ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING - INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY docx

502
INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
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:
EnvironmentalimpactPopulation
GDP
Person
Environmentalimpa
ϭϫ
ϫ
cct
UnitofGDP
(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 interactions
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).
© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY 503
In 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.
© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
504 INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY
transformation 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 International 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) T
y
pe II industrial ecos
y
stem
Limited waste
Energy &
Limited resources
Materials
Extractor
RecyclerCustomer

Manu-
facturer
FIGURE 1 (continued)
© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY 505
The 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.
© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
506 INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY
(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:
x Ϫ Ax ϭ y (2)
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
Type of analysis A
ab c
Objects of
primary interests
Specific environmental problems related to certain impacts per unit flow of:
substances materials products
e.g., Cd, Cl, Pb, Zn, Hg,

N, P, C, CO
2
, CFC
e.g., wooden products, energy
carriers, excavation, biomass,
plastics
e.g., diapers, batteries, cars
Within certain firms, sectors, regions
B
ab c
Problems of environmental concern related to the throughput of:
firms sectors regions
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)
© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY 507
countries (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 operational 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,
© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
508 INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY
Liquid
Fertilizer
Production
Lake
Tissθ
Fish
Farming
Farms
Yeast
slurry
Sludge
(treated)
Novo Nordisky/
Novozymes A/S
Pharmaceuticals
Recovered nickel
and yanadium
Cement

roads
A-S Soilrem
Fly ash
Water
Water
Water
Sulfur
Heat
Steam
Hot
Water
Sludge
Steam
Boiler
water
Waste
water
Cooling
water
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
Base Year: 1994
Unit: Gg = 1,000,000 kg Cu/yr
Fabrication &
Manufacturing
Cathode
–10,710
Lith.
+2,925
FIGURE 4 Global anthropogenic copper cycle in 1994. From Graedel et al., 2004.
© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY 509

Towards 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
m10
0
m
10
3
m
10
4
m
10
5
m
10
6
m
10
7
m
SPACE
Earthregion country
city
inter-firm
firm

product
creature
moleculeatom
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.
© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
510 INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY
environmental 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 developing 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.
Cohen-Rosenthal, E. et al. Designing eco-industrial parks: the North
American experience.
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.
© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY 511
Polenske, 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.
U.S. EPA. Why LCA? />htm. Accessed in 2004.
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
© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC