1. 1
Thesis Research project
Industrial Ecology
Master program: Industrial Ecology, Course code 4413TRP30Y
Student: H.M. Makkink - Student number 4193318 (Delft), S1198661 (Leiden)
First supervisor: Dr.ir. G. Korevaar - Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management -
Department of Engineering Systems and Services
Second supervisor: Dr.ir. E.H.W.J. Cuppen - Faculty of Technology, Policy and
Management - Department of Multi Actor Systems
External supervisor: J. Crone - Director WarmCO2
Defense date: 29 June 2016
Drivers and barriers for circular
industrial systems
Case study on the WarmCO2 system and the Maabjerg Energy Concept

2. 2
Acknowledgements and preface
Writing this thesis felt like a luxury, being able to focus on what I find really interesting and having
people that support this is truly something to cherish. This chapter is dedicated to the people who
did support me during this phase.
First of all my team of supervisors was a big driving force for me. The transparent and open attitude
of Jenny Crone, my external supervisor, was actually the reason to further investigate the case of
WarmCO2 and helped me with many important things and details. Jenny, your passion was
contagious. Gijsbert Korevaar, as my first supervisor you supported my enthusiasm for this case.
Every time I walked out of your office I had a new boost of energy. Very important and helpful was
the role of Eefje Cuppen, thank you for keeping me on track when needed and helping me in the
process of writing a thesis with your constructive feedback. I learned a lot from this.
The report which is now on your desk or on your screen is only a small reflection of all the
interesting and potentially genius ideas that the various interviewed people told me. Also the drive
in which they do their business was an inspiration for me. Therefore I would like to thank all the
people that were interviewed. Not only the persons mentioned in the attachments but also many of
their colleagues who showed me certain parts of the companies and told me their stories. For the
help and feedback on the case of Maabjerg Energy Center I would like to thank Alan Lunde.
Many people helped me in one way or another, thanks for that! I owe you a coffee or a beer. Some
persons I do want to mention specifically: Juliane, I enjoyed the discussions in the Nieuwelaan.
Andrej, your advice was very useful. You both helped me a lot to reach a higher standard by asking
me the right questions and giving practical advice. Howard, thanks mate! Guus, you would be a good
teacher! Tjaco, we had some good quality time discussing the interesting outcomes over tea. Bart
and Merle it was a lot of fun to work together in your office, thank you for the good vibes. Also I
want to thank Wouter Spekkink for our interesting discussions and Anne Lorene Vernay for the
feedback.
I was not as positive as it seems by this chapter all the time. The people that were close to me had to
listen to some complaints. Dear Judith thanks for just being there for me when I need it and for not
taking my complaints too seriously.
Only parents have the unconditional support that parents have, and also in financial ways I would
not have been able to complete this thesis research without them.
I hope the report will be useful for the people in Terneuzen. It would be a bonus if this report is of
help for knowledge on industrial symbiosis. In case there are questions on certain details or if there
is other feedback, please contact me, I can be reached per e-mail: hugomakkink@gmail.com.

3. 3
Summary
The main motivation for this research was to study an industrial symbiosis in Terneuzen, The
Netherlands. Related to this is the proposal of a framework and method to perform such studies.
This involved the validation through a second case study.
In Terneuzen Heat and CO2 are symbiotically exchanged in a circular system between an industrial
estate and glasshouse agriculture. The goal of the symbiosis was threefold: counterbalance the
shrinking population and improve the local welfare (the social aspect), provide more local jobs and
space for glasshouse agriculture in the Netherlands (economic), and realize these aspects in a
sustainable manner (the environmental goal). The infrastructure and exchange of mass- and energy
flows are part of ‘Biopark Terneuzen’. The exchanges are managed by, and organized under
WarmCO2 B.V. which is owned by Zeeland Seaports (ZSP) and by Yara, the industrial actor who
provides the waste streams (heat and CO2). This circular system is interesting to study because it is
one of few existing examples of a planned and successfully realized industrial symbiosis, also known
as an eco-industrial park that combines these social, economic and environmental goals.
The second case, the Maabjerg Energy Concept (MEC) in Denmark shares the combination of these
three goals and has also been realized, while in contrary to the system in Terneuzen a second
symbiosis is now planned in Maabjerg, they seem to be one step further. This made it an interesting
case study that could potentially lead to valuable insights for WarmCO2. The use of two case studies
also increased the insights and the validity of the framework and the method used.
The heat and CO2 flows in the WarmCO2 system are exchanged but several barriers emerged over
time. The sociotechnical network of the WarmCO2 symbiosis suffers from problems within technical,
organizational and economic dimensions. Examples of first order problems are the fluctuating
temperature of the water when returned to Yara and delivered to the agriculture while contracts do
not allow the temperature that would be ideal to solve this problem. An economic aspect is that the
WarmCO2 system still costs ZSP money every year while they were also given a loan twice after its
realization, which increases the emphasis on costs involved with solving technical problems.
This led to the research problem: The sociotechnical network of the WarmCO2 symbiosis has
problems within technical, organizational and economic dimensions. These first order problems are
currently hard to solve for the involved actors. An overview of the actors, connections and these
problems was not known. The drivers in the system, underlying second order problems (barriers) as
well as their context in time are lacking.
The study has the main objective to provide an independent research on the sociotechnical
networks of WarmCO2 and MEC and to recommend on the way the current problems within the
WarmCO2 system can be overcome. In order to gain the needed insights, for both cases the
historical context from plans to realized connections between actors of the system related to the
symbiosis were to be researched as seen from the technical, organizational and economic
perspective including the drivers and barriers for the realization of the sociotechnical networks.
This led to the main research question: How can the barriers in the WarmCO2 system to realize the
sociotechnical network be overcome?

4. 4
To gather data, various actors were interviewed, for example agricultural growers, technical
consultants, the project manager at Yara and a former director of ZSP. The results were validated
after each interview in an iterative process. The network was visualized in ‘system sketches’ to
enable a visual starting point for the interviews. This method was developed by Anne Lorene Vernay
in 2013 for the analysis of circular urban systems. The possibility to use it on the industrial
equivalent was also a new insight of this study. The same can be said about the framework through
which the data were analyzed. An addition to the analysis was the view from different perspectives
on the drivers and barriers in the system which was included in the system sketches.
The Dutch WarmCO2 system emerged from a planned symbiosis. It was built by Visser & Smit Hanab
(VSH) who retreated shortly thereafter. ZSP was chosen as the responsible actor by its shareholders
(the province and municipalities). The reason was mainly the public character of the harbor
authority, which also meant they had the ability to supply the financial guarantee which would have
been hard for a private actor. ZSP and VSH had no experience with agriculture and this innovative
project was built and put into practice after the first growers entered the system. Bioglas BV became
responsible for the symbiotic exchanges of heat and CO2, but the economic situation at the time has
led to its bankruptcy. WarmCO2 was then established, the organization and organizational problems
between the involved actors changed after this. Technical problems in the maturing system however
became more visible in the growing system and needed technical and organizational process
management. During the research a learning curve of the actors could be seen on these problems, in
which the team of WarmCO2 had a role as a bridging actor, referred to as ‘translator spokesman’.
The Danish MEC system was built because of a local eutrophication problem. The farmers had a
problem of too much manure and needed a solution to continue with their business. This was a large
driver of the local economy. The biogas plant could convert the manure into biogas and a fertilizer,
which has solved the problem of eutrophication. Biogas provided revenues streams which made it a
realistic business case. The system now aims for a spinoff with a 2nd
generation bioethanol plant
from straw. This follow up project is designed and a business case shows promising results. There is
however another barrier: The regulation that encourages 2nd
generation biofuels use is not
empowered by the Danish government. MEC and its local political actors actively lobby to overcome
this barrier. The plant was in the hands of large industrial actors for some time, recently it was
bought by the municipalities. This was seen as a success because these local actors are now more in
the position to make one voice to the Danish government.
After the realization of WarmCO2, ZSP became a private company, which caused more emphasis on
financial results. It also merged with another harbor authority resulting in municipalities that are
automatically new shareholders of WarmCO2. The people representing these actors change often.
The goal and context of WarmCO2 are therefore partly forgotten.
Technically the main problems are a fluctuating return temperature of the cooling water to Yara.
One cause for this is that the system was designed without prior knowledge of the system, it was
innovational and the customers were not yet known so their knowledge was not included. The
installations were designed and built by an industrial actor, the quality standard was high but the
margins in which fine-tunings are needed are higher for agriculture then for industry. Another aspect
is the needed change of behavior: Glasshouse agriculture in the new system involves a learning
curve. The system is still in a maturing phase. The technical problems were analyzed and partly

