Progress in Industrial Ecology – An International Journal, Vol. 9, No.

3, 2015 217

Industrial ecology and eco-industrial development:

case studies from Italy

Tiberio Daddi*, Sara Tessitore

and Francesco Testa
S. Anna School of Advanced Studies,
Institute of Management,
Piazza Martiri della Libertà, 33,
Pisa 56127, Italy
Email: t.daddi@sssup.it
Email: s.tessitore@sssup.it
Email: f.testa@sssup.it
*Corresponding author

Abstract: Eco-industrial parks (EIPs) are becoming a way to guarantee a

sustainable development of productive areas. Many scholars describe the main
features of EIPs around the world contributing to the update of technological
best practices and management options for these areas. Despite this, the Italian
experiences on EIPs are not so well described in the literature while in Italy is
present a fervent policy and industrial situation on this matter. The paper aims
to bridge this gap describing the Italian most advanced experiences in the field
of eco-industrial development. The paper aims at enriching the international
knowledge on EIPs including technical data and the main features of Italian
case studies and compare these with some international experiences.

Keywords: EIPs; eco-industrial parks; industrial ecology; industrial symbiosis;

industrial ecosystems; progress in industrial ecology.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Daddi, T., Tessitore, S. and
Testa, F. (2015) ‘Industrial ecology and eco-industrial development: case
studies from Italy’, Progress in Industrial Ecology – An International Journal,
Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.217–233.

Biographical notes: Tiberio Daddi is an Assistant Professor at the Institute of

Management, Sustainability Management area, and Senior Consultant in
Environmental and H&S Management in ERGO srl. He is graduated in
Environmental Economics at the University of Florence in 2001 and had an
MSc in Environmental Management and Audit in 2002. Since 2002, he is
Research Officer at S. Anna School of Advanced Studies with participation
in many international and national projects related to the environmental
management issues in industrial enterprises and territorial areas (clusters).
His research interests include industrial ecology, environmental management
systems, environmental regulation, sustainable products policies and tools.

Sara Tessitore is graduated at the University of Pisa in 2005 and attended the
Master in Environmental Management and Control at Sant’Anna School of
Advanced Studies in 2006. Since 2007 she collaborates with the Institute
of Management on international and national projects on sustainability.
Her research interests are focused on environmental management tools and
policies to improve the company’s environmental performances.

Copyright © 2015 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

218 T. Daddi et al.

Francesco Testa is an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Management,

Sustainability Management area, and Senior Consultant in Environmental and
H&S Management in ERGO srl. He has specialised in the economics
and management of innovative environmental policy instruments and their
relationship with the economy fundamentals and competitiveness. He is
Lecturer in Environmental Management at the International PhD in
Management (innovation, sustainability and healthcare), at the Master of
Environmental Management and Audit held at Sant’Anna School. He has been
working on many pilot projects promoted by EC in the field of environmental
management, impact assessment of IPPs and analysis of the relationship
between environmental management and competitiveness.

1 Introduction

Industrial ecology is a new approach that supports companies in implementing

sustainable development strategies. The concept of industrial ecology evolved from
environmental management paradigms (Ehrenfeld, 1995), and springs from the interest in
integrating notions of sustainability with environmental and economic systems (Allenby,
1992; Allen and Behmanish, 1994; Ehrenfeld, 1995). Industrial ecology can be applied to
eco-industry development at three levels: micro-level (firms), meso-level (eco-industrial
parks (EIPs)) and macro-level (regional and wider global networks of manufacturing
activity centres) (Roberts and Greenhalgh, 2000).
This paper focuses on eco-industrial development. The research investigates the
spread of EIPs in Italy and their distinctive features. An industrial park is defined as
“a large tract of land, sub-divided and developed for the use of several firms
simultaneously, distinguished by its shareable infrastructure and close proximity of
firms” (Peddle, 1993). Other definitions of EIPs were introduced in studies published in
1990s and discussed by authors such as Lowe (Lowe et al., 1995; Ayres, 1995). Côté and
Hall (1995) was the first author to cite the issue of economic and natural resource
conservation, and defined an EIP as “an industrial system which conserves natural and
economic resources; reduces production, material, energy, insurance and treatment costs
and liabilities; improves operating efficiency, quality, worker health and public image;
and provides opportunities for income generation from the use and sale of wasted
materials”. This concept also affects worker health, which is not included in Peddle’s
definition of EIPs.
The interest in and development of EIPs is especially significant in the USA. The
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) defined “EIPs as a community
of manufacturing and service businesses seeking enhanced environmental and economic
performance by collaborating in the management of environmental and reuse issues”.
By working together, the community of businesses seeks a collective benefit that is
greater than the sum of individual benefits each company would achieve if it optimised
only its individual performance (Martin et al., 1998).
The concept of the EIP has been globally popularised and has attracted interest in less
developed, industrialising, as well as developed countries (Geng and Côté, 2004). Since
the 1990s, local and regional projects have been initiated to plan and actively develop
EIPs. As Heeres et al. (2004) states: “attention for EIP development projects has grown
enormously among national and regional governments and industries in many countries.
 Industrial ecology and eco-industrial development: case studies from Italy 219

It is believed that a well-planned, functioning EIP has the potential to both benefit the
economy and substantially relieve environmental pressure in and near the location of its
development”.

