A Generalized Framework
and Methodology for Product Planning in Eco-Industrial Parks
Shi Lei 1, Zheng Donghui 2,
Shen Jingzhu 2, Li Yourun 2, Qian Yi 1,
(1 State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment
Simulation and Pollution Control, Tsinghua University, Beijing,
100084, China
2 Department of Chemical Engineering, Tsinghua
University, Beijing, 100084, China)
Abstract: A product planning framework and methodology
for Eco-industrial Parks (EIPs) was studied. Following the
discussion of guiding principles, a generalized framework was
firstly proposed on how to obtain a sustainable product system.
Then, an integrated product planning methodology was set up for a
given EIP. Finally, the methodology was applied illustratively to
a real EIP project.
Keywords: product planning, industrial ecology,
Eco-industrial Park
Introduction
As one of the ideal patterns for the development of industry,
Eco-Industrial Park (EIP) has gained more and more attention in
both developed and developing countries. Two categories of EIP
projects are identified: the redevelopment of existing industrial
parks and the design of new EIPs. By learning from the Nature,
both types of EIPs try to form an engineered or self-organized
industrial symbiosis system like Kalundborg (Denmark), the most
famous park where a few disparate large units have worked out an
effective system to optimize their materials and energy (Grann,
1997). Some common features of EIPs have been identified, for
example, industry match in terms of inputs and outputs, high
efficiency of material flows, energy flows and information flows,
and so on. However, the conception of EIP is still evolving, and
the standardized one has not yet gained. According to the United
States President’s Council on Sustainable Development (1996), an
EIP can be considered to be an industrial system of planned
materials and energy exchanges that seeks to minimize energy and
raw materials use, minimize waste, and build sustainable economic,
ecological and social relations.
Up to date, most definitions on EIP are from the perspective of
process system, which easily misleads one to think that the main
task of designing an EIP is just to optimize its process system.
In fact, EIP is an evolutionary system governed by natural, social
and economical rules instead of a static one. Therefore, updating
its product system, in a sense, is a more important task for the
planning of an EIP than optimizing its process system. Looking at
the product system rather than process system, shifts the focus of
planning from the end of the process to the center stage of
product development which is essential for the overall performance
of an EIP. For a single product or products in a kind, recently,
the concept of product planning or development has been extended
such that it includes consideration of the entire life cycle of a
product. As a result, a new research area called life cycle
engineering, concurrent engineering, or integrated product and
process development comes up and receives more and more attention
(Yan et al., 1999). More recently, several studies began to cast
the planning of sustainable product system (Ehrenfeld, 1997;
Hanssen, 1999). However, they still put their stress on the life
cycles of products instead of the context of a given EIP. Much
research is needed to obtain a systematic methodology for product
planning for EIPs.
A generalized framework was proposed firstly on how to obtain a
sustainable product system under the guiding principles of
industrial ecology. Based on this framework, then, an integrated
product planning methodology was set up for a given EIP. Finally,
the methodology was applied illustratively to the planning of
Shenjia EIP located in Quzhou City, the East China’s Zhejiang
Province.
Guiding principles of product planning
The product planning process is a step-by-step procedure that
firms follow from product ideas to product introduction into the
marketplace (Spitz, 1977). It is so complicated that the systems
approach to product planning is always required. By considering
the industrial system as a whole, industrial ecology provides a
conceptual framework and a comprehensive and systems-based
approach for the process of planning product development.
According to Stanley (1999), industrial ecology is an approach
based upon systems engineering and ecological principles that
integrate the production and consumption aspects of the design,
production, use and termination (decommissioning) of products and
services in a manner that minimizes environmental impact while
optimizing utilization of resource, energy, and capital.
Following the ideas behind industrial ecology, Hanssen (1999)
has developed a systematic structure for Environmentally Sound
Product Development by integrating environmental performance,
customer quality and life cycle economy in decision-making. Four
main strategies for product system improvements were mentioned:
- Reformulating user requirements, to find new innovative
solutions beyond the scope of today’s product systems;
- Improvement in the performance of the product system, in
relation to user requirements;
- Substitution of the whole product system, or
substitution/elimination of parts of the system;
- Optimization of the processes and operation of each system
unit or in the interaction between system units.