5. 5
solved during the time of the research: tests were run and implementations are being planned,
however not all actors were aware of this.
Although the technical infrastructure of the symbiosis was planned and built the organizational ‘soft
infrastructure’ was not as much taken into account. Combined with a changing economy and
organizational changes of ZSP this led to a period in which the trust and goodwill between actors
declined. This improved after the team of WarmCO2 was established by ZSP.
This leads to an answer to the main research question. Per type of actor recommendations are
given, first to the team of WarmCO2:
 The agricultural actors were not all aware of planned improvements. Increasing the informative
and verbal communication within the network can help. This could also lead to improvements
beyond solving problems because many actors have extensive knowledge on the system.
 WarmCO2 has the overview to clearly describe the context to new actors to increase the
knowledge within the system for the shareholders. The story of the symbiosis is worth to be told
outside the system too. The value of the system and the whole region can grow as it has the
potential to be an international showcase of a sustainable cluster which deserves much more
attention. The way in which MEC did this can serve as an inspiration.
The following three advices to ZSP and its shareholders (the municipalities and province) is the last
part of the answer to the main research question.
 Mainly the municipalities and the province planned to realize this symbiosis, their goals are met:
hundreds of direct jobs are generated and 125 ha of glasshouse agriculture is added in the
Netherlands, this increases when the system reaches its full capacity. Per year approximately 46
million m3
of natural gas is saved, comparable to the consumption of circa 30,000 households;
one of the environmental aspects of the goals. Annual losses of WarmCO2 are now seen as a
problem, they are a indeed big load for ZSP itself. Therefore the shareholders of ZSP need to
realize: An emphasis on direct financial results does not match with the goals of the project and
can potentially undermine the essential layer of trust and long term vision of the project.
 The presence of agriculture is often seen as a gain for the area, however the fact that the
agriculture is based on a symbiotic exchange with Yara and the implications of this fact are less
known: it was a very long term decision to enter the symbiosis. The companies depend on each
other, not only for the economic and environmental benefits of the waste heat- and CO2
exchange but also for the security of their processes. The symbiotic exchanges between Yara and
the agriculture cannot be decoupled without huge negative consequences.
 The fact that it is successful in fulfilling its goals is now an opportunity to place the region on the
map as a highly unique symbiosis that combines societal, environmental and economic goals.
The ‘soft’ infrastructure, the trust between actors, is one of the most unique aspects of this
success. It reduces the complex aspects of the system for the involved people. The
organizational process management as done by WarmCO2 is therefore important for its success.
The specific company cultures of involved actors can be interesting for further study to see what
makes these actors or this area successful. Also the role of company- or regional culture in relation
with the proactive mentality of a symbiosis could be interesting.

6. 6
List of figures
Figure 1: Heat cascading between industry and agriculture, as presented by WarmCO2 (2014)
(translated in English) ...........................................................................................................................14
Figure 2: Sociotechnical network (Dijkema and Basson 2009) showing how material and energy
exchange is related to social interactions.............................................................................................15
Figure 3: Research approach from exploration of the problem to conclusions, discussions and further
research ................................................................................................................................................19
Figure 4: The conceptual framework as used includes five boxes that define an analysis phase. It is
based on the conceptual framework by Vernay (2013) .......................................................................23
Figure 5: The method to capture and interpreted data included an iterative process........................31
Figure 6: Pathway visualization, own elaboration, based on visualization Vernay (2013) Empirical
research through a semi structured interview .....................................................................................32
Figure 7: Legend with actors and connections .....................................................................................33
Figure 8: Example system sketch seen from technical perspective, own elaboration.........................34
Figure 9: Connections visualized related to drivers and barriers according to Heeres et al. (2004)....35
Figure 10: Example system sketch seen from technical perspective including drivers and barriers ...35
Figure 11: Hypothetical system shown with drivers and barriers including a cause for the barriers ..36
Figure 12: Original plans from Terneuzen and the Province of Zeeland (own elaboration) ................38
Figure 13: Situation in 2004. Ministry of VROM declares the area as 'expansion area for sustainable
glasshouse agriculture' (Zeeland Seaports 2004) (own elaboration) ...................................................39
Figure 14: Situation mid-2008, where companies and governmental actors collectively defined a
research project with a common vision as a goal (Boekema, et al. 2008) (figure own elaboration)...41
Figure 15: Changes over time, situation 2010 (own elaboration) ........................................................43
Figure 16: Current phase WarmCO2 (at the time of research): The municipalities of Terneuzen,
Borsele and Vlissingen share the financial responsibility over WarmCO2 after the privatization of ZSP
in 2012 (Hart 2016) (figure own elaboration).......................................................................................45
Figure 17: The technical context (own elaboration).............................................................................47
Figure 18: Technical context including challenges (barriers) and drivers (own elaboration)...............48
Figure 19: Technical context including challenges and technical causes that were mentioned (own
elaboration) ..........................................................................................................................................49
Figure 20: Technical perspective with the barriers and the causes in a deeper context (own
elaboration) ..........................................................................................................................................50
Figure 21: Actors and their economic connections (own elaboration) ................................................51
Figure 22: the LCA of a tomato in the WarmCO2 system compared to a tomato from a glasshouse
with 'common practice' (Search Consultancy B.V. 2014) in terms of kg CO2 emission as a result of 1
kg vine tomatoes...................................................................................................................................52
Figure 23: Economic context including drivers and barriers (own elaboration) ..................................54
Figure 24: Economic context including drivers, barriers and their main causes (own elaboration)....55
Figure 25: The social / organizational structure of the system (own elaboration) ..............................56
Figure 26: actors often change their opinion after a visit in which they see the scale of the project. In
this picture a part of the glasshouses of VGT are shown during the crop rotation. ............................58
Figure 27: Organizational context including challenges (own elaboration) .........................................60
Figure 28: Main findings of drivers and barriers and their causes .......................................................64
Figure 29: Initiative in 2002 showing the context and background of the plans (own elaboration) ...65
Figure 30: Forming of coalition in 2003 (own elaboration)..................................................................66

7. 7
Figure 31: Maabjerg Energy Concept manure truck and premises (MEC I/S 2015). The truck was
designed as ‘milk truck’ and a lot of equipment is placed ‘under one roof’ (left building) which was
also not common practice but saved costs...........................................................................................67
Figure 32: Situation in 2012, Maabjerg Bioenergy is operational and the actors organized themselves
further into an overarching energy concept (own elaboration)...........................................................69
Figure 33: Changes for 2013, Nomi is out of the system (own elaboration)........................................71
Figure 34: Dong and Novozymes out of holding; MEC in local hands in 2015 (own elaboration) .......72
Figure 35: The Maabjerg Energy Concept as seen from the technical perspective (own elaboration)74
Figure 36: Technical perspective including drivers and barriers (own elaboration) ............................75
Figure 37: The Maabjerg system seen from the financial perspective (own elaboration)...................77
Figure 38: Seen from the economic perspective shown with drivers and barriers (own elaboration) 79
Figure 39: The Maabjerg Energy System seen from organizational perspective (own elaboration) ...81
Figure 40: Organizational perspective including drivers and barriers (own elaboration)....................83
Figure 41: Main drivers and barriers of the three analyzed perspectives............................................85
Figure 42: System sketch (then still incomplete), as sent before - and discussed during interview..114
Figure 43: Heat capacity over time.....................................................................................................135
Figure 44: Heat demand over time.....................................................................................................136
List of tables
Table 1: Drivers for industrial symbiosis...............................................................................................25
Table 2: Barriers for industrial symbiosis..............................................................................................25
Table 3: Interviews and primary sources..............................................................................................29
Table 4: Differences between MEC and WarmCO2, answer to RQ2 ....................................................98
List of abbreviations
 Biopark Terneuzen (BPT)
 Circular economy (CE)
 Combined heat and power (CHP)
 Eco industrial park (EIP)
 Energy Technology Development and Demonstration Programme of the Danish Energy Agency
(EUDP)
 Event sequence analysis (ESA)
 Fulltime-equivalent (fte)
 Industrial Ecology (IE)
 Input-output analysis (IOA)
 Life cycle analysis (LCA)
 Maabjerg Energy Concept (MEC)
 MaabjergBioEnergy (MBE)
 Research Question (RQ)
 Translator spokesman (TS)
 Visser & Smit Hanab (VSH)
 Zeeland Seaports (ZSP)

8. 8
Contents
Acknowledgements and preface ..................................................................................................................2
Summary.......................................................................................................................................................3
List of figures.................................................................................................................................................6
List of tables..................................................................................................................................................7
List of abbreviations......................................................................................................................................7
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................13
1.1 The status quo of glasshouse agriculture .............................................................................13
1.2 The industrial cluster in Terneuzen and the WarmCO2 system ...........................................13
1.3 Observed problems in the WarmCO2 system ......................................................................14
1.4 Second case: learning from Maabjerg Energy Concept........................................................15
1.5 Research gap.........................................................................................................................15
1.6 Research problem statement ...............................................................................................16
1.7 Objectives..............................................................................................................................17
1.8 Research questions...............................................................................................................17
1.9 Scope and boundaries...........................................................................................................17
1.9.1 Interdisciplinary research with industrial ecology as the main focus...........................17
1.9.2 Date of information ......................................................................................................18
1.9.3 Qualitative research......................................................................................................18
1.9.4 Recognize process management ..................................................................................18
1.10 Research approach and organization of the report..............................................................18
2 Theory and framework .......................................................................................................................20
2.1 Characteristics of sustainable development defined in theory............................................20
2.1.1 Circular industrial systems to prevent waste................................................................20
2.1.2 Industrial ecology for a systems view...........................................................................21
2.1.3 Industrial symbiosis for collective benefits...................................................................21
2.1.4 The social aspect of realizing industrial symbiosis........................................................21
2.2 The conceptual framework...................................................................................................22
2.2.1 Box 1: The external structure of the network...............................................................23
2.2.2 Box 2: The internal structure of the network ...............................................................23
2.2.3 Box 3: The translation process of system integration and its drivers and barriers ......24
2.2.4 Box 4: Outcomes...........................................................................................................26
2.2.5 Box 5: Advice.................................................................................................................26
2.3 Conclusions on the framework and answer to RQ1 .............................................................26

