Literature review on the sustainability of business parks
The literature review is carried in a cascading approach starting with the definition of the EIP. This review is narrative and multidisciplinary, investigating the topic of business parks’ sustainability in the fields of industrial ecology and urban planning. Peer-reviewed papers from indexed publi-cations were selected along with grey literature sources. Moreover, when clearly identified for a given concept, the seminal paper is mentioned.
The keywords used are the following : « sustainable industrial park, » « sustainable business park, » « eco-industrial park, » « industrial ecology, » « circular economy, » « industrial symbiosis, » « sustai-nable urban planning, » « eco-city » and « eco-neighborhood. » The search was executed with one or two keywords on Google Scholar and in the Scopus database.
In total, 116 documents were consulted between September and March 2018. On those 113 docu-ment 92 dealt with topics related to the field of industrial ecology and 21 dealt with the topic of sustainable urban planning. On the 92 documents from the industrial ecology literature, 38 were
Three business parks were investigated for this study : Savoie Technolac and Chambéry’s disc-trict La Cassine in Savoie, France and Daniel Gaudreau ecopark in Quebec, Canada. This study is attached to the context of two regions : Savoie in France and Centre-du-Québec in Canada. Indeed, during the last three decades the city of Chambéry in Savoie went through a progressive de-industrialization. Despite the land pressure caused by the proximity of the mountains and the population growth, more than 50 hectare of brownfield close to the city center are abandoned. Those sites offer potential for urban development integrating business parks. The development of those business parks must take the geographical, economic, social, environmental and energy lo-cal context into account. It must be federating, robust, concerned with the quality of life and the environment and likely to create an endogenous and competitive territorial development. In the Centre-du-Québec region, the city of Victoriaville faces similar challenges with the development of an eco-industrial park. Victoriaville engaged in this development in a different context with the intention to attract and retain the labour they currently lack of. For those reasons, the case stu-dies were volunteers to be part of a research project on the performance evaluation and design of decision-making support tools for the development of sustainable business parks. Moreover, the case studies were selected because they offers diversity in the following terms.
— Size : Savoie Technolac have 250 tenants when Daniel Gaudreau ecopark only have 2.
— Developement stage : La Cassine is still at the design phase, Daniel Gaudreau have currently sold 10% of its lots and Savoie Technolac is a complete business park wishing to extend itself in the near future.
— Geography : Two case studies are located in France and one is located in Canada allowing for a comparison between both culture and policies. Moreover La Cassine is located in Chambéry’s center whereas the two other case studies are built in the periphery of the city.
— Targeted companies : Savoie Technolac is specialized in the building, energy and electronic sector, La Cassine wants to attract service companies and local artisans and lastly, Daniel Gaudreau ecopark accepts light industries from all sectors.
Results from the literature review on sustainability in business parks
Sustainable development through industrial ecology : eco-industrial parks and other initiatives
The starting point of this literature review is industrial ecology (IE) and its application at the business park scale : the EIP. This section defines these concepts and other similar approaches and strategies addressing the sustainability of industrial and mixed industrial parks.
IE is the discipline promoting the concept of industrial ecosystems, which derives from a metaphor of biological ecosystems and proposes solutions aimed at improving the industry’s environmental impact (Frosch and Gallopoulos, 1989; Erkman, 1997). An industrial ecosystem should develop an optimal web for the recycling and cascading of materials and energy, mimicking food webs in the natural ecosystem (Korhonen, 2001). The essential idea, also called « roundput » by Korkhonen (Korhonen, 2001; Korhonen and Snäkin, 2005; Korhonen, 2007), is that the effluents of a com-pany become the input of another to minimize virgin input. The ideal industrial ecosystem would operate in a closed loop of recycling and reusing so that it does not produce any waste (Ayres and Ayres, 2002).
IE moves away from the preventive approaches that consist of reducing virgin materials or energy inputs and reducing waste (Lovins et al., 2007). Contrarily to cleaner production wich focuses on companies (Hens et al., 2018), it is applicable at all levels from micro to macro. IE offers the basis for achieving sustainability through cooperation between waste-producing and waste-consuming processes. It considers society’s metabolism as a whole rather than optimizing each of its components independently. The application of IE should provide a win-win-win outcome for the community, where the environmental impact of businesses is lessened, achieving economic and social benefits (Dunn and Steinemann, 1998).