2 Review of case studies

2.1 International EIPs

EIPs have been developed at the international level and the experiences of EIPs have
been disseminated in many industrial areas that have adopted eco-industrial development
solutions. Many policy makers have supported the dissemination of EIPs through various
programs and policies. In the USA, the dissemination of EIPs was encouraged by the
federal government through the President’s Council for Sustainable Development, which
identified and promoted four demonstration sites (Evans, 1995; Cohen-Rosenthal, 1996).
EIPs have been similarly encouraged in Europe, particularly in the Netherlands (Eilering
and Vermeulen, 2004; Heeres et al., 2004; Mirata, 2004), Denmark (Ehrenfeld and
Gertler, 1997) and Finland (Korhonen et al., 1999; Snäkin and Korhonen, 2002).
Experiences with EIPs have increased and the literature has been enriched by many case
studies.
Some studies describe international EIPs and the most famous experiences in Europe
and in other countries. In Europe, Kalundborg Park in Denmark was developed in the
1960s. It is one of the EIP milestones and is labelled as an ‘industrial ecosystem’ because
of the many links between the firms (Garner and Keoleian, 1995; Evans, 1995; Ehrenfeld
and Gertler, 1997).
The Kalundborg approach was also developed in Canada (Venta and Nisbet, 1997)
and Australia (Roberts, 2004). There are also EIPs in Germany, the UK and other
countries, especially in northern Europe (Mirata, 2004).
In Asia, EIPs are mainly concentrated in China and Korea (Genga and Côté, 2004;
Zhu and Côté, 2004); however, the development of EIPs has also been attracting interest
in India (Patel et al., 2001), the Philippines, Thailand and Sri Lanka (Lowe, 2003).
In China, there are now over 100 EIP projects (SEPA, 2007). The State
Environmental Protection Agency of China (SEPA) has categorised industrial parks in
China into three groups: sector-integrated, venous and sector-specific groups, each with
slightly different criteria and indicators. The sector-integrated group refers to those parks
with multiple industrial sectors. The venous industrial grouping refers to those resource
recovery parks where environmental technology companies and firms manufacturing
‘green products’ coexist, and the sector-specific group refers to parks with primarily one
main sector (Zhu and Côté, 2004; Festel and Geng, 2005; Zhu et al., 2007).
One of the most important Chinese case studies is the Tianjin Economic-
Technological Development Area (TEDA). The emergence of an environmental
institution in TEDA is used as a backdrop to assess how TEDA has transformed itself
into one of the top three national EIPs in China. Following 2 years of field research, a
network of 81 symbiotic inter-company relationships have been formed in TEDA over
the past 16 years. These relationships involve utilities, automobiles, electronics,
biotechnology, food and beverages and resource recovery clusters (Shi et al., 2010).
220 T. Daddi et al.

Another famous Chinese EIP is Guigang. The Guigang Group (GG), which operates
one of China’s largest sugar refineries, has been developing and implementing an internal
and external industrial symbiosis for more than four decades. The GG first invested in its
own collection of downstream companies to use nearly all the by-products of sugar
production. This strategy generated new revenues and reduced environmental emissions
and disposal costs, while simultaneously improving the quality of sugar (Zhu et al.,
2007).
Singapore’s Jurong Island is developing three EIP projects in the form of mini-
ecological parks and alternative fuel infrastructures, created through long range planning
(Yang and Lay, 2004). The first Korean EIP is the Daedok Technovalley (DTV)
Development Project. The Korean EIP focused on symbiotic industrial network
construction, energy and material flow planning, externally and internally built
environmental design and cultural identity creation (Deog-Seong et al., 2005). The
experience of Ulsan city is also notable. The Ulsan industrial complex has been
continuously evolving from conventional industrial complexes to EIPs by spontaneous
industrial symbiosis (Park et al., 2008).
A project by the Technology Development Foundation of Turkey to disseminate
cleaner production and EIPs began in 2009 (Ulutas et al., 2012).
The Queensland State Government in Australia developed the first EIP in 1994, the
Synergy Park, a site 22 km west of Brisbane. The park aims to support several key scale
economies. The first is the central warehouse, which involves shared logistics and the
controlled movement of vehicles. The second is a sophisticated logistics management
system. The third is the energy supply infrastructure (a co-generation plan for the park’s
business). EIPs in Australia are built on “the importance of an industrial catalyst, a
synergy trust, coordination of key industries and utilising players, the need for strategic
planning that has foresight and flexibility and developing community oriented
development” (Roberts, 2004).
Another important case study is the West Midlands Industrial Symbiosis program
(WISP) in the UK, which covers the areas around Birmingham. One plan has already
become operational, providing economic, environmental and social benefits. This
consists of the conversion of 5000 t/year of waste edible oils into bio-diesel (Mirata,
2004).
Many other studies such as the papers by Lambert and Boons (2002) describe
various EIP case studies in the Netherlands and Canada, analysing their key elements
(material/energy networks, process integration) and management.
Table 1 summarises some of most famous EIPs at an international level.
Despite an Italian law issued in 1998 mandating the spread and application of EIPs
and despite regional governments actively boosting the application of EIP concepts in
their local policies, there have been few studies on Italian EIPs, and often those
mentioned are not the most important ones. For instance, a recent survey of EIPs in the
USA and Europe (Gibbs and Deutz, 2007) investigated 53 EIPs and only three were
Italian. Côté and Cohen-Rosenthal (1998) cited the EIP experiences in Emilia-Romagna
without providing any data or technical information. The Turin Environment Park is
mentioned in paper by Gibbs (2003) and the experience of Montagna-Energia Valle di
Non is cited by Lovelady and El-Halwagi (2009).
 Industrial ecology and eco-industrial development: case studies from Italy 221

Table 1 Case studies of international EIPs

Case studies details

No. of
EIPs Country Sector Dimension (ha) companies References
Devens USA Mixed 1780 Not Mirata (2004)
available
Kalundborg Denmark Mixed Not available Not Garner and
available Keoleian
(1995)
West Midlands UK Mixed Not available 20 Mirata (2004)
Industrial
Symbiosis
program
Guigang/ China Sugar Not available Not Zhu et al.
Guitang group available (2007)
Synergy Park Australia Food and 37 Not Roberts (2004)
beverage available
Burnside Canada Many 760 1300 Chertow
Industrial Park (2008)
Ulsan Korea Many 5544 700 Park et al.
Industrial Parks (2008)

