
will be presented with a number of different parameters and metrics to use that will 
help them define a solution space and relevant constraints, but how to use the 
available knowledge from all the previous decision-making process? results and 
account for uncertainties must still be determined.  Technical knowledge is absent 
because the EIP development team still needs to determine how it will model 
different conceptual layouts and evaluate them for how well they can maximize the 
triple bottom line.  In contrast, problem consensus does exist because the goals, 
principles, and guidelines of the park (defined much earlier) will make it clear to the 
EIP development team members that the ideal tenant will contribute to the 
improvement of the regional triple bottom line.  According to the CDMF, with 
consensus present but a lack of technical knowledge, the decision-making process is 
categorized into Cell Three, and the Incremental Decision Process model should be 
used.  The design routine will be used in conjunction with the evaluation of choice 
routines most.  In addition, the EIP development team should expect a number of new 
option interrupts coming in the form of new industrial tenants looking to join the EIP, 
or auxiliary service providers that see an opportunity to help maximize the triple 
bottom line. 
4.2.8: Decision-Making Process of Phase 6 
 During the decision-making process to Phase 6, the EIP development team is 
in a good position because consensus exists; the team knows they need to form a 
management board that will include primary internal and external actors who 
 
 179 
 
contributed the most to the effort of developing the EIP and are most knowledgeable 
about industrially ecological practices.  However, technical knowledge pertaining to 
the exact roles, responsibilities, size of the management board, and distribution of 
current EIP development team members that should be converted into EIP 
management board members may still be an open item.  The EIP development team 
can gain technical knowledge about how to construct an EIP management board by 
consulting other existing EIPs that employ a management board and researching how 
the assembled it (i.e., imitation).  According to the CDMF, a decision-making 
problem containing problem consensus, but lacking technical knowledge should be 
approached with the Incremental Decision Making model. 
4.2.9: Decision-Making Process of Phase Omega 
 During the decision-making process to Phase Omega, consensus exists 
between the EIP management board and the tenants because the goals, principles and 
guidelines layout what each tenant should be striving to attain.  In addition, technical 
knowledge exists because the EIP management board is well versed in implementing 
green design methodologies, conducting analyses to verify whether a byproduct 
exchange will be beneficial and how to implement it, and in holding community 
reach-out events that will garner their support further.  In the event that a decision-
 making process exhibits both consensus and technical knowledge, the CDMF 
suggests a management science approach.  Trade-off analysis and optimization can be 
utilized to determine the lowest cost ways to implement green design initiatives and 
installation of infrastructure for byproduct exchanges.  It is important to realize that 
the number of variables and constraints involved may make optimization infeasible; 
 
 180 
 
the bounded rationality of the decision makers requires separating this phase into a 
number of different decisions (Herrmann, 2010).  With an effective solution to this 
decision-making process, the EIP management board will conclude the REIPDP with 
the grand opening of an EIP that will without a doubt improve the triple bottom line 
of the surrounding region. 
The CDMF is a very useful tool for analyzing the key decisions made during 
each phase of the REIPDP.  By considering the development team?s possession of 
consensus and technical knowledge (or lack there of), the correct decision-making 
method can be applied to the phase in question.  EIP development teams need to 
recognize the guidance that the CDMF provides and begin benefiting from the 
utilization of the correct decision-making methods.  The utilization of the correct 
decision-making methods will only reduce development time and support some of the 
economic TBL objectives.  It is important to note that the discussion in this chapter is 
based upon the REIPDP and the understanding gained after studying 21 EIP 
development processes.  However, more work is needed to corroborate these 
conclusions.  This would entail application of the REIPDP, in conjunction with the 
CDMF, to at least one EIP development project.  After a development project with 
objectives that are well aligned with the TBL?s objectives is constructed and 
operational, the region where the EIP resides would need to be monitored for at least 
a short term time horizon (e.g., 5-10 years).  This monitoring would enable an 
evaluation that determines how well the EIP (and the development process used to 
design and develop that EIP) helps benefit the region?s TBL in actuality. 
 
 181 
 
 
Chapter 5: Deciding which Tenants to include in Oak Point 
EIP ? A Detailed Example of Phase 4 
 
 Often, Phase 4 of the REIPDP is lacking in consensus and technical 
knowledge, so coalition building and the incremental decision-making process should 
be implemented to bring about an ideal solution.  There are exceptions, however.  At 
Oak Point EIP, for example, a consensus as to what the EIP development team 
wanted was present (and is spelled out through the goals and requirements), however, 
the method for determining the most suitable tenants for entry into the EIP was not 
(i.e., technical knowledge was absent).  When problem consensus exists, but technical 
knowledge is absent, the CDMF leads the EIP development team to employ the 
Incremental Decision Process model.  Thus, in the following example, the 
incremental decision making method described by Mintzberg et al. (1976) is used to 
describe how one could decide which candidate tenants to recruit into the Oak Point 
EIP of South Bronx. 
 
5.1 Assumptions 
Data (mostly from 2005) used within assumptions was attained from "Sustainable 
South Bronx Eco-Industrial Full Feasibility Study" Byron et al., (2007).  For the 
purposes of analysis, the following assumptions have been made. 
 
 182 
 
 
? The operations at each facility are occurring at 100% capacity for the potential 
tenants under consideration. 
? The work year consists of 250 days. 
? "Marketable" outputs are recyclable products ready for resale (i.e. no further 
reprocessing is needed before consumer use; product may not necessarily consist of 
recycled feedstock or byproducts). 
? "Byproducts" are recyclable products that may or may not require reprocessing before 
its use as a feedstock, an energy source, etc. by other tenants or business community 
(this content would end up in landfills or hazardous waste treatment sites if not 
recycled). 
? Incoming and Outgoing production values for the Paper Converting Operation and 
Wood Salvage and Re-milling Operation rely on a full production scenario (which 
Byron et al (2007) estimates will take 3 years ). 
? Normal commercial trash generated by the Paper Converting Operation and Wood 
Salvage and Re-milling Operation is assumed to be produced at a rate between 1 and 
2 tons/year (requiring one rail hopper car per year).  This trash represents employee 
lunches, bathroom wastes, film plastic pallet wrap, and other small pieces of garbage. 
? Decision-makers place high value on diverting waste from Bronx waste management 
system to nearby recycling facilities and demanding markets - this will be reflected 
within the criteria pair-wise comparison. 
? An input material flow of 77,870 tons/year of 2" glass cullet serves as the fixed 
amount of glass recovered from the curbside recycling program and sent to the glass 
powder manufacturing facility. 
? Since the Glass Powder Facility has the option of transporting its glass powder 
product via rail (nationally) and trailer (regionally/locally), I assumed equal 
utilization of each transportation method (i.e. each transportation method distributes 
exactly half of the total glass powder product). 
? Assume the Paper Converting Operation recycles its normal commercial trash and 
pallets at only 50% efficiency; one of the two tons of waste produced per year gets 
recycled 
? The recycled ferrous and non-ferrous metals are assumed to be reprocessed and 
redistributed to national markets via rail and road equally (i.e. 100 tons/year 
transported by road, and 100 tons/year transported by rail) 
 
5.2 - Identification Phase: Determining Decision-Makers and 
Stakeholders 
 
 In the beginning of the decision-making procedure, it is important to declare 
exactly who the decision-makers and stakeholders are.  The participants and their 
 
 183 
 
roles (as stakeholders or decision-makers) during each design phase vary.  For the 
tenant nomination phase, typical decision-makers and stakeholders are as follows: 
? Developers (still need to recruit); 
? Investors and Preparers of Feasibility Study: Sims Hugo Neu Corporation, 
Sustainable South Bronx, Green Worker Cooperatives, Sustainable Enterprise, 
and Pratt Center for Community Development; 
? Interested Potential Tenants (local and regional business leaders with ?green? 
record); 
? Public/Regulatory Agencies: State Department of Environmental 
Conservation, the Army Corps of Engineers, the State Department of State, 
the State Historic Preservation Office, the City Landmarks Preservation 
Commission, City of New York?s Office of Long-Term Planning and 
Sustainability and other appropriate agencies be included in the process so 
that, if necessary, mitigating measures may be designed and additional 
permitting processes may be expedited; 
? Community Leaders and Community Organizations (who can be a source of 
political interrupts if they?re trying to keep a particular industry away from 
community);  
? Stakeholders include the living inhabitants within the surrounding community, 
environment, and business community outside of (but local to) the EIP. 
The Oak Point EIP in question is a 6 parcel 11.4 acre property that wants to focus 
primarily on recycling, reuse, and re-manufacturing within its walls.  For this 
example, we?re only considering 4 of these parcels to be available (Byron et al 2007). 
 