9. 9
3 Method ...............................................................................................................................................27
3.1 Qualitative empirical research for deep and new insights ...................................................27
3.1.1 Visual representation of the findings was the reason to use the ‘Vernay method’.....27
3.1.2 Second case study on Maabjerg Energy Concept.........................................................27
3.1.3 Appropriateness to use the Vernay Method on the cases ...........................................28
3.1.4 Primary sources.............................................................................................................29
3.2 Research steps and iterations...............................................................................................30
3.2.1 Step 1 Prepare interviews.............................................................................................31
3.2.2 Step 3 Empirical iterative research...............................................................................32
3.2.3 Step 3 structuring the data ...........................................................................................33
3.2.4 Step 4 Discuss results....................................................................................................35
3.2.5 Step 5 Advice.................................................................................................................36
3.3 Limitations of the method ....................................................................................................36
3.4 Conclusions on the methodology & answer to RQ2.............................................................37
4 Case study: Results from data WarmCO2...........................................................................................38
4.1 Evolution from plans to reality .............................................................................................38
4.1.1 The start of the plans in 1999: Context and background .............................................38
4.1.2 Specific plans for glasshouse agriculture in the Canal Zone in 2004 ............................38
4.1.3 Organizational structure including the Founding of WarmCO2 in 2008 ......................39
4.1.4 An operational system and organizational changes in 2010 ........................................41
4.1.5 The maturing system in 2015........................................................................................43
4.2 Drivers and barriers seen from different perspectives.........................................................45
4.2.1 WarmCO2 seen from the technical perspective...........................................................45
4.2.2 WarmCO2 seen from the economic perspective..........................................................50
4.2.3 WarmCO2 seen from the organizational perspective ..................................................55
4.3 Main findings WarmCO2 system analysis.............................................................................60
4.3.1 Goal and context...........................................................................................................60
4.3.2 Changing actors.............................................................................................................61
4.3.3 Success..........................................................................................................................61
4.3.4 Interdisciplinary and innovational technical and organizational aspects.....................62
4.3.5 Social aspects of technical problems ............................................................................62
4.3.6 Process management....................................................................................................63
4.3.7 The actors depend on each other.................................................................................63
4.3.8 Overview visualized.......................................................................................................64

10. 10
5 Case study: Drawing lessons from Maabjerg Energy Concept ...........................................................65
5.1 Evolution from eutrophication problem to Maabjerg Energy Concept................................65
5.1.1 The start of the plans in 2002: Context and background .............................................65
5.1.2 The coalition of Maabjerg BioEnergy in 2003...............................................................65
5.1.3 The forming of Maabjerg Energy Center in 2012 .........................................................66
5.1.4 Changes in 2013............................................................................................................69
5.1.5 Maabjerg Energy Concept and its envisioned future in 2015.......................................71
5.2 Drivers and barriers from different perspectives .................................................................72
5.2.1 MEC seen from the technical perspective ....................................................................73
5.2.2 MEC seen from the economic perspective...................................................................75
5.2.3 MEC seen from the organizational perspective............................................................79
5.3 Main findings MEC system....................................................................................................83
6 Insights from a comparison between the cases WarmCO2 and MEC ................................................86
6.1 Differences seen from an economic perspective .................................................................86
6.1.1 Matching the symbiosis with the core business of semipublic actors..........................86
6.2 Differences seen from a technical perspective.....................................................................86
6.3 Differences seen from an organizational / social perspective..............................................87
6.3.1 Maabjerg is better in selling the success and clearly gives a central message.............87
6.3.2 Self-organized system from different origins ...............................................................87
7 Discussion and reflection....................................................................................................................89
7.1 The added value of this research..........................................................................................89
7.2 Reflecting on the research approach....................................................................................89
7.3 Reflecting on the framework and method ...........................................................................90
7.3.1 The Vernay method and framework.............................................................................90
7.3.2 Reflection on gathering empirical information through interviews.............................90
7.3.3 The level of detail in evolutionary sketches..................................................................90
7.3.4 Causes are barriers on a deeper level...........................................................................91
7.3.5 Needed visualization can cause bias.............................................................................91
7.3.6 Primary sources or literature........................................................................................91
7.4 Reflection on the findings.....................................................................................................92
7.4.1 Changes and learning curve of involved actors during the research............................92
7.4.2 Current political actors can be represented more in interviews..................................92
7.5 Discussion findings on case studies WarmCO2 and MEC .....................................................92
7.5.1 Institutional capacity as an important driver................................................................92

11. 11
7.5.2 Lost context and lost institutional capacity ..................................................................93
7.5.3 Maturing of the system takes a long time ....................................................................93
7.5.4 Bridging actor or translator spokesman as an important driver ..................................93
7.5.5 Organizational process management ...........................................................................94
7.5.6 Trust and collaboration are important drivers .............................................................94
7.5.7 The soft infrastructures are unique about the WarmCO2 system ...............................94
7.5.8 Common ground, geographical position and local culture...........................................95
7.6 Discussion on the main found general aspects of industrial symbiosis................................95
7.6.1 Realizing a symbiosis can be seen as an innovation and need a long term vision .......96
7.6.2 The need for a social approach is seen from actors with a technical role....................96
7.6.3 The technology paradox is relevant for current and future cases of symbiosis...........96
8 Conclusions: ........................................................................................................................................97
8.1 Main barriers - answer to RQ3..............................................................................................97
8.1.1 The societal goal and context of the WarmCO2 symbiosis is not known to all actors.97
8.1.2 The system is technically still in the maturing phase....................................................97
8.1.3 The symbiosis as such and what that means is not always recognized........................98
8.2 Conclusions on the comparison with MEC – answer to RQ4................................................98
8.3 To conclude: Answer to the main RQ - Recommendations..................................................99
8.3.1 Define context and realistic goals centrally..................................................................99
8.3.2 Make the relation between WarmCO2 and other projects clear.................................99
8.3.3 Sharing knowledge and verbal communication can lead to improvements ................99
8.3.4 Realize that the original goals defined by political shareholders are met..................100
8.3.5 Note that the symbiosis is structural and essential for Yara and the agriculture ......100
8.3.6 Support the role of WarmCO2 in enabling trust and goodwill for stability................100
8.3.7 Tell the story of the system of the unique successes of the whole region.................101
8.3.8 Financial organization needs to be re-explained to new actors.................................101
9 Further research ...............................................................................................................................102
9.1 Further research on the framework and method...............................................................102
9.1.1 The relation between trust and complexity in the framework...................................102
9.1.2 Empiric findings can add knowledge to theory on autonomy....................................102
9.1.3 Method: Visual aspects, user interface and interactive platform ..............................102
9.2 Further research on the WarmCO2 system........................................................................103
9.2.1 Include political actors................................................................................................103
9.2.2 Quantify the costs and benefits for the region...........................................................103

12. 12
9.3 Further research: More interviewed actors for the case study on MEC ............................104
9.4 Further research on general aspects of circular industrial systems ...................................104
9.4.1 Further research: on the role of regional- or company culture..................................104
9.4.2 Process management in more detail ..........................................................................104
10 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................105
11 Appendices....................................................................................................................................113
1. Preparation for interviews................................................................................................................114
2. Interview reports defining the research scope.................................................................................115
3. Interview reports of the empiric research........................................................................................120
4. Archived personal communication...................................................................................................163

13. 13
1 Introduction
The subject and its context, the reason for research, the scope and boundaries and the research
questions are explained in this chapter.
1.1 The status quo of glasshouse agriculture
The Dutch agriculture and horticulture has the second biggest export in the world (Government of
the Netherlands 2016). Tomatoes, flowers, peppers and similar products are one of the largest
Dutch export markets. Greenhouses / glasshouse agriculture plays a large role in this. The glasshouse
agricultural cluster had a gross value added of 8.7 billion euro in 2007 and accounted for 1.7 % of the
Dutch employment, excluding the 77.300 temporary workers (Adviescommissie Nijkamp 2010).
This industry could grow so big because of the availability of knowledge, the favorable geographical
position for trade and the mild sea climate (Rooij 2009). Also the presence of natural gas and the
infrastructure around it was of positive influence. The glasshouse agriculture grows their plants with
warmth, CO2 and light from this fossil source. With efficient combined heat and power plants (CHP’s)
they produce electricity from the natural gas for their lightning that enables it to grow day and night
through lights. The heat produced by the CHP unit is used to warm the glasshouses. Plants grow
faster with a higher percentage of CO2 in the air, so it is fed into the glasshouses. The system as such
is efficient in its use of natural gas. However a tomato from a glasshouse is almost completely made
out of natural gas. In a common practice glasshouse, besides seeds and fertilizer the main input is
natural gas, with agricultural product as output. A Dutch citizen eats approximately 35 kg fresh
vegetables per year, the majority of which comes from greenhouses (Rooij 2009), while a for
example one kilogram tomatoes needs approximately 1m3
natural gas (De Voedingswijzer 2014).
The Dutch glasshouse agriculture is now in an energy transition phase, it shifts from the use of fossil
fuels like natural gas to more sustainable alternatives (Velden and Smit 2014), it is one of the main
expenses of horticultural growers with around 20% (Wetzels, Dril and Daniels 2007). The use of
natural gas is also not desired from an ecologically sustainable point of view, for example because of
the emission of NOX and fine dust. The Dutch government presents itself as a frontrunner on doing
these practices more and more sustainable (Government of the Netherlands 2016), (Ministerie van
Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit 2010).
1.2 The industrial cluster in Terneuzen and the WarmCO2 system
The municipality of Terneuzen, on the south side of the Westerschelde estuary in the province of
Zeeland, The Netherlands, houses Yara Sluiskil, Europe’s, and Yara’s largest producer of nitrate
fertilizer and ammonia (Yara 2016). This requires large quantities of natural gas. CO2 is one of the
main byproducts of this process. These processes need cooling so heat is a byproduct as well.
From 2009 this heat and CO2 was used for a sustainable glasshouse agricultural area that was
specifically tailored for these ‘waste streams’. A completely new infrastructure for glasshouse
agriculture was realized with a size of 150 hectares (WarmCO2 2015). Their vegetables, flowers and
fruits grow from heat and CO2 of Yara that would normally be emitted into the air. Zeeland has a
relatively large number of sun hours therefore additional lightning is not needed for the
photosynthesis of the plants, so also the electricity from that comes from a CHP unit in common
practice is not needed. The glasshouses are not coupled to a natural gas infrastructure. This
cascading of heat and the exchange of CO2 is referred to as industrial symbiosis and is the