2.2 International characteristics of EIPs

Many authors focus on industrial symbiosis and others on landscape ecology or
networking. From our literature review, we selected the ‘key elements’ of the EIP
concept. The initial characteristics were essentially industrial symbiosis initiatives and
‘by-product exchanges’, which were the aspects that characterised the first EIP
experiences at an international level. By-product exchanges are influenced by the
geographical proximity of firms, especially since transport costs limit the spatial
boundaries over which certain by-product exchanges remain economically viable
(Chertow, 2000). Chertow (2000) suggested three criteria to develop EIPs: building on
existing types of material and energy exchanges, building on pre-existing organisational
relationships and networks and the anchor tenant model. Korhonen and Snäkin (2005)
built their EIP framework on the model of natural ecosystems. They argue that increased
diversity (of the actors involved) enhances connection and opens up new possibilities for
cooperation, although increasing the number of actors can also lead to conflicting
interests, thereby acting as a decisive factor in preventing the development of an EIP.
Chertow (2008) identified many types of collaborative arrangements for businesses
that can lead to the development of industrial symbiosis. In addition to by-product
exchanges, there are other typical approaches to EIP development such as sharing utilities
and joint services provision. Utility sharing includes shared access to public goods and
services, e.g., the collective use of a geothermal exchange system in the Phillips Eco-
Enterprise Centre in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which improved energy efficiency by 35%
in its office buildings (Krause and Brinkema, 2003). ‘Joint service provision’ provides for
the creation of common services for firms. These tools create economies of scale and
222 T. Daddi et al.

benefit sources of both urbanisation and localisation of economies (O’Sullivan, 2000;

McCann, 2001; Parr, 2002; Rosenthal and Strange, 2003, 2004).
Policy programs from government agencies are usually considered to be a major
conditioning factor. The Chinese policy on circular economy is one of the central
influences on Chinese industrial symbiosis development (Geng and Doberstein, 2008;
Geng et al., 2009). In UK, the influence of public policies is also evident, as a result of
the NISP and waste management policies (Mirata, 2004). The importance of a
comprehensive legal framework in order to move towards a recycling-based society is
confirmed by Japan’s experience in which the government implemented a program
that involves societal actors in shaping the initiatives (Van Berkel et al., 2009a, 2009b).
Tudor et al. (2007) defined the three main elements of EIPs as industrial ecology (IE),
biological ecology and the spatial perspectives provided by landscape ecology. IE relates
to industrial and ecological systems that are based on the optimal circulation of materials
and energy.
Regarding biological ecology, EIPs seek to mimic natural ecosystems where ‘waste’
products from one process are incorporated into another process, such as carbon dioxide
and oxygen in photosynthesis and respiration (Tudor et al., 2007). Landscape ecology
aims to reduce the ‘negative’ ecological effects of urban and industrial development. In a
survey of European and US EIPs (Gibbs and Deutz, 2007), the key features of IE and
EIPs were investigated: the cycling of materials and energy as industrial symbiosis
initiatives, or closed cycle, networking and cluster building concerning networking
among firms, sustainable development and collaboration with local stakeholders.
Table 2 summarises the key elements of the most cited EIPs in the international
literature.

Table 2 Key elements of EIPs from the literature framework

Authors
Gibbs and Deutz Chertow et al. Boons et al.
Key elements Tudor et al. (2007) (2007) (2008) (2011)
By products and
X X X X
energy exchanges
Shared services
X X
and technologies
Landscape
X X
ecology
Utility sharing X X
Networking X X X
Involvement of
X X X
local stakeholders

3 Goals and method

In Italy, there is a strong interest in EIP development and many policy makers are
involved in setting them up or converting existing industrial areas into areas based on the
key concepts of industrial ecology. This paper fills the gap in the international literature
on EIPs by covering experiences in Italy, particularly regions such as Veneto, Emilia
 Industrial ecology and eco-industrial development: case studies from Italy 223

Romagna and Tuscany. The lack of information on Italian EIPs means that the
international scientific literature on EIPs is incomplete. Our aim is to bridge the literature
gap and enrich the international knowledge on this topic.
To achieve this objective, we adopted a method with two different levels of analysis.
The first level aimed to identify the existing experiences on Italian EIPs by analysing
Italian literature on this topic. The second level of analysis aimed to select the most
important five to examine in depth the key features.
The main source of information of the first level analysis is a report issued by the
regional government of Emilia-Romagna, issued in 2010 (ERVET, 2010). It includes 14
highly developed experiences of EIPs. The ERVET study describes the main features and
the legislation adopted in each region to manage the EIP dissemination. It outlines the
socio-economic data of each cited EIP including the number of companies, employees
and size of the geographical area. All the sharing services are described along with all the
environmental infrastructures and management solutions adopted in the EIPs to reduce
the environmental impacts of the companies. The results achieved by these experiences
are highlighted and the future development of new technical and managerial eco-
innovation. ERVET compares the Italian EIPs and shows the main differences and
synergies with other international experiences. Many other studies were analysed to
provide a complete picture of EIPs in Italy.
From the initial research on ERVET study, five case studies were selected in terms of
the maturity and degree of EIP development, geographical distribution and relevance of
the experiences in terms of results achieved. About these selected case studies, we adopt
the classic techniques for the analysis of case studies. In particular, at the beginning we
drafted an interview protocol in order to be sure to achieve comparable data and
information. Then we collected data by contacting EIP managers directly (many of whom
we already knew personally) and by acquiring technical information through telephone
interviews. In the interviews, we explained the aim of the research in order to let
understand to the interviewees the kind of data and information we were looking for.
According to the described goals and method, we arranged the manuscript as follows.
First we describe the main drivers of the dissemination of EIPs in Italy. Then we
focus on a description of the characteristics of five of selected experiences developed in
Italy. Finally, in the discussion section, we compare the key aspects of international EIPs
identified in the literature review with the distinctive features identified in the Italian
cases.