Applications of IE concepts are mostly encountered at the local or regional scale through the form of eco-industrial development or industrial symbiosis (IS) (Gibbs et al., 2005; Deutz and Gibbs, 2008). As defined by Chertow (2000) : « Industrial symbiosis engages traditionally separate indus-tries in a collective approach to competitive advantages involving physical exchange of materials, energy, water, and/or by-products. The keys to IS are collaboration and the synergistic possibilities offered by geographical proximity. »
IE and IS are often associated with the circular economy concept (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). A circular economy promotes the shift from the traditional, linear, open-ended economic system to a circular economic system, with « closing-the-loop » production patterns. A first theore-tical framework for the circular economy was proposed by the environmental economists Pearce and Turner (1989). The second law of thermodynamics and Georgescu Roegen’s theory on the ir-reversible exhaustion of natural resources through economic activity serve as the major arguments for the need to shift to a circular system (Georgescu-Roegen, 1971). IE was introduced at the same time as the circular economy concept with Frosch and Gallopoulos publishing their seminal article the same year that Pearce and Turner published theirs. Nevertheless, some authors considered that the circular economy concept takes its roots in IE and that it builds on IE’s concepts for the in-dustrial system, scaling them up for the whole economic system (Ghisellini et al., 2016; Saavedra et al., 2018). It seems that circular economy’s focus is wider than IE and the analysis of flows in industrial systems.
At the local scale, a business park implementing a long-term IE strategy is called an EIP (Lowe and Evans, 1995; Cohen-Rosenthal et al., 1996; Desrochers, 2001). A famous definition of the EIP was proposed in 1997 by the (U.S President’s Council on Sustainable Development, 1997). They defined an EIP as : « A community of businesses that cooperate with each other and with the local community to efficiently share resources (information, materials, energy, infrastructure and natural habitat), leading to economic gains, improvements in environmental quality and equitable enhancement of human resources for businesses and the local community. »
Pellenbarg (2002) proposed the following characteristics to identify an EIP :
— joint use of facilities and collective facilities ;
— closing material cycles through the use of waste materials ;
— relocating firms for a more efficient use of space ;
— clustering firms that are complementary in terms of economy and ecology.
Tudor et al. (2007) examined the different options of cooperation between those aiming at sus-tainable production processes (or streams) and those aiming at sustainable site arrangements (or parks). There seems to be a debate on the defining characteristics of an EIP, but the symbiosis, or « roundput, » appears to be its ultimate goal (Deutz and Gibbs, 2008).
The most famous EIP is Kalundborg’s EIP in Denmark. It has been abundantly documented in the IE literature as the best example of IS and serves as evidence of the benefits provided by the implementation of IE in a geographically restrained space (Lowe and Evans, 1995; Chertow, 2000; Gibbs et al., 2005). A network of energy and materials exchanges has organically grown in Kalundborg industrial park between the city, a power plant, a refinery, a pharmaceutical plant, a gypsum board manufacturer and a waste treatment plant. This has already helped to save on a consequential amount of resources and to decrease production of waste (Jacobsen, 2006).
Another model of industrial parks cooperating to gain various economic benefits is the concept of industrial clusters. Porter (1998) defines an industrial cluster as : « a geographic concentration of interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, service providers, firms in related industries and associated institutions (e.g., universities, standard agencies, trade associations) in a particular field that compete but also cooperate. » The EIP can also focus its strategy on one particular field, but the difference between the EIP and industrial clusters is that the objective of an industrial clus-ter is mainly, if not solely, economic and thus does not address all the objectives of sustainability.
It should be noted that all of the concepts and approaches described in this article are specifi-cally orientated towards the particular case of geographically constrained collections of business. Other concepts and analogous approaches can be found in the literature. Particularly, in the supply chain management community, very similar approaches such as environmental management, de-sign for the environment, product stewardship, green purchasing and reverse logistics are used to improve the sustainability of supply chains (Leigh and Li, 2015). Excluding geographical proxi-mity, the similarities between supply chains and business parks could be used for the development of sustainable business parks drawing from supply chain management experience (Le Tellier et al., 2017).
Having defined the various concepts and disciplines surrounding the EIP paradigm, these concepts are positioned in Figure 2.1. sustainable development is at the root of most explorations in the circular economy concept and IE. Knowing that the focus of the circular economy concept is wider than the industrial system, it was placed above IE, even if they were both introduced the same year. It should also be noted that other concepts relating to the circular economy and IE were added to Figure 2.1 as an illustration of the variety of potential approaches of both fields.
Other initiatives of sustainable business parks documented in the literature
The Research Triangle Institute (1996) identified seven types of eco-park development that should not be considered equivalent to an EIP. These eco-parks are presented in Table 2.1. The Research Triangle Institute consider that : « An EIP could include any of these features. But the critical element in defining an EIP should be the interactions among its member businesses and between them and their natural environment, » or in other words, that only IS is the defining element of an EIP.
In Italy, the concept of ecologically equipped industrial area (EEIA) was introduced by a legislative decree in 1998. According to Taddeo (2016), the EEIA is a geographically delimited production area with high environmental quality standards. Taddeo argues that the EEIA displays a number of limits preventing it from becoming a generalizable model, specifically its initial investment with a long return time and its rigidity. However, it can play a role in the implementation of the EIP model in Italy by encouraging collaboration between co-located companies and helping to overcome the regulatory limits preventing waste exchange.
Results from the literature review on sustainability in business parks
Figure 2.1 – Position of the EIP concepts
In Belgium, efforts have been made by the Walloon government to encourage more sustainable strategies for the development of business parks with the introduction of the « eco-zoning » concept. Van der Kraa et al. (2011) give the following definition of eco-zoning : « Economic activity area, pro-actively managed by the association of its company members, positively interacting with its environment, and where urban planning, environmental management and IE contribute to optimize the use of land, materials and energy, to support the performance and economic dynamic of the company members and the community and to lower the local environmental impacts. » The main difference between an EIP and eco-zoning is that the latter goes beyond IE. Indeed, the eco-zoning concept addresses issues related to the planning and management of a business park while the EIP’s main objective is to create a mature IS.
As can be seen, both the EEIA and eco-zoning were created in a local context to respond to local needs and realities.
Lambert and Boons (2002) proposed a typology of EIP initiatives differentiating the mixed indus-trial park from the heavy industrial complex. They define the mixed industrial park as « industrial activities, mainly small- and medium-sized enterprises, which are concentrated in dedicated areas, of a very diverse nature with no or little coupling of production processes. » Having identified this particular type of industrial park, the authors argue that their impact on the environment and coun-try planning is non-negligible even if it is insufficiently examined. Indeed, they argue that once the lots are issued, the selection of companies and trivial collective managements such as traffic control, fire protection and signposting are absent. They then propose two types of mixed industrial park initiative developed under the banner of IE and EIPs :
1. greenfield development, which addresses ecological issues in the different stages of the de-velopment process ;
2. brownfield development, which is the revitalization of an existing area, taking the reduction
1 Single by-product exchange pattern or network of exchanges ;
2 Recycling business cluster (e.g. resource recovery recycling companies) ;
3 Collection of environmental technology companies ;
4 Collection of companies making « green » products ;
5 Industrial park designed around a single environmental theme (e.g., a solar energy-driven park) ; 6 Park with environmentally friendly infrastructure or construction ;
7 Mixed-use development (e.g., industrial, commercial and residential). of the environmental impact into account.
Sustainable urban planning and development
Following the presentation of different concepts relating to IE in industrial parks, it is suggested that the sustainability of industrial park planning could also be improved. Industrial and mixed industrial parks could benefit by integrating notions of sustainable planning into their design, development and performance evaluation. To support this proposal, the following section outlines and briefly introduces urban sustainability and its application at the city scale (« eco-cities ») and the district scale (« ecodisctrict » or « eco-neighborhood »).
Emergence of sustainability in procedural planning theory
Urban planning is a scientific and professional field concerned with the design of the urban en-vironment. More precisely, urban planners handle the development of buildings, the use of land, and the design of urban infrastructures such as transportation, communications, and distribution networks (Merlin, 2002). Urban planning is an independent professional discipline relating to different fields such as architecture, landscape architecture, civil engineering, and public adminis-tration.
Since its introduction in 1987, the concept of sustainability has been implemented in the urban planning field (for a historical review of trends and theoretical approaches leading to urban sus-tainability, see (Bayulken and Huisingh, 2015)). Nowadays, urban planners in most European cities focus on reaching a certain level of sustainability and researchers work to define what ur-ban sustainability is and how to reach it. Aiming at the triple bottom-line, urban sustainability spans economic concerns – investment and operating costs – environmental concerns – mobility, waste handling, energy and water management and biodiversity preservation – and social concerns
– political and social solidarity and equality, comfort, citizenship, governance. Campbell (1996) considers urban sustainability as the trade-off between the three conflicts resulting from the triple bottom-line : between economic growth and equity arises a conflict of property ; between equity and environment protection arises a conflict of development ; between economic growth and en-vironment protection arises a conflict around resource consumption. At the center of this conflict triangle is the sustainable urban development that Campbell qualifies as « green, profitable and fair. » Sustainability is often seen as an elusive goal, but more than a goal in itself, it is the oppor-tunity to understand, to increase awareness and responsibility, and finally to rethink lifestyles and their physical impacts on cities and the environment.
Results from the literature review on sustainability in business parks
Eco-city, ecodistrict and related concepts
The eco-city and similar concepts such as « sustainable city », « resilient city » and « low-carbon-city », are (more or less) the application of sustainability to the planning of a city. De Jong et al. (2015) interpret these concepts as initiatives aimed at upgrading urban infrastructure and services, in an effort to create better environmental, social and economic conditions and to enhance cities’ attractiveness as well as their competitiveness.
At a smaller scale, sustainable urban planning projects adapted to a neighborhood are called eco-districts or eco-neighborhoods (Næss, 2001). Examples of famous ecodistricts are Vauban in Frei-burg, Germany (Schroepfer and Hee, 2008), BedZed in London, UK (Chance, 2009) and BO01 in Malmö, Sweden (Austin, 2009). In France, and especially in Paris, many eco-neighborhood pro-jects have been undertaken. The popularity of the concept can be explained by the support given by the French government through the addition of new regulations and especially the Grenelle 2 law (About-de Chastenet et al., 2016; Boutaud, 2009).
Other than scale, according to Joss (2011), eco-city endeavors can be differentiated by types of urban development (such as new developments of entire urban centers built from scratch, urban « infill » developments – new districts built on brownfield sites, or « retrofit » developments, regene-rating and upgrading existing urban areas), phases of development (pilot/planning phase, under construction, or implemented) and key implementation mode (through technological innovation, integrated sustainability plan, or civic engagement). Joss (2015) also proposed dimensions, or areas of interest, for the eco-city based on the sustainability triple bottom-line applied to the urban context. These dimensions are sorted into five categories : environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, social sustainability, urban design and systems and urban governance. Each eco-city can address different criteria of these categories with specific related targets. These details are presented in Table 2.2. It should be noted that an initiative does not have to apply every element of sustainability ; decision-makers can choose a broad approach but can also focus on a limited set of key goals. Moreover, these dimensions will impact and require the involvement of several dif-ferent stakeholders such as regional and local governments, public service providers and citizens. This framework is only one proposal among others since there are no international frameworks or standards defining the eco-city or ecodistrict.
Having defined the notion of urban sustainability, it is suggested that the concept of ecodistrict could be transposed to business parks even if they may be geographically remote from the city. Indeed, planning a business park can integrate some of the same sustainability elements as those proposed for an ecodistrict, for instance, smart technologies or sustainable storm water manage-ment. For a business park, strategies relating to sustainable urban development and IE are com-plementary even if undertaken at different time scales. Sustainable planning of the park will be an important target at the early stages of the project and the creation of a symbiosis should be a major concern during the selection of companies and the animation of the collaboration in the park.