 184 
 
5.3 - Identification Phase: Defining the Problem 
The problem can be defined as the following question: Which firms, upon 
entering the EIP, can maximize benefits to (1) themselves, (2) other tenants in the 
park, and (3) the surrounding communities?  This problem is heavily dependent on 
the resource availability of the area, existing industries in the area, and public support 
or disdain for the candidate tenants.  The results from a regional feasibility (as 
mentioned during Phase 0B) reveal the top regional industrial outputs and inputs (i.e. 
byproducts, water, electricity, waste heat, specialized services, etc.), and a review of 
regional education levels will reveal whether the available workforce is ideal for 
personnel positions required to operate and maintain the EIP. 
 The proposal to construct an EIP is a consequence of the community?s desire 
for less pressure on the Bronx waste management system (landfills, privatized dump-
 loader trucks, etc.).  An EIP is naturally suited for a region in need of material flow 
management; however, this all depends on the sort of tenants that the EIP attracts.  As 
will be discussed later, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is appropriate for this 
type of problem because the decision-makers are able to place quantifiable 
importance on goals for the EIP, no matter how selective.  Throughout the proposal, 
Sustainable South Bronx gave credit to tenant facilities with barge and rail access 
over dump-loader transport of waste to distant landfills.  These preferences were 
taken into account during the creation of requirements, goals, and criteria for ideal 
tenants in the South Bronx EIP. 
 When handling a decision-making problem of this complexity, it is important 
to define the boundaries of the system under consideration.  The EIP in this problem 
 
 185 
 
would consist of four tenants (chosen from five potential tenant options), but it is 
debatable whether to include the Bronx waste and recycling system, or the 
surrounding Bronx communities that benefit from the reclaimed materials? resultant 
product or feedstock.  In order to capture the full effects of the EIP, I extended the 
boundaries beyond the gates of the EIP.  Many of the tenants within the EIP 
manufacture products from feedstock supplied to them by the Bronx community (in 
the form of waste or even valuable recycled construction materials).  In return, the 
EIP tenants process the feedstock and raw recycled material and create their own 
byproduct or material that has proven utility (i.e. it is marketable to the local and 
national business community), while diverting these materials from the landfill and 
helping the Bronx environment.  Since the community has such a large influence on 
the EIP (from materials flowing into it, to ordinances and rules that must be followed) 
and the EIP has such a large influence on its surrounding community (by creating 
jobs, resources, a reduction in landfill utilization, etc.), it is important to include the 
community within this problem?s boundary.  The proposal cites only two linkages 
within the EIP?s five potential tenants (Byron et al., 2007): 
 
- Captured wood scraps, sawdust and shavings from the Wood Salvage and 
Re-milling Operation would be sent to the Construction and Demolition 
Debris Recycling Facility for creation of saleable sand, gravel, and other 
"stone" products; and 
- Scrap shipping pallets used at the Paper Converting Operation would be 
sent to the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Facility. 
 
 186 
 
5.4 - Identification Phase: Determining the Requirements 
 Determining the system?s requirements helps the decision-makers understand 
what a preferable solution must have (i.e. necessary features) and what it must be 
capable of doing (i.e. necessary functionality).  It is important that these requirements 
do not discriminate between alternatives.  In the case of the EIP design problem, the 
requirements for potential tenants can be categorized with respect to which aspect of 
the triple bottom line the requirement intends to represent.  As shown in  
Table 28, there are four requirement types: Community, Environment, Symbiotic 
Link-ability, and Economy.  The community and economy (both local and New York 
City) requirements are in place to ensure that the potential tenant has the ability to 
perform in a manner that maximizes the benefit to each of these objectives.  The 
environmental requirements are included to exclude all potential tenants that would 
be unable to minimize the impact on the environment.  And finally, the symbiotic 
link-ability requirements were generated (1) to ensure that potential tenants are 
capable of producing waste that can be reused by other tenants (or the community), 
and (2) to ensure that potential tenant is capable of accepting pre or post-processed 
waste from other tenants (or surrounding distant/nearby community) and generating 
marketable products as well. 
Community, economic, and environmental requirements should be enough to 
ensure that the triple bottom line is met.  However, none of these three requirement 
types address the issue of overall project feasibility.  The inclusion of the symbiotic 
link-ability requirements will force the potential tenants to prove that their production 
system is capable of operating within an EIP setting in a manner that is beneficial to 
 
 187 
 
them, the rest of the EIP, and the surrounding community.  The development of an 
EIP would not be worthwhile if most of the tenants could not receive feedstock 
materials at a discount (from other tenants or the community) or if most the tenants 
continued sending all their waste to landfills and paying waste transport fees. 
 
Table 28: Requirements for prospective EIP tenants 
Requirement 
Type 
Reqt. 
ID 
Requirement for Tenant Explanation 
Community 
(both business 
and local): 
CO1 
Tenant must add measurable benefit to community via 
(any one, or all): 
? a provided service 
? recycled byproduct 
? reception of waste (from community for use in own 
production methods or beyond) 
? creation of jobs 
? training of individuals (i.e. enhancement of human 
resources) 
CO2 
Election of a Tenant for participation in EIP must be 
approved by all stakeholders (non-profit, environmental 
and community organizations) 
Environment: 
EN1 
Tenant (or scavenger services that would be included in 
cluster) must have existing technological capability to 
reduce use of virgin materials by its facilities 
EN2 
Tenant (or scavenger service industries that would be 
included in cluster) must have existing technological 
capability to increase the reuse/re-manufacturing of 
byproducts into useful goods, fuel, or feedstock. 
EN3 
To obtain a permit for a presumptively incompatible use 
(i.e. activity that may be harmful to wetlands), an 
applicant must overcome the presumption by 
demonstrating that the project is compatible with the 
policy of protecting wetlands and is reasonable and 
necessary, taking into account, 
among other things, the degree to which the activity is 
water dependent. So essentially, each tenant must prove 
their production activities (that include water usage) will 
not harm wetlands.  The applicant must also look at 
feasible alternatives to the site or approaches that would 
not affect the wetland, or propose mitigation. 
EN4 
With respect to any C&D facility planned for the eco-
 industrial park, State regulations state that ?new solid 
waste management facilities must not be constructed or 
operated within the boundary of the regulated wetland.? 
However, a variance of this restriction is possible if the 
 
 188 
 
tenant proves that the restriction "would impose 
unreasonable economic, technological or safety burden 
on the applicant or the public, and that the proposed 
activity will have no significant adverse impact on public 
health or the environment" (Byron et al 2007) 
Symbiotic Link-
 ability 
(Relationship 
with 
Neighboring 
Industries): 
SL1 
Incoming tenant must either provide or be in demand for 
byproducts, energy, water, or other services offered by 
top regional producers or needed by top regional 
consumers (as determined in Phase 0B) 
SL2 
Incoming tenant must have a system for delivering waste 
heat, material, water, etc. from production facilities to 
processing/scavenger facility (e.g. material processing 
facility or grey water treatment facility) and back into 
market (as feedstock, aggregate, profitable utility, etc.) 
SL3 
Incoming tenants must integrate the park-wide conveyor 
system to enable it to move outgoing products (waste 
and non-reusable's) directly to barges and rail cars 
Economic: 
EC1 
Industrial clusters must be defined flexibly (so that all 
sorts of manufacturing and production companies can "fit 
in" to a cluster and that cluster's associated 
infrastructure), but with careful attention to most 
prominent inputs and outputs and the required services 
associated with these 
EC2 
Tenant must participate in symbiotic exchanges that are 
economic for all parties participating in the exchange 
? For recipient tenant or community member: the cost 
of the byproduct or utility service (i.e. electricity or 
excess heat) that is to be sold to neighboring tenants 
or communities should not exceed the price the 
recipient typically pays to contemporary providers of 
that good or service 
? For donating tenant: the price charged to recipient 
tenants or community members by donating clusters 
should at least cover the cost of reprocessing the 
waste byproducts prior to resale or reuse for a utility 
service. 
 
 
 189 
 
5.5 - Identification Phase: Establishing the Goals 
Goals are defined to make clear what the stakeholders and decision-makers ?want? or 
?are hoping? the solution will bring them (Baker et al., 2002).  Without a doubt, the 
triple bottom line should be reflected in these goals (as is in the requirements).  
According to Planning for all New Yorkers (2008), ?The goal of an EIP is to improve 
the economic performance of the participating companies while minimizing their 
environmental impact.?  This is a decent goal, but it takes only two types of goals into 
consideration: economic and environmental.  This goal statement neglects to set 
targets for the community or to consider symbiotic link-ability, both of which would 
ensure meeting of the triple bottom line (and overall EIP feasibility).  Thus, to uphold 
the principle of the triple bottom line, the missing but necessary goal types are 
incorporated into the goals (see second and fourth rows of the first column in Table 
29).  The ?Goal Types? are exactly the same as the ?Requirement Types? (in the first 
column of Table 29 and Table 28 respectively); this confirms that the goals and 
requirements are continuing to strive for achievement of the triple bottom line. 
 