4 The drivers of EIP dissemination in Italy

Italy is witnessing a growing interest in EIPs among policy makers at all administrative
levels. There are essentially three perspectives.
The ‘technocratic vision’ considers EIPs to be the result of production and location
choices made by companies. These choices are linked to the advantages of building
industrial plants close together and to the synergies obtained from a ‘technical’ point of
view. For example, businesses may find that it makes financial sense to combine and
share the management of some environmental facilities. This explains the development of
EIPs as a result of the enterprises’ need (usually SMEs) to share the management of the
most significant environmental aspects (waste water treatment, power generation, waste
collection) through the construction of common structures and facilities (Gibbs and
224 T. Daddi et al.

Deutz, 2007). Their aim is to increase environmental efficiency as well as economic

efficiency through cost savings, thanks to the sharing of collective facilities in the area,
benefiting from geographic proximity (Chertow, 2009).
The ‘managerial vision’ is more directly based on the opportunity to stimulate and
promote management and organisational coordination among the environmentally
relevant business activities undertaken by established enterprises or businesses that are
going to settle in an area. In this case, scale economies are improved not only in technical
terms but there are also benefits linked to more ‘intangible’ variables such as the
management and organisation of environmental issues. The objective is to optimise
and prevent environmental impacts related to the productive activities located in the
area by focusing on aspects that can facilitate proper and effective management
(Sokka et al., 2011).
The ‘governance vision’ sees the development of EIPs as a response to the problem of
governance. The systemic approach of EIPs can indeed be seen as a policy trend and as
an opportunity for institutions to promote local development geared towards
sustainability. This vision treats the EIP as a lever for local policies and as a technical and
managerial solution for the local production system (Gibbs and Deutz, 2007). Many
Italian experiences have shown that over time, the role of institutions can be crucial in
stimulating and strengthening the development and functioning of EIPs. The literature
presented in the previous section highlights that the effects of the policies of the three
groups of drivers are more oriented toward the command and control approach than
toward voluntary tools.
In contrast, in Italy there tends to be another kind of driver that follows more
‘holistic’ methods, linked to voluntary policy tools. In this case, the process leading to the
creation of an EIP is no longer just a matter of technical drafting and local planning.
It becomes a decision-making process, in which enterprises are involved, along with their
representatives, local institutions and even the social partners in the local area. Right
from the planning stage, the common goal is to coordinate the choice of location and the
technical and managerial solutions that are most effective from an environmental point of
view. To sum up, the ‘holistic’ vision increases the benefits for the various stakeholders,
provided that they are capable of operating within the framework of a true industrial
policy for the local production system which is voluntarily oriented towards
sustainability.

5 Results: key experiences of Italian EIPs

The study published by ERVET in 2010 identified 84 experiences in which there was an
attempt to experiment with the EIP approach and an interest in carrying out localised
solutions that promote sustainable development. These 84 experiences are located in only
5 out of the 20 Italian regions (Emilia-Romagna, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Liguria, Marche,
Piedmont and Tuscany) and are distributed as follows:
• 30 in Emilia-Romagna
• 21 in Friuli-Venezia Giulia
• 15 in Liguria
• 7 in Marche
 Industrial ecology and eco-industrial development: case studies from Italy 225

• 1 in Piedmont
• 9 in Tuscany.
The study selected 14 case studies whose characteristics were most strongly linked to the
EIP approach. These consisted of the productive areas that had adopted managerial and
infrastructural solutions inspired by the concept of industrial ecology and also had a
management body, which is a fundamental element of Italian EIPs.
This paper presents the following EIPs:
• Macrolotto of Prato (Tuscany)
• industrial area of Ponterosso (Friuli-Venezia Giulia)
• industrial area of Padova (Veneto)
• industrial area of Ancona (Marche).
The EIP of Macrolotto is located in Prato, in Tuscany. This industrial area is one of the
most important European productive clusters for the textile sector.
Macrolotto covers 150 hectares, with around 380 tenant companies and over 3000
employees. The environmental initiative originated from the need to provide this
industrial area with centralised environmental services (such as the recycling of
wastewater for production and fire fighting). The area has a management body named
CONSER, which is a non-profit organisation that manages the environmental
infrastructures and services of the productive area.
The centralised environmental infrastructures and services in Macrolotto are as
follows:
• management and maintenance of the centralised wastewater recycling plant and of
the industrial aqueduct, and the provision of a centralised fire fighting service
• promotion and provision of centralised services for the industrial area that can create
scaled economies to reduce production costs while also respecting the surrounding
environment and society
• training and environmental education initiatives
• mobility management (carpooling, car and freight sharing)
• other centralised services for workers (laundry, pharmacy, post office, nursery).
In 1975, following the depletion of ground water resources due to the presence of textile
companies with a high demand for water, Macrolotto has an industrial aqueduct fed by
recovered wastewater from the treatment plant. The treatment plant reduces the
suspended solids using sand and anthracite filters, a process that also removes colour
through an activated charcoal treatment. An economic analysis showed that the
centralised solution was cheaper for the companies than paying a water supplier. The plan
is to able to provide 5 million cubic metres of recovered water per year, which is
why other companies outside the Macrolotto area that have a high demand for water
have joined the system. Currently, enterprises that use recycled water can save about
€300,000 year.
The EIP also uses renewable energy sources and CONSER established two
photovoltaic plants in the area. The first plant provides 20 Kwp to make the kindergarten
226 T. Daddi et al.

