Talk:Industrial ecology

Improvements
I have made a copy of this page for an academic colleague who is a leading industrial ecologist and he has promised to help to improve it. While the basic theme is good and reliable, there are some specific weaknesses. The reference to the work of Evan is specially interesting because this refers to the independent development of concepts in industrial ecology in socialist Eastern Europe (notably the Mendeleev Institute). The external links can be substantially strengthened by linking to the Society for Industrial Ecology and its related journal.

Martin Willison, Nova Scotia

I have added some text and links related to the Journal of IE and the International Society of IE.

Rene Kleijn, Leiden University, Netherlands

Synergy
Is industrial ecology sometimes called synergy? Is there an industrial ecology complex called synergy? I thought I heard something like that, somewhere. This article is the best thing ever by the way. Good work. Lotusduck 19:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "Eco Industrial Park" when you are talking about a "complex" or "estate". Industrial ecology is a bigger framework for business operation that includes many aspects such as green accounting, lifecycle assessment, industrial symbiosis, etc. Chaerani 11:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Incoherent babble that is bad and unreliable
I don't believe the our industrial system is a biological process. These two terms are imcompatible. I think the term industrial ecology is pure jargon and suggest a deletion occur. Each government body or private entity involved in industrial development is unique, there are no populations or species and so the process is not ecological. Notice that ecology is a sub category of biology. It's like chalk and cheese.

Just because some waste is being reused does not mean it is a "closed loop system". All living things consume energy and therefore can never exist within a closed system. It is not possible to just ignore the laws of thermodynamics. It is not possible to endlessly reuse waste products. What a weak and useless discipline of study. It is just another field of research which provides an excuse for continuing economic growth as usual. - Shiftchange 22:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * hi, crticism of the filed can only be done in academic journals not here. Industrial ecology is a well established field with more than two decades of reseacrh. though the correlation between ecology and industrial systems appear first, the field is certainly more accomodating than that--Ravishankar 13:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-added links to Journals
These were removed on 20 June 2008 by user WhatamIdoing, citing that they were of "no value to general reader". I do see his point in that most people won't read journal articles. However, I did re-include these since Industrial Ecology exists largely in the academic realm. Providing these links shows the credibility of the field, and these journals are some of the best sources to find out what actual researchers are doing within the field. Mr3641 (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Links to these two paid-subscription journals directly violate WP:ELNO #6: "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content".
 * Additionally, in general, it is worth remembering that the purpose of external links is to provide information to readers, not to endow a topic with an aura of academic credibility. Please remove them again.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC) (who is female, by the way ;-)


 * I moved the links to the journal into the references section. It is important for the Journal of Industrial Ecology to be linked to (in some form or fashion) in this wikipedia article because it is one of the best sources of information on Industrial Ecology.  This is shown by the fact that 5 of the 11 references in the article cite this journal.  Having the links to the journal within the references section is consistent with Wikipedia policy that you pointed out.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNO#Links_normally_to_be_avoided Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. See below.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNO#Sites_requiring_registration A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference.
 * Mr3641 (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with linking to JIE in appropriate references. The second rule you list, however, is irrelevant:  that applies to the article Journal of Industrial Ecology, not an article about the general subject.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You could create a Research section to elaborate on the research, including journals and important figures within it. These sections would be nice in many articles. Also, I'm concerned with your editing of the external links (diff). It appears that you removed one of the most informative links: Industrial Ecology research from The Program for the Human Environment, The Rockefeller University II  07:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Again
External links to academic programs were re-added today. Can anyone tell me what the value of these links is to the general reader? Do these links directly provide more detailed information about industrial ecology, or are we once again trying to wave the magic wand of academic credibility over this subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is good reason for having the links to academic programs here. They include information on Industrial Ecology like description of the field, definitions of the field, history of the field, and even the "career" section is informative to for the average reader because it gives him/her an idea of what IE means in practice. These websites also include irrelevant information like program schedules, curricula, admission fees, etc., but this is no reason for omitting the links.--Elmerfadd (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Style
The style of this article is not very encyclopedic, methinks - it's more like a sales pitch. It needs to more balanced - maybe adding a Criticism section? 79.138.252.161 (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Industrial Ecology
I have been practising Industrial Ecology since I independently coined the phrase in 1993. I have browsed the related articles and there is a fundamental difference in approach to this subject by academic institutions compared to my own. I therefore make the suggestion that Industrial Ecology be classified as either orthodox or traditional, which would define the difference in cognitive approach, for people endeavouring to learn about this subject.

