The essence of industrial ecology was defined in the first textbook of the field in this way: Industrial ecology is the means by which humanity can deliberately and rationally approach
Trang 1INTRODUCTION
Industrial ecology is an emerging field of study that deals
with sustainability The essence of industrial ecology was
defined in the first textbook of the field in this way:
Industrial ecology is the means by which humanity can
deliberately and rationally approach and maintain
sustain-ability, given continued economic, cultural, and
technologi-cal evolution The concept requires that an industrial system
be viewed not in isolation from its surrounding systems, but
in concert with them It is a systems view in which one seeks
to optimize the total materials cycle from virgin material,
to finished material, to component, to product, to obsolete
product, and to ultimate disposal Factors to be optimized
include resources, energy, and capital (Graedel and Allenby,
2003, 18)
Industrial ecology is industrial and technological in the
sense that it focuses on industrial processes and related
issues, including the supply and use of materials and energy,
adoption of technologies, and study of technological
envi-ronmental impacts Although social, cultural, political, and
psychological topics arise in an industrial-ecology context,
they are often regarded as ancillary fields, not central to
industrial ecology itself (Allenby, 1999)
Industrial ecology’s emphasis on industries and
technolo-gies can be explained with the “master equation” of industrial
ecology Originating from the IPAT equation (impact,
popu-lation, affluence, and technology; Ehrlich and Holdren, 1971;
Commoner, 1972), the master equation expresses the
relation-ship between technology, humanity, and the environment in the
following form:
Environmental impact Population GDP
Person Environmental impa
Unit of GDP
(1)
where GDP is a countrys or region’s gross domestic product,
the measure of industrial and economic activity (Graedel
and Allenby, 2003, pp 5–7; Chertow, 2000a)
In this equation, the population term, a social and
demo-graphic one, has shown a rapid increase in the past several
decades, and continues to increase The second term, per-capita GDP, is an economic indicator of the present
popula-tion’s wealth and living standards Its general trend is rising
as well, although there are wide variations among countries and over time These trends make it clear that the only hope
of maintaining environmental interactions in the next few
decades at an acceptable level is to reduce the third term, envi-ronmental impacts per unit of GDP, to a greater degree than is
the product of the increases in the first two terms—a substan-tial challenge! This third term is mainly technological and is a central focus of industrial ecology
The name “industrial ecology,” combining two normally divergent words, relates to a radical hypothesis—the “biologi-cal analogy.” This vision holds that an industrial system is a part of the natural system and may ideally mimic it Because biological ecology is defined as the study of the distribu-tion and abundance of living organisms and the interacdistribu-tions between those organisms and their environment, industrial ecology may be regarded as the study of metabolisms of tech-nological organisms, their use of resources, their potential environmental impacts, and their interactions with the natural world
The typology of ecosystems has been characterized as three patterns (Figure 1a–c) A Type I system is a linear and open system that relies totally on external energy and materials In biology, this mode of action is represented by Earth’s earliest life forms A Type II system is quasi-cyclic, with much greater efficiency than Type I However, it is not sustainable on a planetary scale, because resource flows retain a partially linear character Only a Type III system possesses a real cyclic pattern, with optimum resource loops and external reliance only on solar energy This is how the natural biosphere behaves from a very long-term perspective
The evolutionary path from Type I to Type III taken by nature (from open to cyclic, from unsustainable) provides per-spective on the evolution of industrial ecosystems Historically, the industrial system has mimicked the Type I pattern, with little concern about resource constraints The best of today’s industries come close to Type II (Figure 1d), and a Type III industrial system is a vision of a possible sustainable future for industrial ecosystems
