4.7 Article

Process analysis of eco-industrial park development - the case of Tianjin, China

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Volume 64, Issue -, Pages 464-477

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.002

Keywords

Eco-industrial park; Industrial symbiosis; Process analysis; Circular economy; Tianjin Economic-technological; Development Area (TEDA)

Funding

  1. Next Generation Infrastructures Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The variety of successful and unsuccessful eco-industrial parks (EIPs) have evoked a discussion on how to intervene in the process of transforming an industrial park to an eco-industrial park. This study presents a process analysis approach that enables analysts to trace and structure the key activities that influence changes in an EIP system. This approach rests on five key activities that affect EIP changes and development: (1) institutional activity (2) technical facilitation (3) economic and financial enablers (4) informational activity and (5) company activity. Applying this lens to a Chinese EIP, Tianjin Economic-technological Development Area (TEDA), allowed us to build a structured database of activities to analyze its eco-transformation. In TEDA, institutional activity shapes the institutional arrangements that are pivotal for enabling and shaping the eco-transformation. Company activity has less influence on the system than the other key activities. Informational activity is vital to build trust and relationships. In a long time-span, TEDA transformed from a planned EIP to a planned and facilitated EIP, where the local authority acts as a coordinator and as a facilitator. The process analysis approach is amenable for an institutional environment other than the Chinese context because it results in a structured and documented analysis that is open to adjustment, expansion and critique. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available