FORUM

Assessment of the National

Eco-Industrial Park Standard
for Promoting Industrial
Symbiosis in China
Yong Geng, Pan Zhang, Raymond P. Côté, and Tsuyoshi Fujita

Keywords:
Summary
eco-industrial park (EIP)
eco-efficiency Eco-industrial park (EIP) projects have become more preva-
environmental indicator lent in China. In order to evaluate the performance of such
industrial symbiosis innovative projects, the State Environmental Protection Ad-
industrial ecology ministration (SEPA) has set up a new national standard for
industrial ecosystem
EIPs, the first of its kind globally. This article examines the ap-
plicability and feasibility of the indicator system established in
Supplementary material is available the standard. It first presents the details of this new standard.
on JIE Web site Then benefits and challenges in the standard’s application are
analyzed. The analysis shows that the new indicators are eco-
efficiency-oriented and do not address the essence of the EIP.
In the future, there will be a need to revise this set of indicators
by considering the principles of eco-industrial development
and local realities in order to ensure that the indicators are
indeed used to promote sustainable development of industrial
parks.

Address correspondence to:

Prof. Yong Geng
Circular Economy and Industrial Ecology
Research Group
Institute of Applied Ecology
Chinese Academy of Science
Shenyang, Liaoning Province (110016)
People’s Republic of China
gengyong@hotmail.com


c 2008 by Yale University
DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00071.x

Volume 13, Number 1

www.blackwellpublishing.com/jie Journal of Industrial Ecology 15

 FORUM
Introduction
The eco-industrial park (EIP) concept has
become globally popular and attracted interest
in less developed, industrializing, and developed
countries (Geng and Côté 2004). For instance, in
China alone, there are now over 100 EIP projects,
of which 26 have been chosen by the State En-
vironmental Protection Administration (SEPA)
as national EIP demonstration projects (SEPA
2007).
It is believed that such EIP initiatives could
bring great environmental, economic, and social
benefits as a contribution to ecologically sustain-
able industrial development and China’s national
circular economy program. This program includes
initiatives related to cleaner production and eco-
design (at the company level), industrial symbio-
sis and EIPs (at the industrial cluster lever), and,
more broadly, the regional eco-industrial network
(at the regional level; Geng and Liu 2006). Under
this program, industrial parks participating in the
EIP projects are to play an important demonstra-
tion role and create a positive impetus for other
industrial parks in China.
Since the 1990s, with the support of
the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), some Chinese industrial parks have un-
dertaken several strategies to improve their en-
vironmental performance, including improving
waste and pollution control, retrofitting envi-
ronmental infrastructure, establishing environ-
mental management systems, and, recently, ex-
panding industrial symbiosis networks (Geng
et al. 2007). To standardize the planning pro-
cess, SEPA released a national guidance docu-
ment on EIP planning in 2003 (Duan et al. 2003).
This document describes the key components of
EIP planning, including basic information about
the park and the main environmental challenges;
creation of industrial symbiosis networks within
the park; and creation of integrated solid waste,
water, and energy management plans and provi-
sion of supporting policies (e.g., recruitment poli-
cies, financial policies, and emergency response
policies). This document, however, does not pro-
vide any details on which parks should be called
EIPs. This lack of indicators has impeded the
movement of some parks towards eco-industrial
development. Also, as there are many industrial
16 Journal of Industrial Ecology
parks in China—over 6,600—each with its own
character, it has been difficult to make the case
that the EIP demonstration parks manifest all
relevant varieties of eco-industrial development.
Moreover, many industrial park managers do not
have a common understanding of the concept
and methods of developing an EIP but are eager to
initiate such projects. Therefore, to better facil-
itate the development of EIPs, SEPA developed
comprehensive guidance, describing the concept
of EIP as well as criteria and indicators for suc-
cessful EIP projects. Published 2 June 2006, with
implementation starting 1 September 2006, this
is the first national standard to guide EIPs in the
world (Duan et al. 2006).
In the present article, we introduce this stan-
dard and describe the indicators and the calcu-
lation methods. Next, we analyze the benefits
and challenges that the regulation will bring to
eco-industrial development in China. Finally, we
draw our conclusions.
Definition and Criteria for
China’s National EIP Standard
The general objective of SEPA’s new pro-
gram is to encourage, manage, and monitor EIP
projects by setting up criteria and indicators. Ac-
cording to this program, an industrial park is land
reserved by a municipal authority for industrial
development; it includes an administrative au-
thority for making provisions for management
and enforcing restrictions on tenants and detailed
planning with respect to lot sizes, access, and fa-
cilities. In contrast, an EIP is a new type of in-
dustrial park. Besides including all the features of
a traditional industrial park, an EIP emphasizes
the establishment of an industrial symbiosis net-
work composed of varied industries. Such a net-
work might include by-products exchange, water
and energy cascading, and information sharing
among firms. According to the program, the aim
of an EIP is to realize loop-closing and waste min-
imization and improve the overall eco-efficiency
of the park by applying the principles of cleaner
production, industrial ecology, and the circular
economy.
There are many types of industrial parks in
China. These include development zones where a
mixture of industries are situated, high-tech zones

