Premium
Evaluation and Allocation of Greenhouse Gas Reductions in Industrial Symbiosis
Author(s) -
Kim HyeongWoo,
Ohnishi Satoshi,
Fujii Minoru,
Fujita Tsuyoshi,
Park HungSuck
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of industrial ecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.377
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1530-9290
pISSN - 1088-1980
DOI - 10.1111/jiec.12539
Subject(s) - greenhouse gas , industrial ecology , industrial symbiosis , environmental economics , kyoto protocol , life cycle assessment , product (mathematics) , business , environmental science , operations management , environmental resource management , natural resource economics , production (economics) , waste management , economics , engineering , sustainability , ecology , mathematics , geometry , macroeconomics , biology
Summary Industrial symbiosis (IS) exchanges have been recognized to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, though methods for quantification of GHG emissions in IS exchanges are varied, and no standardized methods are available. This article proposes a practical approach to quantify total and allocated GHG emissions from IS exchanges by integrating the GHG protocol and life cycle assessment. The proposed method expands the system boundaries to include all IS companies, and the functional flow is set to be the sum of the main products. The total impact of a company is allocated to the main product. Three by‐product impact allocation methods of cutoff, avoidance, and 50/50 are proposed, and the total and distributed impacts of the IS systems in an industrial park are theoretically derived. The proposed method was tested to quantify GHG reduction in a real IS exchange developed between Korea Zinc (a zinc smelter) and Hankook Paper (a paper mill company) in the Ulsan Eco‐Industrial Park initiative. The total reduction of GHG emissions in this IS exchange, 60,522 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, was the same in the GHG protocol, whereas GHG distribution between two companies depended on the allocation method. Given that the reduction of GHG emissions from IS exchanges is the product of the collaboration of giving companies and receiving companies, the 50/50 allocation method is best from an equivalent‐responsibility and benefit‐sharing perspective. However, this study suggests a more practical implementation approach based on a flexible and negotiable method of allocating the total GHG reduction between stakeholders.