工业生态学与区域发展：生态工业发展的集群政策[外文翻译]

工业生态学与区域发展：生态工业发展的集群政策[外文翻译] (2011届) 本科毕业 设计 领导形象设计圆作业设计ao工艺污水处理厂设计附属工程施工组织设计清扫机器人结构设计 (论文) 外文翻译 外文题目:Industrial Ecology and Regional Development:Eco-Industrial Development as Cluster Policy 出 处:Department of Geography, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK. Emails: p.deutz@hull.ac.uk and d.c.gibbs@hull.ac.uk 作 者: PAULINE DEUTZ and DAVID GIBBS 原 文: INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY AND ECO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IE is a business-oriented initiative aiming to decrease the impact of business on the environment by promoting the ‘win–win’ of eco-efficiency, i.e. That environmental savings (for example, reducing material and energy consumption) can also bring cost savings. IE is characterized by its promotion of ‘industrial ecosystems’, involving inter-company cooperation, derived from a metaphor with natural ecosystems (e.g., FROSCH and GALLOPOULOS, 1989; AYRES, 1989; WELLS, 2006). A number of principles can be derived from this metaphor. KORHONEN (2001) refers to these as roundput; diversity; locality; and gradual change. Roundput is the recycling and cascading of matter and/or energy between either natural or industrial ecosystem members. Diversity relates to biodiversity in natural ecosystems with interdependency and cooperation between different species and/or different organisms of the same species. In industrial terms this concept implies interdependency and cooperation between companies potentially engaged in different industrial sectors as well as other actors (for example, government or non-governmental bodies). Diversity is important, so that the range of inputs required may match the range of outputs offered. Locality in both ecosystem and industrial systems relates to an awareness of, and respect for, local resources and local limiting factors and also the spatial scale of interdependences (networks of industrial symbioses in economic terms). Gradual change for ecosystems relates to change through evolution and use of resources at a rate at which they are replenished. Korhonen contrasts this with the rate of change in industrial systems and calls for a use of renewable resources within their rate of replenishment. In essence, in an industrial ecosystem one company’s byproducts or surplus heat become another’s raw material or energy – essentially the concept of ‘waste’ is replaced by one of ‘residuals’ (ALLENBY, 1999). Thus, IE takes a systems rather than firm-oriented view to ecoefficiency, with the expectation that this will increase the possibilities for eco-efficiencies at the system, or regional, scale. A number of authors have identified IS as a potential area for public sector intervention, in that it could provide a means to both implement environmental regulations and promote economic development. However, whereas some (e.g., ANDREWS, 1999) have simply called for more environmentally sensitive economic development and urged caution as to the potential for planned EIPs, others (e.g., LOWE, 1997; SCHLARB, 2001) have seen a major role for the active promotion of eco-industrial development as a tool for local and regional economic development. Although the links are not made explicit, the implementation of IE as a policy initiative is effectively an environmentally based variant of the types of cluster policy that have been widely applied in economic development initiatives in recent years (see below). Thus, EIP developers are striving for not just an agglomeration of businesses (i.e., a standard industrial park), but an agglomeration with links between the businesses, i.e., a