Observation and proposal of a new concept of sustainable busi-ness park
In this section, the results from the observation of the case studies are presented. Following these observations and the literature review, a new concept of sustainable business park is proposed : the MUE.
Observation of initiatives towards sustainable business parks
Three initiatives of sustainable business parks were observed by the authors : Savoie Technolac in Le-Bourget-du-Lac, France (Chambéry-Grand Lac Economie, 2018b), La Cassine in Chambéry, France (Chambéry-Grand Lac Economie, 2018a) and Daniel Gaudreau’s MUE in Victoriaville, Canada (Corporation de Développement Economique de Victoriaville et de sa région, 2018). The local stakeholders for each business park were questioned on the subject of their respective bu-siness parks, their structure and their objectives. Savoie Technolac’s stakeholders provided their indicator scorecard and Victoriaville’s stakeholders provided their development plan and the ap-proval charter for candidate companies. The private planner in charge of the design of La Cassine provided the results of their preliminary economic and environmental study with the recommenda-tions they made to the decision-makers in charge of the project. Moreover, additional information were provided by the respective internet websites of those business parks.
Savoie Technolac is a French technopole focusing its strategy on the innovation, building and energy sector and, more particularly, the solar energy sector. Companies implanted in Savoie Tech-nolac mostly produce services. They benefit from close proximity to the local university and the strong entrepreneurial dynamic created by the business incubator and growth accelerator. Savoie Technolac does not advertise itself as a sustainable business park, but it has implemented many collaborative sustainable actions over the years. For example, one of their most recent projects doubles their production of renewable energy to an 18,000-person capacity. Daniel Gaudreau’s MUE is located in Victoriaville in the Quebec province of Canada. Built next to a wetland, this young MUE focuses its strategy on sustainable urban planning and architecture and requires its companies to be certified to a local standard on sustainable business practices called Démarche d2.
Lastly, La Cassine is a district of Chambéry, a 60,000-inhabitant city in the Savoy region in France. The local stakeholders’ intention is to rehabilitate the Cassine district in a mixed industrial park for service companies and small craft enterprises to attract tourists traveling to the Alps or Italy. Their wish is to alleviate the impact of the district on both the environment and the city by adopting a sustainable urban development approach.
In summary, the business parks observed show diversity in their sizes, their companies’ activities, their life cycle stages and their cultural and natural environments. Since their companies’ pro-duction process are rarely compatible, none of these business parks wish to develop an industrial symbiosis based on material substitution synergies. However, all these business parks’ stakehol-ders expressed and enforced an ambition to improve their sustainability through :
— sustainable urban planning and architecture ;
— shared services to the employees, such as shared restaurants, child day care, a car-sharing platform etc. ;
— collaboration between companies, such as joint logistics, joint research, offices renting, energy substitution synergies (residual heat from data center or private renewable energy production for example) etc.
As a result of this observation, a new concept of sustainable business parks is proposed.
Proposal for a new concept : the mixed-use ecopark
The IE strategy and the creation of an IS is complicated by the diversity of activities concentrated in some business parks. Companies in the tertiary sector cannot couple production processes and create material synergies. Of course, synergies can also be created for the sharing of energy. In-deed, even an exclusively service-based business park can create a beneficial exchange of energy between buildings. Moreover, the sharing of services such as restaurants and child care could improve the well-being of the business park’s users at a lower cost.
Despite this potential, the creation of a symbiosis is rarely the first goal of most local govern-ments. French and Quebec local governments working on the design and marketing of business parks reported they have close to no power over the already implanted businesses and their prac-tices. Local government can only encourage collaboration by matching businesses. They cannot force implanted companies to cooperate and will not discourage new companies from establishing themselves in their business parks by enforcing coercive rules.