14. 14
‘circularity’ of the system. When the total area is filled with agriculture to its full capacity the annual
energy and mass exchanges are 1800 TJ of heat (enough to heat 35000 households per year) and
55000 tons of CO2 (WarmCO2 2015). In comparison, if this was done with the common practice of a
CHP, this would be equivalent to 55 million cubic meters of natural gas (WarmCO2 2015).
Managing the infrastructure and the operation of the exchange is currently placed under ‘WarmCO2
B.V.’. The company is owned by Zeeland Seaports (ZSP) and its local shareholders (municipalities and
the province) and by Yara Netherlands.
Figure 1: Heat cascading between industry and agriculture, as presented by WarmCO2 (2014) (translated in English)
Other organizations that aim for a sustainable production or collaboration between companies are
also present in this region. Valuepark Terneuzen and the umbrella project Biopark Terneuzen are
two examples. Some of these projects have an overlap, the goal of the current WarmCO2 system
was for example defined in a report commissioned by Biopark Terneuzen: to counter balance the
shrinking population in the area, give the local economy a boost, and provide space for glasshouse
agriculture in the Netherlands, in a sustainable way (Waes and Huurdeman 2009). Large investments
have been made to realize this symbiosis. For example one kilometer of pipeline infrastructure
already costs approximately 1 million euro (Crone 2015A).
The cluster around the symbiosis is indeed known in academic literature as an example of a system
that has reached a high ability to cooperate which was needed to realize such an intensive
collaboration (Spekkink 2013), referred to as ‘institutional capacity’. This led to for example 135.000
tons of CO2 emission prevented per year (Yara Sluiskil B.V. 2014).
1.3 Observed problems in the WarmCO2 system
Various problems were however occurring in the symbiosis as observed by the director of
WarmCO2; J. Crone (2014), (2015A) (see appendix 2A&B). For example a technical problem is that
the system does not always deliver the exact temperature needed for the growers, and there is a
fluctuating temperature of the cooling water back to Yara from the agriculture. This problem has an
overlap with an organizational aspect: Contracts do not allow the most ideal temperature. An
increasing emphasis on financial results is also seen as a challenge especially in combination with
these problems that were not yet solved. The view from different perspectives between industry,
agriculture and (semi-)governmental organizations makes the communication difficult (Crone 2014).
The specific problems and the perceptions of these problems change often in time.

15. 15
1.4 Second case: learning from Maabjerg Energy Concept
Maabjerg Energy Concept (MEC), located in Maabjerg, part of the city Holstebro in the North-West
of Denmark has reached a high level of cooperation, as the analysis of institutional capacity has
shown in a master thesis (Fedorovskij 2014). It consists of an industrial symbiosis between farmers
and energy companies. Manure from local farmers is collected and transformed to biogas and
fertilizer (Maabjerg Energy Center 2015). The similarities make this case interesting for a
comparative analysis, like an exchange of mass and energy flows between big industrial companies,
relatively small agricultural companies as well as governmental actors. It could potentially serve as
an example or a source of inspiration for WarmCO2, as MEC has overcome several problems form
their now up-and running symbiosis. For example residents of Maabjerg whom fear for unwanted
odors, which was a potential barrier in gaining permissions. This problem was solved with various
technical solutions resulting in a complete odorless system (A. Lunde 2013). The system is built
around the biogas plant. MEC is now in the phase of realizing a bioethanol plant (MEC I/S 2015). This
is a spin-off of the first symbiosis, which makes it even more an interesting system to compare
WarmCO2 to.
1.5 Research gap
For both cases a detailed recent description or visualization of the sociotechnical network (Dijkema
and Basson 2009) with the current drivers and barriers is not described yet. Observations on a deep
level such as the observed challenges of technical, organizational and economic nature in WarmCO2
(Crone 2014), (Crone 2015A) are not yet known in literature. This is further explained and linked to
the essential theory in the following paragraphs.
Technical and organizational challenges in the WarmCO2 system are hard to get under control
(Crone 2014). This can be explained by the fact that technical installations as well as the involved
people are part of the sociotechnical network (Dijkema and Basson 2009). Figure 2 shows how
material and energy exchange is related to social interactions (Dijkema and Basson 2009). This
implies that technical problems can often neither be solved strictly by applying a technical solution
nor can problems that are part of the social network such as economic transactions be seen apart
from the technical network.
Figure 2: Sociotechnical network (Dijkema and Basson 2009) showing how material and energy exchange is related to
social interactions

16. 16
The previous sub chapters mentioned an industrial system and the WarmCO2 system. A system is
defined as ‘a structured assemblage of elements and subsystems, which interact through interfaces.
The interaction occurs between system elements and between the system and its environment’
(Asbjørnsen 1992) in (Dijkema and Basson 2009). Therefore the elements and subsystems and their
interfaces must be known, and the way they interact with each other and their surroundings, in
order to research the problems that are occurring in time. These elements and subsystems are
referred to as ‘actors’ which are connected and interact with each other.
The observed (first order) problems might have underlying reasons. These second order problems
are referred to as ‘barriers’. They can be of different kinds, such as a technically unfeasible exchange
(Heeres, Vermeulen and Walle 2004). It can also be found that the symbiosis is positively driven by
certain aspects; ‘drivers’ such as the important role that a person can have who acts as a ‘translator
spokesman’ (TS) or ‘champion’ in the process from vision to plans, for example in identifying key
actors (Hewes and Lyons 2008). Recognizing the process as such and analyzing cases with a variable
in time is also not taken into account in most previous studies, reflected by the statement: ‘Industrial
ecology research has so far focused mainly on individual projects and at one moment in time’
(Vernay 2013).
The context of the WarmCO2 system is described (Waes and Huurdeman 2009) and the events that
took place in the system are mapped and described on a maso-level (Spekkink 2013). The reports
however do not give information on the problems that were observed (Crone 2014) (Crone 2015A).
The needed level of depth which includes problems such as the fluctuations of temperature and
other challenges that were described by Crone (2014), (2015A) were not found in literature. Also an
overview of actors and connections was not yet clearly described. Knowledge was needed with more
detail on drivers and barriers and the way the symbiosis evolved over time.
Generally the literature is not recent enough in order to mention the problems that are now
occurring, the most recent work of Spekkink (Spekkink 2015A) is built on findings from a study in
2013 (Spekkink), this is before the first meeting with Crone took place that lead to this research
(2014). More recent information than the current state of knowledge had to be gathered to be sure
no recent factors that could have had influence on the system were overlooked.
The case of MEC was researched by A. Federovskij (2014) who used the same type of ‘Event
Sequence Analysis’ (ESA) that was used in one of the primary sources for the WarmCO2 system by
Spekkink (2013). Similar knowledge on the stages the symbiosis went through was the result. Next to
this the most recent company report included useful insights shown from different perspectives:
Technical and socio-economic (MEC I/S 2015). The actors and connections were however not yet
described or visualized as a network including their drivers and barriers on micro level.
1.6 Research problem statement
The observed problems described in chapter 1.3 are placed in their academic context with the
following research problem statement: The sociotechnical network of the WarmCO2 symbiosis has
problems within technical, organizational and economic dimensions. These first order problems are
currently hard to solve for the involved actors. An overview of the actors, connections and these
problems was not known. The drivers in the system, underlying second order problems (barriers) as
well as their context in time are lacking.

