A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N

Scaling-Up of Industrial Symbiosis

in the Korean National Eco-Industrial
Park Program
Examining Its Evolution over the 10 Years between 2005–2014
Jooyoung Park,1 Jun-Mo Park,2 and Hung-Suck Park 2,3

1
School of Management, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia
2
Ulsan EIP Center, Korea Industrial Complex Corporation, Ulsan, South Korea
3
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Ulsan, Ulsan, South Korea

Keywords:
Summary
eco-industrial park (EIP)
facilitation In 2005, South Korea initiated the 15-year National Eco-Industrial Park Development
industrial ecology Program in three stages to gradually transform aged industrial complexes into eco-industrial
industrial symbiosis parks (EIPs) by promoting industrial symbiosis (IS). Building upon the pilot experiences from
scaling-up the first 5 years, the second phase of the program focused on the scaling-up of IS at a
South Korea
broader regional level. Key scaling-up strategies included the expansion of target areas by
connecting multiple industrial complexes, the standardization of processes and dissemination
Supporting information is linked of learning, and the development of large-scale projects that could contribute to the regional
to this article on the JIE website development. In this study, we examined the evolution of IS over the last 10 years between
2005 and 2014, primarily to understand the characteristics and impact of these scaling-up
strategies. Our findings showed that the scale of IS in the second phase had increased
in various aspects in comparison to that in the first phase. The number of operating
projects had increased from 52 to 159, the number of participating firms increased from
90 to 596, and the average distance of IS increased from 40 to 48 kilometers. The size of
economic and environmental benefits also increased along with an increase in the private
investment and government research funding. We further analyzed the role of the regional
EIP centers as facilitators, how their activities influenced the scaling-up of IS, and discussed
the characteristics of the Korea’s approach to IS.

Introduction to reduce the environmental impacts of industrial activities,

but also to maximize resource efficiency and to promote re-
Frosch and Gallopoulos (1989) envisioned an industrial
gional development and innovation (Chertow and Park 2016;
ecosystem with circular flows of materials, as in natural ecosys-
Gibbs et al. 2005; Mirata 2004; Yu et al. 2014). Cases of IS
tems, by reusing residues from one industry as feedstock for
have often been uncovered as spontaneous development or,
another industry. Industrial symbiosis (IS), the collaborative ef-
in other cases, promoted through facilitators or pursued more
forts to close the material loop, has drawn increasing atten-
consciously to build sustainable industrial complexes, such as
tion both from academics and practitioners not only as a way
eco-industrial parks (EIPs) (Boons et al. 2017; Chertow 2007;

Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Address correspondence to: Hung-Suck Park. University of Ulsan–Civil and Environmental Engineering Ulsan 680749, Republic of Korea. Email: parkhs@ulsan.ac.kr

© 2018 by Yale University

DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12749 Editor managing review: Raymond Paquin

Volume 00, Number 0

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jie Journal of Industrial Ecology 1

 A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
Van Leeuwen et al. 2003). Representative programs for IS in-
clude the National Industrial Symbiosis Program (NISP) of the
United Kingdom (Paquin and Howard-Grenville 2012; Mirata
2004), the Eco-town Program in Japan (Van Berkel et al. 2009),
and the Circular Economy in China (Zhang et al. 2010; Geng
et al. 2012).
South Korea adopted the idea of IS as a way to restruc-
ture aged industrial complexes, which have driven its rapid
economic development since the 1960s, into EIPs that mini-
mize environmental problems and maximize resource efficiency
(Park et al. 2016). In 2005, the Korean government initiated
the National Eco-Industrial Park Development Program, which
employed a three-stage, gradual approach to build national eco-
industrial networks over 15 years. The first phase (November
2005–May 2010) aimed to establish the foundation of the pro-
gram through experimentation with five pilot industrial sites,
and the second phase (June 2010–December 2014) focused on
expanding the network beyond individual industrial complexes.
The third phase (January 2015–December 2019) eventually
aims to establish a national network that integrates industrial
complexes and urban areas. Boons and colleagues (2017, 8)
characterized this gradual approach to the IS development as
“pilot facilitation and dissemination,” where public organiza-
tions experiment with pilot cases and then the experiences