A literature review and observations of sustainable business parks’ strategies concluded that the decision-makers’ understanding of sustainability is mostly orientated towards the park planning. They endeavor to provide a high-quality business area with a lesser impact on the environment and high social acceptance, providing more jobs and more economic recognition in the long run than its classic counterpart. Moreover, the popularity of the concept of ecodistrict could also explain the desire to plan attractive and sustainable business parks. High-quality business parks are one of the solutions towards attracting jobs, retaining employees, against building land rarefaction, and against competition with other industrial parks.
Arising from the previous analysis of concepts such as the EIP and the ecodistrict, a particular case of sustainable business park called mixed-use ecopark is proposed. The MUE is a variant of EIP with a stronger emphasis on the sustainability of its planning and development. The MUE shares similar endeavors with the ecodistrict but it is not necessarily a district and it is not designed for mainly residential purposes. Eventually, as can be seen in Figure 2.2, the MUE is a combination of an EIP and an ecodistrict. By adding this characteristic, a definition for the MUE, based on the one given by the US President’s Council on Sustainable for the EIP (U.S President’s Council on Sustainable Development, 1997) , is introduced. « An MUE is a community of businesses located on a business park planned and built in a sustainable approach, that cooperate with each other and with the local community to efficiently share information, materials, energy or infrastructure, leading to economic gains, improvements in environmental quality and equitable enhancement of human resources for businesses and the local community. »
Table of contents :
1 Présentation des cas d’étude
1.2 Choix des cas d’étude
1.3 L’écoparc industriel Daniel Gaudreau
1.4 Le technopole Savoie Technolac
1.5 L’écoparc Savoie Hexapole
1.6 Les parcs industriels du Grand Annecy
1.7 Synthèse de la description des cas d’étude
2 Écoparc : revue de la littérature et définition du concept
2.3 Materials and Methods
2.3.1 Literature review on the sustainability of business parks
2.3.2 Case Studies
2.4 Results from the literature review on sustainability in business parks
2.4.1 Sustainable development through industrial ecology : eco-industrial parks and other initiatives
2.4.2 Sustainable urban planning and development
2.5 Observation and proposal of a new concept of sustainable business park
2.5.1 Observation of initiatives towards sustainable business parks
2.5.2 Proposal for a new concept : the mixed-use ecopark
2.6 Systemic modeling of mixed-use ecopark
2.6.1 Systemic nature of the MUE
2.6.3 Description of the systemic model of an MUE
2.7 Concluding remarks
3 Développement d’un outil d’aide à la décision pour l’établissement du plan d’action d’un écoparc
3.3 The MUE and its control
3.3.1 Emergence of the MUE
3.3.2 The MUE as a system
3.3.3 Control of the MUE
3.4 MCDA for the MUE performance expression model
3.4.1 Choosing MCDA for the MUE performance expression
3.4.2 Formulation of the MUE performance expression problem
3.4.3 The MACBETH method
3.4.4 Using MACBETH for the MUE action plan performance expression
3.5 Performance expression of Victoriaville MUE
3.5.1 Presentation of the case study
3.5.2 Action plan performance expression
4 Proposition d’un modèle d’agrégation de la performance pour l’expression de la performance durable de l’écoparc
4.3 The MUE and its sustainability
4.3.1 The MUE
4.3.3 MUE sustainability
4.4 A model for the assessment of MUE sustainability
4.4.2 Aggregation : weighted arithmetic mean & Choquet integral
4.5 Case Study
4.5.1 Daniel Gaudreau Industrial Ecopark
4.5.2 Description of the DGIE assessment problem
4.5.3 Determination of DGIE elementary expressions
4.5.4 Aggregation of DGIE elementary expressions : Three-pillar performance expressions
4.5.5 Aggregation of DGIE three-pillar performance expressions : Overall sustainability expression
4.5.6 Discussion and outlook
Contributions de la thèse
Application du cadre méthodologique
Enrichissement du cadre méthodologique
Vers d’autre pistes de recherche
Liste des figures
A Annexe 1 : Vers un modèle d’expression de la performance pour le pilotage d’un écoparc d’activités i
A.3 Le concept d’écoparc d’activités
A.3.1 Concepts fondateurs
A.3.2 De la notion de parc éco-industriel à la notion d’écoparc d’activités
A.3.3 Définition de l’écoparc d’activités
A.4 Les enjeux du pilotage de l’écoparc
A.4.1 Le pilotage de l’écoparc Savoie Technolac
A.4.2 L’écoparc comme un système pilotable
A.5 Etat de l’art sur le pilotage de l’écoparc
A.5.1 Pilotage de la chaîne d’approvisionnement et du parc éco-industriel
A.5.2 Le pilotage en entreprises – Rappels
A.6 Vers un modèle d’expression de la performance pour le pilotage de l’écoparc
A.6.1 Modélisation systémique et décomposition des objectifs
A.6.2 L’expression de la performance
A.6.3 Proposition d’un cadre méthodologique pour la construction d’un système d’indicateurs de la performance
B Annexe 2 : A review of Actions Towards Circular Economy for Business Park Governance.