17. 17
1.7 Objectives
The study has the main objective to provide an independent research on the sociotechnical
networks of WarmCO2 and MEC and to recommend on the way the current problems within the
WarmCO2 system can be overcome. In order to gain the needed insights, for both cases the
historical context from plans to realized connections between actors of the system related to the
symbiosis were to be researched as seen from the technical, organizational and economic
perspective including the drivers and barriers for the realization of the sociotechnical networks.
1.8 Research questions
Main research question:
How can the main barriers in the WarmCO2 system to realize the sociotechnical network be
overcome, what can be recommended to the WarmCO2 organization and to governmental and
political actors?
Sub questions:
RQ1: What theory and framework can be used to analyze the sociotechnical systems of WarmCO2
and MEC and the drivers and barriers for these industrial symbioses?
RQ2: What method can be used to gather and validate new data on the WarmCO2 and MEC
system and analyze this as seen from the technical, organizational and economic perspective
and place it in historical context?
RQ3: What are the main barriers in the WarmCO2 and MEC system to realize the sociotechnical
network?
RQ4: How does the industrial symbiosis of Maabjerg Energy Systems compare to WarmCO2: What
are the differences in the context in time and what are the main drivers and barriers in the
current situation?
1.9 Scope and boundaries
The conclusions that are drawn at the end of this report must be seen in the context of the following
scope and boundaries; it limits the way in which these can be seen in a larger context. The
limitations also partly relate to the ‘further research’ chapter at the end of this report, in which ways
are mentioned to gain more insights on aspects that are potentially missing.
1.9.1 Interdisciplinary research with industrial ecology as the main focus
This research is the final thesis of the study industrial ecology, which is by its nature an
interdisciplinary study. The study emerged around the concept of industrial symbiosis, or stated
more broadly a circular exchange of materials. Various fields of knowledge are needed to research
aspects that are part of the sociotechnical network of an industrial symbiosis. The technical aspects
in this study refer to specific installations, dimensions, flows, temperatures and more aspects that all
could be researched in much more depth. The same can be said about social and economic aspects.
However the research in each field was done only as deep as was needed to gather the information
needed for the research questions to be answered.

18. 18
Part of the framework was based on knowledge from the field of innovation studies (Vernay 2013).
This interdisciplinary aspect was used to gather and structure the information. It was not the goal of
the study to describe the combination of industrial ecology and innovation studies.
1.9.2 Date of information
The information on which this report is based includes knowledge from literature and empirical
information from interviews until 7 January 2016. An exception are websites with a ‘last update’
newer than this date which are included, however the facts that are represented are not newer than
the date of the last interview. Another exception was specific feedback on the results from the most
central actors of the two researched cases. Their feedback is not a new finding but it does validate
an interpretation of results (from before 7 January 2016). The feedback can be found back in the
appendices 4A and 4B.
1.9.3 Qualitative research
The qualitative nature of the research aims to uncover social aspects like the motivations of actors,
the reasons for certain choices and the perception of the current situation. Many of the subjects that
are mentioned could be examined further in a more quantitative way. This was not part of the
primary goal and is therefore not done, but where applicable mentioned as a subject for further
research. For example the required dimensions in size of certain technical components are
mentioned as a problem. This finding as such is for this research more important than the size they
would need to have.
The impact of the systems on the ecology was not researched in this report. Although this thesis is
part of the program ‘industrial ecology’, a study field that looks at ecological subjects like climate
change, the analysis has been made with the pre assumption that saving energy and thereby CO2,
fine dust particles and NOX are something desirable, these aspects are not as such a part of this
study.
1.9.4 Recognize process management
In order to recognize the aspects of organizational process management that can be observed in the
system the work of Bruijn et al (2013) was included. However an in-depth analysis on this subject is
outside the scope of this report.
1.10 Research approach and organization of the report
The research approach is done as visualized in Figure 3: Research approach. It consists of different
stages that are each described in one or more chapters in this report.
During a meeting and a follow up phone call with the director of WarmCO2 the observed problems
in the system became clear which led to this research. These conversations are filed in Appendix 1.
In the explorative phase the observations of WarmCO2 were mirrored with literature on this case
and on industrial symbiosis in general. The similarities between the Maabjerg Energy Concept and
WarmCO2 and the potentially interesting comparison between the cases lead to a comparative case
study. Further literature research defined the knowledge gap. With these preliminary findings the
goal and the research problem statement were defined.
The theoretical framework to answer the research questions is described in chapter 2. The next step
was a method to gather information and analyze the systems, chapter 3. During the research of the

19. 19
cases the actors were interviewed, this process is described in chapter 3.2.2. The interviews
themselves as done during the research phase were filed in attachment 3. The communication on
the MEC case was filed in attachment 4. The analysis which was the result is described in chapter 0
for WarmCO2 and 5 for MEC.
The main findings are placed in the context of earlier findings in the discussions, chapter 7, and the
degree in which the findings have value is for the cases and the field is reflected upon. After a
suggestion for further exploration of the knowledge on industrial ecology in general and on these
cases specifically was made, the conclusion was formed as an answer to the main research question
in chapter 8.
Figure 3: Research approach from exploration of the problem to conclusions, discussions and further research

20. 20
2 Theory and framework
In order to research the WarmCO2 system it was first placed in its context as an industrial symbiosis,
an eco-industrial park and a circular industry by defining these concepts. Then requirements for the
framework on such systems were defined which enables answering the research questions. This
resulted in the use of theory in what is referred to as the ‘Vernay Framework’, as it is based on - and
mainly follows from the framework defined by Anne-Lorène Vernay in her doctoral thesis ‘Circular
Urban Systems - Moving Towards Systems Integration’ (Vernay 2013). She describes a way to
analyze and compare ‘systems integration’ in circular urban systems. Her study has been done in
two parts. First the concepts and theory have been defined which was then followed by an empirical
study based on the developed theory. The cases she analyzed were in a state where many plans
were realized. This is comparable to the phase WarmCO2 as well as MEC are in now. The questions
that are answered in the work of Vernay are: ‘How does systems integration (not) come about?’ and
‘How is it shaped by the characteristics of the systems between which connections are created?’
(Vernay 2013). These questions vary from the primary goal in the research on WarmCO2 of locating
drivers and barriers and a way to approach the problems found. Therefore specific theory is added
on drivers and barriers, described in sub chapter 2.2.3.
2.1 Characteristics of sustainable development defined in theory
In the following sub chapters the specific definitions and needed characteristics of industrial
symbiosis and circular industrial systems are further defined in theory.
2.1.1 Circular industrial systems to prevent waste
Energy or products are produced and used with a certain environmental impact. Depending on how
much re-use or recycling takes place, mining and disposing also have their share on the footprint of a
service or product. Mining and disposing can be seen as taking materials from the source and
disposing them back there in another form. As strongly argued several decades ago (Meadows, et al.
1972), (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987), this has serious impact in the
climate and in eco systems.
Sustainability is an umbrella term to cover the ways in which a society can be more in balance with
its resources, or more precise, as Hollings defined it: ‘Sustainability is the capacity to create, test,
and maintain adaptive capability’ (2001). Holling also wrote fundamental literature on ‘sustainable
development’ (2001). He defines development as ‘Development is the process of creating, testing,
and maintaining opportunity’, and states that ‘sustainable development’ refers to ‘the goal of
fostering adaptive capabilities and creating opportunities’ (Holling 2001). This time factor which is
present in ‘development’ reflects the needed ‘process perspective’ which is further defined in
chapter 2.2. The reason to thrive for sustainable development is clearly reflected in the ‘Brundtland
report’: ‘Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’
(World Commission on Environment and Development 1987).
The last few years more and more attention came to the ‘circularity’ of economies and industries.
The ‘circular economy’ (CE) means that it functions like an ecosystem. ‘Waste’ streams are no longer
the end of the chain, but the source of another process. This way the extracting of materials from
natural origin in favor of the economy, and the use of this natural environment as a ‘sink’ for waste
materials can be improved. This has the potential to add to ‘sustainable development’.

21. 21
2.1.2 Industrial ecology for a systems view
Industrial ecology (IE) is the field of study that links economic systems to their surroundings instead
of seeing them in isolation (Graedel 1994). This is referred to as an ‘ecosystem approach’ which
needs a holistic view (Frosch and Gallopoulos 1989), ‘it requires a systems view in which one seeks to
optimize the total materials cycle from virgin material, to finished material, to component, to
product, to waste product, and to ultimate disposal. Factors to be optimized include resources,
energy, and capital’ (Graedel 1994).
Now industries are facing more and more transitional challenges to become sustainable because of
‘competitiveness, legitimation, and ecological responsibility’ (Bansal and Roth 2000). Strategic
partnerships have also become more and more important as a result of the focus on core activities
and outsourcing of the remainder (Korevaar and Baas 2010). IE can provide tools and overview in
such transitional changes: IE is ‘the study of the material and energy flows resulting from human
activities. This study provides the basis for developing approaches to close cycles in such a way that
ecological impact of these activities is minimized’ (Boons and Howard-Grenville 2009).
2.1.3 Industrial symbiosis for collective benefits
Symbiotic exchanges in an industrial setting are called ‘Industrial Symbiosis’. Chertow defined it as:
‘industrial symbiosis engages traditionally separate entities in a collective approach to competitive
advantage involving physical exchange of materials, energy, water, and by-products’ (2000).
Industrial symbiosis is more and more stimulated as a tool to make energy- and material flows more
sustainable (Boons, Spekkink and Mouzakitis 2011). Using the natural ecosystem as an inspiration,
symbiosis is a good term to describe the cooperation that can exist between companies to lower
their ecological footprint or for example strengthen their strategic power. Chertow pointed out the
benefit of a symbiosis as follows: ‘By working together, businesses strive for a collective benefit
greater than the sum of individual benefits that could be achieved by acting alone’ (2000).
In industry, the benefits of such symbioses can be for example lowering costs or lowering an
environmental footprint, which is sometimes needed for regulatory reasons or comes from a vision
of a more sustainable production. Energy ‘cascading’ is a classic exchange of a symbiotic energy
exchange: Cooling water coming from one industrial process is used as heat source for a company in
the direct area. Recycling material flows to another process, that would otherwise be a ‘waste’, is
also considered a symbiotic exchange (Eco Innoverra 2014).
When a certain industrial cluster exchanges material- and energy flows that would otherwise be a
waste, it is called an ‘Eco-industrial park’ (EIP), defined as: ‘A community of manufacturing and
service businesses seeking enhanced environmental and economic performance through
collaboration in managing environmental and resources issues including energy, water and
materials. By working together, the community of businesses seeks a collective benefit that is greater
than the sum of the individual benefits each company would have realized if it optimized its
individual interests’ (Lowe 1997). In this research it is seen as a comparable practice as industrial
symbiosis, although possibly of bigger scale or a follow up of one industrial symbiosis, the principle
of exchanging mass- or energy flows that take place within a sociotechnical network is the same.
2.1.4 The social aspect of realizing industrial symbiosis
An industrial symbiosis requires changes in infrastructure and technical systems. For such changes to
take place changes are needed in several disciplines and levels, the system needs to change as a