from the pilot program are transmitted and disseminated to
other actors.
But at a local level, the dynamics of the Korean IS develop-
ment show a strong aspect of the facilitation–collection learning
model (Boons et al. 2017). As a local project execution hub,
the regional EIP centers engaged with the entire process of
project development, implementation, and operation by bring-
ing together all relevant actors, which is a much more active
role than establishing a marketplace to share information and
develop symbiosis in a more self-organized way. The regional
EIP centers not only promoted the bottom-up communication,
participation, and cooperation among businesses, experts, re-
search institutes, and governments, but also adopted top-down
approaches, such as evaluating, selecting, and funding propos-
als. Park and colleagues (2016) described this as an effective
combination of bottom-up and top-down approaches, and an-
alyzed how the activities of the regional EIP centers led to
the successful development of IS during the first 5 years of the
Korean EIP program, by addressing technical, economic, le-
gal/regulatory, as well as behavioral, organizational, and social
factors (Mirata 2004; BCSD-GM 1997; Fichtner et al. 2005).
Behera and colleagues (2012, 104–105) specifically defined this
as the “research and development into business (R&DB)” ap-
proach, because the government funding was used mainly for
supporting research and feasibility studies rather than subsidiz-
ing project development and implementation. The rationale
was to motivate companies voluntarily invest, implement, and
operate the project.
Successful pilot experimentations in the first phase led to the
continuation of the EIP program throughout the second phase,
with an aim to expand the IS and benefits to broader regions.
This led us to the question, how the first-phase facilitation
approach was applied to broader regions to achieve the objective
2 Journal of Industrial Ecology
of the second phase: What approaches did Korea adopt to scale-
up IS and did the approaches effectively achieve the intended
objective of the network expansion? In this study, we focused
on this “scale” aspect of the facilitation approach, and analyzed
the characteristics of the scaling-up strategies as well as their
outcomes over the 10 years of the Korean EIP program.
Our paper is organized as follows. We first describe three
scaling-up strategies adopted in the second phase. We then
present the methods and findings to understand the evolu-
tion of IS in Korea between 2005 and 2014, particularly from
various aspects of scale: the number of projects, IS networks,
and the economic and environmental benefits. Finally, we
discuss the characteristics of the Korean approach to derive
broader lessons from the 10 years of experience, and conclude
with some thoughts on future directions of IS development in
Korea.
Scaling-Up Strategies
Through the pilot experimentation in five industrial sites,
Korea established its own facilitation approach to IS devel-
opment based on the regional EIP centers. This pilot experi-
mentation led to more than 52 resource-sharing projects1 going
into operation. But it became more difficult to use the same ap-
proach to further develop IS, as the opportunities for additional
projects decreased and the budget from the national govern-
ment was limited (see table S1 in the supporting information
available on the Journal’s website for detailed context analy-
sis). This led KICOX (Korea Industrial Complex Corporation),
an administrative body that was in charge of the Korean EIP
program, to expand the program target areas and adjust the
organizational structure at the beginning of the second phase.
Also, throughout the second phase, KICOX and regional EIP
centers continuously searched for better ways to promote IS
in a broader region. We identified these efforts and classified
them into three scaling-up strategies: (1) the expansion and
regionalization of the target area for IS development; (2) the
standardization of processes and dissemination of learning to
promote and expand IS; and (3) the promotion of large-scale
projects that contribute to the regional development.
Expansion and Regionalization of Industrial Symbiosis
Target Areas
At the end of the first phase, the number of firms that actu-
ally participated in IS projects was still small compared to the
total number of firms located in the target industrial complexes.
However, increasing the number of participating firms became
more difficult, because (1) low-hanging projects were mostly de-
veloped during the first phase and (2) the Industrial Cluster De-
velopment and Factory Establishment Act (KICOX and RIST
2010) limited potential scavengers (e.g., environmental indus-
tries that process and recycle by-products) to be located within
an industrial complex,2 which hindered the development of
IS networks within the administrative boundaries (Geng and
Côté 2002). These challenges raised the need to broaden the