with a concentration of information technology
industries and other types of advanced manufac-
turers, and sector-specific zones such as chemical
parks and steel parks. Because each type faces
different challenges (Geng and Yi 2005), SEPA
categorized industrial parks into three groups in
this new regulation, namely the sector-integrated
group, the venous group, and the sector-specific
group, each with slightly different criteria and
indicators. The sector-integrated group refers to
those parks with multiple industrial sectors, es-
pecially the development zones, which are the
main form of Chinese industrial park (Festel and
Geng 2005). The venous industrial park particu-
larly refers to those resource recovery parks where
environmental technology companies and firms
making “green products” coexist. The term ve-
nous reflects its biological usage, in which blood
flow returns to the heart for reuse following
restoration in the kidney. The sector-specific group
refers to parks with primarily one main sector or
anchor tenant (i.e., one firm serving as the driver
of some of the main material and energy flows and
as a possible organization around which the con-
trol and management of these flows could be ar-
ranged). Usually in such a park there is an anchor
company, whereas others are suppliers and service
providers. An example is the Guitang Group in
Guigang, China, based on the sugar sector (Zhu
and Côté 2004; Zhu et al. 2007).
To apply to become a national EIP demonstra-
tion project, an industrial park must meet certain
criteria, as follows:
• All the national environmental laws and
regional environmental regulations must be
enforced effectively within the park; in the
preceding 3 years, no pollution accidents or
dramatic events related to ecosystem dam-
age may have occurred.
• Local environmental quality must meet na-
tional environmental standards. No ten-
ant companies may exceed pollution per-
mits individually, and the overall emission
should be below the control target set up by
SEPA and its regional representatives.
• The EIP plan prepared by industrial park
managers must be evaluated and passed by
SEPA and finally approved by the local gov-
ernment or Local People’s Congress.
Geng et al., Assessment of the National Eco-Industrial Park Standard
FORUM
The new program does not provide finan-
cial or any other kind of support to industrial
parks. It simply details how an EIP project can
be nominated as a national EIP project, with de-
tailed criteria and indicators. It is a voluntary
standard, without any legal liabilities. Industrial
park management can decide to apply for this
designation when all the requirements are satis-
fied. Because such designation can improve the
“green” image of a park and given that the com-
petition among different parks to attract industry
is intense, many leading parks are pursuing this
designation.
Description of Indicators
Although SEPA prepared three separate
groups of criteria and indicators for three differ-
ent types of parks, for any type of park, the agency
categorizes all the indicators into four groups—
namely, indicators for economic development,
indicators for materials reduction and recycling
(for the venous group, indicators for resource re-
cycling and reuse), indicators for pollution con-
trol, and indicators with respect to park man-
agement. The main difference among the three
types of parks relates to the second category of in-
dicators. For sector-integrated parks and sector-
specific parks, this category contains indicators
related to materials reduction and recycling. Key
indicators include energy and fresh water con-
sumption per added industrial value, industrial
wastewater generation and solid waste genera-
tion per added industrial value, and the industrial
water reuse ratio and the solid waste integrated
use ratio. For venous parks, however, this group
contains indicators related to resource recycling
and reuse. Key indicators in this category include
recycling and reuse ratios of discarded home elec-
tronic appliances, discarded abandoned vehicles,
waste tires, and waste plastics. Because most in-
dicators in other groups are similar, just with dif-
ferent figures, to simplify the descriptions of this
national document, we present the standard for
sector-integrated industrial park in table 1 (Duan
et al. 2006).1 In this group, there are 21 indica-
tors categorized into four types. Two indicators
are listed for economic development, seven in-
dicators are listed for material reduction and re-
cycling, seven indicators are listed for pollution
17
18
Table 1 Indicator standards for sector-integrated eco-industrial parks (EIPs) in China
FORUM

