China 
Africa 
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Life cycle assessment
Published in Antje Klitkou, Arne Martin Fevolden, Marco Capasso, From Waste to Value, 2019
Andreas Brekke, Kari-Anne Lyng, Johanna Olofsson, Julia Szulecka
Life cycle thinking is connected to the scientific field of Industrial Ecology which depicts the industrial system as “a certain kind of ecosystem” (Erkman, 1997) and tries to provide real solutions for sustainable development. It constitutes a broad framework intended to guide the industrial system in its transformation towards sustainability, shifting from linear industrial processes to closed loop systems (Saavedra, Iritani, Pavan & Ometto, 2018), and strives for an optimal circulation of materials and energy that limits damage in both industrial and ecological systems (Cohen-Rosenthal, 2004). One of the key concepts in Industrial Ecology is Industrial Metabolism. The term, partly borrowed from biology, focuses on the environmental impact of natural resources’ use and how industrial systems can be organised to utilise all of companies’ (energy and material) waste streams by mimicking nature (Saavedra et al., 2018).
Industrial Metabolism: Roots and Basic Principles
Published in Surendra M. Gupta, A. J. D. (Fred) Lambert, Environment Conscious Manufacturing, 2007
Because of its multidisciplinary character, the field that is covered by industrial ecology has been gradually extended to domains beyond its original concepts. Therefore, it might be useful to redefine industrial ecology while reconsidering the original definitions of this topic. The essential aspect in which industrial ecology differs from other approaches is in the comparison between the industrial system and the natural ecological system. This comparison is not only of academic interest, but it is considered a tool for the redesign of the industrial system on various levels of aggregation aimed at achieving increased sustainability. Most of the industrial ecologists advocate the closing of the materials cycles as an essential path toward this end. The method of quantitative materials—and energy flow analysis—also called industrial metabolism, is the principal instrument for achieving this goal. Therefore, this chapter describes the basic concepts of industrial metabolism.
Industrial Ecology
Published in Mary K. Theodore, Louis Theodore, Introduction to Environmental Management, 2021
Mary K. Theodore, Louis Theodore
In 1989, Robert Ayres developed the concept of industrial metabolism [2]. Industrial metabolism refers to identifying the flows of energy and material transformations and dissipation as waste throughout various industrial systems and into ecosystems. Quantifying resources using mass balance analyses of the flows and transformations of material can help optimize resource efficiency and identify negative impacts on ecosystems. Industrial metabolism links the circulation of materials and flows generated from human activity from their initial extraction to their inevitable reintegration, sooner or later into the overall biogeochemical cycle [8].
A comprehensive policy framework for the development of green markets in European Islands
Published in Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 2022
Angeliki Kylili, Paris A. Fokaides, Aravella Zachariou, Byron Ioannou, Phoebe-Zoe Georgalli, Savvas Vlachos, Myrto Skouroupathi, Nikola Matak, Ljubomir Majdandzic, Elizabeth Olival, Hugo Vasconcelos, Vittoria Cherchi, Daniele Groppi, Davide Astiaso Garcia, Alkisti Florou, Kostas Komninos, Stelios Procopiou, Thodoris Kouros, Arne Håkon Sandnes, Malene Aaram Vike, May Britt Roald, Lina Vassdal, Salvador Suárez García, Ülo Kask, Janita Andrijevskaja, Kerli Kirsimaa
Based on the studies of Vazquez-Brust and Sarkis (2012), the term industrial ecology contends the industrial metabolism in a way that one industry’s waste becomes the raw material for the next. The term “dematerialization” involves reducing the use of materials and making long-lasting products better managed by other services over their extended life cycles. On the other hand, the examination of Hickel and Kallis (2020) on historical patterns and model-based estimations revealed that there is no experimental proof that ultimate dissociation from resource usage can be accomplished in the face of ongoing economic expansion on a global level. Furthermore, even under ideal policy settings, ultimate dissociation from carbon emissions is relatively uncommon at a fast enough rate to avert global warming of more than 1.5°C or 2°C.
Material Metabolism and Environmental Emissions of BF-BOF and EAF Steel Production Routes
Published in Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Review, 2018
Xiaoling Li, Wenqiang Sun, Liang Zhao, Jiuju Cai
The concept of ‘industrial metabolism’ refers to the flow processes of material and energy in economic or industrial systems at local, regional, or global levels (Frosch and Gallopoulos, 1989; Ayres and Simonis, 1993). Methods to improve efficiency and reduce consumption of resources and resulting environmental impacts can be found by examining the transformation and paths of these fluxes in any industrial system (Hu et al., 2014). Material flow analysis (MFA) is one of the most powerful approaches for studying industrial metabolisms. The purpose of MFA is to find ways to minimize the use of natural resources, improve the environment, and direct the industrial systems toward sustainability. Such an analysis follows the balance of materials from initial mining to final disposal, through the entire production, transformation, consumption, and recycling processes. Materials may include elements, raw materials, products, finished products, wastes, and water and air emissions (Dai, 2015). In recent years, many studies have been conducted for particular elements or materials such as mercury (Wang et al., 2016), zinc (Ma et al., 2011; Yan et al., 2013), or for the entire set of material and energy processes for a given industrial sector (Hu et al., 2014; Gao et al., 2016). In MFA, energy, raw materials, and water are considered as inputs, while products, by-products, and emissions are considered as outputs for calculating specific emissions and resource consumption.
Barriers and enablers of circular economy in construction: a multi-system perspective towards the development of a practical framework
Published in Construction Management and Economics, 2023
Benjamin Kwaku Ababio, Weisheng Lu
A heatmap is used to visualise re-categorisation of barriers into a system level perspective based on appropriateness and frequency in existing studies. Circular solutions are intended to replace conventional approaches at each systemic level. Considering a variety of stakeholders at each level, barriers pertinent to specific groups are discussed as follows. The macro-level, emphasises industrial metabolism and reducing energy and material flows from a governance point of view. Thus, most of the barriers at this level reflect the need for an overarching policy framework, with governments as well as regulatory agencies involvement at the local or regional level on CE matters (Korhonen et al.2018). Essentially, this top-down approach to CE implementation would require legislation that promotes sustainable practices within the construction sector with the responsibility ultimately falling on relevant authorities to make such provisions on a city-wide or regional scale. On the meso-level, collaboration and synergy facilitated by geographic proximity (Lieder and Rashid 2016) and the integration of symbiotic relationships between firms with the focus on introducing eco-industrial parks are prioritised (Geng et al.2012, Ghisellini et al.2016). Hence, barriers are usually related to inter-organisational issues such as information and material flows, technical aspects of systems that allow for symbiosis and technology that enables it. This system level thrives on innovation of products and technological advancement in procedure or processes employed during the lifecycle of a building. Lastly, the micro-level of CE places emphasis on CBMs, and circular practices at firm or building level (Cainelli et al.2020). This level is fundamental to the CE practice and projects a bottom-up strategy for implementation. However, it is the least researched among the systemic levels. It delves into the optimisation of CE’s “inner circles” which relate to reducing resource consumption, increasing reuse and recycling, and expanding product lifetime (Horbach and Rammer 2020), with key barriers typically including management systems, human resource management, process definition among others.