Figure 1 Target industrial complexes in the first phase (left) and the second phase (right).
target areas beyond the boundary of a single industrial complex
to increase the technical opportunities for potential IS devel-
opment. These lessons learned from the first phase are aligned
with the argument by Sterr and Ott (2004) that a “region” is
the appropriate level for IS, as it is broad enough to offer op-
portunities for input-output (I-O) matching, but small enough
to allow social dynamics to occur.
As the scale of target areas was expanded to a regional level
that included several small and regional industrial complexes,
the involvement of local and regional governments became
more important. IS with companies from smaller complexes
required the involvement of local government, such as for pro-
viding matching funds or building necessary infrastructure. In
the first phase, local governments were not actively involved
in the EIP program, because most development efforts focused
on mobilizing businesses and the main benefits of the projects
were for businesses. To promote the participation of local gov-
ernments during the second phase, KICOX requested EIP plans
submitted from the local governments, instead of the regional
EIP centers or industry associations.
In June 2010, the Ministry of Knowledge Economy (cur-
rently known as the Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy
[MOTIE]) initiated the second phase to regionalize the EIP
program by designating eight national and regional industrial
complexes as hub EIPs and several regional industrial com-
plexes around them as spoke EIPs (KICOX 2014). The hub
and spoke industrial complexes were first proposed by local
governments, considering local context for potential IS devel-
opment and connectivity among industrial complexes. Figure 1
shows the location of 46 complexes eventually designed as tar-
get complexes by January 2013, in comparison to the five pilot
complexes from the first phase.
Park et al., Evolution of the Korean Eco-Industrial Park Program
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
With the regionalization, the organizational structure was
adjusted accordingly. In the first phase, the regional EIP centers
in the five pilot sites administered the overall process of project
development, with the inputs from a regional advisory board
(composed of representatives from industry, academia, and gov-
ernment) and under the management of KICOX (e.g., overall
planning, budgeting, and project approval) (Park et al. 2016).
In the second phase, the role of KICOX remained the same,
but the activities of the regional EIP centers covered broader
regions, through nine subcenters (figure S1 in the supporting
information on the Web).
Promotion of Industrial Symbiosis through
Standardization and Dissemination
With the regionalization of target sites, the second phase
focused on standardizing and disseminating the strategies es-
tablished during the first phase. In 2012, KICOX published
manuals regarding the standard processes of project exploration
and development, as well as follow-up processes, such as imple-
mentation and evaluation (figure S2 in the supporting informa-
tion on the Web) (KICOX 2014). The manuals also presented
criteria to evaluate the performance of regional EIP centers. In
the first phase, the criteria were the same across five pilot sites,
but the criteria in the second phase included self-evaluations
that reflected regional contexts and situations.
From the first phase of the EIP program, successful cases of
IS began to be accumulated. Symbiosis linkages in those cases
indicated that they were technically and economically feasible
in certain contexts. To take advantage of proven innovations
and to spread similar IS cases into other parts of the region,3
KICOX compiled successful cases and then disseminated the
3
 A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
information by presenting them in workshops, seminars, and
exhibitions and/or conferences, which had been held regularly
since the first phase of the EIP program and by publishing case
books in 2010 (KICOX 2014). In addition, KICOX regularly
updated the information about the EIP program on its official
website and published more than 1,900 news articles about IS
cases during the second phase (KICOX 2014).
Large-Scale Industrial Symbiosis and Regional
Development
The pilot experimentation of the first phase primarily fo-
cused on developing the most feasible symbiosis exchanges that
have smaller risk. Implementation was prioritized for projects
that could draw relatively larger returns with smaller investment
or that had shorter payback periods. Many by-product projects
implemented during the first phase did not require much invest-
ment for reprocessing and treatment (Park et al. 2016). While
this approach was effective for developing low-hanging projects,
it left out the development of larger-scale projects that required
longer-term planning. The fundamental transition into EIPs
needs the transformation of the industrial base and infrastruc-
ture over a longer term, which would eventually be linked to
regional development and innovation.
Since around 2008, local governments, which provided
matching funds to the EIP projects, had demanded the de-
velopment of projects that suit their regional needs. These tend
to include large-scale infrastructure projects, because they can
generate considerable public benefits, such as a reduction in
environmental degradation and the upgrading of the industrial
base, and therefore contribute to regional development. More
active participation of the local governments also allowed the
development of larger-scale projects that tend to require huge
upfront investment and longer payback periods (e.g., more than
5 years). The later phase of the EIP program increasingly fo-
cused on building an innovative “regional model” for IS that
went beyond developing individual symbiosis projects, and even
integrated IS projects into regional development plans.
Methods
To evaluate the effects of scaling-up strategies, we ana-
lyzed the outcomes of IS development in Korea over the last
10 years (2005–2014) from three scale aspects: (1) the num-
ber of projects that have been developed, implemented, and
in operation, (2) the IS network, and (3) the level of associ-
ated economic and environmental benefits. These were either
analyzed over time or the outcomes at the end of the second
phase were compared to the outcomes from the first phase. The
analysis was based on the information of all IS projects that
were completed and went into operation, which were tracked
and documented by the regional EIP centers and submitted to
KICOX for annual evaluations. This was easily obtained as one
of the authors served as a director of a regional EIP center and
directly involved with the Korean EIP program.
4 Journal of Industrial Ecology
To understand the growth of IS networks, we conducted
three different analyses. First, network analysis was conducted
using NetMiner 4.0 to examine changes in size and structure of
the network between two phases, for example, in terms of the
number of participating firms, connections, and density. The
second analysis was to examine the composition of two types of
IS over the two phases: (1) internal IS, where the exchange of
waste materials occurs within the boundary of industrial com-
plexes, and (2) external IS, where the exchanges occur across
the boundary, for example between a hub industrial complex
and a spoke industrial complex. This was specifically to examine
the impact of the first scaling-up strategy (i.e., the regionaliza-
tion of the target areas), whether it increased the distance of
IS, or rather it increased the number of local symbiosis within
the boundary of an industrial complex. In the third analysis, we
measured the geographical distance of IS.4 For each IS project,
a waste provider and a user were identified, and the linear dis-
tance between the two was estimated using Google Maps and
Excel according to their address information. If an IS project in-
volved any intermediary company or facility, a series of bilateral
distances were estimated separately.
We also analyzed economic and environmental benefits of
IS, which were reported directly by participating companies
when the project began operation. The economic benefits, the
sum of cost savings and revenues from IS, were calculated to
understand how IS improves the overall economic efficiency
compared to the initial situation, or the total economic sur-
plus that motivates the companies to participate in IS. We
presented annual benefits and cumulative benefits that were
estimated linearly based on the annual figures. The environ-
mental benefits were evaluated in terms of the direct reduction
of energy consumption as well as reduction in the generation of
waste, wastewater, and emissions (i.e., carbon dioxide [CO2 ])
as a result of IS. It is important to note that these were con-
servative estimates, because the total environmental benefits
would be much larger if we included indirect impacts, such as
the energy saved by avoiding the production of virgin materials
substituted by by-products. The estimation of the total envi-
ronmental benefits would require follow-up studies based on
life cycle assessment (Sokka et al. 2011; Mattila et al. 2010;
Eckelman and Chertow 2013).
Evolution of Industrial Symbiosis between
2005–2014
In this section, we will present the outcomes of IS develop-
ment between 2005 and 2014, and discuss the role of facilitators,
how the activities of regional EIP centers helped expand the IS.
Project Development and Implementation
The second phase of the Korean EIP program implemented
221 symbiosis projects out of the 346 projects that were de-
veloped. By the end of 2014, a total of 107 projects were in
operation. This is a significant increase (i.e., 106%) compared

