Circular Urban Systems - Moving Towards
Systems Integration
Circular Urban Systems - Moving Towards
Systems Integration
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor
aan de Technische Universiteit Delft,
op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof.ir. K.C.A.M. Luyben,
voorzitter van het College voor Promoties,
in het openbaar te verdedigen op 28 mei 2013 om 12:30
door
Anne-Lorène Brigitte Helène VERNAY
Master of Science in Chemistry
geboren te Bourg-en-Bresse, Frankrijk
Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotoren: Prof Mr.Dr. J.A. de Bruijn
Copromotor: Dr. ir. K.F. Mulder Samenstelling promotiecommissie:
Rector Magnificus, voorzitter
Prof. Mr. Dr. J.A. de Bruijn, Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor
Dr. Ir. K. F. Mulder, Technische Universiteit Delft, copromotor
Prof. Dr. N. Buclet, Universite Grenoble Alpes and Pacte
Prof. R. Wennersten, Shandong University
Prof. Em. Dr. J.C.M. van Eijndhoven, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Prof. Dr. Ir. H. van Lente, Universiteit Maastricht and Universiteit Utrecht Prof. Dr. Ir. A. van Timmeren, Technische Universiteit Delft
Prof. Dr. Ir. I.R. van de Poel, Technische Universiteit Delft, reservelid This research has been funded by Delft University of Technology.
Keywords: systems integration, industrial ecology, innovation processes, sustainable urban development
Cover by P. O. Vernay
Language editing by Traysi Translations, The Hague. Copyright © 2013 by A. B. H. Vernay
Printed in the Netherlands by Proefschriftmaken.nl || Uitgeverij BOXPress
The printing of this dissertation has been financially supported by the Netherlands Graduate Research School for Science, Technology, and Modern Culture (WTMC)
All rights reserved. Save exceptions stated by the law, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system of any nature, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, included a complete or partial transcription, without the prior written permission of the authors, application for which should be addressed to author.
PROPOSITIONS
1. A transition to Circular Urban Systems is a step towards a sustainable urban development 2. Securing a high level of autonomy to stakeholders is conducive to systems integration 3. Inter-systemic coordination is required in order to gradually break down structural resist ance and turn ideas of systems integration into reality
4. Procedural elements should be considered along with technological achievements when assessing best practices in sustainable urban development
5. One cannot copy the Hammarby Model elsewhere
6. A reason for failing systems integration is that the designing engineers do not fully under-stand the required socio-technical re-arrangements
7. The sustainable city needs an overarching vision that attunes involved actors towards a common goal
8. Creating Circular Urban Systems involves developing multifunctional hubs where syner-gies between different urban services can be harvested
9. The autarkic city is densely populated countryside
1. Een transitie naar circulaire urbane systemen is een stap op weg naar een duurzame ste-delijke ontwikkeling
2. Het veilig stellen van een hoge mate van autonomie van stakeholders is bevorderlijk voor systeemintegratie
3. Inter-systemische coördinatie is vereist om structurele weerstand tegen systeemintegratie geleidelijk af te breken en ideeën te realiseren.
4. Om best practices in duurzame stedelijke ontwikkeling te kunnen beoordelen moeten zowel procedurele elementen als technologische prestaties worden beschouwd
5. Het is niet mogelijk het Hammarby model elders te kopiëren
6. Een reden voor falende integratie van systemen is dat de ontwerpende ingenieurs de ver-eiste socio-technische herschikkingen niet volledig begrijpen
7. De duurzame stad heeft behoefte aan een overkoepelende visie die betrokken actoren tot afstemming brengt over gemeenschappelijke doelen
8. Het creëren van circulaire urbane systemen omvat het ontwikkelen van multifunctionele knooppunten waar synergie tussen de verschillende stedelijke diensten kan ontstaan 9. De autarkische stad is dichtbevolkt platteland
10. De toekomstige stad zal eco2, post-carbon, klimaatbestendig, slim en circulair zijn.
CONTENT
List
of
tables
i
List
of
figures
v
Acknowledgements
vii
Chapter
1:
introduction
1
1.1 Sustainable development: achievements and challenges
remaining
1
1.2 Framing sustainable development
3
1.3
Cities
as
ecosystems
4
1.4 Aims of the research
6
1.5 Outline of the thesis
7
Chapter 2 bridging industrial ecology and innovation
studies 9
2.1
Industrial
ecology
9
2.1.1 Introducing the field 9
2.1.2 Barriers to industrial ecology 10
2.1.4 Industrial ecology and adaptive capacity 12
2.1.5 Missing processes of industrial ecology 13
2.2
Innovation
studies
13
2.2.1 Technology studies 14
2.2.2 Transition theory 14
2.3
Circular
Urban
Systems
15
2.4 Formulation of the research objective
16
Chapter 3 conceptualising systems integration
19
3.1 Systems integration: a socio-technical perspective
19
3.2 Defining the boundaries of the socio-technical system
20
3.2.1 Hughes’s perspective based on system control 20
3.2.2 Geels’ functional perspective 21
3.3 The definition of a socio-technical system in this research
22
3.4 Conceptualising systems integration
24
3.4.1 Systems integration: linking technologies, network of actors
and rules 24
3.4.2 A possible typology of systems integration 24
3.4.3 Market, hierarchy and network 24
3.4.4 Connection, junction and union 25
3.4.5 A theoretically inspired typology of systems integration 26
3.5 Systems integration, specifying the puzzle
28
chapter 4 Tracing systems integration processes, a
conceptual
framework
31
4.1 Studying technical innovation processes - a review of
theoretical
perspectives
32
4.1.1 Large Technical Systems approach (LTS) 32
4.1.2 The quasi evolutionary theory of innovation 34
4.1.3 Actor-Network Theory (ANT) 38
4.1.4 Summary 40
4.2 Introducing Actor-Network Theory
41
4.2.1 The essence of ANT 41
4.2.2 The sociology of translation 42
4.2.3 ANT: stability, durability and flexibility 44
4.2.4 ANT: boundary objects and boundary organisations 45
4.2.5 Critics of ANT 45
4.3.1 Structuration theory in a nutshell 46 4.3.2 Structure, agency and the duality of structure 47
4.3.3 Technology in structuration theory 50
4.4 Studying the process of systems integration: a conceptual
framework
51
4.4.1 Insights from Actor-Network Theory 51
4.4.2 Insights from structuration theory 52
4.4.3 The conceptual framework 53
4.5
Conclusion 57
Chapter 5 Research questions and research methodology 59
5.1 Research questions and related propositions
59
5.1.1 Typology of systems integration 60
5.1.2 Systems alignment 61
5.1.3 Driving forces of integration 61
5.1.4 Strategies of systems integration 62
5.2
Research
design
63
5.2.1 Multiple embedded case studies 63
5.2.2 Case study selection 64
5.2.3 An ANT-inspired research method 66
5.2.4 Frame of analysis of the case studies 69
5.2.5 Analysing and Comparing the attempts 72
Chapter 6 EVA-Lanxmeer, Culemborg, The Netherlands 75
6.1 Introduction to the case
75
6.2 Developing a vision for a sustainable urban district
77
6.2.1 Setting the scene 77
6.2.2 Analysing the vision building process 78
6.2.3 Discussing the vision building process 86
6.3 Attempts at systems integration
87
6.3.1 Decentralised Energy and Sanitation 87