Item No. Indicator Unit Value

Economic development 1 Added industrial value per capita 10,000 /p ≥15
2 Growth rate of added industrial value % ≥25%
Material reduction and recycling 3 Energy consumption per added industrial value SCE/10,000  ≤0.5
4 Fresh water consumption per added industrial value m3 /10,000  ≤9
5 Industrial wastewater generation per added industrial value t/10,000  ≤8
6 Solid waste generation per added industrial value t/10,000  ≤0.1
7 Industrial water reuse ratio % ≥75%
8 Solid waste reuse ratioa %

Journal of Industrial Ecology

≥85%
9 Middle water reuse ratiob % ≥40%
Pollution control 10 COD loading per added industrial value kg/10,000  ≤1
11 SO 2 emission per added industrial value kg/10,000  ≤1
12 Disposal rate of dangerous solid waste % 100%
13 Centrally provided treatment rate of domestic wastewater % ≥70%
14 Safe treatment rate of domestic rubbish % 100%
15 Waste collection system Yes/no Available
16 Centrally provided facilities for waste treatment and disposal Yes/no Available
17 Environmental management systems Yes/no Established,
certified according
to ISO 14001
Administration and management 18 Extent of establishment of information platform % 100%
19 Environmental report release Yes/no 1 issue/year
20 Extent of public satisfaction with local environmental quality % ≥90%
21 Extent of public awareness degree with eco-industrial development % ≥90%
Note: One cubic meter (m3 , SI) ≈ 1.31 cubic yards (yd3 ). One metric ton (t) = 103 kilograms (kg, SI) ≈ 1.102 short tons. SCE = standard coal equivalent energy  is the symbol of
Chinese currency, RMB. As of 21 July 2008, US$1 equals 6.83 RMB, and one Euro equals 10.83 RMB. COD = chemical oxygen demand; SO 2 = sulfur dioxide.
a Reuse in this context means direct reuse of discarded products, such as printing on the reverse of once-printed paper and reuse of some solid wastes (with basic treatment), such as

cleaning polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles and glass containers for refilling.
b Middle water is a Chinese term for the recyclable treated wastewater from wastewater treatment plants. This indicator does not need to be assessed if there is no water treatment plant

in the industrial park.