90
Number of Projects
By-Product
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
-
D I O D I O D I O D I O D I O D I O D I O D I O D I O D I O
1st year 2nd year 3rd year
1st Phase EIP
Figure 2 Number of by-product, energy, wastewater, and other projects developed (D), implemented (I), and in operation (O) during the
first and second phase of the Korean EIP program (2005–2014). EIP = eco-industrial park.
to 52 projects implemented in the first phase. Figure 2 shows
the overall increasing trends in the number of projects devel-
oped, implemented, and in operation between 2005 and 2014.
This continuous expansion of IS happened without reported
cases of breakup or unexpected halt, and this is probably due
to the well-established contingency or risk management plans
prepared during the negotiation phase of the IS development.
The use of by-products or waste materials tends to pose chal-
lenges in collection, transportation, storage, and/or processing,
because of their fluctuating generation and nonuniform quality
(Tibben-Lembke and Rogers 2002; Toffel 2004). This can make
firms reluctant to engage in IS to avoid relying on unstable ex-
changes and having a reputational damage when symbiosis goes
wrong. To address the complication, the regional EIP centers,
if necessary, intervened the negotiation process and supported
the inclusion and arrangement of a contingency plan, for ex-
ample, by having a backup boiler that can be used whenever
there is a problem in the supply of steam.
The development and operation of large-scale projects
linked to the regional development was notable in the sec-
ond phase. A representative example is the “Ulsan Hydro-
gen Town” project initiated in 2012 (Ulsan Metropolitan City
2016). The Ulsan EIP led a symbiosis project in 2009 to reuse
by-product hydrogen generated from the fluoride electrolysis
process from petrochemical industries (KICOX 2009). This ex-
perience led to an energy test bed project that uses hydrogen by-
products from industrial processes as residential energy sources
using hydrogen fuel cells. The City of Ulsan will further invest
43.2 million U.S. dollars (USD) to build a fuel cell demonstra-
tion complex in the Ulsan Techno Industrial Complex around
2019. Another large-scale project in Ulsan includes the steam
highway project. Developed over 2 years since 2011, it is to
provide 100 tonnes-per-hour residual steam generated from a
chemical company to other local companies for 15 years from
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
Energy Wastewater Others
4th year 5th year 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year 5th year
2nd Phase EIP
2014 to 2029. This project required an upfront investment of
approximately 66.7 million USD, mainly for the construction
of a 6.2-km (kilometer) of high-pressure steam pipeline, and
48% of it was publicly financed by KICOX and ESCO fund
(Ulsan EIP Center 2013). It is expected that the project would
generate 18 million USD of annual economic benefits to the
three parties involved in the initial phase (Ulsan Metropolitan
City 2013).
The wastewater reuse project in Pohang is to treat up to
100,000 cubic meters per day of municipal wastewater and pro-
vide it for industrial uses for 20 years beginning in 2014 (City
of Pohang 2015). The idea of the project was already proposed
in 2008 following the wastewater reuse policy of the Ministry
of Environment, but it took time to evaluate its feasibility,
design necessary details, and operate the project. This project
is expected to cover 45% of future industrial water demand
in the Pohang national industrial complex, relieving expected
water stress in the future. The project drew 50.3 million USD
of private investment in addition to the environmental subsi-
dies (68.0 million USD) from the Ministry of Environment and
additional 7.5 million USD from Pohang City. This was the
first public-private partnership project for municipal wastew-
ater recycling in Korea. The project is expected to generate
approximately 1 million USD of economic benefits per year.
Industrial Symbiosis Networks
As shown in figure 3, the number of participating firms (i.e.,
nodes) grew from 90 in the first phase to 596 in the second
phase, and the material exchanges and connections (i.e., to-
tal edges) grew from 81 to 573. However, the density of the
network decreased from 0.01 in the first phase to 0.002 in the
second phase. These results indicate that some networks grew in
size (particularly in Yeosu and Jeonnam, single-industry regions
Park et al., Evolution of the Korean Eco-Industrial Park Program 5
 A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
Figure 3 Networks of industrial symbiosis at the end of the first phase (left) and the second phase (right).
Figure 4 Number of industrial symbiosis projects implemented (I) and in operation (O) over the second phase (2010–2014), according
to the geospatial scope (internal vs. external symbiosis).
dominated by chemical industries), but more significant growth
occurred in the number of independent networks. This shows
that the facilitation by the regional EIP centers were effective
mainly in attracting new firms to develop the first IS (Park et al.
2016; Behera et al. 2012), rather than promoting the develop-
ment of additional symbiosis among existing actors. Actually,
due to the nature of the government-led program, the regional
EIP centers avoided providing concentrated supports to firms
that already had projects. Also, we observed that in many cases,
the first IS did not lead to the organic development of an ad-
ditional project. For example, a symbiosis on energy rarely led
to the development of a water symbiosis, because the issues
around energy, water, and waste were dealt with separately by
different departments and/or at the hands of those who do not
have decision-making power. This lack of integration among
environmental issues and managerial decision making within
6 Journal of Industrial Ecology
an organization seemed to impede the organic development of
IS in Korea.
As shown in figure 4, the expansion in the boundary of tar-
get areas promoted the development of external IS that went
beyond the administrative boundary and the share of external
symbiosis increased over time. As of 2014, 64% of the total
projects that were in operation during the second phase oc-
curred across the administrative boundary. This shows that the
regionalization of the target areas increased the (technically)
available options for IS that occur across boundaries. We did
not observe significant obstacles to crossing the industrial com-
plex boundaries in implementing IS. Instead, we recognized
that the increase of IS across the boundaries often required the
involvement of local governments, in the form of financial sup-
port or administrative assistance for infrastructure and business
development, which was arranged by the regional EIP centers.
 A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N