 190 
 
Table 29: Goals for each prospective tenant 
Goals Type 
Goal 
ID 
Tenant Goal Explanation 
Community: 
co1 
The proposed tenant should be a catalyst for the creation 
of new opportunities for, as well as improving, the city's 
recycling programs 
co2 
The proposed tenant should alleviate some of the 
burdens (through reuse of material byproducts or 
diversion to more distant landfills via barge or rail) which 
current solid waste management and recycling facilities 
impose on communities in the Bronx 
Environment: en1 
Tenant should have an environmental management 
system in place, that is capable of integrating with other 
environmental management systems and facilitating 
industrial symbiosis to minimize environmental impact  
Symbiotic 
Link-ability 
(Relationship 
with 
Neighboring 
Industries): 
sl1 
Tenants should be willing to invest (in conjunction with 
park management - roughly 50% of construction and 
installation costs) in infrastructures intended for recycling, 
reusing, and remanufacturing of byproducts, 
water/energy, etc. 
sl2 
Tenants should be willing to design or integrate new 
systems capable of taking waste outputs from 
surrounding tenants and communities and turning them 
into useful feedstock for their (or others') production 
processes 
Economic: 
ec1 
With respect to the Solid Waste Management Plan, the 
new tenant should help the transition from a reliance on 
private commercial waste trucks (more expensive) to the 
utilization of barge and rail (less expensive) to reduce 
stress on the Bronx roads and landfills 
ec2 The proposed tenant should provide high skilled job 
opportunities for the surrounding community 
 
5.6 - Development Phase: Identifying the Alternatives 
For the purposes of this example, the number of parcels available is reduced 
from six to four (i.e. 7.6 acres in the form of four parcels instead of 11.4 acres in the 
form of six parcels).  The fifth parcel is reserved for the incubator space because it 
will serve as the ?educational-exhibition space? of the EIP. Details on the fifth 
parcel?s purpose are as follows (Byron et al., 2007): 
 
 
 191 
 
?. . . A small non-profit facility with educational exhibition space about 
recycling, re-use, and re-manufacturing and incubator space for craftspeople 
designing artworks or products made from recycled materials. [Or perhaps it 
may contain] a small cafe and the possible inclusion of a child-care facility 
for children of the employees.? 
 
In the field of urban and industrial development, funding can be withdrawn by 
investors for any reason, and, as a result, property may have to be sold to make up the 
difference and continue development.  In such cases, the number of parcels available 
would be reduced, much like in the current example.  In reality, the six facilities 
presented below were the final six facilities chosen to make up the Oak Point EIP 
(Byron et al., 2007).  However, there would not be any decision-making needed if six 
cluster alternatives were presented for six vacant parcels.  Therefore, given five 
alternatives and four open positions, a classic decision-making problem is presented, 
where the decision-makers must evaluate the five alternative tenants according to a 
set of criteria (Byron et al., 2007).  Each of the four parcels of land available could be 
used in one of the following ways (Byron et al., 2007): 
? A construction and demolition (C&D) debris recycling facility that would 
operate in a fully-enclosed 160,000 square foot building, provide existing 
C&D transfer stations with financial incentives to close down 2,000 tons-per-
 day of outdoor operations, replace some 36,500 outgoing truck trips from the 
Bronx annually (145 daily) with shipments by barge and rail, and create 80 
jobs; 
 
 192 
 
? A plastics product manufacturer that would produce railroad ties using 
mixed plastic waste materials from post-industrial and post-consumer 
sources, provide the city?s recycling processors with a convenient market for 
the 31.5 million pounds of mixed plastics in the city?s current recycling 
stream, enable the recycling program to expand into some of the 245 million 
more pounds of un-recycled plastics in the city?s refuse stream, and create 
155 jobs; 
? A paper converting operation that would convert one-ton ?parent rolls? of 
100% recycled-content paper into individually-wrapped, consumer-sized rolls 
and packages of tissues and towel products for sale under its supply contracts 
with the federal government and major commercial and institutional buyers, 
and which would create 50 jobs, including 15 for the blind and visually-
 impaired; 
? A wood salvage and re-milling operation that would sort heavy and antique 
timber, beams, joists, shoring lumber and plywood salvaged from demolished 
buildings and construction sites by dimensions and species, would wholesale 
about half to lumber mills and timber framing companies, would retail about 
one-quarter to highway construction, bridge refurbishing, and other 
contractors, would re-mill the rest into dimensional lumber and blanks for 
architectural and fine carpentry applications, and would create 20 jobs; 
? a glass powder manufacturing facility that would process the 77,870 tons 
of mixed glass cullet and container glass from the city?s recycling program 
into a valuable ?green? building material, namely a clean, dry ?glass powder? 
 
 193 
 
that can replace up to 40% of the Portland cement used in making concrete 
masonry blocks and ready-mix concrete, and which would create 30 jobs. 
5.7 - Development Phase: Developing the Evaluation Criteria 
5.7.1 - Creating the Criteria: 
 The six criteria were created by acknowledging the goals the alternatives are 
intended to achieve.  The goal is intended to set the target for the alternatives, while 
the criteria are intended to measure how well the alternatives achieve these targets.  It 
is important to recall that the goals are designed around the triple bottom line, so the 
purpose of these criteria, is to measure how effectively these potential tenants can aid 
the EIP in attaining this.  Thus, the ?Criteria Type? are first defined (exactly the same 
way as the ?Goal Types?) to help ensure that the focus of the criteria is on achieving 
the triple bottom line in a feasible manner.  Since the criteria must include all goals, it 
is important to try to simplify the problem and observe which goals can be combined 
and later transformed into just one criterion.  More importantly, the criteria are 
derived from the goals by asking what effectiveness measure would best depict how 
well an alternative is reaching its target.  The criteria generated from the goals are 
listed in Table 30.  The ?Measure of Effectiveness? column defines equations that are 
used to calculate how well the alternatives meet the criteria currently (i.e., in 2005). 
 The measures of effectiveness presented in Table 30 and described here, were 
created after analyzing the data available from Byron et al., (2007) (the summary of 
this flow data can be seen in Table 47 through Table 49of the appendix) and were 
influenced by previous studies in industrial ecology, so it is difficult to cite all but one 
 
 194 
 
criterion?s measure of effectiveness.  The first criterion, Symbiotic Link-ability (or 
sym1), is intended to measure the difference in connectance values of a fully 
occupied EIP (including the potential tenant) and a fully occupied EIP that excludes 
the potential tenant in question (Tiejun 2010).  It can be defined as follows: 
  
2
 ( 1)
 e
 e
 L
 C
 S S
 ?
 ?  
 
(2) 
 
 
Where: 
Le is the number of byproduct exchange linkages, 
S is the number of tenants in the EIP, and 
Ce is the observed connectance of the EIP. 
 
From Equation 2, it is evident that as the number of linkages increases, the 
EIP connectance increases, and the EIP should be appearing more feasible once each 
tenant is established.  It is important to note that the linkages that exist in this 
example are not just linkages between EIP members, but also between the local and 
regional communities and distant industries that these tenants are exchanging 
byproducts with.  To help visualize these EIP connectance scenarios, connectance 
diagrams were constructed to help analyze the connectance criterion for each 
alternative.  An example of one of the connectance diagrams can be seen in Figure 
22.  It is based on the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Facility. 
In Figure 22, each potential tenant maintains its abbreviation and is 
represented by an oblong rectangle.  The first box-like rectangle (appearing as 
?NYC?), represents the New York City (Bronx) community (residential, commercial, 
 
 195 
 
public waste and recycling services, etc.) and the second box (appearing as ?BC?) 
represents the demanding business community (locally, regionally, and even 
nationally distributed).  The arrows represent the direction of material flow, with the 
arrow head depicting the materials? eventual destination.  Notice the loss in number 
of linkages when alternative CD is excluded from the EIP.  Interestingly enough, the 
difference in connectance (?Ce) is small and negative for most of the alternatives (see 
sym1 ? ?Result? column in Table 32) because their absence does not reduce the 
connectance of the EIP.  In these cases, the level of connectance is actually higher 
when certain tenants are not involved.  This is due to the fact that some tenants do not 
have more than two exchanges occurring between themselves and the rest of the eco-
 industrial network, making them relatively non-symbiotic.  For the other four tenants? 
connectance diagrams, please refer to the appendix (Figure 25 through Figure 28). 
 
 
Figure 22: Connectance Diagram for the C & D Recycling Facility 
 
 196 
 
 
Table 30: Criteria for proposed tenants 
Criteria Type 
Criteria 
ID 
Tenant Criteria Explanation 
Measure of 
Effectiveness 
Units 
Community com1 
Does potential tenant have a 
recycling program with ability to 
reduce stress on Bronx waste 
management system? 
% of material flows that 
is recycled = 100*[(Tons 
of incoming recycled 
material per year) + 
(Tons of outgoing 
recycled material per 
year)]/[All incoming and 
outgoing material flow of 
tenant] 
Annual Percentage 
Environment env1 
Does tenant have 
environmental management 
system capable of integrating 
with rest of EIP (with 
knowledge of principles of 
industrial ecology and how to 
implement it economically) and 
capable of continuing to 
minimize environmental impact 
(both within the facility and as a 
component of the EIP and its 
overall environmental impact 
minimization efforts)?  
Amount of time EMS has 
been employed at 
organization 
years 
Symbiotic Link-
 ability 
(Derivative of 
Economic and 
Environmental 
considerations) 
sym1 
Is potential tenant adding to the 
overall connectance of the EIP? 
Impact on Eco-
 connectance (Ce) of 
EIP= (Eco-connectance ( 
Ce ) w/ potential tenant) - 
(Ce of EIP w/ out 
potential tenant) 
linkages/(tenants^2) 
sym2 
Is potential tenant capable of 
producing output for other 
tenants and communities at a 
volume/supply rate that is 
relatively stable and 
predictable? 
Percentage of Output 
that is Reusable 
Byproduct = 
(pounds/gallons/GJ of to-
 be reprocessed, 
reusable byproduct 
produced over the 
course of a year by 
potential tenant)/(tons of 
waste produced + 
reusable byproduct 
produced per year) 
Annual Percentage 
Economic 
eco1 
Is the potential tenant able to 
utilize barges and rails (instead 
of dump loader trucks, flat-bed 
trucks, roll-off container trucks, 
etc.) for both reusable and non-
 reusable waste incoming and 
outgoing materials/byproducts 
without interruption to regular 
operations (not to mention cost 
effectively)? 
Percentage of total 
(incoming and outgoing) 
material flows 
transported by barge and 
rail = 100*[(tons 
transportable by barge) + 
(tons transportable by 
rail)]/[total tons of 
product or material 
coming in and going out] 
Annual Percentage 
eco2 
Is the potential tenant capable 
of providing the surrounding 
communities with a suitable 
amount of high skill job 
opportunities? 
skilled labor created by 
facility and supporting 
services 
person(s) employed 
 