B.3 Systemic Modelling of Business Parks transtionning towards CE
B.4 Governing body of the business park : definition and uts role
B.5 Review of actions towards circular economy in business parks
B.5.1 Method and materials
B.5.2 State of the art on the actions supporting the transition to a CE in a business park
B.6 Impact analysis of the actions on the entities of the business park
C Annexe 3 : From SCM to Eco-Industrial Park management : Modelling Eco-Industrial Park’s symbiosis with the SCOR model xxvi
C.3 Eco-Industrial Parks and Supply Chains, definition and comparatison
C.3.1 Eco-Industrial Park as an application of Industrial Ecology
C.3.2 Supply Chains and Supply Chain management
C.3.3 Comparison between EIP and Supply Chain
C.4 Supply Chain management applied to EIP
C.4.1 Presentation of the SCOR model
C.4.2 The SCOR model transferred to the EIP
C.5 Case Study
C.5.1 Some elements about Kalundborg EIP
C.5.2 Application of the SCOR-inherited model to Kalundborg EIP’s symbiosis xxxiii
1 Structure de la thèse
2.1 Position of the EIP concepts
2.2 Emergence of the MUE within its founding concepts
2.3 Structure of the MUE
2.4 Illustration of external and internal interactions
3.1 Deployment of MUE finality ( » means that the value of the criteria should be maximized and # means that the value of the criteria should be minimized)
3.2 The MACBETH procedure for the MUE action plan performance expression, adapted from (Clivillé et al., 2007)
3.3 Gantt chart for DGIE action plan (See Appendix 3.6 for a description of the actions) 45
3.4 Pairwise comparison matrix of the criteria for DGIE action plan performance expression (Extracted from M-MACBETH)
3.5 Pairwise comparison matrix of the sets of actions for the criterion « Attr/Ret » (Attraction and retention of jobs) and the resulting interval scale. (Extracted from M-MACBETH)
3.6 Predicted elementary and global performance expressions of DGIE. (Extracted from M-MACBETH)
3.7 Predicted evolution of the global performance expression of DGIE
3.8 Predicted evolution of the elementary performance expressions of DGIE
3.9 Integration of MACBETH in the Deming wheel for the MUE control
4.1 Deployment of MUE sustainability
4.2 Overall MUE sustainability assessment model
4.3 Aggregation of the elementary performances into the overall sustainability expression of the MUE
4.4 Complete procedure for the overall sustainability assessment of the MUE
4.5 WAM weights for DGIE
4.6 CI parameters for DGIE
4.7 Estimates of potential CI parameters for the three traditional paradigms of sustainability
A.1 Cycle de vie de l’écoparc
A.2 Décomposition des objectifs de l’écoparc
B.1 Class diagram of the business park
B.2 Percentages of actions impacting business park class
C.1 The three types of ecology, from linear to cyclic industrial systems (Jelinski et al., 1992)
C.2 The SCOR overall Supply Chain processes structure (APICS, SCOR 11.0 Overiew Booklet, 2014)
C.3 Processes structure of an EIP of n companies inherited from the SCOR model (Prod=Product, CoP=Co-Product, ByP=By-Product and Res=Residual Product)
C.4 Kalundborg symbiosis represented with the inherited SCOR process structure