6.3.2 District heating based on drinking water extraction 113
6.4 Observations and concluding remarks
132
Chapter 7 Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm, Sweden
135
7.2 Developing a vision for the district, moving towards the
Hammarby
or
eco-cycle
model 136
7.2.1 Setting the scene 137
7.2.2 Introducing the systems at play 137
7.2.3 Analysing the vision building process 138
7.2.4 Discussing the vision building process 142
7.3
Attempts at systems integration
143
7.3.1 District cooling 143
7.3.2 Sewage gas for cooking 150
7.3.3 Sewage gas as a biofuel in Hammarby Sjöstad 161
7.3.4 Kitchen Waste Disposers in Stockholm 177
7.4 Observations and concluding remarks
189
Chapter 8 Lille Métropole, France
193
8.1 Introduction to the case
193
8.2 Developing a vision for integrated waste management in the
urban
community
194
8.2.1 Setting the scene 194
8.2.2 Introducing the systems at play 195
8.2.3 Analysing the vision building process 196
8.2.4 Discussing the vision building process 203
8.3 Attempts at systems integration
204
8.3.1 Antares – Energy Recovery Centre 204
8.3.2 Water transport 221
8.3.3 Biogas as a biofuel in Lille Metropole 231
8.3.4 Biogas injection in Lille Métropole 252
8.4 Observations and concluding remarks
266
Chapter 9 Comparing and discussing the cases
269
9.1 A typology of systems integration
270
9.1.1 Recalling the hypothetical typology of systems integration 270 9.1.2 The typology put to the “empirical verification” test 271
9.2
The dynamics of system integration
280
9.2.1 Visualising the sequences of systems integration: 281 9.2.2 Analysing the individual sequences of integration 299 9.2.3 Analysing the overarching sequences of integration 303
9.2.4 Discussion 305
9.2.5 Systems integration: aligning systems structures 306
9.2.7 Discussion 311
9.3 Process of systems integration
312
9.3.1 Driving forces of systems integration 312
9.3.2 Strategies for changing systems structures 318
9.3.3 Discussion 326
Chapter 10 Conclusions and Recommendations
331
10.1
Introduction
331
10.2 Conceptualising and analysing systems integration
332
10.3 Types, trajectory and dynamics of integration
334
10.3.1 Typology of integration and the integration process 33410.3.1 Sequences of integration 336
10.3.2 Dynamics of integration 336
10.4 Moving towards systems integration
338
10.4.1 Aligning systems 338
10.4.2 Driving systems integration 339
10.4.3 Envisioning systems integration 339
10.4.4 Actors driving the process 340
10.4.5 The TS and the strategies of systems integration 340
10.5 Paradoxes of systems integration
340
10.5.1 The “technology focus” paradox 340
10.5.2 Paradox of complexity 343
10.5.3 Paradox of autonomy 344
10.6 Creating circular urban systems
344
10.6.1 Recommendations for local governments 345
10.6.2 Recommendations for associations of local government 346
10.6.3 Recommendations for national governments 347
10.7
Future
research
agenda 359
References
351
Appendix 1: data sources, EVA-Lanxmeer case study
373
Appendix 2: data sources, Hammarby Sjöstad case study
376
Appendix 3: data sources, Lille
Métropolecase
study
380
Summary
383
Samenvatting
389
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: typology of systems integration scored using six indicators 26 Table 4.1: the three dimensions of structures and how they relate to one
another 49
Table 5.1: the propositions and how they relate to the different research questions 60 Table 6.1: introducing the systems at play in the attempt at systems
integration involving the development of tdecentralised energy and
sanitation in EVA-Lanxmeer 89
Table 6.2: identifying the types of integration present when developing
a decentralised system for sanitation and energy 107
Table 6.3: the integration process around the introduction of decentralised energy and sanitation: the influence of pre-existing systems structures 109 Table 6.4: introducing the systems at play in the attempt at systems
integration involved in the production of district heating based on drinking
water extraction 114
Table 6.6: identifying the types of integration present when introducing
district heating based on drinked water extraction 127
Table 6.6: systems’ misalignment in the attempt at introducing district
heating during the first period 129
Table 6.7: systems’ misalignment in the attempt at introducing district
heating during the second period 130
Table 7.1: introducing the systems at play in the vision building process of
Hammarby Sjöstad 138
Table 7.2: introducing the systems at play in the attempt at systems
integration involving the introduction of district cooling 144 Table 7.3: identifying the types of integration present in the attempt at
introducing district cooling in Hammarby Sjöstad 148
Table 7.4: the integration process for district cooling: the influence of
pre-existing systems structures 150
Table 7 5: introducing the systems at play in the attempt at systems
ii
Table 7.6: identifying the types of integration present in the attempt at
introducing sewage gas for cooking Hammarby Sjöstad 158
Table7.7: the integration process for sewage gas for cooking: the influence
of pre-existing systems structures 159
Table 7.8: introducing the systems at play in the attempt at systems
integration involving the introduction of sewage gas for transport 162 Table 7.9: identifying the types of integration present in the attempt at
introducing sewage gas as biofuel in Hammarby Sjöstad 174
Table 7.10: the integration process for sewage gas as a biofuel: the influence
of pre-existing systems structures 175
Table 7.11 introducing the systems at play in the attempt at systems
integration involving the introduction of KWD 178
Table7.12: identifying the types of integration present in the attempt at
introducing kitchen waste disposers 186
Table 7.13: summarizing the influence of structural elements and the
strategies used to translate actors into the network during period 1 187 Table 7.14: summarizing the influence of structural elements and the
strategies used to translate actors into the network during period 2 188 Table 8.1: introducing the systems at play in the vision building process of
Lille Métropole 196
Table 8.2: introducing the systems at play in the attempt at systems
integration involving the development of Antares 205
Table 8.3: identifying the types of integration present in the attempt at
developing Antares in Lille Métropole 218
Table 8.4: the integration process around Antares: the influence of
pre-existing systems structures 219
Table 8 5: introducing the systems at play in the attempt at systems
integration involved in the introduction of water transport 222 Table 8.6: identifying the types of integration present in the attempt at introducing water transport of municipal solid waste in Lille Metropole 229 Table8.7: the integration process for sewage gas for cooking: the influence
of pre-existing systems structures 230
Table 8.8: introducing the systems at play in the attempt at systems
integration involving the introduction of sewage gas for transport 232 Table 8.9: identifying the types of integration present in the attempt at
introducing biogas as a biofuel in Lille Metropole 247
Table 8.10: the integration process for biogas as a biofuel: the influence of
pre-existing systems structures 249
Table 8.11 introducing the systems at play in the attempt at systems