Hardin Tibbs (1992) provided a more detailed framework with
seven elements for industrial ecology:
- Improving the metabolic pathways of industrial processes and
materials use;
- Creating loop-closing industrial ecosystems;
- Dematerializing industrial output;
- Systematizing patterns of energy use;
- Balancing industrial input and output to natural ecosystem
capacity;
- Aligning policy to conform with long-term industrial system
evolution;
- Creating new action-coordinating structures, communicative
linkages, and information.
The first four of these items can be used as the technical
skeleton of a product design system (Ehrenfeld, 1997). However,
this skeleton is still too abstract to be practical. Many
researchers have realized this point, and presented some
frameworks to integrate technology and environment under the
banner of industrial ecology (Allenby, 1994). Among these
technologies, Design for Environment (DFE) and Green Chemistry are
frequently mentioned and thought to be central to the development
of the industrial ecology because both focus on the design phase
which affords the greatest flexibility in reducing environmental
impacts (Anastas and Breen, 1997).
DFE (similar to Eco-design and life cycle design) is a
systematic approach to reducing and balancing the adverse impact
of manufactured products on the environment by considering the
product’s whole life cycle—from raw materials acquisition,
through manufacture, distribution and use, to reuse, recycling and
final disposal. It involves a combination of strategies to
minimize total environmental impacts over the whole life cycle of
a product (Roy, 2000).
Green Chemistry is the use of chemistry techniques and
methodologies that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of
feedstocks, products, by-products, solvents, reagents, etc., that
are hazardous to human health or the environment (Anastas and
Breen, 1997). The general areas of investigation in Green
Chemistry include: selection of feedstocks, selection of reagents,
choosing synthetic transformations, selection of solvents and
reaction conditions, and selection of products and the design of
safer chemicals. In short, Green Chemistry concerns the greening
of the feedstocks, the process and the products.
Both DFE and Green Chemistry tend to evolve a sustainable
system of production and consumption that offers a decent quality
of life to the world’s population within the long-term carrying
capacity of the Earth. However, their viewpoints are different:
DFE provides the understanding of what changes need to be made in
products and processes with its methods and tools such as Life
Cycle Analysis, while Green Chemistry provides the methods and
tools by which products and processes can be made. So, to some
extent, DFE and Green Chemistry are usually thought to be
complementary. Thus, a product planning framework can be
constructed by combining DFE and Green Chemistry.
Product planning framework
Analysis of the flow of materials used in an economic system,
the way they are used and the impact of their use on the
environment could form the corner stone for product planning, and
then generate criteria on the basis of which one could plan
products development work in an EIP. Fig. 1a shows the material
flow model made up of three subsystems: processes (production
system), products, and society (consumption system). Here, the
product system is highlighted because of its roles in bridging the
production and consumption systems. The production system takes in
new materials from the natural donor, and generates both products
and wastes. Some wastes are reused by the production system
itself, and the remaining are discarded into the natural acceptor.
The products enter the consumption system, and are then discharged
with three different terminals: some are reused without any
modifications; some are recycled into the production system; and
the remaining has to be thrown into the natural acceptor.
From the Fig. 1a, the economic, environmental and social
performances of the product system depend on the feedstocks from
the Nature, the way of production, the way of consumption, the
ratio of waste reuse/recycling, and the product in itself. In Fig.
1b, we present a possible framework within which the five
influencing factors above are discussed. A sustainable product
system can be achieved by taking the following 5 paths:
- the dematerialization of products (replacing resources by
services and techniques, such as information techniques, nano-techniques,
molecular manufacturing, and so on);
- the greening of products (alternatives of forbidden
products, bio-degradatable products, recyclable products, and
other environmental benign products);
- the greening of processes (energy integration, mass
integration, the green catalysis system, the non-solvent
reaction system, the mild reaction system, and so on);
- the greening of feedstocks (alternating or reducing toxics
use, replacing minerals by biomass); and,
- the resourcelization of wastes (waste reclamation
techniques).
By applying the product life cycle ideas in DFE and considering
all aspects of product improvements in Green Chemistry, therefore,
the framework with 5 product improvement paths provides a holistic
and systematic way of product planning.
 |
 |
Fig.1a
The material flow in economic system |
Fig.1b
Product planning
framework |
Product planning methodology for EIPs: an application
procedure
In the above Section, a conceptual framework for product
planning is outlined. Now we give an application procedure to
illustrate how to apply the framework systematically to real
product planning in an EIP.
Take the Shenjia EIP project being carried out as an example.