control, and four indicators are listed for park
management.
There are some further requirements regarding
resource consumption and pollution emissions
based on the national environmental protec-
tion plan. Before the year 2010, all the indus-
trial parks must reach the objectives listed in
the Eleventh Five-Year Plan. First, total en-
ergy consumption per added industrial produc-
tion value should be reduced by 20%; second,
water consumption per added industrial produc-
tion value should be reduced by 30%; and third,
total pollution emissions per added industrial pro-
duction value should be reduced by 10%. The
formulas are as follows:
Energy consumption per added industrial
production value
= E 2005 × (1 − 0.0436)(i −2005) ;
Freshwater consumption per added
industrial production value
= W2005 × (1 − 0.0689)(i −2005) ;
COD or SO2 emissions per added industrial
production value
= W2005 × (1 − 0.0209)(i −2005) ;
where i is the year of examination and E 2005 and
W 2005 are the quantities of the same indicator in
2005.
Application of Indicators
This new regulation provides a detailed de-
scription of the methodology, including how to
collect data and how to calculate these indicators
on the basis of the local situation. The methods
of data collection are similar to those adopted
for preparing the urban development statistical
almanac and the environmental protection sta-
tistical almanac. SEPA has suggested that refer-
ence data should come from the local statistical
agency and environmental protection agency to
ensure the quality and reliability of data. The
standard gives defined and detailed calculation
formulas, as indicated in table 2, providing the
Geng et al., Assessment of the National Eco-Industrial Park Standard
FORUM
clarity needed for park managers to assess their
own performances.
Benefits and Challenges
This new program could provide comprehen-
sive economic, environmental, and societal ben-
efits. First of all, in terms of economic benefits,
given that this new regulation encourages more
efficient materials and energy use, cost savings
can be achieved through potentially lower in-
surance costs as well as reduced environmental
responsibilities. Also, additional financial ben-
efits of applying this new standard can include
increased revenues from the sale of wastes, in-
creased sales due to “green” and niche marketing
and more competitive production methods, and
the avoidance of regulatory penalties. Thus, the
overall competitive capacity of an industrial park
can be increased. Second, ecological benefits of
applying this standard include conservation of
natural resources and a reduction of the environ-
mental impact of industrial operations, achieved
through more efficient material and energy use,
reduced waste discharge, and substitution of toxic
materials. Third, some societal benefits of apply-
ing this standard could be also achieved, such
as improved public awareness through capacity-
building programs and improved public health
through reduction of waste emissions. By identi-
fying potential synergy opportunities among ten-
ants, industrial park managers could create new
business opportunities and offer more employ-
ment opportunities to the local communities.
Furthermore, because this new standard encour-
ages more collaboration among tenant companies
and between tenants and industrial park man-
agement, as well as between industrial parks and
local communicates, it can help strengthen com-
munity relations. Table 3 is a summary of key
benefits.
Several challenges, however, also exist and
need more discussion, including a lack of indica-
tors on industrial symbiosis and diversity; vague-
ness in some indicators, which makes evaluation
difficult; institutional barriers to implementation;
and a lack of indicators on broad collabora-
tion. Each is discussed in detail in the following
sections.
19
 Table 2 Indicator calculation and explanation

20
No. Calculation formula Explanation
FORUM

AIV
1 AIV: Annual added industrial production value
total employees at the end of the year
AI V examination year − AIV last year
2
AIV last year
total energy consumption
3 Energy consumption includes coal, electricity, oil, and other energy consumption (including energy
AIV
consumption for both heating and cooling). Different energy sources are converted to standard coal
equivalent (SCE) according to the coefficients prepared by the National Statistical Bureau.

Journal of Industrial Ecology

industrial freshwater consumption
4 Industrial freshwater use for production and living within the enterprises, equal to the sum of tap water
AIV
and self-provided water (e.g., wells within the company). If the domestic wastewater is not blended
with the industrial wastewater, then water consumption for living should not be included.
industrial wastewater generation
5 Industrial wastewater generation does not include water obtained from cascadinga and domestic
AIV
wastewater from residents living in the park. Recycled wastewater treated by enterprises should be
included.
industrial solid waste generation
6 Solid, semisolid, and high-density liquid waste, including smelt residues, fly ash, bottom ash, coal
AIV
gangue, dangerous waste, gangue, and radioactive wastes.
industrial repetitive water use Q
7 Industrial reuse water includes water that is recycled or cascaded. Industrial water consumption includes
i nd us tr i al wa ter cons umpti on water consumption for both industrial and living purposes.
industrial solid waste integrated utilization Q
8 Industrial solid waste integrated use includes reuse, recycling, and incineration. Industrial solid waste is
generation Q + reserves utilization Q
defined to include all kinds of nondomestic, nondangerous solid wastes generated by industries.
Reserved utilization refers to use of wastes from prior year’s production, reserved within industrial depots.
middle water Q
9 Middle waterb reuse means the wastewater treated through tertiary treatment. Such water comes from
effluent from treatment plants
local wastewater treatment plant and could be reused within the park.
industrial COD emission Q
10 The amount of chemical oxygen demand (COD) loading includes COD loading both from companies
AIV
and wastewater treatment plant.
industrial SO2 emission Q
11
AIV
Continued.
 Table 2 Continued
No. Calculation formula Explanation
dangerous industrial waste disposal Q
12 Dangerous industrial wastes include those toxic and hazardous wastes as defined by the national
dangerous industrial waste generation Q
environmental standards.
s ec−d omes ti c wa s te wa ter Q
13 Ratio of total amount of treated domestic wastewater (after secondary treatment) to amount of domestic
domestic waste water in built−up area
wastewater generation.
decontamination Q of urban refuse
14 Ratio of total amount of safely treated domestic rubbish to total amount of domestic rubbish.
urban refuse clean−up Q
15 Waste collection system Yes or no
16 Facilities for all waste treatment and disposal Yes or no
17 Environmental management system This means that the park management should pass ISO 14001 certification and have an emergency
response plan.
18 Extent of information platform establishment Indicates whether the park has established a comprehensive information platform. Four modules should
be established, including intranet module for electronic administration, module for releasing pollution
emission information, module for releasing solid waste information, and module for providing
information with cleaner production and eco-industrial development. Each module has 25% factor,
and the four modules should total to 100%.
19 Environmental report release Annual environmental report should present information on park-level environmental quality, total
reduction of different wastes and energy consumption, environmental monitoring measures and
outcomes, waste treatment, and disposal data.
20 Public satisfaction with local environmental quality This indicator is calculated on the basis of a questionnaire-based survey. Number of interviewees should
not be less than 0.1% of total population of the whole park. Ninety percent of survey results should
score as “satisfied” or “basically satisfied” on selected items.c
21 Public awareness of eco-industrial development This indicator is also calculated on the basis of a questionnaire-based survey. Number of interviewees
should not be less than 0.1% of total population of park. Ninety percent of survey results should score
as “satisfied” or “basically satisfied” on selected items.c
Note: AIV = added industrial production value; Q = quantity.
a Cascading refers to the reuse of spent water for a lower quality use.

Geng et al., Assessment of the National Eco-Industrial Park Standard

b Middle water is a Chinese term for the recyclable treated wastewater from wastewater treatment plants.
c Sample survey questionnaires can be found in Supplementary Appendix S2 on the Web.
FORUM

21
 FORUM
Table 3 Key benefits of applying this standard
Economic benefits Environmental benefits
Lower insurance costs Conservation of natural resources
Lower waste Reduced environmental emissions
treatment costs
Increased revenues More efficient
from the sale of wastes materials and energy use
Increased sales of Less use of
green marketing toxic materials
Avoidance of penalties Improved environmental quality
Lack of Indicators on Industrial Symbiosis
and Diversity
Although the standard incorporates the re-
sults of many researchers and projects undertaken
by many practitioners, there are still some chal-
lenges that it will meet as it strives for inter-
national acceptance. First, a review of the list of
indicators in table 1 indicates that six of these are
eco-efficiency indicators. It therefore seems to be
appropriate to refer to these parks as eco-efficient
parks. As described by the WBCSD (2000, 9),
eco-efficiency is achieved
by the delivery of competitively-priced goods
and services that satisfy human needs and
bring quality of life, while progressively re-
ducing ecological impacts and resource in-
tensity throughout the life-cycle to a level at
least in line with the earth’s estimated carry-
ing capacity.
This translates into using less water, less en-
ergy, and less material per unit of product or per
unit of added economic value. It also translates
into less solid waste, less wastewater, fewer air
emissions, and less dangerous waste per unit of
product or per unit of added economic value.2
Such eco-efficiency indicators are a good start—
in fact, they are critical for encouraging businesses
to clean up their production processes—but they
will not be adequate to reduce the overall envi-
ronmental impact of growing human and indus-
trial production and consumption (see Hukkinen
2001; Huesemann 2004).
Natural systems exhibit certain characteris-
tics that, if introduced in an analogous way in
industrial systems, could enhance the perfor-
mance of EIPs. Industrial processes are usually
22 Journal of Industrial Ecology
Societal benefits
Improved public health
Improved public
environmental awareness
New business and
employment opportunities
Improved community
relations
linear transformations of input flows into prod-
ucts, whereas natural processes are more cycli-
cal, although some linearity is characteristic of
immature ecological systems (Lotka 1922a,b).
Such immature systems exist at a developmen-
tal stage, typically concentrating on growth and
throughput, with limited developments of mate-
rial cycling efficiency. Most industrial activities
conform to this model. By contrast, mature
ecosystems are organized as resilient, long-lasting,
complex, and interrelated communities of plants,
animals, fungi, and bacteria that have mas-
tered the principles of optimum—not necessar-
ily maximum—production. Organisms in mature
ecosystems interact through a complex network
of relationships and food webs that reduce en-
tropy. In these systems, the organisms are more
diversified, and their use of resources is more ef-
fective. Therefore, to improve the sustainability
of industrial systems, government should encour-
age industrial symbiosis activities among compa-
nies. Thus, the next step for SEPA’s EIP standard
should be to set up new indicators that assess the
levels of symbiosis and diversity within indus-
trial parks. Several ecologically oriented indica-
tors within the EIP literature might be given some
consideration (Côté and Hall 1995; Côté and
Smolenaars 1997; Côté and Cohen-Rosenthal
1998). These include
• public transport use per population,
• percentage of energy supplied by renewable
sources,
• percentage of buildings adopting the LEED3
standard or other green standard,
• economic value per land area,
• diversity of sectors represented,