integration involving the introduction of biogas injection 254 Table 8.12: identifying the types of integration present in the attempt of
biogas injection in Lille Métropole 262
iii
pre-existing systems structures 264
Table 9.1: identifying the types of integration present in E.V.A.-Lanxmeer 274 Table 9.2: identifying the types of integration present in Hammarby
Sjöstad 275
Table 9.3a: identifying the types of integration present in Lille Métropole:
initial disintegration 276
Table 9.3b: identifying the types of integration present in Lille Métropole 277 Table 9.4: the types of integration and how they score against the six
criteria for integration 280
Table 9.5: summary of the types of systems integration found in each
attempt 282
Table 9.6: summarising the switches from one type to another observed
in the ten sequences of integration 300
Table 9.7: summarising the initial situation in each of the attempts at
systems integration studied 307
Table 9.8: initiating systems integration and initial systems alignment 317 Table 9.9: systems integration: minimizing the impact of the integration (system A is that system that is trying to integration while system B is the
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1: proposed typology of integration 28
Figure 3.2: the process of systems integration. This research is about
studying what happens in the blackbox 28
Figure 4 1: conceptual model for exploring the socio-technical dynamics
of systems integration 54
Figure 5 1: frame of analysis of the case studies 70
Figure 6.1: locating Culemborg in the Netherlands 75
Figure 6.2: views of E.V.A.-Lanxmeer 76
Figure 6.3: one of the inner courtyard gardens in E.V.A.-Lanxmeer 85
Figure 6 5: network around DEAS in phase 1 93
Figure 6 6: network around DEAS in phase 2 96
Figure 6 7: grey and blackwater pipelines constructed in E.V.A.-Lanxmeer
(picture reproduced with the permission of Hein Struben) 97
Figure 6 8: network around DEAS in phase 4 98
Figure 6 9: network around DEAS in phase 6 101
Figure 6 10: description of how the greywater system functions 103
Figure 6.15: network around district heating in phase 4 119
Figure 6.17: network around district heating phase 6 123
Figure 6.18: network around district heating phase 7 126
Figure 7.1 dwellings in Hammarby Sjöstad 136
Figure 7.2 the Hammarby Model (Fränne, 2007). Pre-existing technical configuration includes Högdalen, the Hammarby Thermal Plant, Henriksdal
and the drinking water plant 141
Figure 7.3 network around district cooling in phase 1 145
Figure 7.4 network around district cooling in phase 2 147
Figure 7.5 the city gas grid in Stockholm. The part highlighted in dark green is the network in Hammarby Sjöstad, which did not exist when the
project was initiated 151
Figure 7.6 network around sewage gas for cooking in phase 2 154 Figure 7.7 network around sewage gas for cooking in phase 3 155 Figure 7.8 network around sewage gas for cooking in phase 4 156 Figure 7.9 network around sewage gas as a biofuel in phase 1 163
vi
Figure 7.10 network around sewage gas as a biofuel in phase 2 164 Figure 7.11 network around sewage gas as a biofuel in phase 4 167 Figure 7.12 network around sewage gas as a biofuel in phase 6 171
Figure 7.13 network around KWD in phase 2 180
Figure 7.14 the network around KWD in phase 6 183
Figure 7.15 the network around KWD in phase 8 185
Figure 8.1 lille Métropole Urban Community (LMUC) and its municipal solid waste treatment infrastructure in 2009 (Lille Métropole Communauté
Urbaine 2010a) 197
Figure 8.2 schematic representation of municipal waste management
practices in Lille Metropole (inspired from LMUC 2013) 200
Figure 8.3 network around Antares during phase 1 208
Figure 8.4 network around Antares in phase 4 212
Figure 8.5 network around Antares in phase 6 216
Figure 8.6 network around water transport in phase 2 226
Figure 8.7 network around water transport in phase 3 228
Figure 8.8 network around biogas as biofuel in phase 1 234 Figure 8.9 network around biogas as biofuel in phase 2 236 Figure 8.10 network around biogas as biofuel in phase 3 238 Figure 8.11 network around biogas as biofuel in phase 7 244
Figure 8.12 network around biogas injection in phase 2 256
Figure 8.13 network around biogas injection in phase 4 260
Figure 9.1 an updated typology of systems integration 279 Figure 9.2 sequence 1- Decentralised energy and sanitation 283 Figure 9.3 sequence 2- district heating based on drinking water extraction 284
Figure 9.4 overarching sequence EVA-Lanxmeer 285
Figure 9.5 sequence 3 - district cooling 286
Figure 9.6 sequence 4 - sewatge gas for cooking 287
Figure 9.7 sequence 5 – sewage gas for transport 288
Figure 9.8 sequence 6: Kitchen waste disposers 289
Figure 9.9 hammarby Sjöstad, the overarching sequence 290 Figure 9.10 sequence 7: disintegration in Lille Métropole 292
Figure 9.11 sequence 8 - Antares 293
Figure 9.12 sequence 9 - water transport 294
Figure 9.13 sequence 10 - biogas as a biofuel 295
Figure 9.14 sequence 11 - biogas injection 296
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The result of this PhD trajectory is in multiple ways a joint achievement and I would like to thank all those who, in one way or another, contributed to it.
First, this work would not have been possible without the support and guidance of my co-promotor, Karel Mulder, who is the mind behind the idea to study systems integra-tion. The multiple and sometimes very passionate discussions we had during these four years undeniably contributed to bringing this work this far. I would also like to thank my promotor, Hans de Bruijn. Even though he was involved in a somewhat later stage in this PhD research he significantly contributed to this work. He helped me to better structure and sharpen my thoughts and brought a fresh view on my research field. I would also like to mention Linda Kamp and Frank Boons who both helped me to improve the conceptual part of this research and to give meaning to my findings. To Sofie Pandis Iveroth, I would like to give a special thanks for sharing her data about Hammarby with me and for making our collaboration really enjoyable and fruit-ful. My gratitude also goes to all the people I interviewed during this study and who shared their insights about the cases I analysed. In that regard, special thanks goes to Marleen Kaptein who provided me a unique access to the living lab which E.V.A.-Lanxmeer is.
I have to say that I am quite happy with the title of this book which can, in a few words, express what this study is about. It was coined during one of the many brain-storm sessions I had with Rajbeer Singh. I can still remember the excitement we felt when we realized that googleling “Circular Urban Systems” only gave 3 hits and that we thought: THIS IS IT!
One may wonder where the drawing used as a cover for this book comes from and who is the “ponnot” that signed it. “Ponnot”, I really had to laugh when I saw this sig-nature at the bottom of the drawing… It has been made by my younger brother whose real name is Pierre-Olivier. I do not remember exactly how we came to the idea that he would make the drawing for my cover. What I do know for sure is that I wanted this cover to be special and what more special than to have it made by someone that is very dear to me. Thank you Pierre-Olivier for sharing your creativity with me.