cluster. ECO-INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECTS IN THE USA External economies of scale This section considers the role that external economies of scale have played in the case study EIPs in order to compare this with their role in the RD concepts of clusters. External economies of scale are an important feature of the advantages that the case study EIPs consider themselves to offer to tenants. For example, the Town of Londonderry website proclaims that the EIP ‘allows businesses to save money and work more efficiently through collective environmental management’. 1 Some economies relate to the location of the park in a manner that would apply to any economic development. In this category are economies of scale beyond the park boundary. For example, the location of the Cape Charles EIP was selected for its access to road, rail and port facilities. Economies of scale within EIPs may include shared management and maintenance of building(s) and/or grounds (for example, Devens, PEEC, Cape Charles, Front Royal, Londonderry). In some cases facilities such as conference and meeting rooms, eating and washroom facilities are shared between tenants (for example, PEEC). Environmental economies of scale come from communal waste disposal and/or recycling, and utility sharing in the form of renewable energy (for example, solar energy at Cape Charles, a ground-source heat pump at PEEC). These types of features are referred to in promotional material, implying that the EIPs are aware of their economic appeal to potential clients. Networking Here this section considers the approach that the case study EIPs have taken to networking in order to make a comparison with the RD approach. The goal in all the case study EIPs has been to achieve an agglomeration of interlinked firms. In almost all cases these were envisaged as including energy and/or material exchanges (i.e., transactions). However, some sites are attempting to recruit to a preconceived symbiosis network, while others have an open recruitment policy. In the latter case the aim is to promote networking between tenants with a view to assist the evolution of IS on a medium to long-time scale. The EIPs attempting to recruit to a symbiosis network are Dallas, Red Hills, and Ecolibrium. EIP 1 is based around a dual recycling and educational theme. The EDA funding that helped develop the site was conditional on the recruitment of tenants from a specified range of environment-related activities (for example, recycling, solid waste management, and research into wetlands and waste water treatment). The Red Hills developers have identified a number of potential synergies that would fit with by-products of the operational mine and power station, though other types of businesses would be considered. The operational and pre-operational US EIPs studied have at least partially separated the processes of attempting to form an initial physical agglomeration of businesses from subsequent attempts to establish a symbiosis network (Cape Charles, Devens, PEEC, Londonderry). Bassett Creek Valley was also envisioned as following this approach. At Front Royal, notwithstanding its identification with the EIP movement, the aim was to establish an office park. In these parks the tenant recruitment phase resembles a standard economic development exercise in attracting inward investment. The second development phase for these EIPs is building links between tenants. Co-location is only one step towards establishing interfirm linkages: We realised that we needed to figure out a way to improve communication among the businesses here . . . [for] the concept of industrial ecology to work that one thing that helps