self-powered. The second plant provides 200 Kwp to reduce the energy costs related to
the recycled water system. The management body of the area also boosted the adoption
of photovoltaic plants by the tenant companies. The companies have currently activated
photovoltaic plants with an individual capacity of 5 Mwp, which enables the plants to
produce over 25 million kwh/year and to reduce the CO2 emissions (around
15,000 Tonnes/year).
The industrial area of Ponterosso is located in the municipality of San Vito al
Tagliamento, near Pordenone, in the lowlands of Friuli. There are 142 companies in the
area (with a total of approximately 3180 employees). The companies are very diversified
both in terms of size and products ranging from chemicals to food products, from glass to
machinery and producing components.
This EIP is managed by the Consortium for the Industrial Area of Ponterosso. From
an energy supply standpoint, the Consortium operates combined production plants, and
self-production of electricity and heat distribution plants.
The Consortium provided the industrial area with a railway that is linked with the
national network, offering each company the opportunity to have terminals in their area
as an alternative to road transport.
The environmental monitoring system managed by the Consorzio Ponterosso
monitors various key local environmental performance indicators. Ponterosso has a
natural gas plant consisting of around 15,000 metres of pipeline. The companies have
begun to increase the use of this infrastructure to transfer their products, and train
transport rose by 41% from 2011 to 2012. The EIP includes a wastewater treatment plant,
which was completed in 2010. The plant has a power of around 7500 population
equivalent and enables the water discharge input from businesses to be purified using the
best available techniques. The purification is monitored by innovative systems that
guarantee that the wastewater complies with the emission limits. The Consortium built a
3-hectare phytoremediation plant to further treat the wastewater before discharge it in the
river near the EIP.
The industrial area of Padova is located in Friuli-Venezia Giulia and comprises 1500
companies. The area is one of the biggest in northern Italy, and since 1956 it has been
managed by a consortium of local public institutions. The area is served by a railway with
7 km of tracks, 2 toll booths, 5 service centres with post offices, hotels, restaurants,
banks, professional offices, business services and a optic fibre ring of 30 km. The area
also has large green areas, which cover about 18% of the whole surface area. The main
efforts in the area focus on spreading mobility management. Approximately 50,000
people (workers, suppliers, consultants and other stakeholders) travel to the area every
day. The consortium has organised services and infrastructures to reduce the pressures
connected with road traffic. The area has also appointed a mobility manager to identify
opportunities for improvement and to promote new initiatives.
The productive area of Ancona is the first EIP in the Marche region. This area began
to develop in the 1980s and is located around the port of Ancona. The ZIPA-Industrial
Productive Zone of Ancona is the consortium established to manage the EIP. The area
has about 90 companies operating in maritime activities such as shipbuilding, mechanical
repairs, electrical systems, nautical decor, food supplies, logistics, shipping agencies and
seafood processing. ZIPA also has four other productive areas in the Marche. The shared
services relate to training, consulting and company support of infrastructure for water
discharge and waste.
 Industrial ecology and eco-industrial development: case studies from Italy 227

ZIPA aims to develop the ‘area management’ based on a high level of company
involvement in improving environmental performance. The EIP manager is particularly
focused on developing synergies and relationships with local communities. Meetings
have been held involving the municipality representatives, trade organisations and local
communities. The stakeholders attending the meetings identified the objectives and
targets for the ZIPA EIP. The ZIPA manager is in the process of developing an
environmental improvement plan. The plan is shared with local stakeholders and
summarises the needs emerging from the meetings.

6 Discussion: a cross comparison of the characteristics of Italian EIPs

and international EIPs

In 1998, legislation was passed on the development of EIPs in Italy, which introduced the
concept of APEAs (ecologically equipped productive areas). The APEA model is linked
to the concept of EIP. The law decreed that every region has to regulate the criteria and
the system requirements of APEAs (henceforth for the sake of simplicity, EIPs).
The fundamentals elements of Italian EIPs are the presence of unified management
body and of common environmental services and infrastructures for the companies that
operate the EIPs.
In fact, all our five case studies have a management body, usually a public–private
company or consortium, which coordinates the development of the productive area and
promotes the implementation of services and infrastructures to reduce the environmental
impact of companies that operate within EIPs. These bodies coordinate the management
of environmental aspects such as waste and water resources, organise services such as
transportation as well as promote training and communication. They create
infrastructures and collaborate with local stakeholders.
Such collaboration between companies and institutions is considered a very important
element in the adoption of managerial and infrastructural solutions that foster the creation
of EIPs. Much of the collaboration therefore begins with participation in decision-making
processes related to the adoption of widely shared solutions that allow companies to
implement more sustainable production methods.
The presence of shared services and infrastructure is provided for the national
regulation and is therefore an essential criteria for all EIPs (developed in Italy). This
relates to various types of services such as transportation, waste collection and lighting
Purification systems, energy production plants and rain water collection systems are
strongly encouraged through funding and incentives from regional governments. “The
aim of the analysis of Italian EIPs and the key elements of international EIPs is to reveal
how rooted these aspects are present in the Italian experience and to highlight similarities
and differences in the implementation of the methodologies and instruments for more
sustainable production”.
The definition of an EIP (APEA) in Italian legislation differs from those of other
countries and recalls the definition of EIP given by USEPA, “A community of
manufacturing and service businesses seeking enhanced environmental and economic
performance by collaborating in the management of environmental and reuse issues”.
Also in much regional legislation, the APEAs are described as a sustainable approach to
production, whose goal is both to improve the environmental performance of businesses
and increase their competitiveness.
228 T. Daddi et al.