Finally, even the jacket which I have been wearing during the defense has its own story. A good friend of mine, Delphine, suggested to help me make my own dress suit. It
was a crazy and very tempting idea. I never imagined how difficult it would be but the result really speaks for itself! Delphine, I really enjoyed working with you on this and hope you had as much fun doing it as I did.
Everybody who completed a PhD knows it is a lonely process. Thinking back about those years, I have to say that I have been lucky to work in a vibrant environment. I am thankful to all my colleagues from the section Technology Dynamics and Sustain-able Development. The diversity of their interest and expertise provided for an intel-lectually stimulating environment which I am glad to have been able to participate in. I would also like to thank Martin de Jong for involving me in the Shenzhen eco-city project and for helping me broaden my research perspective. I also can’t help but think about the coffee breaks I had with Shahzad and Fernoa and our lively discussions and sometimes heated debates about science, politics and life.
I also want to thank all those who contributed to making my stay in the Netherlands a memorable one: Saskia, Chris, Dephine, Kasia, Baldiri, Hanneke, Floris, Felipe, Yenni, Zoe and many more. Being back in France, I already feel nostalgic about our girl’s nights, home concerts, hair-cutting parties, international dinners, Dutch evenings, pillow making and all the other silly things we did together. I also want to thank my friends back in France, Sylvène, Geoffroy, Claire, Kemi and not to forget the little Al-ice, who stayed close to me despite the distance. My thanks also go to the family of my partner for being supportive and welcoming. So many of you came to share my “big day”. This means a lot to me. Thank you!
Of course, I also want to thank my family for their unwavering support and for always supporting me in my choices. I run the risk to be called chauvinistic but what better ways to revive from the sometimes very hectic PhD life than in the beautiful French Alps! Thanks for your warmth and for always being so much fun to be with. Finally, Pascal. My dear Pascal. This book is dedicated to you. Thank you for having been there for me, supporting me, listening to my doubts, and sharing the happy and the sad moments of this journey. Your love, encouragements and belief in me, have been invaluable. Thank you for everything!
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the study presented in this book is contextualised and the research aims are presented.
I
n the early 1970s - on behalf of the Club of Rome - Meadows et al (1972) pub-lished the ground-breaking book: “Limits to growth”. It popularised the idea that the world’s systems of production and consumption are responsible for a consider-able amount of environmental impacts and that economic development needs to be adapted to fit within the Earth’s ecological limits. It was later followed by the publica-tion of the Brundtland Report, which argued that these systems are in fact themselves threatened due to depleting levels of resources, their lack of sound solutions to dispose of their waste and because they do not provide equity (Brundtland Commission 1987). Twenty five years later, these observations are still extremely topical. As Profes-sor Tim Jackson observed, we have entered an “age of irresponsibility”. He further argues that despite an apparent growing awareness about environmental issues, our societies still act as if they are blind to the limitations of the material world we live in (Jackson 2009).Despite varying perspectives regarding the degree of improvement that needs to be reached (scholars talk about degrees of improvement varying from a factor 4 to 50 - see Weizsäcker et al. 1998; Reijnders 1998; Weaver et al. 2000), scholars acknowledge that sustainability issues need to be tackled urgently. This observation culminated with the publication of the Stern review on the economics of climate change where the au-thor emphasizes that fundamental change is promptly needed in order to avoid further
1.1 Sustainable development: achievements and challenges remaining
Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them (Bill Vaughan)
2 CHAPTER 1
ecological deterioration and to limit the resulting economic burdens (Stern 2006). It is undeniable that there is an increasing awareness of sustainable development. Take, for instance, the multitude of academic publications, books and dedicated journals addressing various aspects of sustainable development1. Moreover, beyond academic
interest, consumers are also starting to take environmental performance into account in their choices for specific products and services, and an ever increasing amount of labels exist, which are intended to guide consumers in their choices2. Another
illustra-tive example is the hype emerging around the notion of “flexitarianism”. People that are flexitarian are people who do eat meat but consciously limit how frequently they eat it. In the Netherlands, a study showed that several millions of Dutch consumers are already flexitarians (Bakker and Dagevos 2011). This indicates that people are increas-ingly thinking about the environmental impact of what they consume.
A sense of urgency for sustainable development also reached the political sphere and more and more municipal, regional, national and even international policies are di-rected towards sustainability related issues. Take, for instance, the increasing amount of bike sharing facilities put in place in various Western cities (Pucher and Buehler2012). On a more general level, “Energy-Cities”, a European Association initiated by local authorities and meant to facilitate the energy transition of European cities and towns, also clearly illustrates that interest (Energy-Cities 2012).
Last but not least, the private sector is also affected by this growing momentum. The idea that green can make gold is starting to spread through books such as “Green to Gold” (Esty and Winston 2009) or “Strategy for Sustainability – a Business Manifesto (Werbach 2009). Similarly, a study carried out by Goldman Sachs concluded that businesses that are leaders in corporate sustainability also hold leading market posi-tions (Ling et al 2007).
However, beyond what looks like a success story still lies a worrisome picture. The rate of CO2 emissions resulting from fossil fuel is accelerating (Raupach et al. 2007). Waste management also still demands drastic improvements. In Europe (EU-27) for instance, despite huge efforts put in place over the last 30 years, 42% of municipal solid waste is still being landfilled (European Environment Agency 2009). Worldwide, it is estimated that out of the 4 billion tons of waste produced, only 20% is recovered or recycled (Chalmin and Gaillochet 2009). Moreover, while demand for fertiliser is increasing, large amounts of nutrients are lost during wastewater treatment. For in-stance, estimations suggest a worldwide loss of 4.3 million tons of phosphorus per year in this way (Dockhorn 2009).
1 Earthscan (currently owned by the Taylor and Francis group), for instance, has published books focused on environ-ment and sustainable developenviron-ment since the late 1980s. Greenleaf Publishing is also specialised in publishing books and articles covering these issues. Moreover, Scopus also regroups about twenty journals that use the term “sustainable” in their title. Finally, searching for “sustainable development” in Google Books gives almost 8 million results. 2 These labels cover a wide range of activities that may for instance certify the energetic performance of a product or that it was fairly traded or grown, based on the principle of organic agriculture, etc.
3 INTRODUCTION
In addition, raw material scarcity is also starting to gain political importance recently. In early March 2012, the Guardian published an article entitled: “The Ticking Time Bomb: Minerals and Metal Scarcity in Manufacturing” explaining that fourteen raw minerals are considered critical by the manufacturing industry. In the same month, the Stockholm Institute for the Environment also published a report warning that metal scarcity could be a burden for the transition to a low carbon society (Dawkins et al 2012). This partly relies on renewable energy technologies being more material inten-sive than their conventional fuel counterparts (Andersson 2001).