Figure 5 Number of industrial symbiosis projects according to the distance between participating firms (above) and the average distance
of industrial symbiosis according to the type of resources exchanged in the first and the second phases (below). km = kilometers.

Figure 5 represents the distribution of IS according to the
distance between participating firms (e.g., waste provider, user,
and intermediary processor). In the first phase, approximately
65% of the IS occurred at distances less than 10 km. The
minimum distance was 0, which indicated that the reuse oc-
curred internally within the same company. The maximum
distance was 312 km for an exchange of copper hydroxide be-
tween a supplier company at Banwol-Sihwa and a user company
at Ulsan Mippo. In the second phase, approximately 68% of the
projects occurred at distances less than 40 km, with a maximum
distance of 312 km for the copper hydroxide exchange that
began operation in the first phase. On average, the distance
of IS increased from 40 km in the first phase to 48 km in the
second phase. According to the type of resource exchanged,
by-products generally turned out to be exchanged at longer
distances (51 to 54 km), while energy and wastewater sharing
occurred at much shorter distances (1 to 28 and 5 to 11 km,
respectively). The average distances of by-product exchange,
energy sharing, and wastewater sharing over the 10 years were
54, 26, and 10 km, respectively. These turned out to be longer
than the distances observed in the 81 IS in the Tianjin Eco-
nomic Technological-Development Area (TEDA) (i.e., 28.2
km for by-product exchanges, 2.9 km for energy sharing, and
3.5 km for water sharing) (Shi et al. 2010) and the median dis-
tance observed in 792 NISP synergies (i.e., 20.4 miles) (Jensen
et al. 2011).
With the regionalization of target areas, more IS occurred
at longer distances and the average distance increased by
8 km. The longest distance was over 300 km, which shows that
long-distance symbiosis is possible as long as it is economically
viable (Chen et al. 2012; Lyons et al. 2009). The coordination
between firms and key persons do not seem to be significantly
affected or impeded by the geographical distances, similar to the
case of NISP. Instead, the presence of third-party coordinator,
such as the regional EIP centers, is likely to reduce the transac-
tion costs that may increase as the distance increases, although
there are various other factors, such as cognitive, institutional,
social, and organizational proximity, that may determine the
development of IS (Velenturf and Jensen 2016; Prosman et al.
2017).
Economic and Environmental Performance
Table 1 shows the annual economic benefits from IS and the
total cumulative benefits accrued at the end of 2014. The level
of total economic benefits had generally increased since 2007,

Park et al., Evolution of the Korean Eco-Industrial Park Program 7

 A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N

Table 1 Annual economic benefits from industrial symbiosis projects in operation between the first and second phases (2005–2014a ),
investments made, and funding provided for project research as well as cumulative figures (Cum.) at the end of 2014 (unit: million USD,
1 USD = 1,000 KRW)

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Cum.

Projects (in operation), A 1 2 10 8 30 33 35 40 159

Economic benefits, B = C+D 3.9 11.8 38.0 60.0 58.0 86.3 54.3 92.3 1,333.8
(B/A)
(3.9) (5.9) (3.8) (7.5) (1.9) (2.6) (1.6) (2.3) (8.4)

Cost savings, C 2.9 4.6 20.7 27.7 15.9 25.1 34.0 29.3 554.3

Revenue, D 1.0 7.2 17.3 32.3 42.1 61.3 20.3 63.0 779.4

Investments, E (B/E) 0.9 7.0 52.8 59.2 47.9 91.4 117.3 214.8 591.3
(4.5) (1.7) (0.7) (1.0) (1.2) (0.9) (0.5) (0.4) (2.3)

Research support, F = G+H+I 0.0 0.1 1.3 4.1 3.8 5.0 6.3 7.1 27.8
(B/F)
(91.6) (84.9) (28.6) (14.8) (15.2) (17.3) (8.6) (13.0) (48.0)

Central gov’t, G 0.0 0.1 1.1 3.5 2.8 3.4 4.4 4.6 20.0

Local gov’t, H 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.2 1.4 4.3

Business, I 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0 3.5
a Noeconomic benefits were accrued in 2005 and 2006, because no projects were in operation. Neither investment nor research support was made during
those years.
USD = U.S. dollars; KRW = Korean won.

when the first project was in operation. The size of economic
benefits per project, however, was smaller in the second phase
due to the development smaller projects by small- and medium-
sized companies. The private investment made by participating
firms increased over time. This implies that more businesses
recognized the benefits of IS and therefore became willing to
invest more for feasible returns. A similar increasing pattern was
also seen in the research funding: The central government had
initially provided the majority of the research funding, but the
contributions from the local government increased over time,
which was driven by the participation of smaller companies from
regional industrial complexes and the development of large-
scale projects.
Table 2 shows the annual environmental benefits from the
IS projects and the cumulative benefits accrued at the end
of 2014. The per-project annual benefits in the second phase
were in general smaller than the total annual benefits in the
first phase, implying that the per-project annual benefits were
not particularly scaled-up. The scale of environmental benefits
varies significantly according to the type of projects and there-
fore more accurate comparison should be done at the project
level. A significant effect on wastewater reduction was notable
in 2014 (e.g., 36,558 kilotonnes [ktonnes]), and this was be-
cause of the operation of Pohang wastewater project. This one
large project generated almost a 1,000 times bigger effect than
other projects, which shows the dominant environmental ef-
fects of larger-scale projects. For energy use and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, significant effects observed were also the re-
sults of large-scale project operations, such as the Ulsan steam
highway project, one other steam network project in Ulsan, and
the large-scale project for paper sludge in Jeonnam.
In terms of cumulative environmental benefits, the second-
phase projects reduced the generation of 1,283 thousand tonnes
of by-products (compared to 501 tonnes in the first phase), 379
thousand tonnes of oil equivalent [toe] of energy (vs. 74 toe),
238 thousand tonnes of wastewater (vs. 164 tonnes), and 1,584
thousand tonnes of CO2 equivalent of GHG emissions (vs.
700 tonnes). These are 2 to 4 times bigger achievements than
the outcomes from the first phase. In total, the Korean EIP
program reduced 3,653 ktonnes of by-product disposal (6.50%
of industrial waste generation in 2014) (Korea Environment
Corporation 2015), 992 thousand toe of energy consumption
(0.76% of energy consumption in industry in 2013) (Korea En-
ergy Economics Institute 2014), 37,341 ktonnes of wastewater
(3.32% of wastewater generation from industrial complexes in
2013) (The Ministry of Environment 2013), and 4,703 ktonnes
of GHG emissions (0.68% of national GHG emissions in 2013)
(GIR 2015).
Discussions: Korea’s Approach
to Industrial Symbiosis and Future
Directions
As shown, the Korea’s approach based on the regional
EIP centers as facilitator effectively developed and scaled-up
IS over the last 10 years. However, instead of being contin-
ued until 2019 as originally planned, the Korean EIP program

