The role of local governments in overcoming barriers to industrial symbiosis

The industrial symbiosis (IS) landscape is evolving at high speed. There is a growing interest in knowledge sharing and partnering, as is evident from the establishment of multiple IS networks at local and regional level. This article investigates the role of local governments in industrial symbiosis. It aims to build a theoretical framework explaining how local governments can reduce barriers to implementation of IS by applying different modes of governing. Findings show that local governments can do many things to overcome barriers and thus enhance IS. In many instances, local governments can support IS in an enabling function, by coordinating relationships and material exchanges, providing infrastructure and funding. They can also apply authoritarian and self-governing principles to develop policies and regulations to support IS development, as well as planning and control mechanisms linked to their own material and resource flows. This article concludes by suggesting a number of policy recommendations, such as local governments establishing a clear strategy on IS, and including IS in physical planning.


Introduction
In a world with increasingly visible environmental, economic and socio-political challenges, the idea of transitioning into more sustainable production and consumption practices is gaining ground. Among the myriads of sustainable initiatives launched in recent years, the one striving towards a circular economy has gained particular popularity (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). Whether it is about "reducing, reusing, recycling" or "closing, narrowing or slowing resource loops" (Bocken et al., 2016), the concept seems to offer something for everyone, everywhere. Systemic solutions such as industrial symbiosis (IS) are therefore attracting interest from policy and practice (EU, 2019;European Commission, 2020). Indeed, governments around the world are now implementing IS as part of their transformation towards circular economies (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2015).
Industrial symbiosis is presented as a tangible solution that enables circularity within and across value chains. The most typical example is Kalundborg in Denmark where companies have worked together since the 1970s, exchanging materials and by-products in a symbiotic manner (Kalundborg Symbiosis, 2020). Chertow (2004, p. 408) conducted pioneering research on the academic understanding of IS. She defined the concept as "place-based exchanges among different entities that yield a collective benefit greater than the sum of individual benefits that could be achieved by acting alone". In practice, IS is commonly set up in a way where one company's output can become another company's input, allowing for simultaneous improvements in resource efficiency and financial returns (Chertow, 2000).
Early IS studies kept a primarily industrial focus, looking into operational, financial and environmental concerns of IS material exchanges (Neves et al., 2020). Less attention has been given to public features such as specific or strategic government engagement (Velenturf, 2016). Another less researched area is how local government can contribute to and govern IS. Yet municipalities are key actors in their role as planners for sustainable urban development (Palm et al., 2019). They also have a responsibility to transform ambitious national and global goals and visions into local practices (European Environment Agency, 2019). Excluding municipalities or local governments from the debateor minimizing their role in itwould therefore imply that local governance mechanisms affecting the IS landscape may be overlooked. It would also mean that the complexity and multi-actor characteristic of IS are not truly taken into account. Rather, it would create an imbalance in which actors and sectors are favouredand are therefore studied further.
The aim of this article is to develop a theoretical framework to explain how local governments can reduce barriers to the implementation of IS through different modes of governing. A qualitative research methodology has been applied. Literature reviews and content analysis of previous studies on IS barriers and local government engagement in IS enables the uncovering of prominent themes. This, in turn, allows for a discussion on the potential roles that local governments can adopt in the process of IS development, specifically in order to overcome barriers to IS.
The outline of the article is as follows: first, the theoretical foundations of IS and local governance are explored. Second, the methodology guiding this article is outlined. Then, the results and analysis are presented, including a theoretical framework for how local governments can address typical barriers to IS through different modes of governing. Finally, the article wraps up with a discussion and conclusion, including key thoughts to take away and suggestions for future research in IS.

Industrial symbiosis: addressing barriers through local governing modes
This section begins by outlining some of the basic theoretical underpinnings of IS. An overview of common barriers to IS is also provided. Previous research on public actor engagement in IS is then presented and connected to the field of local governance. We conclude with a proposed analytical framework for examining how local governments can reduce typical barriers to IS through different modes of governing.