22. 22
whole. Therefore the separate actors need to move in the same direction; actors are ‘embedded’ in
a social system, where every actor is constraint by the rules of its own ‘regime’ as stated by Boons et
al. (2009). The way in which these actors form a social structure together determines the ‘outcome’
of this structure in terms of realized circular systems. From this recognition the social science is of
key importance, although up to recently the majority of research in this field has been done on
technology (Boons and Howard-Grenville 2009). When looking from a social perspective it is
necessary to look at the system as a whole and not only as the different actors and actions. This
perspective can be used to analyze a case (or to change the system in order to ‘close a loop’) (Boons
and Howard-Grenville 2009).
Industrial symbiosis practices are sometimes planned; on the other hand they might have evolved
and called industrial symbiosis in retrospect. Many forms in between are also possible. Literature
sums up these approaches to industrial symbiosis, they can be divided in the following main groups
according to (Paquin and Howard-Grenville 2012) and (Ferrão and Costa 2010):
 ‘Bottom up’, or ‘self-organizing’ processes
 ‘Top down’, ‘goal‐directed’ (‘planned’) processes
 Or a combination: ‘Middle out’ or ‘Facilitated’ approaches (Ferrão and Costa 2010)
Industrial symbiosis can form in different ways with more diversity Spekkink (2015B), (Chertow and
Ehrenfeld 2012). The similarities with the above described processes, which are important here, are
that symbiosis can form spontaneously from a common problem or ‘common ground’ and through
collaborative capacity, or on the other side of the spectrum can be more planned beforehand. An
industrial symbiosis has some of the characteristics of a complex adaptive system with many
variations and paths towards realization. However the actors’ recognition of benefits is seen as an
important emergent property in ‘organizing self-organized systems’ (Chertow and Ehrenfeld 2012).
This is seen back in ‘Box 2c’ of the conceptual framework, explained in the following chapter.
2.2 The conceptual framework
The conceptual framework to analyze the process of merging sociotechnical networks and the way it
reacts to internal and external influences is shown in figure Figure 4. It places a system in its
institutional context, allows the focus on relationships between actors and technology as is needed
for a sociotechnical network and combines it with a process perspective and the influence that
drivers and barriers have on it. It is based on the ‘quadripartite conceptual model’ (Greenhalgh and
Stones 2010) in (Vernay 2013) which includes internal and external structure, the translation process
and the barriers and drivers related to this translation process. This leads to the findings or
outcomes. These are mapped in the first four ‘boxes’ or phases. The future orientated character of
the study on warmCO2 includes not only locating problems (barriers) and drivers but also forming
recommendations on the outcomes to overcome these barriers. Therefore phase V was added to the
original framework to the outcomes to an advice. The following sub chapters explain the conceptual
framework in more detail.

23. 23
Figure 4: The conceptual framework as used includes five boxes that define an analysis phase. It is based on the
conceptual framework by Vernay (2013)
2.2.1 Box 1: The external structure of the network
The first key element of the framework is an analysis of the way in which the system is structured in
relation to external factors. These are taking place or structured outside the system but influencing
the actors within the system. This can be things like new legislations or newly available technologies;
‘Technology can be seen as a social rather than a physical object, and structure is conceptualized as a
process rather than an entity’ (Barley 1986) in (Vernay 2013). The structure as such does not actually
exist as a physical object, but is mainly a result of how the involved people perceive and form it in
their minds. Visions play a large role in the integration process, ‘visions are defined as multi actor
constructions that have the potential to influence the actions of others, and even more so if they are
the result of a participatory process’ (Grunwald and Grin 2000). These visions come from values,
views and preferences of the actors and further from the structures that are present (Grunwald and
Grin 2000). Therefore the current structure influences the visions of the future. The visions influence
the structure through the actions of actors, and the actions of actors change through the structure
(Vernay 2013). This part of the analysis can throw a light on which actors play a role in convincing
other actors of the importance of certain plans or on the other hand actors who block certain
developments. The matter in which they do or do not try to capture certain changes in artefacts like
contracts can for example be researched.
2.2.2 Box 2: The internal structure of the network
The second main aspect of the Vernay Framework is the way in which are actors within the network
are connected with each other; the internal structure. For systems to integrate, a group of actors
must form and align their ideas and visions to form a collective plan (Vernay 2013). Technologies as
well as people are part of a system. The way in which they are connected links people and
technologies (Greenhalgh and Stones 2010). Not only people can be defined as an actor but also

24. 24
organizational artefacts such as contracts or regulations. The same applies for technical artefacts
such as installations or infrastructures. (Vernay 2013), these too have interactions with other actors.
The view from different perspectives played a large role in this phase. The sociotechnical network
was divided in a view from the technical perspective and from the socio-economic perspective,
further separated in organizational and economic aspects. These were defined as the relevant
research objectives in chapter 1.
Box 2a
Infrastructure and components; ‘technical artefacts’, may constrain the structure in a certain way;
this is part of the technical structure (Greenhalgh and Stones 2010) in (Vernay 2013). Also aspects
like product characteristics and production process technologies all are ‘embedded in institutions
and infrastructures’ (Kemp and Rip 1998).
Box 2b
The social structure consists of several elements. Formal rules like regulations influence interactions.
Also informal rules are important here. Especially organizational routines are important here (Vernay
2013). Finally ‘expectations of actors’ influence the structures.
Box 2c
The degree in which actors have self-reflective knowledge on the system and their place in it is part
of this analysis. This involves the knowledge of the actors about the structures in which they exist,
and what actions of other actors in the system mean to them. (Vernay 2013).
2.2.3 Box 3: The translation process of system integration and its drivers and barriers
Actors are followed through ‘the ‘translation process of systems integration’ (Vernay 2013).
Translation is used as a term for the process on how separate systems merge into one system.
Factors that define success or failure of forming such an industrial symbiosis, circular industrial
system or eco industrial park through the translation process of systems integration are referred to
as drivers and barriers.
Drivers further defined
One of the main factors for industrial symbiosis is ‘geometric proximity’ (M. Chertow 2000). The
presence of geometric proximity can be seen a technical driver, it is related to the distance between
companies and the ability to transport the mass- or energy flows from one site to another.
Collaboration is mentioned as the other of the two key drivers for industrial symbiosis in the review
paper of Chertow, and can be seen as a motivational or informational driver (2000).
To collaborate on issues of common concern the actors in a network should have a relationship
based on trust and need to understand each other’s needs and problems, with possibly a common
vision to approach such problems and the power or relationship with an actor who has the power to
mobilize for the needed change (Spekkink 2013). The role of trust between actors is also mentioned
as an essential aspect by other authors (Gibbs 2003), (Gibbs and Deutz 2007).
When there is a ‘common ground’ for action; a shared reason, collaborative capacity or ‘institutional
capacity’ can be a driver in realizing industrial symbiosis (Spekkink 2013) through the capacity of a
group of actors to collaborate. The stability in these groups of actors partly depends on social factors
(Boons and Spekkink 2012). Some of these factors are covered by the concept of institutional