In summary, Italian EIPs have two main characteristics in common with EIPs in other
countries: shared environmental services and infrastructure, and the tight collaboration
between public and private entities. What seems to be unique to Italy is the management
body. Reference is made to a coordinating entity in EIPs in only a few other case studies,
such as the British case study of WISP, described by Mirata (2004). This aspect,
particularly because it is rarely cited in the international literature on EIPs, was not a part
of our comparative analysis.
Instead our analysis focused on the six characteristics which emerged from the papers
that were analysed. The characteristics defined in Table 2 were found to have been
implemented in our five case studies. The level of implementation was one of the
following:
• ( ) not implemented
• (+) poorly implemented
• (++) implemented
• (+++) strongly implemented.
Table 3 clearly shows the substantial differences between Italian EIPs and the
international approach, highlighting, for example that industrial symbiosis is rarely an
integral part of EIPs in Italy. Experimentation with symbiosis initiatives has been
minimal in Italy, while there is a strong presence of shared infrastructures both because it
is encouraged and outlined in the APEA legislation and because in several cases it has
been proved to be economically and environmentally significant. The most notable case
is the industrial aqueduct of Macrolotto of Prato, which significantly reduced the
industrial impact on local ground water resources and 5 million m3 of treated water per
year is re-used by Macrolotto companies.

Table 3 Comparative analysis of the key elements of the international concept of the EIP
and Italian EIP features

Key elements
Shared
services Utility Involvement
By product and Landscape sharin of local
Italian EIPs exchanges techn. ecology g Networking stakeholders
Macrolotto of
– +++ ++ +++ +++ ++
Prato
Ponterosso – +++ ++ +++ ++ +++
APEA Ponte
– ++ ++ ++ + +++
Rizzoli
I.Z. of Padova – +++ +++ ++ ++ +++
Productive area
– ++ ++ + +++ +++
of Ancona

Shared services were one of the strong points of Italian EIPs and were present in all five
case studies. Such shared services are not only limited to waste collection, transportation,
 Industrial ecology and eco-industrial development: case studies from Italy 229

energy supply, etc., but also include services for workers, such as cafeterias and
childcare.
Landscape ecology is covered in all our five case studies, though it is a fairly recent
phenomenon. However, the industrial zone in Padova is strongly engaged in this aspect.
In fact the management company is located near a park where it has launched numerous
projects for protecting the landscape and bio-monitoring of the area, and there have been
educational projects on renewable energy sources and sustainable development.
Networking among companies was evident in all five cases, through information
exchange, the organisation of and participation in projects and initiatives for the
development of the EIP and improvements in sustainability. However, in the APEA of
Ponte Rizzoli, networking is minimal because the EIP is still in the start-up phase and for
the moment there are only few companies located there.
The involvement of the stakeholders, namely, public institutions, sector organisations,
etc., is highly developed in four of the case studies. Only Macrolotto limits stakeholder
involvement mainly to private entities, thus limiting interactions with public institutions.
How stakeholders are involved varies. For example, in the Ancona area, there is
strong participation in decision making, especially in defining the development plans and
initiatives for the EIP. On the other hand, Padova’s IZ collaborates with organisations
and foundations for the execution of educational projects.
Our case studies in Italy differ from EIPs in other countries, both with regard to the
limited spread of industrial symbiosis initiatives and due to the presence of the
management body. Such differences are clear when comparing Italian experiences with
those of Asian countries, such as the EIPs of Guiyang City and Lubei or the Ulsan
Industrial Park in South Korea, in which the principle element consists of the presence of
technological solutions that allow for the exchange of materials and energy between the
various businesses.
EIPs in Italy thus seem to be more similar to some European and American cases,
e.g., Humberside in the UK where there is a management body, and Denver in the USA,
where there is coordination between enterprises, sector organisations, institutions and
representatives of the local community.

7 Conclusions

In this paper, we have bridged a gap regarding the coverage of EIPs in the literature:
i.e., the near total lack of examples from Italy.
Our five cases studies in Italy highlight that industrial symbiosis in terms of
by-products and energy exchange is not common possibly due to the fragmentation and
the fact that industrial areas in Italy are mainly composed of small and micro-enterprises.
This means that there is less likelihood of by-products and energy to recover. Moreover,
it is more difficult to manage the industrial area as there are too many differing types of
actors involved.
Secondly, Italy, unlike other countries, has opted for a policy approach based on
national legislation to stimulate the diffusion of industrial ecology in industrial areas.
Thirdly, the Italian EIPs are based on a strong presence of the manager of the industrial
area who involves private and public actors to pursue the common objective of the
sustainable development of the industrial areas. This is not without its tensions. For
example, industrial associations could see the management body of the area as a
230 T. Daddi et al.

hypothetical competitor in the provision of environmental services and assistance to the

tenant companies. This highlights that the management body needs to have on board both
private and public actors.
Future work could focus on the role and power assigned to the management bodies,
not only in Italy, but also other countries too. What role should these bodies have? Where
should they get financial resources from? Should they rely on the economic synergies
realised in the area or be funded by public resources?
Another possible line of research would be to investigate the environmental
performance of the Italian industrial areas comparing them with the performance of areas
of other countries where industrial symbiosis is more common. The environmental
performance of the industrial area as a whole should be measured, rather the effectiveness
of one specific initiative.