The biological analogy has been explored in other ways
as well From a metaphysical perspective, industrial ecology’s philosophy might be labeled as: “nature as model,” “learning from nature,” and “orientation by nature” (Isenmann, 2002)
Trang 2In this context, industrial firm-to-firm interactions have
been examined by ecological food-web theory (Hardy and
Graedel, 2002), and the theoretical approaches of
thermody-namics and self-organization have also been applied to these
systems (Ayres, 1988)
The interaction between the worlds of industry and
ecology emphasizes that industrial ecology is a systems
science that places emphasis on the interactions among
the components of the systems being studied This
sys-tems orientation is manifested in several of the research
topics of the field, including life-cycle analysis, industrial
metabolism, system models and scenarios, and sustainabil-ity assessment (Lifset and Graedel, 2002), topics that are discussed below
THE ORIGINS OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY For many thousands of years, nature dominated the human-nature relationship This dominance was reversed
by the growth of agriculture and especially by the industrial revolution of the 1800s The implications for nature of this
ECOSYSTEM Component
ECOSYSTEM Component
ECOSYSTEM Component
ECOSYSTEM Component
ECOSYSTEM Component
ECOSYSTEM Component
ECOSYSTEM Component
Unlimited waste Unlimited resources
Limited waste Energy &
Limited resources
(a) Type I: linear material flows
(b) Type II: quasi-cyclic material flows
(c) Type III: cyclic material flows
FIGURE 1 Typology of ecosystems From Graedel and Allenby, 2003; Lifset and Graedel, 2002 (a) Type I:
linear material flows; (b) Type II: quasi-cyclic material flows; (c) Type III: cyclic material flows; (d) Type II
industrial ecosystem.
Trang 3transformation were called out in the third quarter of the
twentieth century by several seminal environmental thinkers
(Carson, 1962; Lovelock, 1988; Ward et al., 1972) The
pub-lication of the Club of Rome’s report The Limits to Growth
also received considerable public attention (Meadows et al.,
1972) That report predicted that economic growth could not
continue indefinitely because of Earth’s limited availability
of natural resources, as well as its limited capacity to
assimi-late pollution of various types Most of the Club of Rome’s
dire projections about resource exhaustion have not thus far
come to pass Nonetheless, the issue of the sustainability of
human civilization has become a concern of global scope
and reach
The concept of industrial ecology, in which the
technology–environmental linkage is explicitly recognized
and addressed, can be traced to the early 1920s (Erkman,
1997, 2002) However, 1989 is generally viewed as the
formal year of birth of the field (Figure 2) In that year, R
Frosch, then vice president of the General Motors Research
Laboratories, and his colleague N Gallopoulos developed
the concept of industrial ecosystems in their seminal article
“Strategies for Manufacturing” (Frosch and Gallopoulos,
1989) Their view was that an ideal industrial system would
function in a way analogous to its biological counterparts
In such an industrial ecosystem, the waste produced by one
process would be used as a resource for another process No
waste would therefore be emitted from the system, and the
negative impacts to the natural environment would be
mini-mized or eliminated This analogy between biological and
industrial systems was the conceptual contribution that led
ultimately to the new field of industrial ecology
Industrial ecology’s growth since the early 1990s has
been marked by a series of institutional milestones, including
the first textbook ( Industrial Ecology; Graedel and Allenby,
1995), the first university degree program (created by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology [NTNU] in 1996), T E Graedel’s appointment as the first professor of industrial ecology in 1997, the birth of the
Journal of Industrial Ecology in 1997, and the
founda-tion of the Internafounda-tional Society for Industrial Ecology (ISIE) in 2001 As a consequence of these activities, an academic community of industrial ecologists has been formed, research methodologies are being developed and refined, and industrial ecology is being practiced all over the world
INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY’S TOOLBOX Given an evolving field with a wide and evolving scope, industrial ecology’s toolbox has become equipped with a variety of methods of approaching the concepts and practices