is having businesses in proximity to each other. But another aspect that is really important is that the businesses know what each other is about and that formally or informally linkages can happen. (Environmental Programme Organizer, EIP 8) A number of strategies have been adopted to encourage networking amongst site occupants. The Londonderry by-laws require occupants to participate in socialfunctions, such as supporting an educational centre to promote the EIP and its practices to the community (TF MORAN, INC., n.d.). At Cape Charles networking, including transactions, was encouraged by a system that rewards socially or environmentally beneficial activities (including working with other companies on how best to meet the environmental goals of the park) by a reduction in rent (MCGUIRE et al., n.d.). Devens has developed a peer recognition scheme (the EcoStar Program) for environmental and/or social accomplishments including by-product exchange. EIP organizers appreciate that they cannot force linkages, certainly not in terms of materials exchanges, for which there needs to be a match of supply and demand in terms of quantity and quality of material. However, networking events can help to set the pre-conditions for exchanges: It could build some of these relationships. It is already starting to do that with the steering committee, build some relationships among the businesses here so that they’re more likely to do the exchanges if the exchanges make economic sense for them. (Environmental Programme Organizer, EIP 8) To a variable extent the active parks are promoting networking between existing tenants not unlike more conventional clustering activities (BENNEWORTH et al., 2003). Spatial proximity and commitment to sustainability required by some of these sites means they are starting the cluster formation process with potentially favourable preconditions. A newly formed park is an agglomeration of businesses somewhere between the level of ‘potential’ and ‘emerging’ cluster (ATHERTON, 2003): that is, common interests and need or opportunity for cooperation have been identified, but they are at a preliminary level regarding trust building. Potentially, an EIP already has ‘the development of mutual awareness and a local common enterprise’ (RACO, 1999, p. 956) regarded as necessary for the formalization of clusters. This is supported by the willingness of tenants to participate in networking activities, notwithstanding that they had located in an EIP largely for nonenvironment- related reasons. The choice of location may also indicate a preparedness to engage in networking activities outside core company activities (cf., MORGAN et al., 2000). However, the tenants interviewed were environmental managers of multinational companies. Therefore, environmental issues are coreto their own interests, even if not to the company as a whole. Networking-related ideas and activities have been fundamental to the sites studied. However, recruitment is a necessary precursor to networking and the regional setting appears to be a stronger determinant of recruitment success than variations in the approach of the parks. The difficulty of exploiting interfirm relationships to achieve physical flows between firms is evident from the lack of a significant IS network at any of these EIPs. The experience of the case study EIPs also cautions against seeing EIP status as a factor likely to promote efforts at creating a cluster de novo. Several parks have had to downgrade or abandon their environmental aims, suggesting an initial underappreciation of the challenges they faced. Policy This section considers the role of policy in the development