Ecological science has been shaped largely by the biological sciences. Environmental science, on the other hand, has been shaped largely by the physical sciences and engineering. With the beginning of interdisciplinary efforts between the two fields, some of the fundamental differences between them are generating conflicts caused more by misunderstanding of basic concepts than by any difference in social purposes or methods. Those differences are most vivid in that part of ecology called ecosystem science, for it is there that it is obvious that both the biota and the physical environment interact such that not only does the environment shape the biota but the biota transforms the environment. The accumulated body of empirical evidence concerning natural, disturbed, and managed ecosystems identifies key features of ecosystem structure and function (Holling et al., 1995) that probably are not included in many engineers’ image of ecology:
– Ecological change is not continuous and gradual . . .
– Spatial attributes are not uniform or scale invariant . . .
– Ecosystems do not have single equilibria with functions controlled to remain near them . . .
– Policies and management that apply fixed rules for achieving constant yields (such as constant carrying capacity of cattle or wildlife or constant sustainable yield of fish, wood, or water), independent of scale, lead to systems that gradually lose resilience and suddenly break down in the face of disturbances that previously could be absorbed (Holling, 1986) . . .
Ecosystems are moving targets, with multiple potential futures that are uncertain and unpredictable. Therefore management has to be flexible, adaptive, and experimental at scales compatible with the scales of critical ecosystem functions (Walters, 1986). The features described above are the consequence of the stability properties of natural systems.
– If we intend to design systems to mimic the processes in the natural world, how do we integrate these uncertain, unpredictable, and dynamic characteristics into our approaches and our designs?
April 3, 2008 by
Frances and
NEIL MILLER | Filed under: The EM as an Industrial Ecologist [1] | 1 Comment »
Workshop Presentation
At last year’s symposium, I moderated a workshop where I tried to facilitate discussion on what we believed were the underlying values of the environmental management profession. I had originally planned to use the principles of industrial ecology as a vehicle for getting to those values. I created the attached powerpoint to go along with the discussion. The slides were eventually not used, and my discussion topic shifted a little by the time I presented, but I thought they fit in with this team’s discussion.
To summarize the presentation, I attempted to put a boundary around the values that environmental manager would hold and how they overlap with the values of the surrounding environments.
Because our profession has been a constantly evolving profession, we never really had a chance to define what our vision for our profession should be– not the company’s vision or the government’s vision, but our vision. That’s where I move to the industrial ecology part of the discussion. One of the papers that had been posted discusses the underlying philosophy of nature behind industrial ecology. I kind of went with that idea and used some principles of “ecosystem management”–> “processes in which decision making takes into account all major components of the affected ecosystems, including humans and the adjacent ecosystems.”
So ultimately our goal would be to preserve the goods and services that nature provides us (flood control, clean water, air, soil, food, shelter, etc.) and industrial ecology would be a way of doing that.
I then focused on Hawken’s description of industrial ecology in the “Parking Lots and Potato Heads” chapter where he describes the interconnections of the different companies in the town of Kalundborg. Waste is recycled and reused in a network of businesses ranging from the coal plant, a pharmaceutical firm, local farmers, and a sheetboard manufacturer.
This type of industrial ecology focuses on keeping raw materials in the conversion and production steps for as long as possible by using industrial waste as raw materials for another industry. This extends the time between a material’s extraction and a material’s disposal.
Even though it was spontaneous there were still reasons for why it worked in Denmark, and the institute lists the three bullets in the presentation. The most important bullet though I think is the one on local, cooperative mentality. This model of industrial ecology has always been hailed as a great way to cut back on resources and minimize waste. But what gets overlooked and what could possibly move this idea of industrial ecology into the realm of sustainability is the fact that these networks are also local business networks.
If you noticed from that previous slide, all of those companies were definitely Danish. By creating this industrial network, they also created a network to keep money and jobs in the local community. It’s not like Novo Norvik is going to get up and leave Kalendborg. They have it made there. The benefits of fostering local economies are enormous:
- increases democratization of local people
- increases self-sufficiency—money keeps circulating within the community
- increases food security
- increases diversity
- increases stewardship of a locality and all the benefits that entails
Therefore, industrial ecology doesn’t just lead to environmental resilience like is discussed in the posted articles but it could be used to create economic and social resilience by fostering local business. Would that be an accurate extension of your resilience idea?
March 28, 2008 by
GREGORY HILTON and
Frances | Filed under: The EM as an Industrial Ecologist [1] | 2 Comments »
Hello to everyone participating in this EM discussion topic. For those of you who have not already reviewed my profile, My name is Greg Hilton and I am a RIT student participant in the Environmental Management Workshop.
I would like your thoughts on the roles and definitions of an Environmental Manager and Industrial Ecologist?