8 Journal of Industrial Ecology

 A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N

Table 2 Annual direct environmental benefits from industrial symbiosis projects in operation between the first and second phases (2005–
2014* ) as well as cumulative figures (Cum.) at the end of 2014 (unit: 1,000 tonnes, 1,000 toe for energy)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Cum.

Projects (in operation) 1 2 10 8 30 33 35 40 159

By-products 0 38 78 230 70 53 8 10 2,353

First Energy 4 19 23 46 17 17 52 3 754

Wastewater 37 0 0 37 37 36,558 36,963

CO2 12 60 111 247 72 50 115 27 3,119

By-products 12 301 37 257 1,283

Second Energy 5 20 38 3 11 238

Wastewater 73 21 11 1 379

CO2 11 50 301 76 272 1,584

*No environmental benefits were accrued in 2005 and 2006, because no projects were in operation.
CO2 = carbon dioxide.

officially ended in 2016. The Korean government considered
that the EIP program sufficiently achieved its original objec-
tives and the development of IS could be taken more as vol-
untary business initiatives. Upon the closure of the Korean
EIP program, we analyzed the characteristics of the Korean
approach to IS development—how it is differentiated from
the approach of other countries, and how it effectively ad-
dresses underlying contexts (e.g., embeddedness)—and pre-
sented what efforts are currently underway to continue its
development.
The Korea’s approach to IS has two key elements: (1) gov-
ernment financial and institutional supports and (2) facilitation
and coordination by the regional EIP centers. Government
support is also prominent in the IS programs of China and
Japan, but the way that government involved is different across
three countries. The programs of China (e.g., the national EIP
demonstration program, the circular transformation of indus-
trial parks, and the low-carbon industrial park program) provide
funding for an industrial park to develop IS on its own way,
and grant EIP certification when it meets a certain standard
(Zhang et al. 2010; Geng et al. 2009). This approach focuses
more on ensuring outcomes rather than controlling a process of
IS development in a specific way. The Korean approach, con-
trarily, provides support more at the process and project level.
Regional EIP centers provide necessary assistance throughout
all the processes when companies develop and implement
each feasible project. The Eco-town program of Japan granted
funding to municipalities to upgrade recycling technologies and
infrastructure as well as to support community recycling and
outreach activities (Van Berkel et al. 2009). But in Korea, the
government funding was used mainly for conducting a feasibil-
ity study to evaluate the potential benefits of a project. When
companies realize potential benefits, they make necessary in-
vestment for project development and implementation, often
along with investment from public sectors (e.g., public-private
partnerships).
In the Korean model, many on-the-ground activities to de-
velop, implement, and operate IS were coordinated by the re-
gional EIP centers. The regional EIP centers assumed a proac-
tive role to achieve their proposed annual targets and receive
good evaluations from the government. For this reason, the ac-
tivities of the regional EIP centers became heavily goal-driven:
Only feasible proposals with significant potential outcomes were
selected and promoted, and any hindering issues in communi-
cation, information sharing, negotiation, or regulation were
addressed. This facilitation approach is comparable to the goal-
oriented approach adopted in the later phase of the NISP pro-
gram, where facilitators proactively pursue connecting firms
and creating projects together with firms (Paquin and Howard-
Grenville 2012). This implies that IS development in Korea
relies largely on the capacities of the facilitators.
Building on to the previous analysis of the success factors
by Park and colleagues (2016), we can analyze how the Ko-
rean approach and the activities of the regional EIP centers
effectively addressed six types of embeddedness for IS (Howard-
Grenville and Boons 2009). The regional EIP centers helped
raise awareness and provided tailored resources to support de-
cision making of individual firms, for example, by conducting
feasibility studies and/or pilot tests for new processing tech-
nologies (cognitive embeddedness). The regional EIP centers
also brought diverse stakeholders together, including technical
experts, universities, and governments, and coordinated their
communication and timely information sharing (structural and
temporal embeddedness). They established a favorable institu-
tional environment by revising regulations and linking firms to
funding opportunities (political embeddedness). As more suc-
cessful cases of IS and the activities of the regional EIP centers
are known, we have observed that it created increasing norms