An application procedure of the product planning methodology
includes the following steps:
Step 1: construct the remaining products set by
excluding the forbidden products (mainly due to international,
governmental, and regional regulations) from the existing products
set;
Step 2: construct extended products set by adding the
region-planned products to the remaining products set;
Step 3: based on the extended products set, construct
the product superstructure following the 5 paths included in the
framework above;
Step 4: decrease the products superstructure through the
convergency analysis of resources and technology;
Step 5: decrease further the products superstructure
through the marketing prediction analysis;
Step 6: decrease finally the products superstructure
through the compatibility analysis with the existing process
system in the EIP.
The main idea behind this procedure lies in: a products
superstructure is firstly constructed following the guiding
principles of product planning (Step 1- Step 3), then a dominant
product system is identified under constraints in consideration,
such as resource scarcity, technical feasibility, market
prediction, compatibility with existing system, and so on (Step 4-
Step 6). Therefore, the dominant product system provides a strong
base for guiding how to attract enterprises, as well as the site
planning and mass integration in the EIP. It needs to pay
attention that we should construct the product superstructure on a
larger level (at least on the same level) than the EIP in
consideration. In this case, the product superstructure is based
on the Quzhou region level because the Shenjia EIP is still in the
cradle and its existing product system is interlinked so strongly
with other parks.
In Step 3, how to apply the 5 improvement paths to constructing
the product superstructure is the most critical. Generally
speaking, the existing steady-going product system is basically
balanced with its surrounding resources, markets, and social
environment except for some man-made disastrous interruption,
which makes us to focus on its backbone product series. In the
case, 7 product series have been identified in Quzhou region:
agricultural fertilizers, inorganic salts, nitrogenous organic
compounds, halogenide products (mainly chlorochemicals and
fluorochemicals), benzene derivatives, silicochemicals, and
biomass derivatives (mainly heteronuclear compounds and
amino-acids). Taking the 5 paths, therefore, the following product
series are highlighted:
- Plastic manufacturing series (Path 1);
- Fine fluorochemicals (Path 1);
- Alternatives to chloro-agricultural pesticides (Path 2);
- Hydrogeneration product series (Path 3);
- Dimethyl carbonate derivatives (Path 4);
- Biomass derivatives distilled from plants (for example,
oranges) (Path 4).
- HCl-consumed product series (Path 5).
Apply the step 4-6 to Shenjia EIP where chlorochemicals
dominate, only HCl-consumed product series and orange-distilled
product series are preferred (the details is omitted).
Conclusions
Due to the importance of EIP to industrial development, many
industrial parks are being designed or redesigned under the
guiding of industrial ecology principles. Thus, the planning of
product system deserves more and more attention in the context of
the EIP. A generalized framework was proposed firstly on how to
obtain a sustainable product system by product design. Then, an
integrated product planning methodology was set up for a given EIP.
Finally, the methodology was applied illustratively to a real EIP
project. Further work will be followed in the near future.
References
1. Allenby, Brad. Industrial ecology gets down to earth.
IEEE Circuits and Devices Magazine. 1994, 10: 24-28
2. Anastas, P.T.; Breen, J.J. Design for the environment and
Green Chemistry: the heart and soul of industrial ecology. Journal
of Cleaner Production. 1997, 5(1-2): 97-102
3. Cote, Raymond P.; Cohen-Rosenthal, E. Designing
eco-industrial parks: A synthesis of some experiences. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 1998, 6 (3-4): 181-188
4. Ehrenfeld, J.R. Industrial ecology: a framework for product
and process design. Journal of Cleaner Production. 1997,
5(1-2): 87-95
5. Grann H. The industrial symbiosis at Kalundborg, Denmark. The
Industrial Green Game. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
1997:117-123.
6. Hanssen, O.J. Sustainable product systems - experiences
based on case projects in sustainable product development. Journal
of Cleaner Production. 1999, 7: 27-41
7. Hardin Tibbs. Pollution Prevention Review. 1992,
2(2): 167
8. Manahan S.E. Industrial ecology: environmental chemistry and
hazardous waste.
9. President’s Council on Sustainable Development. In:
Eco-Industrial Park Workshop Proceedings, Washington (DC), 17-18
October 1996.
10. Roy R. Sustainable product-services system. Future,
2000, 32:289-299
11. Spitz A.E. Product planning (2nd Edition). New York:
Mason/Charter Publishers, 1977
12. Yan P., Zhou M., Sebastian D. An integrated product and
process development methodology: concept formulation. Robotics
and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 1999, 15: 201-210 |