Besides, there are still important inequalities between different parts of the world with the richest 20% of the world consuming 58% of the energy; owning 87% of the cars and eating 75% of all meat and fish (United Nations Environment Programme 2002). This is even more striking when one considers that while about 925 million people do not have enough to eat (FAO 2010), about 1.4 billion adults suffer from being over-weight worldwide (WHO 2012).
To summarise, despite encouraging achievements there is still a long way ahead before human society can reach sustainable development. In the following section, an ad-ditional factor complicating the issue will be discussed: diverging and sometimes even competing “frames” exist concerning sustainable development.
1.2
Framing sustainable development
E
ven though there seems to be a consensus that social and environmental issues should be urgently addressed, diverging perspectives exist regarding what kind of changes are necessary and how they should take place. In other words there are different ways to frame sustainable development (Mulder et al 2011).Sustainable development is what can be called an umbrella term. Its definition as ini-tially presented in the Brundtland report: “a development that meets the needs of the pre-sent without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” gives a lot of scope for interpretation. In practice, different interest groups are competing to get their concerns on the political agenda. Since the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol for instance, climate change has been a central issue, sometimes at the expense of issues such as water footprint (Dominguez-Faus et al. 2009), material constraints (Kleijn & van der Voet 2010) and land use (Harvey & Pilgrim 2011). Similarly, the recent emergence of the notion of “climate adaption” sheds the light on still another way of framing possible responses to climate change (Tol 2005). This also leads to questions of how (financial) support should be divided among these possibly complementary - but sometimes also competitive - activities.
Moreover, on a more general level, there is also no consensus regarding the path that we should follow. Others have already debated whether we should aim for multiple in-cremental steps or directly favour radical change (Kemp 1994; Moors 2000; Weaver et
4 CHAPTER 1
al 2000). I would like to argue that in framing how sustainable development could be reached, another distinction can be made between stand-alone and industrial ecology types of solutions. This second type of solution involves connecting existing systems of production and consumption to each other in order to create synergy, re-use waste and optimize the environmental performance of industrial regions, cities, and production and consumption systems (Lifset & Boons 2011).
In order to illustrate what these two ways of thinking imply, I will use two contrasting examples of attempts at reducing the carbon footprint of a residential area. On the one hand one may decide to build only passive houses (needing no external energy). This is what we call here a stand-alone type of solution. The energetic demand of the house is reduced to its very minimum by, for instance, installing high insulation techniques; positioning the house in such a way that it can benefit from passive heating (or cool-ing); introducing heat recovery ventilation systems; etc. (International Passive House Association 2010). On the other hand, one may also decide to develop a district heat-ing network which gets its supply from waste heat from neighbourheat-ing industries, for example. In this case industrial activities become connected to residential dwellings, the waste of one supplying resources for the other. This is, for instance, the case in the City of Luleå in Sweden where the waste heat of a steel factory is used as input for a local district heating system (Grip et al. 2010). This is a practice referred to as energy cascading by industrial ecologists (O’Rourke et al 1996).
The two examples provided come with two different and - according to Späth (2005) -possibly incompatible perspectives about how to deal with sustainability. On the one hand, the one focusing on stand-alone solutions focuses on solutions within and limited to the house. This implies that the house - and especially how it is designed and constructed - represents the system boundary within which solutions are sought and implemented. The industrial-ecology solution on the other hand uses a broader systems perspective. Solutions to provide a comfortable interior temperature are sought beyond the individual house by considering local energy potentials.
It is this second type of solution - those that aim at creating synergies between differ-ent types of activities - which will be the focus of this research. These solutions can be implemented in different contexts: industrial, agricultural, or urban areas. In the following section, I will explain why urban areas have been chosen as a point of focus for this research.
1.3
Cities as ecosystems
M
ore than half of the world’s population lives in cities and this percentage is expected to keep rising. While cities are growing in size, they are also consuming increasing amounts of natural resources and are producing ever larger quantities of waste. It is estimated that cities accumulate about 80% of the world’s energy demand (the World Bank 2010). In other words, cities have large ecological footprints. To give an order of magnitude, the Global Footprint Network,5 INTRODUCTION
for instance, calculated that Berlin requires 168 times its own surface area in order to meet its citizen’s needs (Amend et al 2010). Combining the expected growth of cities with their already heavy environmental impact leads to a straightforward conclusion: it is becoming increasingly urgent to work towards achieving a sustainable urban devel-opment.
This sense of urgency reached designers and government officials who are increasingly expected to come up with strategies and measures to keep cities liveable, minimize environmental degradation and prevent further contribution to global warming. Running parallel to that, a number of academics have been advocating that, in the quest for the sustainable city, a transition should be made from linear to circular sys-tems of production and consumption. This is expressed under concepts such as circular urban metabolism (Girardet 1996; Roger 1997)3, cities as sustainable ecosystems (Bossel
1998; Newman and Jennings 2008), urban symbiosis (Van Berkel et al 2009)4, symbioc-ité (Gontier 2005) or designing for zero-wastes (Lehmann 2012). Behind these concepts lies the idea that interconnections should be developed between different material and energy flows in order to improve efficiency and reduce waste. In other words, what was earlier referred to as industrial ecology practices, are popular solutions to address some of the problems faced by urban areas.
Especially in the past decade, these ideas have started to find a positive echo among government officials. To give an example, in 2007 the City of Växjö in Sweden re-ceived an award within the “Sustainable Energy for Europe Campaign” as recognition for the long term strategies put in place in the city to reduce its dependency on fossil fuel. A lot of these ideas are about connecting different activities to one another. For example biogas is produced from wastewater and organic waste and is used as trans-port fuel. Similarly, waste from the local forestry industries is used to provide heat and power for local inhabitants (Wiles 2011). More examples exist where these types of solutions are presented as best practices (see for example Energy Cities 2012). Beyond the political sphere, consultancy firms such as SWECO in Sweden (SWECO n.d.), BioRegional in England (BioRegional 2012), and the British firm ARUP (ARUP 2011) are also using these kinds of ideas as selling points for their unique know-how and expertise.
Finally, this interest is also reflected in attempts made by cities and municipali-ties worldwide to create circular systems of production and consumption (see Joss 2010). Take, for instance, Masdar in Abu Dhabi (Nader 2009), Caofeidian in China (SWECO 2011), Hammarby Sjöstad in Sweden (Fränne 2007), or BedZed in London
3 The term urban metabolism was coined by Wolman in the mid 1960s (Wolman 1965). It was meant to express that, like in a human body, energy and material flow in and out of the city. In order to decrease the environmental footprint of cities, Girardet (1996) and Rogers (1997) suggested making a transition from a linear to a circular urban metabolism 4 The term urban symbiosis is derived from the industrial ecology concept of industrial symbiosis. As defined by Chertow (2000), “industrial symbiosis engages traditionally separate entities in a collective approach to competitive advantage involving physical exchange of materials, energy, water, and by-products”. The term urban symbiosis has been coined to highlight that these exchanges can also take place in interaction with urban functions (Van Berkel et al. 2009). For this concept, French scholars prefer the term “écologie territoriale” (territorial ecology) in order to emphasize the spatial dimension of these types of practices (Barles 2010).