Park et al., Evolution of the Korean Eco-Industrial Park Program 9

 A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
and pressures of developing IS in the similar industrial sectors
and regions (cultural embeddedness). This was possible because
Korea has diverse industries concentrated in industrial com-
plexes, which provided ample opportunities for I-O matching
(spatial embeddedness).
The ending of the government-led Korean EIP program led
to the discussions of how to maintain the momentum of IS de-
velopment in Korea. Due to the recognized role of facilitators
in the Korean approach, one of the ongoing efforts focuses on
creating a research center to educate future facilitators, while
establishing a more self-sustaining institutional environment
to support their activities. Potential approaches include estab-
lishing a system where facilitators receive a part of the project
benefits as fees and/or a RESCO (Resource Efficiency Services
Company) fund that provides financial support for IS projects,
similarly to the ESCO fund for energy efficiency projects. Devel-
oping capable facilitators and establishing a more self-sustaining
system would be a way forward to further promote IS develop-
ment in Korea.
Conclusions
In this study, we introduced three key scaling-up strate-
gies adopted in the second phase of the Korean EIP program
and examined how IS has evolved in scale over the last 10
years between 2005–2014. With the aim of network expan-
sion, the second phase expanded the target areas, standard-
ized processes and disseminated learning, and promoted the
development of large-scale projects that led to regional devel-
opment. As a result, we showed that IS in the second phase
was scaled-up in various aspects, such as in terms of the num-
ber of operating projects, the number of participating firms,
and the average distance of IS, as well as the total size of
economic and environmental benefits. As facilitators, the re-
gional EIP centers played a central role in the development and
scaling-up of IS in Korea, by promoting the collective learn-
ing among diverse actors and addressing challenges through the
process.
Funding Information
This study was financially supported by the 2016 Research
Fund of University of Ulsan (Project No.: 2016-0148).
Notes
1. This is an updated figure, and therefore it is slightly different from
the figure presented in Park and colleagues (2016).
2. According to the previous Industrial Cluster Development and
Factory Establishment Act, environmental industries were not al-
lowed to be located within an industrial complex due to con-
cerns about emissions. However, during the second phase of the
Korean EIP program, the law was revised to allow their estab-
lishment within an industrial cluster as manufacturing supporting
facilities.
10 Journal of Industrial Ecology
3. For example, steam-sharing IS was first developed in Ulsan in
2006 and later applied to the other EIP regions of Busan, Chung-
buk, Daegu, and Gyeongbuk (KICOX 2012). As businesses aware
more about the value of waste heat, we also observed increasing
competition around steam, which led to the discussions of estab-
lishing a thermal grid in Ulsan. Other examples of dissemination
included: IS that involved the production and reuse of methyl
metacrylate and aluminum oxide from artificial marble waste that
was first developed in the Jeonnam region in 2009 and then repli-
cated in Chungbuk in 2010 (KICOX 2012); and the idea of pro-
ducing probiotics using waste from the confectionery and noodle
industries that was developed in 2011 in the Jeonbuk region, and
replicated and applied a year later in Daegu (KICOX 2013).
4. Out of the 585 bilateral networks, 436 networks (i.e., 75% of the
total, including 62 networks from the first phase and 374 networks
from the second phase) were included in the distance calculation
with verifiable geospatial information.
References
BCSD-GM (The Business Council for Sustainable Development–Gulf
of Mexico). 1997. By-product synergy: A strategy for sustainable
development: A primer. Austin, TX, USA: The Business Council
for Sustainable Development–Gulf of Mexico.
Behera, S. K., J. H. Kim, S. Y. Lee, S. Suh, and H. S. Park. 2012.
Evolution of ‘designed’ industrial symbiosis networks in the Ulsan
Eco-industrial Park: ‘Research and development into business’ as
the enabling framework. Journal of Cleaner Production 29–30: 103–
112.
Boons, F., M. Chertow, J. Park, W. Spekkink, and H. Shi. 2017. Indus-
trial symbiosis dynamics and the problem of equivalence: Proposal
for a comparative framework. Journal of Industrial Ecology 21(4):
938–952.
Chen, X., T. Fujita, S. Ohnishi, M. Fujii, and Y. Geng. 2012. The
impact of scale, recycling boundary, and type of waste on symbiosis
and recycling: An empirical study of Japanese eco-towns. Journal
of Industrial Ecology 16(1): 129–141.
Chertow, M. and J. Y. Park. 2016. Scholarship and practice in in-
dustrial symbiosis: 1989–2014. In Taking stock of industrial ecology,
edited by R. Clift and A. Druckman. Cham, Switzerland: Springer
International.
Chertow, M. R. 2007. “Uncovering” industrial symbiosis. Journal of
Industrial Ecology 11(1): 11–30.
City of Pohang. 2015. A status report for the wastewater treatment and
reuse project in Pohang. Pohang: City of Pohang.
Eckelman, M. and M. Chertow. 2013. Life cycle energy and
environmental benefits of a US industrial symbiosis. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18(8): 1524–
1532.
Fichtner, W., I. Tietze-Stockinger, M. Frank, and O. Rentz. 2005.
Barriers of interorganizational environmental management: Two
case studies on industrial symbiosis. Progress in Industrial Ecology
2(1): 73–88.
Frosch, R. A. and N. E. Gallopoulos. 1989. Strategies for manufactur-
ing. Scientific American 261(3): 144–152.
Geng, Y. and R. P. Côté. 2002. Scavengers and decomposers in an eco-
industrial park. International Journal of Sustainable Development and
World Ecology 9(4): 333–340.
Geng, Y., P. Zhang, R. P. Côté, and T. Fujita. 2009. Assessment
of the National Eco-Industrial Park Standard for Promoting