25. 25
capacity. Relatively stable groups of actors are often a ‘building block’ at the basis of a larger system
(Spekkink 2015B), based on (Chertow and Ehrenfeld 2012).
One actor can have an important role as a ‘champion’ or ‘translator spokesman’ (TS) (Hewes and
Lyons 2008), (Callon, Law and Rip 1986) in (Vernay 2013). The term ‘bridging actor’ (Spekkink 2015B)
relates to the same characteristics: the ability and drive to translate a vision into action by for
example identifying key actors. These actors take a ‘bridging position’ in the projects around the
collaboration the ‘conscious actor’ can have a driving role that a on this process (Spekkink 2015B).
Table 1 shows the drivers for industrial symbiosis. They are a summary of the drivers defined in the
Vernay framework (2013) and in added literature (Spekkink 2015B). The drivers ‘trust’, institutional
capacity’ and a ‘translator spokesman’ can be interpreted as important ingredients that lead to the
driver ‘collaboration’.
Table 1: Drivers for industrial symbiosis
Drivers Reference
Common ground (Spekkink 2015B)
Geometric proximity (M. Chertow 2000)
Collaboration (M. Chertow 2000)
Translator spokesman (TS), bridging /
conscious actor, champion
(Hewes and Lyons 2008), (Spekkink 2015B),
(Callon, Law and Rip 1986)
Collaborative capacity, Institutional capacity (Spekkink 2015B)
Trust Trust in IE: (Gibbs 2003), (Gibbs and Deutz 2007)
Specific on trust: (Luhmann 1979)
Barriers further defined
Technical aspects include the use of technologies that are sometimes still in their maturing phase
(Timmeren 2012) and even more at the basics lies the fact that is not always obvious where to have
a synergy (M. Chertow 2000). The long incubation time of ideas about industrial ecology is also
mentioned as a barrier (Vernay 2013). Once a symbiosis has been realized, companies become more
dependent on each other. This can be a reason to refuse the participation in a symbiotic exchange
(Vernay 2013). Other social aspects such as the differences in company cultures, working routines
and priorities can be a barrier (Pandis and Brandt 2012) in (Vernay 2013). This may result in a lack of
trust and cooperation (Gibbs and Deutz 2007). This is then a problem because trust is needed to
simplify the complex structure of social systems, without trust only very simple forms of cooperation
are possible as stated by Luhmann (1979) (1968). In order to deal with the new concept of IE
management practices need ‘institutional innovation’ but these management practices may be hard
to change to deal with industrial symbiosis (Piasecki 1992) in (Vernay 2013). The barriers are
summed up in Table 2.
Table 2: Barriers for industrial symbiosis
Barriers Reference
Not clear where to have a synergy, Long
incubation time of ideas
(M. Chertow 2000), (Vernay 2013)
Difference in company cultures, priorities,
working routines
(Pandis and Brandt 2012)
‘Institutional innovation’ needed in to
change management practices
(Piasecki 1992)
Technically in maturing phase (Timmeren 2012)

26. 26
In this research the barriers for industrial symbiosis and for EIP’s are seen as comparable because of
the similarities of these concepts. This allows the use of work from Heeres, Vermeulen and Walle
who state there are five different types of ‘potential barriers’ for Eco industrial parks (EIP’s) (2004):
 Technical, ‘an exchange is technically unfeasible’
 Economic, ‘an exchange might be an economically risky’
 Informational, ‘match people and information at the right time’
 Organizational, ‘might not fit in the current corporate organizational structure’
 Regulatory/legal, ‘environmental laws and regulations’) (Heeres, Vermeulen and Walle 2004)
The subdivision in types of problems overlap partly with previously mentioned barriers. Some can be
placed in a certain category, for example the technical maturing phase (Timmeren 2012) can be seen
as a technical barrier (Heeres, Vermeulen and Walle 2004). However this can have an economic
effect when for example the estimated turnover cannot be met.
2.2.4 Box 4: Outcomes
At this stage the system is known in actors and their connections, their context in time and seen
from different perspectives. The drivers and barriers for the translation process of systems
integration and the degree in which the system changes by actions of the actors are part of the
outcomes (Vernay 2013).
2.2.5 Box 5: Advice
For the actors in the WarmCO2 system the outcomes are translated to a way of dealing with the
found barriers or using the drivers in the current situation. This is done based on the outcomes and
using the theory in the framework.
2.3 Conclusions on the framework and answer to RQ1
RQ1: What theory and framework can be used to analyze the sociotechnical systems of
WarmCO2 and MEC and the drivers and barriers for these industrial symbioses?
The required theory was found in the promotional study of Vernay (2013), it allowed defining the
system in terms of actors and their connections and the evolution over time of this system, including
the context. Also external and internal influences and their effect on the actors and the connections
can be analyzed and leads to one of the main goals: locating the drivers and barriers that influence
the system and to advice on the way in which the barriers can be overcome. The conceptual
framework consists of five ‘boxes’, in the first three boxes the external and internal structure is
defined and the drivers and barriers for the translation process are located. Box 4 then shows the
outcomes. The conceptual framework is mainly built on the ‘Vernay framework’ (2013). The advice
in box 5 is added to this. See Figure 4.
A reflection and discussion on this conclusion are part of chapters 7.2 and 9.1.

27. 27
3 Method
The way the information is gathered and analyzed is described in this chapter. The choice for the
comparative case study is explained.
3.1 Qualitative empirical research for deep and new insights
This research is done on motivations of actors, aims to locate problems and their causes in order to
recommend how these can be overcome. These are mainly explorative aspects; the cases ‘need to
be understood’ (Creswell 2003). Indeed the development of industrial symbiosis can be better
understood through studying the co-evolution of the underlying processes, as stated in the work of
Paquin and Howard Grenville (2012). Therefore a qualitative study is done, which includes micro
level observations. In order to find these observations, empirical work is included through interviews
to gain insights that are not possible with literature research. Some aspects are organizational, while
the boundaries of organizational fields ‘can only be found empirically’ (DiMaggio and Powell 1983) in
(Vernay 2013). Also the published literature is by definition older than the research at the moment it
takes place, so the most recent information can be found through interviews.
This approach allowed the networks of actors and connections in cases to be analyzed in their
evolution over time, including the original context, which was one of the goals. The most recent
situation could be researched as seen from different perspectives. This is a new research method for
both cases and allowed to gain the needed insights.
3.1.1 Visual representation of the findings was the reason to use the ‘Vernay method’
The empirical qualitative character of the study, by interviewing actors, requires a method that
coupled the findings of early interviews back to later interviews. In order to do this in the rather
limited time of an interview (typically one hour), a visual representation of the actors and
connections that form the network of the cases was needed. Presenting early findings provoked
discussion and allowed to gain deeper and deeper insights in every conversation. The findings were
validated in every day of interviews. The fact that it enables such a visual representation is one of
the main reasons for the use of the method as defined by Vernay, with some additions and changes,
further explained in the next chapters.
The method is new to the field of industrial ecology. In the ‘further research’ chapter of the
promotional thesis by Vernay, she made an invitation to test the described theoretical framework
and methodology for industrial symbiosis cases. During the proposal phase of this thesis research
project no study was found that does so. Not only the outcome of the analysis, but also the use of
this method potentially gives interesting information for the field of IE as this method originated
from another field of study, that of Innovation Studies.
3.1.2 Second case study on Maabjerg Energy Concept
The research includes a second case study: Maabjerg Energy Concept (MEC) is analyzed similarly.
MEC is located in Maabjerg, Denmark. It is a socioeconomic network around a biogas plant that runs
on manure of local farmers. This provides energy for the local community and solved the problem of
too much manure in the area which caused eutrophication. This symbiosis was interesting to
research because the system is now up and running system and it has similarities like the
cooperation between industry and agriculture. Moreover the planned spinoff of their first symbiosis
in the form of a bioethanol plant (MEC I/S 2015) was seen as a sign that this system is potentially

28. 28
one step ahead, which could give interesting insights. Straw from local origin is to be collected and
processed to bioethanol with many symbiotic exchanges between the biogas plant and the
bioethanol plant.
The use of a second case gives more trust in the framework and method that are both new for the
use on circular industrial systems.
3.1.3 Appropriateness to use the Vernay Method on the cases
To use the method on these cases they are checked with the selection criteria (Vernay 2013) to see if
a system is suitable to analyze with the method. Validating the cases with the criteria gave the
certainty that the findings are based on a solid basis. It also allows to draw a conclusion on the
question Vernay asked in her further research chapter about the possibility to use her method of a
case of industrial ecology. Vernay had a different goal with her study and her cases had an urban
instead of an industrial context, therefore the criteria were changed in this respect.
Vernay mentions four criteria that limit the case choice:
1. ‘Cases which have been initiated for different reasons and by different actors in order to see how
this influences network development’ (Vernay 2013):
The cases of WarmCO2 and MEC have no link in people or organizations and a different context, this
criterion is therefore met.
2. ‘In order to be sure the findings were not too much dependent on a specific institutional context,
case studies in different countries’ (Vernay 2013):
The cultures are both ‘West European’ and they both had to comply with the same European
legislations; the same EU subsidies are potentially possible. The institutional context is comparable.
3. ‘The cases should take place in urban areas where more or less the same kinds of systems are in‘
(Vernay 2013):
This criterion exists of two parts, first the statement ‘urban areas’. The first research question aims
to find a framework and method that allow the needed research, therefore it is an interesting
outcome whether the method can also be used for industrial circular systems or not, in contrary to
the original use of the method (for urban areas). Therefore the first part of this criterion will now be:
are the systems both industrial symbioses. Both MEC and WarmCO2 are an industrial symbiosis:
Material- and energy flows are exchanged between previously separate systems which can give
mutual benefits and ecological advantage.
The second part involves the ‘same kinds of systems’. In the context of an industrial symbiosis this
can be seen as for example large infrastructures that are available, cities or certain natural elements
that are of significance, and the type of exchanges taking place. Here it can be argued both ways.
WarmCO2 as well as MEC have road infrastructure, a small city and a sea nearby and are surrounded
mostly by agricultural land. Heat exchange plays a central role in the symbiosis of both parks. There
are also differences. MEC is based around a biomass plant, while WarmCO2 is more an infrastructure
for heat cascading and CO2 re-use (all these aspects can be found in the findings, chapters 0 and 0).
The mass- and energy flows are therefore different as well as the needed technical artefacts and the