6 CHAPTER 1
1.4
Aims of the research
(BioRegional 2012).
However, implementation proves difficult and the promises carried by these concepts are still far from the realities of most cities today. As observed by Gibbs et al (2005), attempts to create symbiotic relations between technological systems often fail. In the following section, I will argue that we actually have a limited understanding of the challenges that these ideas face when being introduced. In doing so, I will introduce this research’s research objective and explain why this research can bring additional insights about these specific types of solutions.
M
ost of the world’s cities today still function linearly: they consume high amounts of natural resources and generate important quantities of waste. There is an implementation gap between the multiple concepts that exist and that promise possibilities to significantly decrease the environmental impact of urban areas and today’s reality. This shows that the implementation of these ideas is challenging and that we do not yet know how they can be better stimulated. In fact, I would like to argue that we still have a poor understanding of how these ideas can come into being. This comes from two characteristics of current research: it is often technocratic and when it considers social aspects, it does so relying on a static perspective. To begin with, designers and urban planners have so far mainly considered these practices as technical endeavour. They have developed tools and concepts meant to help making a transition to circular systems of production and consumption. Mass Flow Analysis (MFA) can, for instance, be used to measure inflows and outflows (Ko-rhonen et al. 2004). It is claimed that by revealing inefficiencies, this tool could assist in re-designs aimed at optimizing existing systems, support policy making processes or provide useful insights to develop scenarios (Baccini 1997; Brunner 2007; Barles 2009). The use of Energy Potential Mapping is also advocated in order to chart the energetic potential of a given area and help decision makers take advantage of this po-tential (van den Dobbelsteen et al 2011). Similarly, the Urban Harvest Approach has also been put forward in order to investigate possibilities to harvest local resources and limit the production of waste (Agudelo-Vera et al 2012; LeDuc and vanKann 2013). However, scholars have done little so far to study how ideas become reality. As argued by Barles (2010), more research is still necessary that takes full consideration of the role and influence played by local stakeholders. Adding to that argument, I would like to add that research is needed that takes full consideration of how local organisational and institutional contexts affect the introduction of these ideas.Secondly, industrial ecology scholars have done important work in order to understand why there is an implementation gap. They have identified a number of technical, eco-nomic, organisational, and institutional barriers that these ideas face in their introduc-tion (Boons and Baas 1997; Baas and Boons 2004; Mirata 2004; Gibbs and Deutz 2007). However, scholars have so far looked at these perspectives from a static point of
7 INTRODUCTION
1.5
Outline of the thesis
I
n the rest of this thesis, chapter 2 will further explain how this research aims to bridge industrial ecology and innovation studies. It will argue that urban symbiosis can be understood as requiring the integration between initially separate systems. This will then be referred to as systems integration. The implications of taking such a perspective will be discussed and the research questions driving this work presented. In chapter 3, systems integration will be further conceptualised and in chapter 4 a conceptual framework for studying processes of systems integration will be presented. Chapter 5 will then discuss the research design. From chapter 6 to 8 the case studies will be described and analysed. Moreover, each “attempt” part of a specific case will be compared. In chapter 9 findings from the three case studies will be compared and discussed and finally in chapter 10 conclusions and recommendations will be drawn. view (Boons et al 2011) and hardly addressed the emergent character of these types of solutions. As further argued by Vernay et al (2013), no research has been done in order to study the processes underlying urban (or industrial) symbiosis.Interestingly, in innovation studies there is a long tradition of studying processes of change (Nieto 2003). However innovation scholars have paid little attention to industrial ecology types of innovations. Focus has thus far been on understanding how innovations come about within individual systems and not in interaction between dif-ferent systems (Vernay et al 2013). As argued by Green and Randles (2006), research is still needed in order to understand how innovation processes across different sectors take place.
This thesis aims at filling this gap and thereby showing that studying industrial ecology as a process of change can bring additional insights about this specific type of innova-tion and bring to light addiinnova-tional possibilities to stimulate or facilitate their implemen-tation. Building upon these, the research objectives for this research can be summa-rised as follows:
1. it aims at studying industrial ecology practices, and especially those taking place in an urban setting, as processes of change
2. in doing so it aims at bridging the gap between industrial ecology and inno-vation studies
CHAPTER 2
BRIDGING INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY
AND INNOVATION STUDIES
2.1.1 Introducing the field
The term industrial ecology was popularised by Frosch and Gallopoulos in 1989 and is based on the metaphor that industrial systems should acquire ecosystem-like characteristics. Like an ecosystem where different species feed on each other’s waste, industrial systems should be organised so as to facilitate “cyclic flows of materials within the entire industrial ecosystem” (Graedel, 1994 p26). This perspective stresses that industrial systems are an integral part of the natural environment - the biosphere - and that they should be transformed to become compatible with it (Erkman and Ramas-wamy 2006). In order to make industrial systems compatible with natural systems, the field proposes to base developments on four rules (Tibb 1992; Ayres and Ayres 1996, Ehrenfeld 1997):
• work towards closed material loops, • aim at dematerialising industrial output,
• make thermodynamically efficient use of energy sources, through energy cascading, for instance
• avoid upsetting natural cycles
The field of industrial ecology has mainly been concerned with industrial practices and is promoting systems integration via concepts such as industrial symbiosis or eco-industrial parks. Examples of such practices can be found in various eco-industrial parks, some of which have been described by international scholars. This includes Kalund-borg in Denmark (Jacobsen 2006), the Rotterdam Harbor and Industrial Complex in
2.1
Industrial ecology
A vegan driving a hummer would be contributing less greenhouse gas carbon emissions than a meat eater riding a bicycle (Captain Paul Watson)
10 CHAPTER 2
the Netherlands (e.g. Baas 2008), Puerto Rico, USA (e.g. Chertow et al 2008), Tianjin Economic-Technological Development Zone (Shi et al 2010) and Guigang (Zhu et al 2007) in China, (Kwinana and Gladstone in Australia (e.g. van Beers et al 2007) (more examples can also be found in Chertow 2007).
Until recently, urban areas were receiving little attention from industrial ecology schol-ars. However, there is now a growing interest in taking cities as a unit of analysis (Bai 2007).