of interest Three of the most common tools, material-flow analysis (MFA), life-cycle assessment (LCA), and input-output analysis (IOA), are discussed below from a method-ological point of view
Material-Flow Analysis
MFA is “the systematic assessment of the flows and stocks
of materials within a system defined in space and time It connects the sources, the pathways, and the intermediate and final sinks of a material” (Brunner and Rechberger, 2004,
p 3), thus providing information on the systemic utilization
of the material within the given boundaries
(d) Type II industrial ecosystem
Limited waste Energy &
Limited resources
Materials Extractor
Manu-facturer
FIGURE 1 (continued)
Trang 4The principal terminology used in MFA studies is as
fol-lows (Graedel and Allenby, 2003, pp 284–289; Brunner and
Rechberger, 2004, pp 34–40):
Substance: Any (chemical) element or compound
composed of uniform units
Material: Substances and combinations thereof, both
uniform and nonuniform
Goods: Entities of matter with a positive or negative
economic value, comprised of one or more
sub-stances
Process: The operation of transforming or transporting
materials
Flux: The rate at which an entity enters or leaves a
process
Budget: An accounting of the receipts, disbursements,
and reserves of a substance or material
Cycle: A system of connected processes that transfer
and conserve substances or materials
The central principle upon which MFA is based is that of
mass balance, which states that the mass of all inputs into
a process equals the sum of the mass of all outputs and
any mass accumulation (or depletion) that occurs within
This renders the results of MFA useful for studies of
resource availability, recycling potential, environmental
loss, energy analysis, and policy studies MFA may be
per-formed on a local scale and from a technical engineering
perspective (as in Type A in Table 1), or, on a broader scale,
associated with a geopolitical or socioeconomic dimension (as in Type B in Table 1; Bringezu and Moriguchi, 2002)
In each case there is the potential for achieving a better understanding of the materials aspects of the process or entity under study, as well as identifying opportunities for achieving improvements
Life-Cycle Assessment
LCA is a tool broadly used by industrial ecologists to identify and quantify the environmental impacts associated with a product, progress, service, or system across its “cradle-to-grave” life stages Unlike the more targeted examination
of a product or process in order to understand and quantify its direct environmental impacts, the use of a life-cycle perspec-tive enables one to examine the direct and indirect environ-mental effects of an object through the stages of extraction of raw materials; various manufacturing, fabrication, and trans-portation steps; use; and disposal or recycling
LCA began in the United States in 1969, in an effort
to compare several types of beverage containers and deter-mine which of them produced the lesser effect on natural resources and the environment (Levy, 1994; U.S EPA, 2004) Since the 1990s, the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry in North America and Europe and the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have worked to promote consensus on a framework for conduct-ing life-cycle inventory analysis and impact assessment In
1993, the International Organization for Standardization
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
R Carson, SILENT SPRING, 1962
B Ward et al., ONLY ONE EARTH, 1972
United Nations Conference on Human Environment, 1972
D.H Meadows et al., LIMITS TO GROWTH, 1972
WCED, OUR COMMON FUTURE, 1987
Foundation of UNEP, 1972
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1st Earth Summit), 1992
2nd Earth Summit, 2002
Founding of ISIE, 2000 T.E Graedel, Professor of industrial ecology, 1997
Yale & MIT JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, 1997
T.E Graedel and B.R Allenby, INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, 1995
NTNU, Industrial ecology degree, 1996
R Frosch and N Gallopoulos,
STRATEGIES FOR MANUFACTURING, 1989
R.U Ayres, Industrial metabolism, 1980s
National Academy of Science’s Colloquium on
Industrial Ecology, USA, 1991
Industrial ecology’s appearance in the literature, 1970s Beginning of industrial symbiosis in Kalundborg, 1970s
FIGURE 2 Industrial ecology and sustainable development: time line of events.