I suggest that my approach be called Traditional Industrial Ecology, as it is based on the principles of traditional medicine and has an intellectual pedigree several thousand years old. The academic approach could be classified as Orthodox Industrial Ecology as its approach is more reductionist and suited to the rationale that evolved with the industrial revolution.

I only found a reference to Industrial Ecology this August, which caused me to look it up. Previously, as I had never encountered the term Industrial Ecology, I was under the impression that I was the only one.

How would this be achieved ?Dave 56142 (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You may have independently coined the phrase in 1993, but it has been independently coined many times before especially in the 70s and 80s. Furthermore, in a colloqium organized by the "National Academy of Sciences" in 1991 "Industrial Ecology" became an official scientific area of study. Since 1997 there is also a Peer Reviewed Journal with the same name advancing the research of the field. You are not explaining what is the Industrial Ecology that you are practicing, you only say it is based on the principles of traditional medicine, so I assume it has nothing to do with issues of sustainability and organization of production-consumption systems. Thus the adjectives Traditional and Orthodox that you use do not represent the difference between the two.--Elmerfadd (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not include unreferenced information
Somebody changed the introductory paragraph and put his own description/impression of what industrial ecology is. Apart from the fact that his definition/description is outdated and omits many aspects of industrial ecology, it is completely unreferenced. Industrial Ecology is primarily a scientific field thus the article should be well referenced from reliable resources. Having said so, I will erase the first paragraph.--Elmerfadd (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

New Section: Definition
The above observation raises the (existing) issue of providing some kind of definition for Industrial Ecology. There is no official and generally accepted definition of the field, thus I suggest that a new section is created where the most recent definitions of the field are given (as they appear on official sources like the international society or the journal of industrial ecology).--Elmerfadd (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for "Principles"
The principles section contains below table. The table shows the general metaphor.

However, this table does not correspond to the text, where "society" is decomposed into the social and the technical. Therefore, I would suggest to develop an updated version of this table, which includes "Biosphere, Technosphere and Sociosphere", i.e. disentangle the entries currently in "Technosphere and place them in either Technosphere or Sociosphere.

The table shows the general metaphor.

-- Chemeng062 (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

Thus decomposing the table, leads to other suggestions:

1. suggest to let "innovation" equate to mutation and selection, and then use "invention" to equate to "mutation", and "diffusion" to "selection". This would then be in accordance with a Schumpeterian view on innovation (ref. Schumpeter's, who labeled innovation as a process of "creative destruction" (1934), and discerned "invention, diffusion and adoption" as the three-stages leading to an innovation having percolated to the market / society.

Adapted the novel table to include this suggested refinement of the analogy. Chemeng062 (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Company (sociosphere) has the equivalent of "Technology" (technosphere) 3. Industrial Product (technosphere) has the equivalent of Service (sociosphere) Chemeng062 (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any references that you can tie into this table? I think what you've done reflects how many people view the metaphor, and it would be nice to provide links to further sources/discussion on this. A few that could be useful are: Mr3641 (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On the life cycle metaphor: where ecology and economics diverge
 * Putting a spotlight on metaphors and analogies in industrial ecology
 * The Ecosystem: Model or Metaphor?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Industrial ecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060106201301/http://www.nesh.ca/jameskay/www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/IE/ie.pdf to http://www.nesh.ca/jameskay/www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/IE/ie.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Industrial ecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://enpub.fulton.asu.edu/cesem/paper/PIE.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080210080326/http://www.earthportal.org/?p=364 to http://www.earthportal.org/?p=364

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Industrial ecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090710131517/http://www.is4ie.org/Default.aspx?pageId=215327 to http://www.is4ie.org/Default.aspx?pageId=215327

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Criticisms
This article would benefit from a section discussing criticisms of the approach. Totorotroll (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by QiweiDuan (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)