of the case study EIPs in order to compare this with the role of policy in RD clusters. All of the EIPs studied are planned initiatives, chiefly aimed at redeveloping specific brownfield sites, but with no preexisting tenants. In all cases (based on survey, interview and secondary data) there is an expectation that the development would generate benefits for the communities in which they are situated. Indeed, most are public sector initiatives led by economic development agencies (Table 1). Cape Charles, Devens, Londonderry, and Bassett Creek Valley were initiated as part of larger sustainability agendas, whereas others (for example, Front Royal, Dallas, and Red Hills) are more isolated sustainability initiatives for agencies whose primary function is economic development. Londonderry was initiated by the town’s Planning and Economic Development Department, but the town’s inability to afford to develop the site itself has meant that it was sold to a private developer and is the only site to be developed by private sector funding (LOWITT, 2003). Nevertheless, the site was sold on the condition that the vision of the planners was implemented via a strict set of covenants (LOWITT, 2003). The PEEC is exceptional in that it is a community- led initiative. However, it is aimed precisely at attracting economic benefits in an environmentally friendly context to a deprived neighbourhood.6 As stated, all the EIPs studied were planned, and all but two were public sector-led. The three that have been the most successful at tenant recruitment so far are Devens and both of the exceptions to public sector status: PEEC is community-led and Londonderry was privately developed following a public sector initiative. Red Hills and Dallas remain at early stages of development. The Dallas Eco Business Park is an on-going development project for the City of Dallas. Front Royal is actively recruiting companies, but the environmental theme has been played down. The Avtex Fibres website currently refers to ‘ecofriendly office space’,7 a step removed from the previous planned ‘eco-office park’, which was already a step back from the earlier interest in an ‘eco-industrial park’. Ecoindustrial principles could yet be an element of the redevelopment of Bassett Creek Valley, but the Cityled redevelopment is still at the planning stages. The Austin EIP does not appear to have progressed beyond conceptual stages. The Cape Charles EIP has closed as a result of difficulties in recruiting tenants. Whilst the IE literature is divided on the possibilities for implementation of its principles via the planned formation of EIPs, this is precisely what has been attempted by each of the case studies. Furthermore, although the net result of the difficulties in establishing symbiosis is that EIPs in practice resemble standard clusters far more than EIPs in theory, the distinction is still important. Labelling themselves as EIPs does make EIPs distinct. This can either help or hinder recruitment, but it means that they are judged by additional criteria for success compared with standard local development projects. Furthermore, whilst EIP status may open up alternative funding sources, these may limit recruitment options (as at EIP 1). In other words, in being more ambitious than more conventional development projects, EIPs may compromise their ability to succeed on any level. 译 文: 工业生态学与区域发展:生态工业发展的集群政策 工业生态学和生态工业的发展 IE是一个面向企业的倡议，旨在通过促进减少“双赢”的生态效益，即对环境的节约(例如，减少原材料和能源消耗)也能带来节约成本的业务对环境的影响。IE是通过其促进特色的工业生态系统，涉及公司间的合作，从自然生态系统。轮放是回收物质或能源之间的级联自然或工业生态系统的成员。多样性与生物多样性有关的相互依存和不同物种之间或同一物种不同生物体合作的自然生态系统。在工业而言，这意味着概念之间的相互依存和可能在不同的工业部门以及(例如，政府或非政府机构)从事其他角色公司合作。