Trang 5(ISO) included LCA in its ISO 14000 environmental
certi-fication process As a result of these efforts, an overall LCA
framework and a well-defined inventory methodology have
been created
LCA consists of three phases (Udo de Haes, 2002):
Goal and scope definition: A phase to set the
pur-poses and boundaries of a study, such as geographic
scope, impact categories, chemicals of concern, and
data-availability issues
Life-cycle inventory analysis: The most objective and
time-consuming process, in which the energy, water,
and natural resources used to extract, produce, and
distribute the product, and the resulting air emissions,
water effluents, and solid wastes, are quantified
Life-cycle impact assessment: An evaluation of the
ecological, human-health, and other effects of the
environmental loadings identified in the inventory
These three phases are usually being followed by an
inter-pretation phase in which the results from the above
pro-cesses are tracked and possibilities for improvement are
discussed
Data availability and uncertainty are continuing concerns
of LCA, as are the time and expense required As a result,
there have been efforts to streamline, or simplify, LCA to
make it more feasible while retaining its key features (e.g.,
Curran, 1996)
Input-Output Analysis
IOA is a technique of quantitative economics
intro-duced by Leontief in 1936 (Leontief et al., 1983, p 20;
Polenske, 2004) In this approach, an input-output table
is constructed to provide a systematic picture of the flow
of goods and services among all producing and consum-ing sectors of an economy IOA also registers the flow of goods and services into and out of a given region The mathematical structure of the basic input-output models
is simple:
where x is a vector of outputs of industrial sectors and y is a vector of deliveries by the industries to final demand A is a
square matrix of input-output coefficients; each element a ij represents the amount of sector i ’s output purchased by sector
j per unit of j ’s output (Leontief et al., 1983, p 23)
IOA approaches material cycles by replacing the mon-etary flows with material ones Its initial demonstration was
a projection of U.S nonfuel-minerals scenarios, completed
by the creator of the input-output method in the early 1980s
(Leontief et al., 1983, pp 33–205) The analogous approach
for physical flows is termed a “physical input-output table” (PIOT) It is the product of the efforts of scholars from vari-ous disciplines between the 1970s and 1990s, and has been applied to establish the material accounting system of several
TABLE 1 Types of material-flow-related analysis
Objects of
primary interests
Specific environmental problems related to certain impacts per unit flow of:
e.g., Cd, Cl, Pb, Zn, Hg,
e.g., wooden products, energy carriers, excavation, biomass, plastics
e.g., diapers, batteries, cars
Within certain firms, sectors, regions
B
Problems of environmental concern related to the throughput of:
e.g., single plants, medium and large companies
e.g., production sectors, chemical industry, construction
e.g., total or main throughput, mass flow balance, total material requirement
associated with substances, materials, products
Source: Bringezu and Moriguchi, 2002 (With permission)
Trang 6countries (Strassert, 2001, 2002) Duchin did the pioneer work
to bring the IOA approach to industrial ecology (Duchin,
1992) More recently, the IOA approach has been linked with
LCA to produce a new method: economic input-output LCA
(EIO-LCA; Matthews and Mitchell, 2000)
INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY IN PRACTICE
Micro-Level Practice
Micro industrial ecology’s practices are mostly centered on
firms and their products and processes Firms are the most
important agents for technological innovation in market
economies The persistent supply of greener products from
greener processes in facilities constitutes the
microfoun-dations of world environmental improvement In
addi-tion, a present firm is not a sole “policy taker” any more
To overcome the low efficiency of command-and-control
environmental regulation, many firms have become “policy
makers,” so far as the relationship between technology and
the environment is concerned
Pollution prevention (P2), also termed “cleaner
produc-tion,” is industry’s primary attempt to improve upon passive
compliance with environmental regulations In P2, attention is
turned to reducing the generation of pollution at its source, by
minimizing the use of, and optimizing the reuse or recycling
of, all materials, especially hazardous ones The pioneer of
this approach is 3M’s Pollution Prevention Pays (3P) program
in 1975 It succeeded in avoiding 1 billion pounds of pollutant
emissions and saved over $500 million for the company from
1975 to 1992 Many companies were spurred to learn 3M’s
approach, and according to a recent survey, pollution
preven-tion has become an importance operapreven-tional element for more