In its early years, the field focused on the technical and environmental aspects of industrial ecology practices. Over time, the need to broaden the perspective grew and a plea was made to consider the socio–economic aspects of industrial ecology practices more seriously (Vermeulen, 2006). Indeed, many industrial ecology types of practice were in their infancy and it became important to look at the social aspects in order to understand the challenges faced by these ideas and eventually to be able to overcome them. This started to change and social aspects of industrial ecology have, for instance, been the focus of two publications. The first, “Economics of Industrial Ecology: Materials, Structural Change, and Spatial Scales”, edited by van den Bergh and Jans-sen, (2004) shows how economic analysis and economic models can be used to better grasp changes in flows of materials. The second, entitled “The Social Embeddedness of Industrial Ecology” (Boons/Howard-Grenville 2009), comprises papers that analyse how industrial ecology practices are influenced by the social context in which they are embedded. The book shows, in a snapshot, how industrial ecology can be analysed though a social science lens.
2.1.2 Barriers to industrial ecology
Important research has already been done in order to identify barriers that could be faced when trying to apply industrial ecology principles in practice. To begin with, possible synergies are not always obvious (Chertow 2000, Mirata 2004) and lack of knowledge about technical opportunities is often a limiting factor. Besides, it is acknowledged that even when options can be identified, they may present challenges in their design and they may be technically difficult to realise (de Jong, 2004; van Timmeren 2012). Indeed, they sometimes involve technologies that are still in their infancy and whose performance is still uncertain. Take, for instance, urine separation systems. These can be used to recover nutrients (phosphorus) from urine and use them for agricultural purposes. However, the technology is still in an experimental phase and some pilot plants still face operational problems (Hellstrom and Jonsson 2006). Moreover, beyond these technical aspects, economic and regulatory barriers to indus-trial symbiosis have also been identified. Indeed, it may require high levels of invest-ment and it could be costly to operate (Mirata 2004). Moreover, regulatory structures may also generate barriers to industrial symbiosis by preventing certain exchanges of flows (Baas and Boons 2004; Mirata 2004). Likewise, Hemmes (2009) pointed out that existing research and development policy is usually fragmented and divided over the specific options, leaving little space for integrative solutions. Besides, it is also
11 BRIDGING INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY AND INNOVATION STUDIES
recognised that industrial symbiosis often requires institutional innovation in manage-ment practices which may be difficult to change (Piasecki 1992).
Furthermore, another challenge identified in existing literature comes from the fact that creating connections between different functions crosses the boundaries of indi-vidual companies or organisations. These organisations may have different working cultures, routines and priorities, which are often not in line with one another (Pandis Iverot et al 2012). This is especially true when they come from different industrial sec-tors. These organisations may thus have difficulty trusting and collaborating with each other (Mirata 2004; Gibbs & Deutz 2007)1.
What is more, Brings (2009) (in Baas 2011) showed that ideas about industrial sym-biosis are often hampered by their long incubation time.
Finally, another barrier may come from the fact that when different functions are connected, the actors involved will become dependent on one another. Therefore, some may actually resist the idea for fear of losing some of their independence and as a consequence refuse to engage in industrial symbiosis. This also presents challenges in terms of coordination (Boons & Baas 1997).
Bringing everything together, research has shown that achieving what is here called “systems integration” is a complex endeavour. Technical problems may occur, regula-tions may be in the way, one may find it difficult to have all the required actors col-laborate and costs are always an issue. These challenges certainly make systems integra-tion an interesting and thought-provoking practice to study.
2.1.3 Enabling industrial ecology
Beyond simply looking at barriers, industrial ecology scholars have also looked into various factors that may facilitate or enable industrial symbiosis2. Mirata and Emtairah
(2005) showed how creating industrial symbiosis networks can foster innovation by stimulating the development of collective problem definitions, offering possibilities for inter-sectorial exchanges and promoting a culture of collaboration between the organisations involved. Moreover, Hewes and Lyons (2008), for instance, showed that champions are needed that are able to bring groups of actors together and inspire them to get actively involved.
Furthermore, Boons and Baas (2006) (in Costa et al 2010) argue that “IS activities are shaped by the context in which they occur, described in terms of cognitive, structural, cultur-al, politiccultur-al, spatial and temporal embeddedness”. Building upon this argument, Costa et al (2010) maintain that industrial symbiosis can be enabled by managing the context
1 Scholars interested in the study of wicked problems also identified a number of specific challenges to multi- or trans-disciplinary collaboration (Weber and Khademian 2008). For instance, tensions may emerge because actors have differ-ent views on the nature of the problem, its causes and its effects and the kind of knowledge necessary to come to a solu-tion (van Bueren et al. 2003). Moreover, different actors have different values, beliefs, rules and norms guiding their interest and strategies (Friedland & Alford 1991; Thornton & Ocasio 1999). When these differ too much between the actors involved, it may lead to conflicts about which of the perspectives is most appropriate (Lounsbury 2007). 2 Boon et al (2011) have done a review of industrial ecology publications on the topic, and more generally, of papers presenting concepts and theoretical insights to aid the understanding of industrial symbiosis.
12 CHAPTER 2
in which they are to be embedded. They also add that governmental institutions could greatly contribute to that by developing flexible regulation in waste management or setting up coordination programs where information could be shared and assistance provided to interested companies. A similar conclusion is made by Costa and Ferrão (2010 p985) who state that the creation of a favourable context for industrial symbio-sis “can be shaped through an interactive process wherein the government, industries and other institutions are guided towards aligning their strategies in support of collaborative business strategies in resource management”.
2.1.4 Industrial ecology and adaptive capacity
Finally, scholars have also raised questions regarding the adaptive capacity of industrial symbiosis. Some industrial ecology scholars are concerned that connecting different systems to one another could actually result in some loss of flexibility and a loss of adaptive capacity (Boons and Berends 2001; see also Gibbs & Deutz 2007).
Losing adaptive capacity could prove problematic in the future. Indeed, options that are today considered positively may be seen as problematic in the future and attempts may be done to reverse the situation. This could result from changing standards of environmental performance or the emergence of new problems (Mulder et al 2011). The once financially attractive integration of sewage and storm water systems is now undone, at least when feasible, as it leads to large emissions of untreated sewage during periods of heavy rainfall.
This also relates to a statement from Michael Braungart who argues that “if you are not doing the right thing, don’t do it efficiently, because then you are doings things efficiently wrong”. Following his reasoning, this means that we need to be careful that industrial symbiosis does not end up making industrial systems so efficiently wrong that they become very difficult to change and lock industrial systems in a sub-optimal situation. Little empirical evidence exists to draw robust conclusions about the adaptive capacity of industrial symbiosis. Out of the two pieces of research that empirically addressed this issue, one presents results that indicate that connecting systems can decrease the incentives to innovate (see for e.g. Karlsson and Wolf 2008), while the other suggests that it can both stimulate and constrain innovation (Pandis et al 2012).
In order to gain further insights on this issue, industrial or urban symbiosis should be studied as innovation processes. Indeed, innovation studies have developed a good un-derstanding of how systems can become locked-in in sub-optimal situations (Cowan and Gundy 1996; David 1985; David and Bunn 1988). However, as will be argued in the following section, industrial ecology scholars have so far studied industrial symbio-sis from a static perspective and did not yet consider the emergent character of these types of innovations.