• connectivity among industries, and
• number of scavengers and decomposer busi-
nesses.
We think, however, that these ecologically-
oriented indicators need improvement to assess
the performance of EIPs. For instance, a higher
level of connectivity among industries does not
always deliver the best environmental outcomes.
The great diversity of sectors could also result
in the lack of economy of scale for realizing
the particular by-products exchange or recovery
technology.
Vague and Intricate Indicators
In addition, the criteria for a few indicators are
vague and difficult to evaluate. For instance, the
indicators on waste collection systems and facili-
ties for waste treatment and disposal require that
they should both be available but do not describe
the breadth in terms of the types of wastes treated.
Under such a situation, some parks may choose
to physically establish these facilities to reach
these two indicators but may not effectively oper-
ate the facilities (Lo and Chung 2003). Likewise,
another example is the criterion for an environ-
mental management system (EMS). The new reg-
ulation just requires industrial park managers to
establish their EMS according to the ISO 14001
standard, but this standard does not stipulate the
rate or level of environmental improvement ex-
pected. Additionally, an ISO 14001 registration
only lasts 3 years (Conway 1996). The effective-
ness of an EMS also depends on the degree of
commitment of local government and zone man-
agers. Given budgetary limits, lower environmen-
tal awareness, and the strong pro-growth orienta-
tion of industrial park leaders in China, perhaps
the EIP designation should also be reviewed on a
3-year basis.
The last two indicators are based on desig-
nated questionnaires that are unique (Duan et al.
2006). Understanding the degree of awareness
and satisfaction of local stakeholders on such an
EIP project could become important in provid-
ing park managers with the necessary ammuni-
tion to take further action. But the results of
such a survey may be questionable given that
the value of a questionnaire is dependent on
Geng et al., Assessment of the National Eco-Industrial Park Standard
FORUM
the selection of the informants and the qual-
ity of their answers. Responses are likely to dif-
fer due to particular sectoral perspectives. They
represent one individual’s views and cannot re-
flect the comprehensive perspectives of the whole
EIP project. When the informants know the pur-
pose of such a survey, they may give more posi-
tive answers to help their park become an EIP,
which may bias responses. Even so, setting up
such indicators may still help the stakeholders of
a park improve their awareness. Actually, some
leading parks have already initiated their own
capacity-building projects by considering local
realities. For instance, the Tianjin Economic De-
velopment Area (TEDA) administrative com-
mission published a weekly newspaper designed
to communicate environmental news, publicize
local and national environmental policies and
regulations, popularize green knowledge, instill
an awareness of environmental values in the lo-
cal population, and register people’s complaints
concerning environmental pollution and degra-
dation (Song et al. 2006). As such, a variety of
publicity programs and activities could be orga-
nized and undertaken to further improve people’s
awareness. Training workshops, media articles,
and public forums are typical examples.
Institutional Barriers on Implementing
this Standard
The implementation of this standard could
also be compromised by the relatively weak po-
sition of environmental protection bureau. To
implement an EIP project, the park managers
often nominate their environmental protection
bureau to play the leading role. Within the park’s
administrative commission, however, the envi-
ronmental protection bureau is usually one of the
weaker institutions, with a lower bureaucratic sta-
tus. Thus, it is difficult for them to secure active
cooperation from other agencies, especially those
associated with polluting industries. Like their
counterparts in the municipal governments, it is
challenging for environmental protection bureau
staff to promote EIP projects, as economic, plan-
ning, trade, and industrial bureaus often work to-
gether to prevent the adoption of tough measures
and undermine strict enforcement of standards
(Geng and Liu 2006). Consequently, it is difficult
23
 FORUM
for environmental agencies to gain any powerful
extrabureaucratic allies to counter strong bureau-
cratic resistance. In addition, in many cases, the
park managers formulate and decide EIP-related
policies without public consultation. In the ab-
sence of public participation, accountability in
the EIP regulatory process is almost nonexistent.
Under such a political system, it is difficult for
park managers to effectively engage the public
while evaluating the performance of their parks.
Lack of Indicators on Broad
Collaboration
Last, EIP projects aim to develop sustainable
industrial communities, but sustainable islands in
an unsustainable world are not possible. Sustain-
able development should involve all stakehold-
ers and requires that standards be formed and
implemented in the local context. The EIP in-
dicators developed will only be beneficial if they
promote local sustainable development. The eco-
efficiency-oriented indicators described here are
designed to focus only on the designated indus-
trial parks; they fail to include elements linking
the park to the surrounding areas. Thus, more
indicators are needed to clarify how designated
industrial communities are linked to other areas
and how they contribute to regional sustainable
development efforts. Indicators that reflect the
efficiency of infrastructure shared with nearby ar-
eas and that examine the industrial synergy level
with local communities are examples of demand-
ing but necessary extensions.
Conclusion
With rapidly growing industrialization and
urbanization, experiences gained from eco-
industrial demonstration projects are of critical
importance for sustainable industrial develop-
ment in China. A big challenge facing decision
makers, however, is how to evaluate the overall
eco-efficiency of such projects, given that prob-
lems relating to EIPs are more complex than ever
and more sophisticated tools are needed to feed
information into decision making. Setting up ap-
propriate indicators is one way to solve this is-
sue. The new standards on EIPs issued by SEPA
should be regarded as substantial progress toward
24 Journal of Industrial Ecology
bridging such a gap. There are still some problems
with regard to the new indicators, however, and
further revisions are needed. Although we use
those indicators on the sector-integrated parks
for analyzing the benefits and challenges, the cri-
tique would apply equally to the two other types
of EIPs described in the section on descriptions
of indicators, because most indicators are quite
similar. Nevertheless, this new program can at
least encourage industrial park practitioners to
improve their economic performance, environ-
mental quality, and social development.
Acknowledgements
This study was sponsored by the Nat-
ural Science Foundation of China (Grant
70772085); the Huo-Yingdong Education Foun-
dation (Grant 104001); the Dalian Science
Foundation for Returned Overseas Scholars
(Grant 2005J22JH015); the Scientific Research
Foundation for Returned Overseas Chinese
Scholars, State Education Ministry (Grant 2007–
24); and the National Institute for Environ-
mental Studies, Japan. We also acknowledge
Reid Lifset and Rene Van Berkel for their kind
suggestions.
Notes
1. Tables summarizing the indicators for the venous
and sector-specific parks are presented in Supple-
mentary Appendix S1 on the Web.
2. Editor’s note: For an extensive discussion of eco-
efficiency, see the special issue of this journal
on efficiency and industrial ecology, volume 9,
number 4, www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/
120129122/issue.
3. LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Envi-
ronmental Design. It is a rating system for build-
ing design developed by the U.S. Green Building
Council (see www.usgbc.org/leed).
References
Conway, T. 1996. ISO 14000 standards and China:
A trade and sustainable development perspective.
Working paper, International Institute for Sus-
tainable Development, Winnipeg, Canada.
Côté, R. P. and J. Hall. 1995. Industrial parks as ecosys-
tems. Journal of Cleaner Production 3: 41–46.