References
Allen, D. and Behmanish, N. (1994) ‘Wastes as raw materials’, in Allenby, B.R. and Richards, D.
(Eds.): Greening of Industrial Ecosystems, National Academy Press, Washington DC.
Allenby, B.R. (1992) ‘Achieving sustainable development through industrial ecology’,
International Environmental Affairs, Vol. 4, pp.56–68.
Ayres, R.U. (1995) The Greening of Industrial Ecosystems. Industrial Metabolism: Theory and
Policy, National Academy of Science, Washington.
Boons, F., Spekkink, W. and Mouzakitis, Y. (2011) ‘The dynamics of industrial symbiosis:
a proposal for a conceptual framework based upon a comprehensive literature review’,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19, pp.905–911.
Chertow, M. (2008) ‘‘Uncovering’ industrial symbiosis’, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 11,
pp.11–30.
Chertow, M.R. (2000) ‘Industrial symbiosis: literature and taxonomy’, Annual Review of Energy
and Environment, Vol. 25, pp.313–337.
Chertow, M.R. (2009) The Dynamics of Regions and Networks in Industrial Ecosystems. Dinamics
of Geografically based Industrial Ecosystem, Edaward Elgar Publishers, Chelthnam, England.
Chertow, M.R., Ashton, W.S. and Espinosa, J.C. (2008) ‘Industrial symbiosis in Puerto Rico:
environmentally related agglomeration economies’, Regional Studies, Vol. 42, pp.1299–1312.
Cohen-Rosenthal, E. (1996) ‘Designing eco-industrial parks: the US experience’, UNEP Industry
and Environment, October–December, pp.14–18.
Côté, R.P. and Cohen-Rosenthal, E. (1998) ‘Designing eco-industrial parks: a synthesis of some
experiences’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 6, pp.181–188.
Côté, R.P. and Hall, J. (1995) ‘Industrial parks as ecosystems’, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 3, pp.41–46.
Deog-Seong, O., Kyung-Bae, K. and Sook-Young, J. (2005) ‘Eco-industrial park design: a daedeok
technovalley case study’, Habitat International, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.269–284.
Ehrenfeld, J. and Gertler, N. (1997) ‘Industrial ecology in practice: the evolution of
interdependence at Kalundborg’, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 6, pp.67–80.
Ehrenfeld, J.R. (1995) Green Goods. Industrial Ecology: A Strategic Framework For Product
Policy And Other Sustainable Practices, Kretslopp delegation, Stockholm.
Eilering, J.A.M. and Vermeulen, W.J.V. (2004) ‘Eco-industrial parks: toward industrial symbiosis
and utility sharing in practice’, Progress in Industrial Ecology, Vol. 1, pp.245–70.
ERVET (2010) Le aree produttive ecologicamente attrezzate in Italia: stato dell’arte prospettive,
Edizione sostenibile, Bologna.
 Industrial ecology and eco-industrial development: case studies from Italy 231

Evans, L. (1995) ‘Lessons from Kalundborg’, Business and the Environment, Vol. 6, No. 1,
pp.305–325.
Festel, G. and Geng, Y. (2005) The Chemical and Pharmaceutical Industry in China, Chemical
Industry Parks in China, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Garner, A. and Keoleian, C.A. (1995) ‘Industrial ecology: an introduction’, Pollution, Prevention
and Industrial Ecology, pp.1–32.
Geng, Y. and Côté, R. (2004) ‘Applying industrial ecology in rapidly industrializing
countries’, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, Vol. 11,
No. 1, pp.69–85
Geng, Y. and Doberstein, B. (2008) ‘Developing the circular economy in China: challenges and
opportunities for achieving leapfrog development’, International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology, Vol. 3, No. 15, pp.231–239.
Geng, Y., Mitchell, B. and Zhu, Q.H. (2009) ‘Teaching industrial ecology at Dalian University of
technology: toward improving the overall eco-efficiency’, International Journal of
Sustainable Development and World Ecology, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.172–179.
Gibbs, D. (2003) ‘Trust and networking in inter-firm relations: the case of eco-industrial
development’, Local Economy, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.222–236.
Gibbs, D. and Deutz, P. (2007) ‘Reflections on implementing industrial ecology through
eco-industrial park development’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.15, pp.1683–1695.
Heeres, R.R., Vermeulen, W.J.V. and de Walle, F.B. (2004) ‘Eco-industrial park initiatives in the
USA and the Netherlands: first lessons’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 12, Nos. 8–10,
pp.985–95.
Korhonen, J. and Snäkin, J. (2005) ‘Analysis the evolution of industrial ecosystem: concepts and
application’, Ecological Economics, Vol. 52, pp.169–186.
Korhonen, J., Wihersaari, M. and Savolainen, I. (1999) ‘Industrial ecology of a regional energy
supply system: the case of Jyvaskyla region, Finland’, Greener Management International,
Vol. 26, pp.57–67.
Krause, M. and Brinkema, C. (2003) The Green Institute Phillips Eco-Enterprise Center in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. in Cohen-Rosenthal, E. and Musnikov, J. (Eds): Eco-Industrial
Strategies, Greenleaf, Sheffield.
Lambert, A.J.D. and Boons, F.A. (2002) ‘Eco-industrial parks: stimulating sustainable development
in mixed industrial parks’, Technovation, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp.471–484.
Lovelady, E.M. and El-Halwagi, M.M. (2009) ‘Design and integration of eco-industrial parks
for managing water resources’, Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, Vol. 28,
pp.265–272.
Lowe, E. (2003) Eco-Industrial Strategies: Unleashing Synergy between Economic Development
and the Environment, Eco-industrial Development in Asian Developing Countries, Greenleaf,
Sheffield.
Lowe, E., Moran, S. and Holmes, D. (1995) A Fieldbook for the Development of Eco-Industrial
Parks, Report prepared for the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation by Indigo
Development US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.
Martin, S.A., Cushman, R.A., Wetz, K.A., Sharma, A. and Lindrooth, R.C. (1998) ‘Applying
industrial ecology to industrial parks: an economic and environmental analysis’, Economic
Development Quarterly, pp.218–237.
Mccann, P. (2001) Urban and Regional Economics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Mirata, M. (2004) ‘Experiences from early stages of a national industrial symbiosis programme in
the UK: determinants and coordination challenges’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 12,
pp.967–983.
O’Sullivan, A. (2000) Urban Economics, 4th ed., Irwin/McGraw Hill, Boston, MA.
232 T. Daddi et al.