Industrial Symbiosis in China. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13(1):
15–26.
Geng, Y., J. Fu, J. Sarkis, and B. Xue. 2012. Towards a national circular
economy indicator system in China: An evaluation and critical
analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 23(1): 216–224.
Gibbs, D., P. Deutz, and A. Proctor. 2005. Industrial ecology and eco-
industrial development: A potential paradigm for local and re-
gional development? Regional Studies 39(2): 171–183.
GIR. 2015. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report of Korea:
Greenhouse Gas Inventory & Research Center of Korea. Seoul:
Ministry of Environment.
Howard-Grenville, J. and F. Boons. 2009. The social embeddedness of
industrial ecology: Exploring the dynamics of industrial ecosys-
tems. In The social embeddedness of industrial ecology. Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar.
Jensen, P. D., L. Basson, E. E. Hellawell, M. R. Bailey, and M. Leach.
2011. Quantifying ‘geographic proximity’: Experiences from the
United Kingdom’s National Industrial Symbiosis Programme.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55(7): 703–712.
KICOX. 2009. A status report for the National EIP program: The fourth
year of the first phase. Seoul: Ministry of Knowledge Economy.
KICOX. 2012. A status report of the National EIP program: The second
year of the second phase. Seoul: KICOX.
KICOX. 2013. A status report for the National EIP program: The third
year of the second phase. Seoul: KICOX.
KICOX. 2014. A Review Report for the Second-phase National Eco-
Industrial Park Program of Korea. Seoul: KICOX.
KICOX and RIST. 2010. Eco-Industrial Park Construction Plan: The
1st Step Report. Seoul: KICOX.
Korea Energy Economics Institute. 2014. Yearbook of Energy Statistics.
Gyeonggi-do: KEEI and Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy.
Korea Environment Corporation. 2015. National waste generation and
treatment in 2014. Incheon: KECO.
Lyons, D., M. Rice, and R. Wachal. 2009. Circuits of scrap: Closed
loop industrial ecosystems and the geography of us international
recyclable material flows 1995–2005. Geographical Journal 175(4):
286–300.
Mattila, T. J., S. Pakarinen, and L. Sokka. 2010. Quantifying the total
environmental impacts of an industrial symbiosis—A compari-
son of process-, hybrid and input-output life cycle assessment.
Environmental Science & Technology 44(11): 4309–4314.
Mirata, M. 2004. Experiences from early stages of a national industrial
symbiosis programme in the UK: Determinants and coordination
challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production 12(8–10): 967–983.
Paquin, R. L. and J. Howard-Grenville. 2012. The evolution of fa-
cilitated industrial symbiosis. Journal of Industrial Ecology 16(1):
83–93.
Park, J. M., J. Y. Park, and H.-S. Park. 2016. A review of the National
Eco-Industrial Park Development Program in Korea: Progress and
Supporting Information
Supporting information is linked to this article on the JIE website:
Supporting Information S1: This supporting information includes a table with SWOT analysis for the second-phase EIP
program, a figure illustrating the organizational structure of the second-phase EIP program, and a flow chart showing the
standard process for industrial symbiosis project exploration, development, and assessment.
Park et al., Evolution of the Korean Eco-Industrial Park Program
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
achievements in the first phase, 2005–2010. Journal of Cleaner
Production 114: 33–44.
Prosman, E. J., B. V. Wæhrens, and G. Liotta. 2017. Closing global
material loops: Initial insights into firm-level challenges. Journal
of Industrial Ecology 21(3): 641–650.
Shi, H., M. Chertow, and Y. Y. Song. 2010. Developing country ex-
perience with eco-industrial parks: A case study of the Tianjin
Economic-Technological Development Area in China. Journal of
Cleaner Production 18(3): 191–199.
Sokka, L., S. Lehtoranta, A. Nissinen, and M. Melanen. 2011. Ana-
lyzing the environmental benefits of industrial symbiosis. Journal
of Industrial Ecology 15(1): 137–155.
Sterr, T. and T. Ott. 2004. The industrial region as a promising
unit for eco-industrial development—Reflections, practical ex-
perience and establishment of innovative instruments to support
industrial ecology. Journal of Cleaner Production 12(8–10): 947–
965.
The Ministry of Environment. 2013. Wastewater generation and dis-
charge from industrial complexes in 2013. Environmental Statis-
tics. Sejong-si: The Ministry of Environment.
Tibben-Lembke, R. S. and D. S. Rogers. 2002. Differences between
forward and reverse logistics in a retail environment. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 7(5): 271–282.
Toffel, M. W. 2004. Strategic management of product recovery. Cali-
fornia Management Review 46(2): 120–141.
Ulsan EIP Center. 2013. Status of Ulsan Steam Highway Project Devel-
opment. Ulsan: KICOX.
Ulsan Metropolitan City. 2013. Ulsan Steam Highway Project. http://
blog.ulsan.go.kr/4351. Accessed 17 August 2016.
Ulsan Metropolitan City. 2016. Ulsan Hydrogen Town. http://
h2town.utp.or.kr/. Accessed 23 August 2016.
Van Berkel, R., T. Fujita, S. Hashimoto, and Y. Geng. 2009. Industrial
and urban symbiosis in Japan: Analysis of the Eco-Town program
1997–2006. Journal of Environmental Management 90(3): 1544–
1556.
Van Leeuwen, M. G., W. J. V. Vermeulen, and P. Glasbergen.
2003. Planning eco-industrial parks: An analysis of Dutch plan-
ning methods. Business Strategy and the Environment 12(3): 147–
162.
Velenturf, A. P. M. and P. D. Jensen. 2016. Promoting industrial sym-
biosis: Using the concept of proximity to explore social network
development. Journal of Industrial Ecology 20(4): 700–709.
Yu, C., C. Davis, and G. P. J. Dijkema. 2014. Understanding the
evolution of industrial symbiosis research: A bibliometric and
network analysis (1997–2012). Journal of Industrial Ecology 18(2):
280–293.
Zhang, L., Z. W. Yuan, J. Bi, B. Zhang, and B. B. Liu. 2010. Eco-
industrial parks: National pilot practices in China. Journal of
Cleaner Production 18(5): 504–509.
11