Côté, R. and T. Smolenaars. 1997. Supporting pillars
for industrial ecosystems. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction 5: 67–74.
Côté, R. P. and E. Cohen-Rosenthal. 1998. Design-
ing eco-industrial parks: Synthesis of some ex-
periences. Journal of Cleaner Production 6: 181–
188.
Duan, N., Q. Qiao, and Q. H. Sun. 2003. National
guidance on planning eco-industrial parks. Beijing,
China: SEPA.
Duan, N., Q. Qiao, and Q. H. Sun. 2006. National EIP
standard for eco-industrial parks. HJ/T274–2006.
Beijing, China: SEPA.
Festel, G. and Y. Geng. 2005. Chemical industry parks
in China. In The chemical and pharmaceutical in-
dustry in China, edited by G. Festel et al. Berlin:
Springer Verlag.
Geng, Y. and R. Coté. 2004. Applying industrial ecol-
ogy in rapidly industrializing countries. Interna-
tional Journal of Sustainable Development and World
Ecology 11: 69–85.
Geng, Y. and Y. Liu. 2006. Circular economy in China:
The potential for realizing leapfrog. In Proceedings
of International Conference on Eco-Balance, pp. 75–
78. Japan: Tsukuba.
Geng, Y. and J. Yi. 2005. An overview of develop-
ing industrial parks in China. In Proceedings of
environmental management of urban and industrial
infrastructure in Asia, edited by A. P. J. Mol. Ho
Chi Minh City, Vietnam-Centema.
Geng, Y., M. Haight, and Q. H. Zhu. 2007. Em-
pirical analysis of eco-industrial development
in China. Sustainable Development 15: 121–
133.
Huesemann, M. H. 2004. The failure of eco-efficiency
to guarantee sustainability: Future challenges
for industrial ecology. Environmental Progress 23:
264–270.
Hukkinen, J. 2001. Eco-efficiency as abandonment of
nature. Ecological Economics 38: 311–315.
Lo, C. W. H. and S. S. Chung. 2003. China’s green
challenges in the 21st century. In China’s chal-
lenges in the 21st century. edited by J. Y. S. Cheng,
pp. 719–769. Hong Kong: City University of
Hong Kong Press.
Geng et al., Assessment of the National Eco-Industrial Park Standard
FORUM
Lotka, A. J. 1922a. Contribution to the energetics of
evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 8: 147–150.
Lotka, A. J. 1922b. Natural selection as a physical prin-
ciple. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-
ences 8: 151–155.
SEPA (State Environmental Protection Agency).
2007. National environmental protection plan. Bei-
jing, China: SEPA.
Song, Y. Y., X. Yan, and H. M. Wei. 2006. Promoting
circular economy in TEDA: An innovative ap-
proach. In Proceedings of International Conference
on Circular Economy and Eco-Industrial Park, pp.
47–55. Tianjin, China:.
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable De-
velopment). 2000. Eco-efficiency: Creating more
value with less impact. Geneva, Switzerland:
WBCSD.
Zhu, Q. H. and R. P. Côté. 2004. Integrating green
supply chain management into an embryonic
eco-industrial development: A case study of the
Guitang Group. Journal of Cleaner Production 12:
1025–1035.
Zhu, Q. H., E. Lowe, W. Yuan-an, and D. Barnes. 2007.
Industrial symbiosis in China: A case study of the
Guitang Group. Journal of Industrial Ecology 11(1):
31–42.
About the Authors
Yong Geng is a professor in the Institute of
Applied Ecology at the Chinese Academy of
Science in Shenyang, China. Pan Zhang is a
Ph.D. student in the Institute for Eco-Planning
and Development at the School of Management,
Dalian University of Technology, in Dalian,
China. Raymond P. Côté is an emeritus pro-
fessor in the School for Resource and Environ-
mental Studies in the Faculty of Management
at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia,
Canada. Tsuyoshi Fujita is a directing researcher
at the National Institute for Environmental Stud-
ies, Tsukuba, Japan.
25
 FORUM

Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article:
Appendix S1
Table S1. Indicator standards for sector-specific eco-industrial parks in China.
Table S2. Indicator standards for venous eco-industrial parks in China
Appendix S2
Table S1. Questionnaire of public satisfaction with local environmental quality
Table S2. Questionnaire on degree of public awareness of eco-industrial development
Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for the content or functionality of any
supporting materials supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should
be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

26 Journal of Industrial Ecology