 
 197 
 
5.7.2 ? Gathering of Data to Assess Performance of Alternatives 
versus Criteria: 
 
The two data tables (Table 31 and Table 32) depict the effectiveness of each 
alternative with respect to each of the six criteria.  Each criterion?s measure of 
effectiveness is calculated from the collected tenant data (tenant data is available in 
Table 47 through Table 49 of the appendix) in accordance with the measure of 
effectiveness definitions and equations in column four of Table 30). 
Table 31: Tenant Alternatives' measures of effectiveness ratings 
Tenant 
ID 
TENANT ALTERNATIVES 
CRITERIA 
sym2 eco1 com1 env1 
[Annual %] 
[Annual 
%] 
[Annual %] [years] 
CD Construction and Demolition (C&D) 
Debris Recycling Facility 
93% 45% 96% 5 
PP Plastics Product Manufacturer 99.999% 100% 87% 13 
PC Paper Converting Operation 99.994% 0.006% 99.997% 9 
WS Wood Salvage and Re-milling Operation 99.994% 0.003% 99.997% 11 
GP Glass Powder Manufacturing Facility 70% 100% 85% 7 
- Educational Incubator/Child Care Facility N/A N/A N/A N/A 
 
Table 32: Continuation of Table 4, two least important criteria 
Tenant 
ID 
CRITERIA 
sym1 
eco2 
Tenant Included in EIN Tenant Excluded from EIN Result 
linkages 
Participant
 s 
[linkages/
 (tenants^
 2)] 
linkages 
Participant
 s 
[linkages/
 (tenants^
 2)] 
[linkages/(te
 nants^2)] person(s) 
employed 
Le S Ce Le S Ce delta-Ce 
CD 12 7 0.571 8 6 0.533 0.038 80 
PP 12 7 0.571 10 6 0.667 -0.095 155 
PC 12 7 0.571 9 6 0.600 -0.029 50 
WS 12 7 0.571 9 6 0.600 -0.029 20 
GP 12 7 0.571 10 6 0.667 -0.095 30 
- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ~10 
 
 
 198 
 
5.8 - Development Phase: Selecting a Decision-Making Tool 
 Given the problem at hand (a small number of alternatives, qualitative goals 
and quantitative criterion), the most appropriate decision tool to employ is the 
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).  This is useful because it helps the decision-
 makers avoid having to assign utility functions to each attribute and criteria and, 
instead, calls for ?a series of pair-wise comparison judgments (which are documented 
and can be reexamined) to express the relative strength or intensity of impact of the 
elements in the hierarchy? (Baker et al., 2002).  Using this method is more efficient 
than using absolute judgments, where comparing all the alternatives to criterion all at 
once and trying to select the best one(s) can be quite difficult and far more complex.  
In addition, a ?strength of AHP is its systematic use of the geometric mean to define 
functional utilities based on simple comparisons and to provide consistent, 
meaningful results? (Baker et al., 2002). 
5.9 - Selection Phase: Evaluating the Alternatives against Criteria 
After retrieving all the data on each of the alternatives (as mentioned in Step 
5), the AHP begins by making pair-wise comparisons of the six criteria.  This is 
followed by the construction of a comparison matrix (based on the pair-wise 
comparisons) to yield each criterion?s normalized weights.  Next, a pair-wise 
comparison of the alternatives, with respect to the criteria, can be carried out.  Fourth, 
a comparison matrix is once again constructed to evaluate the total normalized score 
of each alternative.  The fifth step entails evaluating the total score of each alternative 
 
 199 
 
(Baker et al., 2002).  In essence, the four alternative tenants with the highest total 
normalized scores would be selected for positions in Oak Point EIP. 
 
5.9.1 ? Ranking, Pair-wise Comparison, and Comparison Matrix of 
Criteria 
 
A ranking of these criteria is presented in Table 33.  This ranking portrays the 
decision-makers? (as well as stakeholders?) preferences towards one criterion over 
another.  Preferences were assumed from specific comments regarding needs and 
wants within Byron et al., (2007). 
 
Table 33: Ranking of criteria prior to pair-wise comparison 
Criteria 
Import. 
Rank 
Criteria 
ID 
Brief Description of Criteria 
1 sym2 
Ability to create stable amount of byproduct 
for other tenants and community members 
2 eco1 
Utilization of barges and rails vs. trucks and 
other Bronx road users 
3 com1 Strength of recycling program 
4 env1 Length of time EMS has been in operation 
5 sym1 
Ability to contribute to symbiotic connectance 
amongst tenants within EIP 
6 eco2 Ability to create highly skilled job opportunities 
 
Table 34: Nine-Point Scale used for pair-wise comparison 
1 = Equal importance or preference 
3 = Moderate importance or preference of one 
over another 
5 = Strong or essential importance or preference 
7 = Very strong or demonstrated importance or 
preference 
9 = Extreme importance or preference 
 
 
 200 
 
 
Table 35: Pair-wise Comparison of Criteria 
Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Comparison Score 
sym2 eco1 3 
sym2 com1 3 
sym2 env1 5 
sym2 sym1 5 
sym2 eco2 7 
eco1 com1 1 
eco1 env1 3 
eco1 sym1 5 
eco1 eco2 5 
com1 env1 1 
com1 sym1 3 
com1 eco2 5 
env1 sym1 1 
env1 eco2 3 
sym1 eco2 1 
 
A nine-point scale (see Table 34) is used to determine how important one 
criterion is versus another.  The ranking in Table 33 above helps determine which 
value from the nine-point scale to assign each comparison.  Notice that if criterion 1 
is more important than criterion 2, the comparison score will be greater than one. If 
criterion 1 is deemed less important than criterion 2, then the comparison score will 
be in between zero and one.  Table 35 summarizes each of these pair-wise criteria 
comparisons. 
 Now that pair-wise criteria comparisons have been established, a matrix can 
be developed from which we can calculate the normalized weight (i.e. the priority 
vector) of each criterion.  The criteria moving downward (along y-axis) on the table 
are compared to the criteria running along the top of the table (along the x-axis).  
Each element in the matrix (see Table 36) is simply a pair-wise comparison of the 
criteria.  The diagonal elements in the matrix are ones, because they are simply a 
comparison between one criterion, and itself.  Above the diagonal, one can notice 
 
 201 
 
each element contains the respective pair-wise comparison score, while below the 
diagonal, the reciprocal of that pair-wise comparison score can be observed.  Below 
the diagonal, the pair-wise comparisons are simply inversed comparisons (e.g. ?sym2 
compared to com1? has an inverse comparison of ?com1 compared to sym2?) with 
respect to those above the diagonal.  This explains why cells with the mirrored 
address of one another have the reciprocal score as one another (e.g. ?sym2 compared 
to com1? scores a 3 while ?com1 compared to sym2? scores a 1/3). 
 
Table 36: Normalized matrix generated to determine Criteria's normalized weight of importance 
 
 The geometric mean is calculated for each criterion in the matrix.  To 
determine the normalized weight, the geometric mean of the criterion in question is 
divided by the sum of the geometric means (e.g. 8.032 in Table 36) of all the criteria.  
The normalized weight of each criterion will be used later in the evaluation, and they 
can be seen in Table 36 for reference.  Note that the consistency ratio is also 
preferable; being that it is less than 0.1.  Recall, the calculation discussing how to 
arrive at the consistency index and ratio can be seen toward the end of section 3.4 of 
this thesis. 
 
 202 
 
 
5.9.2 ? Pair-wise Comparisons, and Comparison Matrices of 
Alternatives 
 
The process of evaluating the relative importance of each alternative is the 
same as the process of conducting pair-wise comparisons, and creating the 
comparison matrix to determine the normalized weight of each criterion.  For brevity, 
the pair-wise comparisons of the alternatives for each criterion, and the normalized 
matrices were excluded from this body of work.  As a summary, the resulting 
normalized score graphs (showing how each tenant performed with respect to each 
criteria) can be seen in Figure 29 through Figure 34 of the appendix.  As an example, 
Table 37 shows a pair-wise comparison of the alternatives with respect to the 
environmental criterion #1 (aka env1).  The alternatives? comparison matrix with 
respect to env1 is generated to determine the normalized score (i.e. relative 
importance) of each alternative and can be seen in 
 
 203 
 
Table 38.  Recall that a discussion explaining how to calculate the consistency index 
and ratio is presented toward the end of section 3.3 of this thesis. 
 