Myself, I am new to this discussion topic and discipline. Therefore I headed right to the net to investigate the definitions and roles for both. As usual I found there to be plentiful information and articles related to both spheres of knowledge. I summarized as follows:
An Environmental Manager is considered a specialist in managing an organization’s environmental strategies and performance. An effective Environmental Manager must have the knowledge, skills, and ability to influence the resolution of environmental issues within their organization. Environmental Management work activities include:
- Implementation of environmental policies and practices
- Development of pollution control, pollution prevention and recycling programs
- Ensuring compliance with environmental legislation
- Reducing and organization’s environmental risks and financial costs
- Leading social responsibility issues and appropriate action
- Raising awareness of environmental impacts and emerging issues to all level of the organization
An Industrial Ecologist is considered a interdisciplinary role that focuses on the sustainable combination of environment, economy, and technology. Their work involves using the principles of of natural systems in the development of sustainable industrial systems so as to reduce environmental impact. Industrial Ecologist work may include:
- Material and energy flow studies
- Designing for the environment
- Development of product oriented environmental policy
- Product life cycle planning
- Product stewardship planning
References:
http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/Explore_types_of_jobs/Types_of_Job/p!eipaL?state=showocc&pageno=1&idno=161
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_ecology
http://industrialecology.blogspot.com/
http://www.epa.gov/epr/
January 15, 2008 by
John Morelli and
Brian Butler | Filed under: Overview,The EM as an Industrial Ecologist [1] | No Comments »
Welcome to the discussion! Researchers working on this important subtopic include: Thomas Seager, Frances Cabrera, Neil Miller and Gregory Hilton. Below are the various postings from the research team. Some will be abstracts of and links to relevant literature. Others will be original work posted here for comments, criticisms, suggestions, questions, etc. from professional environmental managers who visit this site. If you are interested in participating on this professional research team, or learning more about it, please contact us by clicking here.
December 19, 2007 by
amathew ,
amathew ,
Brian Butler | Filed under: Literature Review,The EM as an Industrial Ecologist [1] | No Comments »
In this article the author reviews the theory of industrial ecology when nature is used as model for material flows and processing in industry. It describes the goal of industrial ecology as producing a more sustainable system for industry to follow by utilizing closed loop systems. The article then poses the problem that it is impossible for one to understand the full systems of nature and thus the closed loop process of nature can only be mimicked instead of replicated. The author then investigates how industrial ecology mimics nature and how general consensus compares industrial processes to natural systems, including the minute differences in using and overusing metaphor and environmental analogies. The author supports changing the view of the environment as a fashionable jargon and to view nature as something to use a framework in our attempts towards sustainability.
December 19, 2007 by
amathew ,
Brian Butler ,
amathew | Filed under: Literature Review,The EM as an Industrial Ecologist [1] | No Comments »
The authors examine industrial ecology under institutional areas: professional legitimacy, viable clientele, entrepreneurial acumen, and occupational opportunities. The analysis of these criteria helps establish the current status of industrial ecology as a concept and method and its long-term viability and possible use as a measure to achieve sustainability. The authors state what is required of industrial ecology to be adopted, such as a demonstration of functionality and the ability to add a consistent and reliable value to an industry, while identifying some key challenges facing industrial ecology. The last category the authors analyze industrial ecology against is its political relevance. Here the authors state that industrial ecology must be able to establish intellectual credibility while maintaining its integrity and ability to integrate social factors into its technical solutions.
December 19, 2007 by
amathew ,
Brian Butler ,
amathew | Filed under: Literature Review,The EM as an Industrial Ecologist [1] | No Comments »
The author analyzes from different view points how social interactions should play a significant role in industrial ecology and would benefit from a broadening of scope to include social issues and factors. The author begins with a brief overview of industrial ecology, its principles, and the current technical mindset that is held by industrial ecologists in their approach to solving environmental problems. Due to the technical focus held in industrial ecology, the author states that critical social areas such as laws, industry standards, best practices, market leadership and cultural biases are ignored when solutions for environmental issues and material flows are developed. One example of technical solution that was developed independent of social considerations is the mandated newspaper recycling programs in the Northeast. These programs caused an excess supply of recycled material, driving down material costs and thus the incentive to recycle. Another example made is in the event that automakers fully adopt renewable energies, what degree of infrastructure must be recreated or altered and what its impact is upon the jobs centered around fossil fuels. The author concludes that industrial ecologists should attempt to create linkages between social and technical fields to develop comprehensive solutions.
December 19, 2007 by
amathew ,
amathew ,
Brian Butler | Filed under: Literature Review,The EM as an Industrial Ecologist [1] | No Comments »
The author states that a key tenant of industrial ecology, the efficient use of a waste from one process as a raw material in another, is not new to industrialized nations, but it something that is a characteristic of developing nations. Should this statement prove true, the author feels that the difficulty of industrial ecology then lies in the ability for a company to develop a structure to ‘internalize their externalities’ while allowing the freedom to create new uses and value from their by-products. The author details historical examples of waste partnership programs including wood wastes, oranges, metals, cotton and more from 1875 to 1920. The author then goes on to give examples to why industrial waste cooperative programs have been suppressed over the years, indicating cultural beliefs, regulations and market distortions. The author concludes that goal of industrial ecology should be to promote regulatory reform such that companies are required to account for their by-products, but are given the flexibility to take those wastes and create value from them.