than 85% of manufacturing companies (Graedel and
Howard-Grenville, 2005)
While pollution prevention addresses a manufacturing
facility as it finds it, design for environment (DfE) is
trans-formational: it attempts to redesign products and processes
so as to optimize environmentally related characteristics
Often used in concert with LCA, DfE enables design teams
to consider issues related to the entire life cycle of products
or processes, including materials selection, process design,
energy efficiency, product delivery, use, and reincarnation
DfE practices are currently being implemented by many
firms, large and small
DfE is mainly a technological approach It can address
a wide range of environmental issues throughout a
prod-uct’s life cycle However, its capability to address some
environmental impacts, especially in disposal of end-of-life
products, is limited: it can facilitate, but cannot ensure,
recycling However, the approach designated “extended
producer responsibility” (EPR) complements the firm-level
practice from the perspective of policy In this regard, most
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development
countries encourage manufacturers to take greater
respon-sibility for their products in use, especially in postconsumer
stages EPR follows the “polluter pays principle,”
transfer-ring the costs of waste management from local authorities to
those producers with greater influence on the characteristics
of products (Gertsakis et al., 2002)
It is foreseeable that the acceptance of EPR will, in turn, intensify DfE activities in many firms We thus begin to see
a sequence of environmentally related steps by responsible industrial firms The first is pollution prevention, which is centered within a facility The invention and adoption of LCA next expands a company’s perspective to include the upstream and downstream life stages of its products Later
on, a core issue—sustainability—is brought to the table Some assessment methods have been developed to quantify
a facility’s sustainability, although this remains a work in progress as of this writing
Meso-Level Practice
Most interfirm practices of industrial ecology relate to the concept of industrial symbiosis and its realization in the form of eco-industrial parks (EIPs) As Chertow (2000b) puts it: “Industrial symbiosis engages traditionally separate industries in a collective approach to competitive advantage involving physical exchange of materials, energy, water, and/
or by-products The keys to industrial symbiosis are collabo-ration and the synergistic possibilities offered by geographic proximity” (314)
The classic example of industrial symbiosis is Kalundborg,
a small Danish industrial area located about 100 km west of Copenhagen Its industrial symbiosis began in the 1970s as several core partners (a power station, a refinery, and a phar-maceutical firm) sought innovative ways of managing waste
materials (Cohen-Rosenthal et al., 2000)
Over time, many other industries and organizations have become involved; the result is a very substantial sharing of resources and a larger reduction in waste (Figure 3)
Industrial symbiosis thinking is implemented by but not confined to EIPs Chertow (2000b) has proposed a taxon-omy of five different material-exchange types of industrial symbiosis:
1 Through waste exchanges (e.g., businesses that recycle or sell recovered materials through a third party)
2 Within a facility, firm, or organization
3 Among firms co-located in a defined EIP
4 Among local firms that are not co-located
5 Among firms organized “virtually” across a broader region
Only Type 3 can be viewed as a traditional EIP No matter which type, or on what scale, industrial symbiosis has proven
to be beneficial both to industries and to the environment
Macro-Level Practice
At macro scales (e.g., a city, a country, or even the planet), MFA has proven to be an important tool for considering the relationships between the use of materials and energy use,
Trang 7Liquid Fertilizer Production
Lake
Fish Farming
Sludge (treated)
Novo Nordisky/
Novozymes A/S
roads
A-S Soilrem Fly ash
Water
Water
Water Sulfur
Heat
Steam Boiler w W
Cooling w
Heat
Scrubber Sludge Gas (back up)
Organic residues
District Heating
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Municipality of Kalundborg
Gyproc Nordic East Wall-board Plant
Statoil Refinery
Energy E2 Power Station
FIGURE 3 Industrial symbiosis at Kalundborg, Denmark From Chertow, 2000b; updated by
M Chertow.
<100 100–279
280–794 795–2239
2240–6499
>6500
System Boundary (Closed System): “STAF World”
Environment
Old Scrap 2,084
Landfilled Waste, Dissipated 1,775
Waste Management Discards
3,859 Stock
Stock
Use 7,718 11,577
11,585
688
Products
New Scrap 579 1,396
Production:
Milk, Smelter Refinery
250
200
Reworked Tailings
Tailings, Slag 1,550
10,710
Ore
Fabrication &
Manufacturing Cathode
–10,710
FIGURE 4 Global anthropogenic copper cycle in 1994 From Graedel et al., 2004.
Trang 8Towards Sustainability
millennium
century decade year month
day
TIME
10 11 sec
10 10 sec
10 9 sec
10 8 sec
10 7 sec
10 4 sec
10 0 sec
10 –9 sec
10 –9 m 10 –8 m 10 0 m 10 3 m 104 m 10 5 m 10 6 m 10 7 m SPACE
Earth region country city
inter-firm firm product
creature molecule
atom
Regulatory como Pollution prevention Design for environment Green accounting
Industrial symbiosis Product life cycle industrial sector initiatives
Models and scenarios Budgets & cycles industrial metabolism
Dematerialization Decarbonization Earth systems engineering
Towards Sustainability (a)
(b)
Applied Industrial Ecology
Experimental Industrial Ecology
Theoretical Industrial Ecology
Further development of DTE and manufacturing for environment Relation between industrial ecology and land use
Policy incentives of industrial ecology Promotion of industrial ecology in developing countries
Budgets for the materials of technology Design and development of eco-industrial parks Industrial food webs
Metabolism of cities
Theory of industrial ecosystem Multiscale energy budget for technology Model of interaction between human and natural systems Theory of quantitative sustainability
Green chemistry
FIGURE 5 A graphical framework of industrial ecology (a) The spacetime of industrial-ecology tools and
methods; (b) An industrial-ecology roadmap.
Trang 9environmental impact, and public policy An example, the
global copper cycle in 1994, is shown in Figure 4 During
1994, global copper inputs to production were about 83%
ore, 11% old scrap, 4% new scrap, and 2% reworked
tail-ings About 12 Tg of copper entered into use, while nearly
4 Tg were discarded, giving a net addition to in-use copper
stock of 7–8 Tg
Some 53% of the copper that was discarded in various
forms was recovered and reused or recycled through waste
management The total environmental loss, including tailings,
slag, and landfills, was more than 3 Tg and equaled one third
the rate of natural extraction All of this information provides
perspectives impossible to achieve from a less comprehensive
analysis
Material-flow studies can address another macro
issue of industrial ecology—dematerialization, which is
the reduction in material use per unit of service output
Dematerialization can contribute to environmental
sustain-ability in two ways: by ameliorating material-scarcity
con-straints to economic development, and by reducing waste
and pollution Dematerialization may occur naturally as a
consequence of new technologies (e.g., the transistor
replac-ing the vacuum tube), but can also result from a more
effi-cient provisioning of services, thus minimizing the number
of identical products needed to provide a given service to a
large population
SUMMARY
It is difficult to provide a holistic and systematic picture of a
young field with its evolving metaphors, concepts, methods,
and applications We attempt to do so graphically, however,
in the “spacetime” display of Figure 5a In this figure, the
tools and methods of industrial ecology are located
dimen-sionally, with time and space increasing from the bottom left
to the upper right, as does complexity The figure
demon-strates that industrial ecology operates over very large ranges
of space and time, and that its tools and methods provide a
conceptual roadmap to sustainability
As an emerging field, industrial ecology has a long
list of areas where research and development are needed
(Figure 5b) The urgent theoretical needs are to develop
general theories for industrial-ecosystem organization
and function, and to relate technology more rigorously to
sustainability Experimental industrial ecology needs to
complete a set of analytical tools for the design of EIPs,
the dynamics of industrial food webs, and the
metabo-lism of cities Finally, applied objectives can be fulfilled
through maintaining the progress of DfE, developing the
policy-related aspects of industrial ecology, and
promot-ing industrial ecology in developpromot-ing countries The tasks
are substantial, but carrying them out is likely to provide
a crucial framework for society in the next few decades,
as we seek to reconcile our use of Earth’s resources with
the ultimate sustainability of the planet and its inhabitants,
human and otherwise
REFERENCES
Allenby, B.R 1999 Industrial Ecology: Policy Framework and
Implemen-tation Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Ayres, R.U 1988 Self organization in biology and economics
Interna-tional Journal on the Unity of the Sciences, 1(3): pp 10–18
Bringezu, S and Y Moriguchi 2002 Material flow analysis In: A
Hand-book of Industrial Ecology, R.U Ayres and L.W Ayres (eds.), pp 79–90
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers
Brunner, P.H and H Rechberger 2004 Practical Handbook of Material
Flow Analysis Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers
Carson, R 1962 Silent Spring Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
Chertow, M.R 2000a The IPAT equation and its variants: changing views
of technology of environmental impact Journal of Industrial Ecology,
4(4): pp 13–29
Chertow, M.R 2000b Industrial symbiosis: literature and taxonomy Annual
Reviews of Energy and Environment, 25: pp 313–337
American experience http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/wei/design.htm Accessed in 2000
Commoner, B 1972 The environmental cost of economic growth In:
Population, Resources and the Environment, R.G Ridker (ed.),
pp 339–363 Washington, DC: Commission on Population Growth and the American Future
Curran, M.A (ed.) 1996 Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment New York:
McGraw-Hill
Duchin, F 1992 Industrial input-output analysis: implications for
indus-trial ecology Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 89(3): pp 851–855
Ehrlich, P.T and J.P Holdren 1971 Impact of population growth Science,
171(3977): pp 1212–1217
Erkman, S 1997 Industrial ecology: an historical view Journal of Cleaner
Production, 5(1–2): pp 1–10
Erkman, S 2002 The recent history of industrial ecology In: A Handbook
of Industrial Ecology, R.U Ayres and L.W Ayres (eds.), pp 27–35
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers
Frosch, R and N Gallopoulos 1989 Strategies for manufacturing Scientific
American, 261(3): pp 144–152
Gertsakis, J 2002 Industrial ecology and extended producer responsibility
In: A Handbook of Industrial Ecology, R.U Ayres and L.W Ayres (eds.),
pp 27–35 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers
Graedel, T.E and B.R Allenby 1995 Industrial Ecology Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Graedel, T.E and B.R Allenby 2003 Industrial Ecology, 2nd edition
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Graedel, T.E and J Howard-Grenville 2005 Greening the Industrial Facility
New York: Kluwer
Graedel, T.E et al 2004 Multilevel cycle of anthropogenic copper
Envi-ronmental Science and Technology, 38: pp 1242–1252
Hardy, C and T.E Graedel 2002 Industrial ecosystems as food webs
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 6(1): pp 29–38
Isenmann, R 2002 Further efforts to clarify industrial ecology’s
hidden philosophy of nature Journal of Industrial Ecology, 6(3–4):
pp 27–48
Leontief, W et al 1983 The Future of Nonfuel Minerals in the U.S and
World Economy Lexington, MA: Lexington Books
Levy, M.H 1994 Life cycle analysis In: Encyclopedia of the Environment,
R.A Eblen and W.R Eblen (eds.), pp 424–426 Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
Lifset, R and T.E Graedel 2002 Industrial ecology: goals and definitions
In: A Handbook of Industrial Ecology, R.U Ayres and L.W Ayres
(eds.), pp 3–15 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers
Lovelock, J 1988 The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth
New York: Norton
Matthews, H.S and J.S Mitchell 2000 Extending the boundaries of life-cycle assessment through environmental economic input-output
models Journal of Industrial Ecology, 4(3): pp 7–10
Meadows, D.H et al 1972 The Limits to Growth New York: Universe
Books.
Trang 10Polenske, K.R 2004 Leontief’s “magnificent machine” and other
contri-butions to applied economics In: Wassily Leontief and Input-Output
Economics, E Dietzenbacher and M.L Lahr (eds.), pp 9–29
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Strassert, G 2001 Interindustry linkages: the flow network of a
physi-cal input-output table (PIOT): theory and application for Germany
In: Input-Output Analysis: Frontiers and Extensions, M.L Lahr and
E Dietzenbacher (eds.), pp 35–53 New York: Palgrave Publishers
Strassert, G 2002 Physical input-output accounting In: A Handbook of
Industrial Ecology, R.U Ayres and L.W Ayres (eds.), pp 102–113
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers
Udo de Haes, H.A 2002 Industrial ecology and life cycle assessment In:
A Handbook of Industrial Ecology, R.U Ayres and L.W Ayres (eds.),
pp 138–148 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers
Ward, B et al 1972 Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a
Small Planet New York: Norton
TAO WANG
T E GRAEDEL
Yale University