Park, H.S., Renea, E.R., Choia, S.M. and Chiub, A.S.F. (2008) ‘Strategies for sustainable
development of industrial park in Ulsan, South Korea – from spontaneous evolution
to systematic expansion of industrial symbiosis’, Journal of Environmental Management,
Vol. 87, No. 1, pp.1–13.
Parr, J.B. (2002) ‘Missing elements in the analysis of agglomeration economies’, International
Regional Science Review, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.151–168.
Patel, R., Modi, B., Patwari, S., Gopichandran, R. and Wilderer, M. (2001) ‘Aspect of e
eco-industrial networking exercise at the Naroda industrial estate’, Proceedings of
International Conf. on Industrial Park Management: New Strategies for Industrial
Development, 3–6 April, Manila, Philippines.
Peddle, M.T. (1993) ‘Planned industrial and commercial developments in the United States:
a review of the history, literature and empirical evidence regarding industrial parks’, Economic
Development Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp.107–124.
Roberts, B.H. (2004) ‘The application of industrial ecology principles and planning guidelines for
the development of eco-industrial parks: an Australian case study’, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 12, Nos. 8–10, pp.997–1010.
Roberts, B.H. and Greenhalgh, E. (2000) ‘Planning for eco-industrial parks to facilitate industrial
ecologies’, in Shenablah, A. and Byjacharya, B. (Eds.): Shaping the Sustainable Millennium
Conference, Shaping the Sustainable Millennium Conference, 5–7 July, Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane.
Rosenthal, S.S. and Strange, W.C. (2003) Evidence on the Nature and Sources of Agglomeration
Economies, Available at: http://www.econ.brown.edu/faculty/henderson/WillAndStuart.pdf
Rosenthal, S.S. and Strange, W.C. (2004) The Micro-Empirics of Urbanization Economies,
Available at: http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/_wstrange/Strange_Micro-Empirics%20of%20
Agglomeration%20Economies-4-13-2004.pdf
SEPA (State Environmental Protection Agency) (2007) National Environmental Protection Plan,
Beijing, China.
Shi, H., Chertowa, M.R. and Song, Y. (2010) ‘Developing country experience with eco-industrial
parks: a case study of the Tianjin economic-technological development area in China’,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18, pp.191–199.
Snäkin, J-P.A. and Korhonen, J. (2002) ‘Industrial ecology in the North Karelia Region in Finland
– Scenarios for heating energy supply’, International Journal of Sustainable Development and
World Ecology, Vol. 9, pp.9–21.
Sokka, L., Pakarinen, S. and Melanen, M. (2011) ‘Industrial symbiosis contributing to more
sustainable energy use – an example from the forest industry in Kymenlaakso, Finland’,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.285–293.
Tudor, T., Adam, E. and Bates, M. (2007) ‘Drivers and limitations for the successful development
and functioning of EIPs (eco-industrial parks): a literature review’, Ecological Economics,
Vol. 61, pp.199–207.
Ulutas, F., Alkaya, E., Bogurcu, M., Goksel, N. and Demirer, N. (2012) ‘Determination of the
framework conditions and research–development needs for the dissemination of cleaner
(sustainable) production applications in Turkey’, International Journal of Sustainable
Development & World Ecology, Vol. 19, pp.203–209.
Van Berkel, R., Fujita, T., Hashimoto, S. and Fujii, M. (2009a) ‘Quantitative assessment of urban
and industrial symbiosis in Kawasaki, Japan’, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 43,
No. 5, pp.1271–1281.
Van Berkel, R., Fujita, T., Hashimoto, S. and Geng, Y. (2009b) ‘Industrial and urban symbiosis in
Japan: analysis of the eco-town program 1997–2006’, Journal of Environmental Management,
Vol. 90, No. 3, pp.1544–1556.
Venta, G.J. and Nisbet, M. (1997) Opportunities for Industrial Ecological Parks in Canada. Case
Study of Sarnia–Lambton Industrial Complex, Environment Canada, Ottawa.
 Industrial ecology and eco-industrial development: case studies from Italy 233

Yang, P.P.J. and Lay, O.B. (2004) ‘Applying ecosystem concepts to the planning of industrial
areas: a case study of Singapore’s Jurong Island’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 12,
Nos. 8–10, pp.1011–1023.
Zhu, Q. and Côté, R. (2004) ‘Integrating green supply chain management into an embryonic
eco-industrial development: a case study of the Guitang Group’, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 12, Nos. 8–10, pp.1025–1035.
Zhu, Q., Lowe, E.A., Wei, Y. and Barnes, D. (2007) ‘Industrial symbiosis in china: a case study of
the Guitang group’, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 11, pp.31–42.

Bibliography
Boons, F.A. and Baas, L.W. (1997) ‘Types of industrial ecology: the problem of coordination’,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 5, pp.79–86.
Cohen-Rosenthal, E. (2003) Eco-Industrial Strategies: Unleashing Synergy between Economic
Development and the Environment. What is Eco-Industrial Development?, Greenleaf,
Sheffield, p.367.
Ehrenfeld, J. and Gertler, N. (1996) ‘Industrial Ecology in Practice: The Evolution of
Interdependence at Kalundborg’, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.167–179.
Gallo, P. and Carletti, P. (2000) ‘Principles and guidelines for a sustainable environmental
development’, Proceedings of PLEA 17th International Conf. on Passive and Low Energy
Architecture, 2–5 July, Cambridge, UK.
Gibbs, D. and Deutz, P. (2005) ‘Implementing industrial ecology? Planning for eco industrial parks
in the USA’, Geoforum, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp.452–464.
Zhang, L., Yuan, Z., Bi, J., Zhang, B. and Liu, B. (2010) ‘Eco-industrial parks: national pilot
practices in China’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp.504–509.

View publication stats