多样性是重要的，使投入的范围，可能需要提供的产出相匹配的范围。在这两个生态系统和工业系统局部性关乎意识，因为，当地资源和当地的限制因素，空间尺度(在经济方面的工业共生网络)也是相互依赖的。渐进式的生态系统变化有关，通过发展和使用资源，改变它们的补充率。对比与在工业系统，并要求更改为可再生资源的补充率在其使用率。从本质上讲，产业生态系统中的一个公司的副产品或余热成为另一个的原材料或能源，本质上是“垃圾”的概念所取代一个“残”(艾伦比，1999)。因此，IE需要一个系统，而不是公司面向以生态效益的期望，这将增加系统的生态效率的可能性或区域规模性。 已确定的作者人数是作为一个公共部门的干预潜力的地区，因为它可以提供一种手段，同时落实环保法规，促进经济发展。然而，尽管有些(如，安德鲁斯，1999)简称为更环保敏感的经济发展，并敦促已规划生态工业园区，其他(如，罗威，1997年; SCHLARB，2001)的潜在谨慎已经看到了重大作用积极推广生态工业的发展，为地方和区域经济发展的工具。虽然链接不明确，执行的IE作为一项政策措施，是有效的集群政策已被广泛应用在经济发展的倡议基于近年来环境变异类型。因此，电子信息产品的开发正在努力争取不仅仅是一个企业的集聚(即，一个 标准 excel标准偏差excel标准偏差函数exl标准差函数国标检验抽样标准表免费下载红头文件格式标准下载 的工业园)，但与企业之间的联系，也就是说，一个集群集聚。 美国的生态工业园区建设 规模外部经济 本节讨论的是外部经济的规模在电子信息产品的个案研究，以发挥他们在比较集群的RD概念的作用这种作用。外部经济规模的优势是一个重要特点是电子信息产品的案例研究认为自己提供的租户。例如，伦敦德里网站镇宣称，通过集体的环境管理工作，更有效地了解电子信息产品，使企业能更省钱。一涉及到一些经济体对工业园的方式，将适用于任何经济发展的位置。此类别超出工业园的边界的规模经济。例如，生态工业园的开普查尔斯位置被选为其进入道路，铁路和港口设施。规模经济在电子信息产品可能包括共同管理和建设的维护和理由(例如，德文斯，凯普查尔斯，前皇家伦敦德里)。在这样的会议厅和会议室，饮食和居民之间共用洗手间设施的案件设施(例如，部分元等效电路)。环境经济规模来自社区废物处置和回收，和实用分享可再生能源形式(例如，在开普查尔斯在PEEC算法地源热泵太阳能)。这些类型的功能中提到的宣传材料，这意味着该生态工业园是其经济吸引力认识到潜在的客户。 网络 在这里，本节认为，该案件已经采取措施来研究生态工业园网络，以使研发的方法与比较法。在所有的个案研究生态工业园的目标已经实现了相互关联的企业集聚。在所有情况下，这些都是为包括能源和/或物质交换(即买卖)所设想的。然而，一些网站试图招募到一个先入为主的共生网络，而另一些公开招聘政策。在后一种情况下，目的是促进居民之间的网络视图，帮助那些对介质是长期时间尺度演化。在生态工业园试图招一共生网络的达拉斯，雷德希尔斯。EIP是基于一个双循环和教育的主题。EDA的发展资金，帮助该网站是在招聘条件的住户从与环境有关的活动指定范围(例如，回收利用，固体废物管理，研成湿地和污水处理)。红色的山丘开发商已经确定了潜在的协同配合，将逐矿的业务和电站产品，虽然其他类型的企业将被视为数。 业务和运行前美国电子信息产品的研究至少有部分分开的企图，形成一个初步的企业集聚物理随后的尝试建立一个共生网络(普查尔斯德文斯，PEEC，伦敦德里)的过程。巴西特河流域还设想如下这种方法。皇家前台，尽管它与EIP的动作识别，其目的是建立一个办公园区。在这些公园的房客招聘相类似，在吸引外来投资标准的经济发展工作。 这些电子信息产品的二次开发阶段是居民之间建立联系。一地两检是在建立企业间只有一个联系的步骤: 我们意识到，我们需要找出一种办法，以改善这里的企业之间的沟通。。。[供]产业生态学的概念，一个工作是有帮助的东西在接近的其他业务。但另一个方面是很重要的是，企业知道对方是如何，是正式的或非正式的联系都可能发生。 (环境计划管理器，电子信息产品8) 一些战略已经实施了鼓励居民之间的网络站点。在伦敦德里按法律要求居民参与社会功能等配套的教育中心，以促进电子信息产品和做法，以社区(TF的莫兰，股份有限公司，钕)。在凯普查尔斯联网，包括交易，是由社会或 制度 关于办公室下班关闭电源制度矿山事故隐患举报和奖励制度制度下载人事管理制度doc盘点制度下载 ，奖励有利于环境的活动(包括与其他公司的工作如何更好地满足园区的环境目标)由减租(麦圭尔等人的鼓励)。德文斯制定了同行的认可的环境和/或社会成就计划(EcoStar计划)，包括产品交换。 EIP的组织者明白，他们不能强迫的联系，肯定不会在材料交流方面，为此，需要有一个匹配的供应和需求在数量和质量方面的材料。然而，网络事件可以帮助建立交流的先决条件: 它可以建立这种关系的一些。它已经开始这样做与督导委员会，在这里企业之间建立一些关系，使他们更容易做的交流交往，如果为他们的经济意义。 (环境计划管理器，电子信息产品8) 在不同程度上积极推动公园没有什么不同活动之间更传统的聚类现有租户的网络(BENNEWORTH等，2003)。空间距离和承诺，由这些网站的一些必需的可持续性意味着他们已经开始与潜在有利条件集群的形成过程。新成立的园区是企业集聚的地方之间的'势'和'新兴'集群水平(阿瑟顿，2003年)，即:共同的利益和需要或合作的机会已经确定，但他们是在一个初步的水平关于建立信任。潜在的，一个生态工业园已拥有'的相互了解和本地企业共同发展'(拉科，1999年， 956页)认为必要的集群正规化。这是支持由租户愿意参与网络活动，尽管 他们已经位于一个非环境有关的原因主要是电子信息产品。地点的选择可能也表明准备在境外从事网络活动的核心公司的活动(参见，摩根等人，2000)。然而，被访住户的跨国公司环境管理人员。因此，环境问题是考虑自己的利益，即使不是本公司作为一个整体。 网络相关的思想和活动已基本研究的网站。然而，招聘是一个必要的先驱和区域联网似乎是设置的招聘比公园的成功做法的变化较强的决定性因素。利用企业间的关系，以实现企业之间物质流的困难是从一个严重缺乏明显的是在这些生态工业园任何网络。该案例研究的生态工业园的经验还警告不要看到的一个因素可能促进建立一个群集从头努力EIP的地位。几个公园不得不降级或放弃其环境目标，这表明了他们所面临的初步挑战。 政策 本节认为，政策的案例研究的生态工业园发展中的作用，以比较与政策在研发集群的作用这一点。电子信息产品的研究计划的所有措施，主要是在棕地重建的具体目标，但没有预先存在的租户。在所有情况下(根据调查，访谈和次级数据)有这种期望的发展将产生在他们位于社区的利益。事实上，大多数公共部门的经济发展机构(见表1)领导的倡议。开普查尔斯德文斯，伦敦德里，并启动了巴西特河流域作为更大的可持续性议程的一部分，而另一些(例如，前皇家，达拉斯和雷德希尔斯)机构，其主要职能是经济发展更加孤立的可持续性倡议。伦敦德里发起了由镇的规划和经济发展部，但镇无力负担，发展本身也意味着它被出售给私人发展商，并且是唯一网站是由私营部门的资金(LOWITT，2003年)开发的网站。不过，该网站被出售，该规划的设想是通过一组严格的公约(LOWITT，2003年)实施情况。该PEEC算法是例外，因为它是一个以社区为主导的倡议。然而，正是为了吸引一个环保方面的经济利益更剥夺邻居。 如上所述，所有的电子信息产品进行规划研究，但两个人，所有公共部门为主导。这三个已招聘的最成功的进入租户迄今为止德文斯和公共部门的现状两个例外:PEEC算法是社区主导，伦敦德里是私人发展后，公共部门的积极性。雷德希尔斯和小牛队仍然在发展的初期阶段。达拉斯生态商务园是的达拉斯市的持续发展项目。前皇家正积极招聘单位，但环保主题已被淡化。网站目前的Avtex纤维是指'环保型办公空间'，删除以前的计划，生态办公园区，这已经是在一个生态工业园区退一步从早期的兴趣。生态工业原则仍可能是对的巴西特河流域重建的元素，但重建仍处于规划阶段。奥斯汀的EIP似乎并没有超越概念阶段进展。生态工业园的开普查尔斯已经关闭，以在招聘住户困难的结果。 虽然IE的文献划分为实施其原则上通过的可能性，形成了电子信息产品计 划，这正是一直由每个案例研究尝试。此外，虽然在建立共生的困难最终结果是，在实践中电子信息产品雷同标准集群远远超过电子信息产品在理论上的区别仍然是重要的。标签自己是独特的生态工业园确实使生态工业园。这可以帮助或阻碍招聘，但它意味着他们是由其他标准来判断成功的标准相比，当地的发展项目。此外，虽然EIP的状态可能会开辟其他资金来源，这可能会限制招募股权(截至EIP的)。换句话说，在比传统更加雄心勃勃的发展计划，电子信息产品可能会损害他们在任何成功的能力水平。