13 BRIDGING INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY AND INNOVATION STUDIES
2.1.5 Missing processes of industrial ecology
Industrial ecology research has so far focused mainly on individual projects and at one moment in time (Vernay et al 2012). However, by being static, IE provides limited means to uncover the possible dynamics of industrial symbiosis-like types of practices. Boons et al (2011) claim that industrial symbiosis is “a process rather than a state of affairs”. Boons et al (2011) propose a framework which consists of three components. First, they identify mechanisms that affect industrial symbiosis. These are divided into two levels: the regional industrial system and the societal level and include things like coercion, demonstration project and institutional capacity building. Second, they identify the antecedents affecting the operation of these mechanisms and third, they suggest investigating the outcomes of these mechanisms in terms of ecological impact, social networks and concept diffusion.
This framework considers looking at the general phenomenon of industrial symbiosis and its dynamics. However, no framework yet exists for looking within the phenom-enon, analysing how actors deal with ideas of industrial symbiosis and investigating how their actions are shaped by the broader context in which they are embedded (see also Vernay et al 2013). This relates to the argument stated by Randles and Berkhout (2006, p308) that “a challenge for industrial ecology is to recognise that the shape and dynamics of industrial systems is often determined by social relations that cut across the boundaries of the physical embodiments of these systems”. In other words, research is missing that studies industrial symbiosis as an innovation process (Green and Randles 2006). This thesis argues that studying processes of industrial symbiosis could broaden our understanding of this type of phenomenon and may help with developing strate-gies to narrow the implementation gap.
To conclude, earlier studies provide an incomplete understanding of industrial symbio-sis-like types of practice. In order to better understand the challenges faced by industri-al (or urban) symbiosis, these practices should be studied as processes of change. While this section showed that industrial ecology research could benefit from borrowing from innovation studies, the following section will show that innovation scholars have also paid very little attention so far to industrial ecology types of innovations.
2.2
Innovation studies
I
n innovation studies there is a long tradition in studying innovation processes (Nieto 2003). Besides, as called for by Smith et al (2010, p 436): “Innovation stud-ies has much to offer those interested in ensuring new products, processes and services improve human wellbeing without detriment to environmental life support systems”. The idea that innovation studies have a lot to offer towards the larger sustainability debate is shared by other scholars from the field (see, for instance, Elzen et al, 2004; Grin et al 2010).14 CHAPTER 2
how practices of sustainable consumption and production come about and how they could be steered. Two perspectives in particular will be reviewed here: the perspectives of scholars interested in technology studies and in transition theory. In reviewing both perspectives, the aim is to show that industrial ecology types of innovation have not yet been considered. This will also be used in order to propose a perspective based on which processes of systems integration can be studied.
2.2.1 Technology studies
Technology studies emerged in the 1970s, partly in response to the controversies that emerged regarding several new technologies (nuclear energy, arms, industrial pollution, medicine) and partly in response to the growing needs of governments to develop ef-fective innovation policies.
A major part of technology studies has focused on the creation of technical novelties. In Actor-Network Theory, for instance, one finds a number of concepts and meth-odological tools to study how technical innovations are created and how they further diffuse in society (Callon 1986a and b; Callon et al 1992; Law 1991). In ANT, inno-vations are understood to result from the creation of a network of actors with aligned interest (Walsham and Sahay 1999). Moreover the theory proposes to study how ac-tors are enrolled in a given network by following the acac-tors and how their interest gets to be translated in the network (Latour 1987). However, little attention has so far been paid to considering how pre-existing relations shape how actors get to be translated (or not) in a given network. However, when innovations involve connecting actors coming from different “worlds”, like in the case of industrial ecology innovations, it is impor-tant to take that into consideration. Indeed, these pre-existing worlds may enable or, on the contrary, constrain the connection.
A similar observation can be made from research focusing on the study of large techni-cal systems (LTS). In LTS literature, the emergence and growth of LTS such as elec-tricity, telecommunications and railways has been extensively studied (Hughes 1983; Mayntz and Hughes 1988; Davies 1996; Lagendijk 2008). Various concepts have been put forward in order to describe and analyse how LTS come about. These concepts will be explained in detail in chapter 4. What is important for us to know now is that, as argued elsewhere, the LTS literature hardly considered how technical systems interact with one another (Mulder and Kaijser, forthcoming). The integration of two systems has only been considered in the context of two systems meeting each other during their expansion (e.g. Summerton 1999).
2.2.2 Transition theory
Transition theory has also been concerned about how change can take place in socio-technical systems. The multi-level perspective (MLP) has been put forward in order to study large scale and long-term socio-technical transitions (see Rip and Kemp 1998;
15 BRIDGING INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY AND INNOVATION STUDIES
Geels 2002; 2004). It conceptualises socio-technical change as taking place at three levels: niche, regime and landscape. The regime represents incumbent practices and is a source of stability. In this perspective, innovations take place in niches while broader societal context is conceptualised as being part of the overarching landscape. For a transition to take place, changes need to happen in these three levels simultaneously. Moreover, tools such as strategic niche management (Kemp et al 1998; Hoogma et al 2002) or PROTEE (Hommels et al 2007) have been developed to facilitate the intro-duction and possible diffusion of green technology.
Finally, some even claim that transitions could be managed so that desirable paths can take over from unwanted one (Rotmans et al 2001; Loorbach and Rotmans 2010). Both the incremental as well as radical emergence of novel products and systems has been studied in products, processes and systems. However innovation scholars have so far paid little attention to the industrial ecology type of innovations that especially focus on the interrelation of systems. (Green and Randle 2006 are an exception). Even though scholars recognise that transition crosses multiple domains and scales (see Rotman et al 2001), the focus of innovation studies is usually on a single socio-technical system, such as energy (Verbong and Geels 2007), water management (van der Brugge et al 2005), sanitation (Geels 2006) and mobility (Nykvist and Whitmarsh 2008). Only a few analyses have considered large scale transitions that involve more than one system (Raven and Verbong 2009; Lauridsen and Jørgensen 2010; Teschner et al 2012). Moreover, these studies say little about the processes through which such transitions take place and the type of challenges that are faced.
To conclude, innovation studies have built up a lot of experience in the studying of innovations and how they come about. However, they have not yet considered indus-trial ecology types of innovations, which imply creating connections between previ-ously separate systems. As concluded by Randles and Berkhout (2006), finding ways to bridge industrial ecology and innovation studies could open up new theoretical and empirical avenues for both fields.
In the following section, the concept of circular urban systems will be proposed as a way to understand what urban symbiosis entails. Moreover, it will explain that the pro-cess of creating a circular urban system involves systems integration. Finally, I will also argue how tracing processes of systems integration can be a way to bridge industrial ecology and innovation studies.
