Summary The most commonly cited definition of industrial symbiosis (IS), by Chertow (2000), has served well to foster discussion and research for more than a decade. The definition reflected the state of research and practice at the time; as both have advanced, some terms have been interpreted in substantially different ways. In this article we analyze those generally used terms for their connection to the ecological metaphor that is the root of industrial ecology, and their varied interpretations in IS research and practice over time. We then propose an updated definition intended to communicate the essence of IS as a tool for innovative green growth: IS engages diverse organizations in a network to foster eco‐innovation and long‐term culture change. Creating and sharing knowledge through the network yields mutually profitable transactions for novel sourcing of required inputs and value‐added destinations for non‐product outputs, as well as improved business and technical processes. We posit that, although geographic proximity is often associated with IS, it is neither necessary nor sufficient—nor is a singular focus on physical resource exchange.

Resource sharing among co-located firmsreferenced in the industrial ecology literature as “industrial symbiosis”engages traditionally separate industries in a collective approach to business and environmental management involving the physical exchanges of materials, energy, water, and byproducts. While industrial symbiosis is seen hypothetically as a win-win situation, there are few analyses of the economic and environmental consequences for the individual participants in multi-faceted exchanges. In this article, the nascent industrial symbiosis network in Guayama, Puerto Rico, is explored from environmental, economic, and regulatory perspectives of the individual participants and the community. A coal-fired power plant, owned and operated by the AES Corporation, draws five million gallons per day of process water from nearby sources thus avoiding freshwater withdrawals and, through steam sales, significantly reduces emissions from a nearby refinery. This article quantifies economic and environmental costs and benefits for the symbiosis participants, concluding that there are substantial benefits to engaging in symbiosis, although these benefits fall unevenly on participating organizations. Policy intervention can be a viable means of motivating more regular occurrences of resource exchanges among groups of firms.

Future scenarios provide challenging, plausible and relevant stories about how the future could unfold. Urban Futures (UF) research has identified a substantial set (>450) of seemingly disparate scenarios published over the period 1997-2011 and within this research, a sub-set of >160 scenarios has been identified (and categorized) based on their narratives according to the structure first proposed by the Global Scenario Group (GSG) in 1997; three world types (Business as Usual, Barbarization, and Great Transitions) and six scenarios, two for each world type (Policy Reform-PR, Market Forces-MF, Breakdown-B, Fortress World-FW, Eco-Communalism-EC and New Sustainability Paradigm-NSP). It is suggested that four of these scenario archetypes (MF, PR, NSP and FW) are sufficiently distinct to facilitate active stakeholder engagement in futures thinking. Moreover they are accompanied by a well-established, internally consistent set of narratives that provide a deeper understanding of the key fundamental drivers (e.g., STEEP-Social, Technological, Economic, Environmental and Political) that could bring about realistic world changes through a push or a pull effect. This is testament to the original concept of the GSG scenarios and their development and refinement over a 16 year period.

No abstract

Making cities more sustainable is a top priority – for national governments, for cities and for the people who live, work and visit urban areas. The past decade has seen a concerted UK effort to develop, apply and assess sustainability solutions for the present and near future; however, little has been done to test urban regeneration solutions beyond that. This paper describes a methodology that has developed future scenarios for the year 2050 against which to test the robustness of current engineering solutions, thereby providing unique insights into the potential impacts of present urban planning and design decisions, and thus financial investments. If a proposed solution delivers a positive legacy, regardless of the future against which it is tested, then it can be adopted with confidence. When there are very different outcomes depending on the future, the solution can either be modified to create an improved outcome regardless of the future or implemented in the knowledge of the likely impacts if the future develops in different ways. The urban futures methodology has been applied to the Lancaster Luneside East regeneration site, for which contextual information is described along with a justification for its use as a case study to trial the methodology.

No abstract

Birmingham Eastside, an area of 170 ha, is located to the eastern side of Birmingham's city centre in the UK. Over a 10-year period this once-deprived inner city area is being regenerated through public and private finance estimated at £6 billion. The regeneration scheme is bringing about changes to the local environment, economy and society. The key players (e.g. landowners, developers and planners) involved in the decision-making processes for Eastside have the power to see that these changes are brought about in a more sustainable manner. To achieve this it is necessary to assess in which direction the development should go, and to provide benchmarks for implementing and measuring sustainable changes along the way. The process can be facilitated by the use of sustainability indicators, of which there are many. This paper outlines a variety of sustainability indicators (e.g. Spear, Breeam, sustainability checklists and other benchmarks), including those used within the decision-making processes for Eastside. In particular, it details those indicators operating at city level, quarter level and then individual development site level. Several case study sites are included (Masshouse, City Park Gate, the learning and leisure quarter, the new technology institute and Warwick Bar). The paper discusses the role of indicators in achieving a more sustainable development (SD). The development timeline framework (DTF) is used to analyse how and when indicators have formed an integral part of the decision-making process for various sites in Eastside. The responsibility for implementing SD and the role of participation are discussed and generic lessons learned for the application of indicators, including aspects of timing, are set out.

A 6?6 ha (66 000 m 2 ) regeneration site, commonly referred to as Luneside East, is to be turned from a run down, economically under-achieving area of Lancaster, UK, into a new, distinctive, vibrant, sustainable quarter of the city. As a result several aspects of water planning for 350 new homes and 8000 m 2 of workspace needed to be considered before any infrastructure investment was undertaken. This included assessment of the future capacity requirements (i.e. inflows and outflows) for water infrastructure (i.e. mains water supply, wastewater disposal, rainwater storage and stormwater disposal) much of which will be located underground. This paper looks at the implications of various water management strategies on the Luneside East site (e.g. water-efficient appliances, greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting) in line with current policy measures that focus on technology changes alone (e.g. the code for sustainable homes). Based on these findings this paper outlines some basic implications for technological resilience discussed in the context of four 'world views' -that is, the urban futures scenarios considered in this special issue.Conclusions are drawn as to how far this can take engineers, planners and developers in understanding and planning for resilient water infrastructure within a development like Luneside East.