An Adapted Approach to Industrial Symbiosis with a Case Study on the Northern Stockholm Region
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
An Adapted Approach to Industrial Symbiosis With a case study on the northern Stockholm region Florian Hemmer Master of Science Thesis Stockholm 2011 Florian Hemmer An Adapted Approach to Industrial Symbiosis With a case study on the northern Stockholm region Supervisors: Graham Aid Nils Brandt Examiner: Nils Brandt Master of Science Thesis STOCKHOLM 2011 PRESENTED AT INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY TRITA-IM 2011:30 ISSN 1402-7615 Industrial Ecology, Royal Institute of Technology www.ima.kth.se An Adapted Approach to Industrial Symbiosis With a case study on the northern Stockholm region Author: Florian Hemmer 26 June 2011 Supervisor: Graham Aid Examiner: Nils Brandt II Abstract Numerous attempts have been made to create or facilitate Industrial Symbiosis networks and self-organized networks have been uncovered. Existing networks have been studied to identify its success or failure and its context. This thesis tries to suggest and assess an adapted approach to establish successful industrial symbiosis, with a case study on the northern Stockholm region. An extensive literature review, meetings with experts and stakeholder interaction by questionnaires, interviews and a workshop were used. Potential obstructions were identified, possibilities of self-organizations and planning explored and solutions suggested. Combined with the feedback from 25 questionnaires and a workshop with local stakeholders an approach to establishing industrial symbiosis in northern Stockholm was suggested and assessed. A neutral coordinator or waste companies were concluded to have a good chance of establishing an industrial symbiosis network in the region. Using existing networks, creating awareness and providing knowledge and examples are important factors for establishing an industrial symbiosis network. Key words: Industrial Symbiosis, Stockholm, Workshop, Network, Facilitate, Exchanges, Synergies III IV Acknowledgements First of all I would like to express my gratitude to Graham Aid, who has been my supervisor during this thesis project. He provided valuable suggestions, advice and critical comments on the thesis project, the report and presentation. Besides his role as academic supervisor he was able to arrange funding for the study visits, for which many thanks to Ragn-Sells AB as well. I would like to thank Niklas Smedberg who has been a great colleague to me. He has been checking my Swedish writing, taking care of a lot of communication with local stakeholders, and been a valuable colleague during interviews, questionnaires and the workshop. Thanks go to Nils Brandt as well, who as my examiner gave critical feedback especially in the beginning of the thesis project and during the presentation. It is a pleasure to thank Debra Power from NISP for letting me attend the quick-wins workshop and participate in the workshop‘s process. Dave Berrill from NISP deserves great thanks for his insights in the functioning of NISP and advice on the case-study. I am grateful for the advice and insight from Professor Leo Baas and Michael Martin from Linköping University and Gert Kindgren from Cleantech Östergötland. Their advice was of great help for stakeholder engagement and pointers for the research. Great appreciation goes to all the respondents of the questionnaire, interviews and the participants to the workshop, dedicating time to the project. The valuable feedback and data are of great importance to this thesis. Finally I would like to thank family and friends for their support during the thesis and supporting my decision to study in Stockholm for two years. V VI List of Figures Figure 1. Municipalities included in the case study (colored) relative to Stockholm (striped). (modified from Wikipedia, 2006) ...................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2. EU Waste hierarchy ....................................................................................................... 14 Figure 3. Response: familiarity with IS ........................................................................................... 19 Figure 4. Response: familiarity with EIP ........................................................................................ 20 Figure 5.Example of grading scale badges for industrial symbiosis .................................................. 25 List of Tables Table 1.Waste treatment in Sweden over 2008 (Naturvårdsverket, 2010) ....................................... 15 Table 2.Success rate of sent out questionnaires ................................................................................ 19 Table 3.Results feedback on Workshop ........................................................................................... 22 List of Acronyms EIP Eco-Industrial Park EU European Union IE Industrial Ecology IS Industrial Symbiosis KTH Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan – Royal Institute of Technology NISP National Industrial Symbiosis Programme TEDA Tijanjin Economic-Technological Development Area USPCSD United States President‘s Council on Sustainable Development WRAP Waste & Resources Action Programme VII VIII Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ III Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... V List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... VII List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. VII List of Acronyms ...................................................................................................................... VII 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. What is Industrial Ecology ...................................................................................... 1 1.2. What is Industrial Symbiosis ................................................................................... 1 1.3. Benefits of Industrial Symbiosis ............................................................................. 2 1.4. Drivers of Industrial Symbiosis .............................................................................. 2 1.5. The Future of Industrial Symbiosis Research ....................................................... 3 1.6. Aims and Objectives ................................................................................................. 3 2. Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.1. Scope ........................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Stakeholders ............................................................................................................... 4 2.3. Expansion of case study .......................................................................................... 6 3. Results ..................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1. Aspects and paradigms potentially obstructing industrial symbiosis ................. 8 3.1.1. Geographic boundaries ................................................................................ 8 3.1.2. Losing Flexibility ........................................................................................ 10 3.1.3. Lack of Trust .............................................................................................. 11 3.1.4. Required Awareness and Innovation Capacity ...................................... 12 3.2. Policy and Regulation ............................................................................................. 14 3.2.1. Waste Hierarchy ......................................................................................... 14 3.2.2. Waste in Sweden ......................................................................................... 15 3.3. Planned or Self-organized ..................................................................................... 15 3.3.1. Coordination ............................................................................................... 16 3.3.2. NISP and TEDA ....................................................................................... 17 IX 3.3.3. Planning ....................................................................................................... 17 3.4. The case study: Sigtuna and northern Stockholm ............................................. 18 3.4.1. Case description ......................................................................................... 18 3.4.2. Results from questionnaire ....................................................................... 19 3.4.3. Results from the workshop ...................................................................... 21 4. Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 24 4.1. Definition of industrial symbiosis ....................................................................... 24 4.1.1. Definition ...................................................................................................