29. 29
exact management of these exchanges. This study is not strictly a technical study on exchanges of
materials. Therefore this criterion is met.
4. ‘They should rely on similar institutional frameworks, more or less, where both public and private
actors are involved. This excluded state economies with top-down planning’ (Vernay 2013):
Neither the Netherlands nor Denmark works with a governmental system that strictly uses top down
planning, as both are based on democracy.
To conclude, the criteria were met. The difference with the criteria was that the cases are an
industrial- instead of an urban system, which is actually indicated as an interesting field for further
research by Vernay (2013); therefore both WarmCO2 and MEC could be used as case studies.
3.1.4 Primary sources
The empiric research uses primary sources to gather new, in depth data specifically about the drivers
and barriers for the translation process of the sociotechnical network. The primary sources were
mostly in the form of interviews, included as ‘interview reports’, partly also as mail (archived
personal communication). All primary sources are shown in Table 3.
The interviews were done in an open discussion, in order to gain new information from the
perspective of the interviewed person. Before the meeting the preliminary findings were sent in
order to validate these. Also four to five open questions were sent as a starting point in order to
gather a comparable set of answers for each interview and in order to start the rest of the open
discussion. The interviews are therefore called ‘semi structured’. More information is given in
chapter 3.2. An example of the open questions and preliminary information is shown in appendix 1.
All the people agreed on the potential use of their findings, the data is not anonymous. The
interview reports were used as a way to check the interpretation of their information with them
after the interview, they gave feedback if the reports were not correct. For the MEC system the
research was done less empiric, the findings from literature were validated twice with a central
actor. Information from an earlier visit Tour, presentation (A. Lunde 2013) & discussion served as a
starting point and gave insights in the system Maabjerg.
Table 3: Interviews and primary sources
Company or organization, function of
interviewed person
Source type, location Date Appendix
Case: WarmCO2
WarmCO2, director Interview, defining the scope,
Terneuzen
6 Nov 2014 2A
WarmCO2, director Phone call, defining the scope 28 Aug 2015 2B
Adviesbureau Noordam, owner consultancy
agency
Interview, Delft 4 Nov 2015 3A
Wolter & Dros, project leader industrial
maintenance
Interview, Heinkenszand 4 Nov 2015 3B
4 Evergreen B.V., manager energy
management & development
Interview, Steenbergen 10 Nov 2015 3C
VGT Zeeuws-Vlaanderen, management team Interview, Westdorpe 10 Nov 2015 3D
WarmCO2 / Prorealis, operating manager Interview, Terneuzen 12 Nov 2015 3E
WarmCO2, director Interview, Terneuzen 12 Nov 2015 3F
De Westerschelde, management team Interview, Westdorpe 17 Nov 2015 3G

30. 30
Bros. Van Adrichem, purchase manager Interview, Westdorpe 17 Nov 2015 3H
WarmCO2, director Interview, phone 8 Dec 2015 3I
Yara, project manager Interview, Sluiskil 5 Jan 2015 3J
Board advisor ZSP, chairman of the
supervisory board of WarmCO2, former C.E.O
and C.O.O. of ZSP
Interview, Goes 7 Jan 2015 3K
Case: MEC
MEC I/S, senior advisor e-mail 16 Dec 2015 4A
MEC I/S, senior advisor e-mail 1 Feb 2016 4B
3.2 Research steps and iterations
The research exists of several steps. First both the cases are analyzed based on literature research
and insights from earlier visits. This knowledge was complemented with information from surveys.
With this information the method was tested and where needed fine-tuned. In the second phase the
analysis is carried out deeper in the WarmCO2 system through new research that dives into parts of
the system using the method validated and possibly changed in phase 1. This information was then
used to give recommendations on the situation. The following sub-chapters go in more detail. The
method has many iteration steps, which are useful to gather a complete overview, see sub chapter
3.2.2. Figure 5 shows the method and the way in which it is used, explained in the next sub chapters.
The figure shows how the research method is related to the conceptual framework phases and to
the way in which the outcomes are structured.

31. 31
Figure 5: The method to capture and interpreted data included an iterative process
3.2.1 Step 1 Prepare interviews
This phase defines the exact scope, which is partly already related to the external structure of the
network. Further literature research can show the first version of an internal structure. This leads to
the first ‘system sketches’ that serve as a discussion.
Collection of data
Data is first collected through literature research on for example (Spekkink 2013), (Fedorovskij
2014), complemented with insights from earlier visits and interviews (A. Lunde 2013), (Crone 2014).
The exact focus and research questions came about in this phase. The first system sketches are also
defined with this information to serve as a basis for first interviews in the following phase.
Defining the focal actors for WarmCO2
Defining focal actors for the first interviews is part of this phase. Desk research for example pointed
out J. Crone, the director of WarmCO2, as one of the central actors for this specific system. She
pointed out other important actors for the system, who were then contacted and interviewed. Every
day of interviews was followed by follow up literature research and enabled an iterative step. Based
on this information, a second actor was chosen. This process was repeated until according to the
interviewed people, the main actors were all interviewed; the main criterion to determine the
‘completeness’ of the empirical research as also described by Vernay (2013).

32. 32
System sketches showing actors and connections
Before starting the empirical phase, the systems
were analyzed and mapped through literature
research. Information on the system was used to
make system sketches, showing the actors and
their connections. Certain details were added to
the type of actor and connection, and the
sketches were made for several moments in
time that showed important changes in the
actors or connections. Any missing information
was captured in new questions. The sketch and
questions were send to the to be interviewed
person in advance in order to allow some time
to read it over and formulate clear answers. An
example of such questions are given in appendix
1, this shows general questions from an early
‘round’ of empirical research. The sketches show
the ‘pathway’ in which the system evolved. An
elaboration is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Pathway visualization, own elaboration, based
on visualization Vernay (2013) Empirical research through
a semi structured interview
3.2.2 Step 3 Empirical iterative research
The actors that seemed of key importance for the system were interviewed through a semi-
structured conversation, like in the method defined by Vernay (2013). Semi-structured means in the
context of this report that the actors were presented four to six open questions (see appendix 1A for
an example of these questions). Also the findings of earlier research were presented to them
summarized in the system sketches as shown in the above figure. See Figure 42 for an early example.
Note that each of the interview reports mentions the file name of this system sketch as was sent o
them in the first paragraph.
The main goals were to gather feedback on findings and to provoke an open discussion that goes in
depth on the subjects touched in the questions. As a result, the earlier information in the findings
was validated. The actors gave clarity on the types of interaction, on their role and the role of other
actors. The system maps were then updated with the new knowledge. As long as actors mention
other new actors, important to / in the process, this was repeated, according to the method.
However, an endless list of actors was not the goal; a balance was needed between relevant
qualitative information and workload (Vernay 2013). Only the actors that were mentioned by other
actors as important or with actors related to drivers or barriers, a meeting was planned.
For both the researched cases a central contact person was at first needed, who was motivated to
help with finding the main actors and validating the findings. J. Crone fulfilled this role for WarmCO2
and A. Lunde for Maabjerg. The first ‘round’ of interviews in Terneuzen was for example advised by
J. Crone, the following interviews were a result of the process.

33. 33
Interview reports to validate the interpretation of the information
All the relevant information was written down as an interview report after the conversation and sent
back to validate if the interview was interpreted correctly. Only after all details were agreed upon
the interview was used as a source of knowledge. All these interview reports can be found in
appendix 3. For MEC this was done in a comparable way, where A. Lunde also validated the system
sketches (2015) in appendix 4.
An iterative research process
The method can be seen and was used as one big iteration process of knowledge on the system.
Every round of interviews or literature research has a new image of the system as a result. A round
can in this research be seen as a day in which one or two interviews were done. Every interview gave
new information as well as new sources for information and in some cases new focal actors to speak
to. After the interviews the new literature was read, findings were re-written, sketches were
updated with new information and the specific questions for new interviews were refined. This
repetitive character of finding more, deeper and newer information over time is what Vernay refers
to as ‘the snowballing effect’ (2013).
The main conclusions for MEC were validated by A. Lunde (2016) in order to verify the correct
perception of the findings. This was the final iteration step in the analysis of MEC.
3.2.3 Step 3 structuring the data
After the first few interviews and
based on follow up literature
research, the findings were
separated in a view from different
perspectives. This also allowed for a
more simple visualization of the
systems, needed for the limited
time of interviews. Three
perspectives were chosen according
to the research goal: technical,
organizational and economic. These
perspectives reflect one or more of
the roles or perspectives of almost
all actors that were interviewed.
The actors are visualized
accordingly as shown in the legend in Figure 7. The first actor type ‘Resources, environmental
problems, external influences’ on top in the left column can for example be a decreasing local
economy or the presence of an environmental resource such as wood for a paper mill. The paper
mill itself could the also be determined an artefact of this type, as it is a large investment that has
been done which will influence the behavior of other actors. Planned or envisioned actors as
mentioned at the bottom of the same figure can include organizations that are not yet operational,
companies that are to be founded, but also artefacts like subsidies that have their connection with
companies in the future or regulations that will be empowered. An example of a network of these
actors and connectors (Figure 8) is shown, in this case in the technological context. Note: the degree
of ‘importance’ is not shown in the figures, sizes of boxes and texts are irrelevant.
Figure 7: Legend with actors and connections