Table 37: Pair-wise comparison of the alternatives with respect to env1 
 
 
 
 204 
 
Table 38: Comparison Matrix for alternatives on the attribute env1 
 
 
 
To be able to ensure that the comparisons between each of the alternatives is valid 
(with respect to each of the six criteria), the consistency ratio is calculated.  The 
procedure for finding the consistency ratio can be seen in section 3.4.  Recall that this 
ratio must be less than 10%.  As an example, criterion env1 has a preferable 
consistency ratio of 0.0598 because it is less than 0.1 (see Table 38).  A complete list 
of consistency ratios for each of the comparison matrices used to compare alternative 
Oak Point EIP tenants with respect to the six criteria can be seen in Table 39. 
Table 39: Oak Point EIP Evaluation Criteria and the resulting Consistency Ratios after the 
alternative tenants have been compared. 
Oak Point EIP Evaluation 
Criteria 
Consistency Ratio 
Sym2 0.0337 
Eco1 0.038 
Com1 0.0335 
Env1 0.0598 
Sym1 0.038 
Eco2 0.0236 
 
5.9.3 ? Determining the Total Normalized Score of Each Alternative 
 The final step in the AHP is to calculate the total normalized score of each 
alternative.  This calculation involves multiplying the normalized weight of each 
criterion (second to last column in Table 36) by the alternative?s respective 
normalized score on that criterion (second to last column and the relevant row in 
 
 205 
 
Table 38). The sum of these products is the normalized total score of that alternative 
(Baker et al., 2002). 
 
1
 ([ ] [ ])
 k
 i i
 i
 NTS CW AS
 ?
 ? ??
  
 
(3) 
 
Where: 
NTS is the normalized total score the potential tenant has earned, 
CWi is the normalized weight of the i-th criteria, and 
ASi is the normalized score that the alternative received (with respect to the  
 corresponding i-th criteria) 
 
After the total normalized score (equation 3) for each alternative has been 
evaluated, the top four scoring tenants can be identified and selected for entry into 
Oak Point EIP.  Figure 23 shows the total scores for our problem?s alternatives; the 
four tenant selections should be: the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling 
Facility, the Plastics Products Manufacturer, the Paper Converting Operation, and the 
Wood Salvage and Re-milling Operation. 
 
 206 
 
 
Figure 23: Total Normalized Score of Each Alternative Tenant; the top four scoring alternatives 
would be heavily considered for entrance into EIP 
 
With respect to the example at hand, the chosen tenants (the Educational Exhibition 
Space (by default), CD, PP, PC, and WS) generally meet all the goals and 
requirements; however, there are a few lower than desired performances with respect 
to criterion Eco1 and Sym1.  Two out of the four chosen tenants (PC and WS) would 
not be able to fully utilize barges and rails (Eco1) because of the nature of both their 
incoming and outgoing material flows.  In addition, three of the four chosen tenants 
had negative ?Ce.  This implies that the connectance of the EIP is not very strong.  
This could be harmful to long-term feasibility, because if the connectance of the EIP 
is low, then there is relatively low motivation for the chosen tenants to stay within the 
EIP if (1) demand for that business? product or service starts to decline (regionally or 
otherwise), or (2) relied upon incoming resources stop arriving at projected volumes, 
and operational costs sky rocket.  Without increased efforts within the EIP to increase 
symbiotic link-ability (i.e. promotion of inter-tenant exchange through the 
Educational Exhibition Space), and a series of upgrades to infrastructure to allow 
utilization of barges and rails for PC and WS, the Oak Point EIP won?t be as 
successful at achieving the triple bottom line. 
 
 207 
 
 
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Contributions 
 Developing EIPs requires making a number of key decisions.  For EIP 
development teams to be successful, these key decisions must be made with 
confidence and consistency.  To ensure confidence and consistency in during the EIP 
development project, it is crucial that decisions be aligned with organizational goals 
and that appropriate decision-making methods are used.  For an organization to grow 
and develop sustainably, they must contribute more efforts towards projects other 
than ones that will progress their financial bottom line.  The organizational goals need 
to be aligned with the other two high-level fundamental objectives (i.e. the societal 
and environmental bottom-lines) if they seek success for the region (both community 
and environment) in question and not just the organization itself.  If a synthesis can be 
achieved by industrial park developers and the REIPDP, then an EIP development 
project should experience a more ?well aligned? design and development project that 
contains objectives capable of aligning with TBL objectives.  However, having the 
right intentions and aligning organizational goals with TBL objectives and mimicking 
the REIPDP are not enough.  In addition, organizations (more importantly EIP 
development teams) must employ the CDMF and use it to identify the correct 
decision-making methods per design and development team in question.  These  
decision-making methods are capable of saving development time, preserving needed 
resources (in the long term), and producing EIPs that can achieve advance triple 
bottom line objectives and serve the surrounding community more sustainably. 
 
 208 
 
6.1 ? Summary of Findings 
 In summary, society needs to be more conscious of its surrounding and how 
we impact it.  As of late, a push has been made to develop more sustainable systems 
in areas of industry, building construction, power production, water use, 
transportation, and other energy and resource intensive, man-made systems.  
Sustainability should be a worldwide goal, but particularly for any country, state, or 
region that seeks an equitable future for generations to come.  Sustainable 
development can be achieved through triple bottom line accounting and the 
employment of industrial ecology and decision based design and development.  The 
triple bottom line accounting method helps developers form goals that will benefit the 
environment, the community, and the financial well-being of companies involved in 
the project.  Through the application of industrial ecology, developers will produce 
EIPs that will help a given region achieve a beneficial triple bottom line.   
 The approach taken to determine how to best improve a region?s triple bottom 
line via industrial ecology and EIP development began with the study of literature 
discussing sustainable development, industrial ecology, implementation of eco-
 industrial parks, and decision-based design methods and principles.  These efforts led 
to the creation of the GEIPDP.  From here, 21 EIP development projects were 
analyzed and compared to the GEIPDP for correlation.  This analysis revealed the 
characteristics of the 21 studied EIP development processes.  Based on the 
observations made, the 21 EIP processes could be categorized by stimuli, solution, 
and problem type. Upon completion of this analysis, it became clear that most of 
these decision processes belong to the same three categories (i.e. opportunity-type 
 
 209 
 
problems that require dynamic design decision processes and yield modified 
solutions) and, thus, can be approached, from a decision-making process standpoint, 
in the same manner.  After concluding that revisions were needed, the REIPDP was 
constructed, and the correlation between it and the studied EIP development projects 
improved.  Once this was done, one more evaluation was needed to determine 
whether the REIPDP was, in fact, the most aligned with the TBL (with respect to the 
other 21 EIP development processes studied).  The evaluation carried out late in 
Chapter 3 validates that the REIPDP is well aligned with the TBL objectives.  This is 
evident from the fact that it satisfies both evaluation criteria; a result that only two 
other EIP development processes studied were able to attain.  Once the REIPDP was 
validated, its key decisions were analyzed using the CDMF to identify appropriate 
decision-making methods.  One step in the development of the Oak Point EIP was 
used as an example of how to approach an EIP development decision.  This example 
illustrated several concepts that EIP development teams can utilize during the 
decision of selecting tenants from a pool of alternative businesses and/or service 
providers. 
6.2 - Limitations 
6.2.1 ? Training in Risk Analysis 
 The first shortcoming to this thesis involves the lack of an EIP design and 
development process risk assessment.  The area of risk was avoided in this thesis 
because it is beyond the scope of my expertise.  Given more time, participation in 
graduate courses dealing with risk analysis would have contributed greatly to my 
 
 210 
 
understanding of how to conduct a risk assessment properly.  This knowledge would 
have been applied to the example considering the EIP tenant selection at Oak Point 
EIP.  The consideration of risk is often utilized by investors, project initiators, and the 
development teams to determine the probability of a hazardous event occurring and 
its magnitude (i.e., resulting losses observed by decision-makers and stakeholders if a 
given hazard, or set of hazards, occurs).  Risk assessments are typically carried out 
before the initiation of large scale projects of $1 billion or more because there is a lot 
of risk in terms of finance, safety, and social and environmental impacts (Flyvbjerg et 
al., 2003).  The design and development of EIPs should include a risk assessment and 
a risk mitigation plan within the proposal and action plan respectively. 
6.2.2 ? Lack of Return on Assets Calculation 
 This body of work neglects two very important calculations that would be 
considered by important to potential tenants and potential investors.  The return on 
assets calculation would help EIP developers gauge how strong a company within a 
particular industry is by considering the ratio between its net income and its average 
total assets.  This calculation is not useful when comparing companies across 
different industries, however, because of factors of scale and operational capital 
requirements (Cram, 2003).  The return on assets calculation could have been 
included in the Oak Point EIP example as a criterion to define an economically stable 
company; however, not enough financial data was supplied for calculation of the 
alternative tenants? return on assets value.  More generally, the return on assets 
calculation could have been included in the objective function as a variable indicating 
the increase (or decrease) in economic well-being of a tenant that entered an EIP.  
 
