Maximizing eco-industrial parks’ positive outcomes to support regional circular economy transition
Authors: Juliano Araujo and Alejandro Arias Castillo, Institute for Industrial Ecology at Pforzheim University.Â
Circular Economy (CE) can be understood across multiple system levels. According to (Kirchherr et al., 2017), CE operates at the micro level (products, firms and consumers), meso level (eco-industrial parks and industrial networks), and macro level (cities, regions and national economies). Within this perspective, Eco-Industrial Parks (EIPs) represent a meso-level strategy, defined as industrial communities that reduce resource consumption and environmental impacts through the efficient sharing and use of materials, energy, infrastructure, and services (Son et al., 2023).
Beyond environmental gains, EIPs are increasingly recognized as important instruments for industrial development and business competitiveness, since they can improve firm performance and create economic, social, and environmental benefits (Son et al., 2023; Zhao et al., 2018). Moreover, understanding the performance of EIPs is crucial because meso-level circular economy systems act as key mechanisms through which material and energy flows are reorganized, thereby influencing macro-level circular economy transitions.
Measuring Eco-Industrial Parks Performance is Essential
Despite their potential benefits, industrial parks may also generate environmental and social challenges, including pollution, resource depletion, climate impacts, and pressures on local communities if they are not properly planned and managed (World Bank, 2021).
In this context, measuring circular performance becomes essential for supporting evidence-based decision-making. However, it is still not completely clear how circularity should be measured in EIPs. Existing studies use different indicators, focus on different CE strategies, and assess different stages of EIP systems, making comparison and practical implementation difficult (Felicio et al., 2016).
To address this gap, a comprehensive reference list of meso-level CE indicators was developed to support researchers, policymakers, industrial park managers, and businesses in evaluating and improving circular performance.
Mapping Circular Economy Indicators in EIPs
A focused literature review was conducted to identify indicators and metrics used to measure circular performance in EIPs. Subsequently, the main operational processes of EIPs were mapped and connected CE indicators to each stage of the system, including areas such as EIP design, shared services, by-product exchanges, and EIP networks.
These indicators were then connected to a specific CE “R-strategy”, such as Refuse, Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle, creating a direct connection between EIP processes, circular practices, and performance measurement.
Finally, all indicators were organized into an Excel-based tool to support visualization, filtering, and analysis.
Relevance of the Proposed Framework
The proposed framework includes not only indicators related to critical technical flows, such as materials, energy, and waste, but also broader dimensions essential for CE implementation, including collaboration, governance, shared services, and network integration.
By organizing and structuring meso-level CE indicators, this reference framework helps move EIPs from isolated sustainability initiatives toward measurable, actionable, and policy-relevant circular performance assessment. The framework can also support strategic planning, benchmarking, and the development of more sustainable industrial policies and business practices. Maximizing the positive outcomes of EIPs is therefore not only a meso-level objective but also a critical step toward supporting regional and national circular economy transitions through measurable and actionable system-level insights.
Access the Complete Indicator Database
The complete Excel-based reference tool is openly available through Zenodo and can be accessed at:
Reference List of Meso-Level Circular Economy Indicators (Zenodo)
 References
Felicio, M., Amaral, D., Esposto, K., & Gabarrell Durany, X. (2016). Industrial symbiosis indicators to manage eco-industrial parks as dynamic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 118, 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.031
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127(September), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005
Son, C. H., Oh, D., & Ban, Y. U. (2023). Eco-industrial development strategies and characteristics according to the performance evaluation of eco-industrial park projects in Korea. Journal of Cleaner Production, 416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137971
World Bank. (2021). International Framework for Eco-Industrial Parks v.2.
Zhao, H., Guo, S., & Zhao, H. (2018). Comprehensive benefit evaluation of eco-industrial parks by employing the best-worst method based on circular economy and sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20(3), 1229–1253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9936-6
Leave a comment