 211 
 
With relevant financial data describing tenants? revenue stream and assets, a return on 
assets calculation could be evaluated to prove how financially beneficial (or 
detrimental) co-location onto an EIP site can be. 
6.2.3 ? Proprietary Information Dissemination 
 Trust between companies competing in similar and dissimilar market is not 
often present in the current world of business.  However, trust filled relationships 
between managers are a requirement before industrial symbiosis projects (like the 
ones at Kalundborg) can commence.  Byproduct exchange information typically falls 
under the umbrella of proprietary information that companies are reluctant to share 
with any other organization.  The sensitivity of this sort of information makes it 
difficult to uncover by EIP development teams and management boards searching for 
byproduct exchange opportunities.  Research on byproduct related proprietary 
information creates a shortcoming to this study because industry wide generalizations 
about material flow streams, energy requirements, and water usage and quality (as 
shown in Table 40 in the Appendix) can only define byproduct exchanges on a broad 
sense.  To be able to ensure that an EIP will be able to accomplish mass, energy, and 
water balances, the operational specifications of each tenant must be made available 
to the EIP development teams and management boards.  Since I was unable to work 
closely with a functioning EIP, data of this sort could not be recovered and 
augmented (to protect the privacy of the companies relinquishing this data) for a more 
in-depth analysis of an EIP?s byproduct exchange network.  With more transparency 
from companies, coupled with a system for maintaining company anonymity, more 
 
 212 
 
research could have been conducted to mathematically demonstrate the benefits that 
an EIP can have on its surrounding region. 
6.3 ? Contributions 
 The contributions of this research are primarily three fold.  First of all, this 
thesis presents an analysis of the EIP development process that is used to identify the 
key decisions that need to be made.  The analysis of the 21 studied EIP development 
processes demonstrates one way to identify key decisions and also demonstrates how 
to find alignment between the objectives of these decisions, and the TBL?s objectives.  
The creation of the four attributes used to determine how well aligned an EIP 
development process is may be useful to EIP development teams who seek to 
advance as many TBL objectives as possible. 
 On a more general note, this thesis contributes to the field of industrial 
ecology and decision based design by providing decision makers within the area of 
eco-industrial development with suggestions for appropriate decision-making 
methods.  The revised EIP development process presents real EIP development teams 
with a summary of the key decisions and actions EIP development teams typically 
address.  Before this research was conducted, a wide variety of different EIP 
development processes could be studied, but the EIP development team would have 
to keep in mind that each process is tailored to meet a specific region?s requirements 
and goals.  The revised EIP development process, however, maintains flexibility and 
encompasses actions and decisions that apply to all EIP development projects, 
regardless of the region they are applied to.  Before conducting this research, I knew 
very little about the area of industrial park development and economic revitalization; 
 
 213 
 
two areas that rarely come in contact with mechanical engineering design.  Now that 
research has concluded, I feel that this area deserves more attention from systems 
engineers and industrial engineers alike.  More innovative manufacturing and 
production systems need to be created to align industrial practices with those 
emphasized by industrial ecology. 
 The last contribution this thesis makes is to the field of decision based design.  
The ideas of decision-based design were developed in the quest to understand and 
improve engineering design and product development.  This thesis shows that other 
design processes in other domains can also benefit from carefully considering the key 
decisions that need to be made.  Different EIP development processes will vary in 
many ways, but the key decisions encompassed in the REIPDP should be included in 
any EIP project that hopes to make a positive impact, because the identified key 
decisions are the critical backbone of any EIP development process.  This research 
provides the first evidence that decision-based design is useful outside the domains of 
engineering design and product development by suggesting decision-based design 
methodologies that can be applied to the realm of eco-industrial development. 
6.4 ? Future Work 
 Given more time, one possible direction includes a more detailed analysis of a 
particular EIP development process.  This detailed analysis would begin with the 
identification of key decisions and being sure to understand the objectives and 
constraints of these decisions.  With more detailed information about the objectives 
and constraints of these key decisions, evaluating the alignment of organizations? 
objectives with that of the TBL objectives would be more conclusive.  From here, it 
 
 214 
 
would be more possible to analyze the actual decision-making methods used and a 
study could be conducted to determine whether changing the decision-making method 
could lead to a better outcome. 
 In addition to decision-based design of EIPs, more research could be geared 
towards other development processes that impact the community and environment as 
well.  For example, urban development that includes commercial and residential units 
(like the proposed East Campus Initiative at our very own University of Maryland), 
manufacturing facilities, or other multi-organization development projects could 
certainly benefit from new development processes that utilize decision-based design 
methods and aim to improve regional triple bottom lines. 
6.4.1 ?Government Agency Involvement 
 An avenue for future work in industrial ecology and applying it to regions 
across the United States exists if the relevant government agencies (e.g., 
environmental protection agencies, economic development agencies, or urban 
planning agencies) get involved.  Grants can be awarded by these agencies to support 
feasibility studies that unveil a region?s potential (or lack of potential) for the design 
and development of an EIP.  These feasibility studies can be conducted by industrial 
ecology experts from sustainable development consulting firms, universities, and 
other organizations qualified for this duty.  A great supportive measure that 
government agencies can employ is the creation of a virtual byproduct exchange 
network (e.g., via the internet) that will allow companies to search for, and provide 
information about, byproducts that they (and other enterprises) may find useful.  The 
 
 215 
 
development of virtual byproduct exchange networks (like the one at Devens EIP) 
would be a great benefit to the advancement of industrially ecological practice. 
If possible, future government sponsored research would focus on the creation 
of a nationwide byproduct database that automatically searches for, matches and 
notifies participating companies of potential byproduct exchanges.  Companies would 
be able remain anonymous while conducting a search for byproducts from mutually 
anonymous companies.  Upon permission from both companies, a third party (ideally, 
non-profit industrial ecology experts) could receive hard data about each company?s 
material, water, and energy specifications (as a function of their operational and 
production processes) and conduct an analysis determining whether a byproduct 
exchange between the two companies is feasible or not.  These potential byproduct 
exchanges would be determined with respect to company geography, operational and 
production process information (detailing required inputs and resultant outputs), and 
additional criteria that have not been determined yet. 
6.4.2 ? More Communication of Experiences between Past and 
Present EIP Development Teams 
  
Another avenue for future work entails greater communication with past and 
existing EIP development teams.  If there were a better accounting of which 
development activities tend to fail, which tend to succeed, and this information is 
disseminated to development teams nationwide, then the EIP design and development 
process would be better understood and, as a result, would improve.  Part of being 
successful requires the ability to learn from the mistakes and successes of those that 
came before us, and applying this wisdom towards something that will benefit us, our 
 
 216 
 
societies, and the world we live in.  For an EIP development team to be successful, it 
must take advantage of the documented lessons learned and use them to aid in high-
 quality decision-making. 
 
 217 
 
Appendices 
 
(Begins on next page) 
 
 
 218 
 
Table 40: Common Industry Inputs and Outputs 
 
 
 219 
  
 
Figure 24: SCIP site plan (Lowe et al., 2005) 
 
 220 
 
Table 41: Main Features of US EIPs from Interview Survey (Gibbs and Deutz, 2005) 
 
 221 
 
 
Table 42: Categorizing of an EIP Development Process with respect to the Strategic Decision Process (EIP development process provided by (Nolan, 2004) and the Strategic 
Decision Process provided by (Mintzberg, 1976)) 
Recognition Diagnosis Search Design Eval. Choice Authoriz.
 1
 1
 1 1
 1
 1
 1
 1 1
 1 1
 1
 1
 1 1
 I. The Planning Phase:
 1.1 Involve community and community leaders
 1.3 Conduct technology and market analysis
 1.4 Create alternative development scenarios (two Phases below)
 1.5 Evaluate and prioritize implementation strategies
 2.3 Develop schematic design and engineering
 II. Design Phase:
 2.5 Develop Umbrella permitting model
 2.4 D v lop model codes, covenants, and restrictions and establish oversight authority
 III. EID Construction Phase:
 3.1 General construction schedule
 3.2 Regulatory Approvals
 3.3 Infrastructure and site preparations
 2.1 Prepare conceptual EID site or cluster scenarios
 2.2 Develop site master plans
 1
 1.2 Conduct background research (traditional baseline analysis + EID specific baseline analysis + Economic 
and environmental evaluation)
  
 
 222 
 
 Table 43: Fundamental & Means Objective Network for the REIPDP ? Phases 0A and 0B 
 
 223 
 
 
Table 44: Fundamental & Means Objective Network for REIPDP - Phases 1 -3 
 
 
 224 
 
 
Table 45: Fundamental & Means Objective Network for the REIPDP ? Phases 4 & 5 
 
 
 225 
 
 
Table 46: Fundamental & Means Objective Network for the REIPDP ? Phases 6 and Omega 
 
 
 226 
 
 
Figure 25: Connectance Diagram for the Plastic Product Manufacturer (PP) 
 
 
Figure 26: Connectance Diagram for Paper Converting Operation (PC) 
 
 
 227 
 
 
Figure 27: Connectance Diagram for Wood Salvage and Re-milling Operation (WS) 
 
 
Figure 28: Connectance Diagram for Glass Powder Manufacturing Facility (GP) 
 
 
 228 
 
Table 47: Oak Point EIP, Potential Tenant Data for Incoming byproducts and materials 
 
 229 
 
 
Table 48: Oak Point EIP, Potential Tenant Data for Outgoing byproducts and materials (including the number of jobs created) 
 
 
 230 
 
 
Table 49: Oak Point EIP, Potential Tenant Data for Outgoing byproducts and materials (including the number of jobs created) (Continued) 
 
 
 231 
 
0.000
 0.100
 0.200
 0.300
 CD PP PC WS GP 
Figure 29: Normalized Score of Alternative Tenants vs. Criterion Sym2 
 
0.000
 0.100
 0.200
 0.300
 0.400
 0.500
 CD PP PC WS GP
  
Figure 30: Normalized Score of Alternative Tenants vs. Criterion Eco1 
 
0.000
 0.100
 0.200
 0.300
 0.400
 CD PP PC WS GP 
Figure 31: Normalized Score of Alternative Tenants vs. Criterion Com1 
0.000
 0.100
 0.200
 0.300
 0.400
 0.500
 CD PP PC WS GP
  
Figure 32: Normalized Score of Alternative Tenants vs. Criterion Env1 
 
 
 232 
 
0.000
 0.100
 0.200
 0.300
 0.400
 0.500
 0.600
 0.700
 CD PP PC WS GP
  
Figure 33: Normalized Score of Alternative Tenants vs. Criterion Sym1 
 
 
0.000
 0.100
 0.200
 0.300
 0.400
 0.500
 0.600
 0.700
 CD PP PC WS GP
  
Figure 34: Normalized Score of Alternative Tenants vs. Criterion Eco2
 
 233 
 
Bibliography 
1. Baas, L., and F. Boons. "An Industrial Ecology Project in Practice: Exploring the 
Boundaries of Decision-making Levels in Regional Industrial Systems." Journal 
of Cleaner Production 12.8-10 (2004): 1073-085. Print. 
 
2. Baas, Leo. "Cleaner Production and Industrial Ecology: A Dire Need for 21st 
Century Manufacturing." Handbook of Performability Engineering. Ed. Krishna 
B. Misra. 1st ed. Vol. XLVIII. Secaucus, NJ: Springer, 2008. 139-56. Print. 
 
3. Baker, D., Bridges, D., Hunter, R., Johnson, G., Krupa, J., Murphy, J. and 
Sorenson, K. (2002) Guidebook to Decision-Making Methods, WSRC-IM-2002-
 00002, Department of Energy, USA. 
 
4. Byron, Joan, David Muchnick, Stephen Hammer, and Gail Suchman. The Oak 
Point Eco-Industrial Park: A Sustainable Economic Development Proposal for 
the South Bronx. Rep. Bronx, NY: Sustainable South Bronx, 2007. Print. 
 
5. Casavant, Tracy. "Eco-Industrial Networking and Sustainable Transportation." 
International Sustainable Development Research Conference. Saskatchewan, 
Canada, Regina. 6 Apr. 2006. Lecture. 
 
6. Clemen, Robert T. Making Hard Decisions: an Introduction to Decision Analysis. 
Belmont, CA: Duxbury, 1996. Print. 
 
7. Clemen, Robert T., and Terence Reilly, Making Hard Decisions with 
DecisionTools, Duxbury, Pacific Grove, California, 2001. 
 
8. Cohen, Michael, James March, and Johan Olsen, ?A Garbage Can Model of 
Organizational Choice,? Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 17, Number 
1, pages 1-25, 1972. 
 
9. Cohen-Rosenthal E, Musnikow J. Eco-industrial strategies: unleashing synergy 
between economic development and the environment, work and environment 
initiative. USA: Cornell University; 2003. 
 
10. C?t?, Raymond P., R. Ellison, J. Grant, J. Hall, P. Klynstra, M. Martin, and P. 
Wade. Designing and Operating Industrial Parks as Ecosystems. Tech. Halifax, 
Nova Scotia (Canada): Dalhousie University, School for Resource and 
Environmental Studies, 1994. Print. 
 
11. C?t?, R. ?Designing eco-industrial parks: a synthesis of some experiences.? 
Journal of Cleaner Production 6.3-4 (1998): 181-188. 
 
 
 234 
 
12. Cram, Professor. "Return on Assets." College-Cram. The Smartacus Corporation, 
1 Jan. 2003. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. <http://www.college-
 cram.com/study/finance/ratios-of-profitability/return-on-assets/>. 
 
13. Cyert, Richard Michael, and James G. March. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. 
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Print. 
 
14. Daft, Richard L. Organization Theory and Design. 7th ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-
 Western College Pub., 2001. Print. 
 
15. Davis, Chris. "Full Database - EIPs Worldwide." Industrial Ecology. Delft 
University of Technology, 16 June 2010. Web. 2 Dec. 2010. 
<http://ie.tudelft.nl/index.php/FullDatabase>. 
 
16. Desrochers, Pierre. "Eco-Industrial Parks: The Case for Private Planning." The 
Independent Review 3.3 (Winter 2001): 345-71. Print. 
 
17. Deutz, P. and Gibbs, D. (2004) "Eco-Industrial Development: industrial ecology 
or place promotion", Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 13, pp. 347-
 362 
 
18. Dunn, Stephen V., 1995. Eco-Industrial Parks: A Common Sense Approach to 
Environmental Protection, Yale University, Online, Internet, 7 April 2009. 
 
19. "Eco-Industrial Parks and By-Product Synergy Advancements in Greening 
Manufacturing." NJMEP Manufacturing Matters 5 (31 Mar. 2010): n. pag. I Make 
News. New Jersey Manufacturing Extension Program, 12 Mar. 2010. Web. 11 
July 2010. 
<http://www.imakenews.com/njmep/e_article001698928.cfm?x=b11,0,w>. 
 
20. "ECO PARK ON HOLD." KSCO AM 1080: Talk Back Radio for the Central 
Coast of California. ZBS Radio, 8 Dec. 2008. Web. 24 Nov. 2010. 
<http://kscotest.got.net/dspNR.cfm?nrid=15458>. 
 
21. Elkington, John. Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century 
Business. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society, 1998. Print. 
 
22. Ellis-Christensen, Tricia. "What Is the Triple Bottom Line?" WiseGEEK. Ed. O. 
Wallace. Conjecture Corporation, 25 Sept. 2010. Web. 10 Sept. 2010. 
<http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-triple-bottom-line.htm>. 
 
23. Federal Facilities Council Report 1999, Environmental Management Systems and 
ISO 14001, National Academy Press, Washington DC. 
 
24. Frosch, R. A., and N. E. Gallopoulos. "Strategies for Manufacturing." Scientific 
American 261.3 (1989): 144-52. Print. 
 
 235 
 
 
25. Flyvbjerg, Bent, Nils Bruzelius, and Werner Rothengatter. Megaprojects and 
Risk: an Anatomy of Ambition. United Kingdom: Cambridge UP, 2003. Print. 
 
26. Garron, Andre L. "Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire: Londonderry Eco-
 Park." Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire. Town of Londonderry, 22 Sept. 
2009. Web. 02 Nov. 2010. <http://www.thriveinlondonderry.com/londonderry-
 advantage/eco-park.aspx>. 
 
27. Gertler, Nicholas. Industrial Ecosystems: Developing Sustainable Industrial 
Structures. Diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995. Cambridge: 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995. Print. 
 
28. Haskins, Cecilia. "EXCHANGE AND UPDATE ON GLOBAL SYMBIOSIS 
INITIATIVES." Around the World (18 June 2009). Print. 
 
29. Heeres, R., W. Vermeulen, and F. Dewalle. "Eco-industrial Park Initiatives in the 
USA and the Netherlands: First Lessons." Journal of Cleaner Production 12.8-10 
(2004): 985-95. Print. 
 
30. Herrmann, Jeffrey W. Engineering Decision Making - Course Notes. College 
Park, MD: University of Maryland, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 24 
Jan. 2009. PDF. 
 
31. Herrmann, Jeffrey W., ?Progressive Design Processes and Bounded Rational 
Designers,? Journal of Mechanical Design, August 2010,Volume 132, Issue 8, 
081005 (8 pages). 
 
32. Hollander, Justin B., and Peter C. Lowitt. "Applying Industrial Ecology to 
Devens, A Report for the Devens Enterprise Commission." Devens Enterprise 
Commission Reports and Documents. Devens Enterprise Commission, 12 Mar. 
2000. Web. 03 May 2009. <http://www.devensec.com/ecoreport.html>. 
 
33. Industrial Symbiosis Institute. Advertisement. Industrial Symbiosis - Contributing 
to CO2 Reduction and Sustainability. Yale University with Industrial Symbiosis 
Institute, Jan. 2009. Web. Apr. 2010. <www.symbiosis.dk/media/>. 
 
34. "ISO 14001 Environmental Management Standard." ISO 14000 / ISO 14001 
Environmental Management Standard. The ISO14000 Environmental 
Management Group. Web. 29 Sept. 2009. <http://www.iso14000-iso14001-
 environmental-management.com/iso14001.htm>. 
 
35. IUCN. 2006. The Future of Sustainability: Re-thinking Environment and 
Development in the Twenty-first Century. Report of the IUCN Renowned 
Thinkers Meeting, 29?31 January 2006 
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_future_of_sustanability.pdf 
 
 236 
 
 
36. Jiang Y (2005) Circular Economy in Shanghai Chemical Industry Park. In: 
Shanghai recycling economy development annual report. Shanghai People 
Publish House, Shanghai, 162?174 (in Chinese).  
 
37. Karimian, Peyman, and Jeffrey W. Herrmann. "Separating Design Optimization 
Problems Into Decision-Based Design Processes." Journal of Mechanical Design 
131.1 (2009): 011007 (8 Pages). Print. 
 
38. Koenig, Andreas W., comp. The Eco-Industrial Park Development: A Guide for 
Chinese Government Officials and Industrial Park Managers. EU-China 
Environmental Management Cooperation Programme - Industry Development. 
July 2005. Commission of the European Communities. 11 Mar. 2010 
<http://web.me.com/ecoprojects/Green_Communities/EID_Planning_Guide_files/
 E48_EIPguide.pdf>. 
 
39. Laska/Chair, Leo. Monterey Regional Waste Management District Regular 
Meeting Minutes. Marina: Monterey Regional Waste Management District, 19 
June 2009. PDF. 
 
40. Lowe, Ernie. Handbook for Development of Eco-Industrial Parks. United States: 
Indigo Development, 2001. Eco-Industrial Park Handbook for Asian Developing 
Nations (Revision of Original Handbook). Indigo Development, 2001. Web. 11 
May 2009. <http://indigodev.com/Handbook.html>. 
 
41. Lowe, Ernest A., Moran, Stephen R., and Holmes, Douglas B. 1997. Eco-
 Industrial Parks: a handbook for local development teams. Indigo Development. 
 
42. Lowe, Ernest A. "Creating By-product Resource Exchanges: Strategies for Eco-
 industrial Parks." Elsevier Science Ltd. 5.1-2 (1997): 57-65. Print. 
 
43. Lowitt, Peter C. "Chapter 498 - AN ACT CREATING THE DEVENS 
ENTERPRISE COMMISSION." Devens Enterprise Commission Home Page. 
Devens Enterprise Commission, Nov. 2009. Web. 21 Apr. 2011. 
<http://www.devensec.com/ch498/dec498toc.html>. 
 
44. March, James G., and Herbert A. Simon. Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1958. 
Print. 
 
45. McCloskey, Michael. "ISO 14000: An Environmentalist's Perspective." Exploring 
the Uses and Potential Benefits of ISO 14000. Proc. of Roundtable Meeting (EPA 
Region III), Philadelphia, PA. Ecologia.org, 30 Apr. 1996. Web. 5 May 2009. 
<http://www.ecologia.org/ems/iso14000/resources/opinions/mccloskey96.html>. 
 
 
 237 
 
46. Mintzberg, Henry, Duru Raisinghani, and Andre Theoret. "The Structure of 
"Unstructured" Decision Processes." Administrative Science Quarterly 21.2 
(1976): 246-75. Print. 
 
47. Nassos, George. "A Route to a Sustainable Environment." Sustainability (6 Apr. 
2010). Sustainable Enterprise. The Center for Sustainable Enterprise (Illinois 
Institute of Technology), 6 Apr. 2010. Web. 08 Oct. 2010. 
<http://www.sustainabiliity.com/blog/2010/04/a-route-to-a-sustainable-
 environment.html>. 
 
48. New Technologies and Innovation through Industrial Symbiosis. Kalundborg: 
Industrial Symbiosis Institute, 2008. PDF. 
 
49. Nolan, Timothy. "A Template for Planning for and Undertaking Eco-industrial 
Development." Eco-Industrial Networking Roundtable. District of North 
Vancouver, BC. 17 Sept. 2004. Lecture. 
 
50. North, Jonathan and Suzanne Giannini-Spohn. 1999. ?Strategies for Financing 
Eco-Industrial Parks,? Commentary. (Fall). 
 
51. "Our Yogurt Works Facility, Water, Waste, Green Building, Energy, People - 
Stonyfield Farm." Stonyfield Farm : Organic Yogurt, Healthy Food, Recipes, & 
Organic Living. Stonyfield Farm, Inc., Apr. 2011. Web. 21 Apr. 2011. 
<http://www.stonyfield.com/healthy-planet/our-practices-farm-table/our-yogurt-
 works-facility>. 
 
52. Pelletiere, Danilo. 1999. ?Proximity, Uncertainty, and Regulation and the 
Development of Eco-Industrial Networks.? Proceedings from the Industrial 
Ecology and Sustainability Conference, Troyes, 1999. 
 
53. "Planning for All New Yorkers: An Atlas of Community-Based Plans ? Bronx 
Plans." The Municipal Art Society of New York. 25 Apr. 2008. The Municipal 
Art Society of New York and The Campaign for Community-Based Planning. 26 
July 2010 <http://mas.org/planning-for-all-new-yorkers-an-atlas-of-community-
 based-plans/>. 
 
54. Potts-Carr, Audra J. "Choctaw Eco-Industrial Park: an ecological approach to 
industrial land-use planning and design." Landscape and Urban Planning 42 
(1998): 239-57. 
 
55. "Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle." Wastes - Resource Conservation. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 15 Nov. 2010. Web. 02 July 2010. 
<http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/index.htm>. 
 
 
 238 
 
56. Roberts, Brian H. "The Application of Industrial Ecology Principles and Planning 
Guidelines for the Development of Eco-industrial Parks: an Australian Case 
Study." Journal for Cleaner Production 12 (2004): 997-1010. Print. 
 
57. Schlarb, Mary. Eco-industrial development: a strategy for building sustainable 
communities. Award no. 99-06-07462. 8th ed. Ithaca: Cornell University, 2001. 
 
58. Spriggs, Dennis, Ernie Lowe, Jill Watz, and Mahmoud El-Halwagi. Design and 
Development of Eco-Industrial Parks. Apr. 2004. Paper #109a prepared for 
Presentation at the AlChE Spring Meeting. AlChE Spring Meeting, New Orleans, 
Louisiana. 
 
59. The World Factbook 2011: CIA's 2010 Edition. Potomac Books Inc, 2011. Print. 
 
60. Tiejun, Dai. "Two quantitative indices for the planning and evaluation of eco-
 industrial parks." Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010): 442-48. 
 
61. Todd, Joel A. "Planning and Conducting Integrated Design (ID) Charrettes: 
Whole Building Design Guide." WBDG - The Whole Building Design Guide. 28 
Dec. 2009. National Institute of Building Sciences. 22 Aug. 2010 
<http://www.wbdg.org/resources/charrettes.php>. 
 
62. Tropman, John E., John Erlich, and Jack Rothman. Tactics & Techniques of 
Community Intervention. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock, 2001. Print. 
 
63. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our 
common future. New York: Oxford University Press. 
 
64. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). "Environmental Management 
of Industrial Estates." Industry and Environment Review 19.4 (1996): 75. Print. 
 
65. United States of America. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Policy, 
Planning, and Evaluation. Eco-Industrial Parks: A Case Study and Analysis of 
Economic, Environmental, Technical, and Regulatory Issues. By Sheila A. 
Martin, Keith A. Weitz, Robert A. Cushman, Aarti Sharma, Richard C. Lindrooth, 
and Stephen R. Moran. Research Triangle Park: Research Triangle Institute, 1996. 
 
66. United States of America. Executive Office. President's Council on Sustainable 
Development. SUSTAINABLE AMERICA: A NEW CONSENSUS FOR 
PROSPERITY, OPPORTUNITY, AND A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT FOR 
THE FUTURE. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1996. 
 
67. Wasserman, Shanna E. Sustainable Economic Development: The Case of 
Implementing Industrial Ecology. Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
2001. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001. Print. 
 
 
 239 
 
68. van Beers, Dick. Capturing Regional Synergies in the Kwinana Industrial Area 
2008 Status Report. Publication. Australia: Centre of Excellence in Cleaner 
Production Curtin University of Technology, Kwinana Industries Council and the 
Center for Sustainable Resource Processing, 2008. Print. 
 
69. van Leeuwen, Marcus G., Walter J. V. Vermeulen, and Pieter Glasbergen. 
"Planning Eco-industrial Parks: an Analysis of Dutch Planning Methods." 
Business Strategy and the Environment 12.3 (2003): 147-62. Print. 
 
70. Veiga and Magrini, 2009 Lilian Bechara Elabras Veiga and Alessandra Magrini, 
Eco-industrial park development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: a tool for sustainable 
development, Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2009), pp. 653?661. 
 
71. Zhang, Xiangping, Anders H. Str?mman, Christian Solli, and Edgar G. Hertwich. 
"Model-Centered Approach to Early Planning and Design of an Eco-Industrial 
Park around an Oil Refinery." Environmental Science & Technology 42.13 
(2008): 4958-963. Print.