Barriers to industrial symbiosis
Industrial symbiosis is a subfield of industrial ecology (Frosch and Gallopoulos, 1989) and an emerging concept in the field of circular economy (Bocken et al., 2016;Maranesi and De Giovanni, 2020). At core, "Industrial symbiosis engages traditionally separate industries in a collective approach to competitive advantage involving physical exchange of materials, energy, water, and/or by-products" (Chertow, 2000, p. 314). Through this set-up, one company's use of virgin production inputs can therefore be swapped with waste materials and by-products generated by other companies. This allows for enhanced production efficiency, resulting in economic, environmental and social benefits for both the companies involved and the region in which they operate . The idea behind IS therefore extends into all three dimensions of sustainabilityprofit, planet, and people . Traditionally, an IS network is defined as a network consisting of at least three companies exchanging at least two types of wastes (Chertow, 2004. It can be designed either in a planned, top-down approach  or in a self-organized, bottom-up fashion . Despite the promises inherent to IS, it seems that the potential for uptake of new regional synergies is limited by a range of technical and non-technical barriers , as discussed, among many others, by ,  and . The process of overcoming barriers can include removal, reduction or avoidance of barriers (Reddy, 2013) and local government can take different governing approaches. In this article, these studies were used as data sources to help meet the aim of analysing how different modes of local governance can be applied to overcome critical IS barriers.
Appendix A list barriers to industrial symbiosis by type and literature references. Economic barriers mentioned are high investment costs  and difficulties in acquiring external investment capital, for example to promote and disseminate information about IS (e.g. . Other barriers are the potentially different investment cycles of organizations , as well as not knowing how to divide incomes and costs between organizations . Moreover, there can be fluctuations in the demand for a particular commodity or product, as well as variations in the costs of resources in different regions (Tudor et al., 2007). Partaking in an IS network can also increase operational costs for the industries involved, linked to waste transportation and waste treatment costs. This partly contributes to what authors refer to as a "lack of knowledge about cost-benefit ratios" .
Operational and management issues are what create most technical barriers . The use of by-products in IS makes it more difficult to design and operate effective production systems and storage facilities, notably because of the additional treatment processes and source tracking that is required . Material fluctuations can also create a mismatch between the demand and supply in an IS system Tudor et al., 2007). Moreover, technological advances and changes in production technology carry the risk of destroying markets of importance to the industries involved in the IS network (Tudor et al., 2007;. Problems also occur with the logistical integration between actors due to insufficient infrastructural set-ups . Part of this is a recognized difficulty in motivating industries to relocate, and hence, resulting geographical distances . Finally, a lack of technical knowledge, or of technology and infrastructure readiness, may be further problems (e.g. .
Regulatory barriers are primarily linked to restrictive or unclear legislation, and a lack of guidance on compliance criteria (e.g. . There is also an issue with perceptions of conflicting waste practices and regulations . Partly linked to this is the difficulty to obtain approval for waste reuse projects from regulatory authorities . And from a reverse perspective, regulatory authorities sometimes themselves find it hard to plan, design and manage IS networks (Tudor et al., 2007;.
In the category of social barriers, one concern is that companies often work in silos without enough contact with each other . There can be a lack of willingness to collaborate (Park et al., 2008;, as well as a lack of engagement among the organizationsespecially from top management. Low numbers of "IS promoters" within companies can also become a barrier to IS implementation and expansion (e.g. . One of the most commonly mentioned social barriers is a lack of trust between organizations (e.g. . Trust is a prerequisite for collaboration . Indeed, since there often is a lack in cooperative mechanisms for making organizations collaborate, trust becomes the ultimate enabler. Other barriers include asymmetric interdependencies and power imbalances between actors , as well as a lack of institutional support (e.g. .
As regards information-related barriers, a lack of information and training are typical problems (e.g. . Adopting IS requires technical and organizational knowledge and expertise . A lack of awareness of IS as a concept, as well as of neighbouring companies' materials and by-products, can also become barriers to further IS uptake (e.g. Domenech Aparisi, 2010). This lack is typically related to poor contact, communication and information sharing between companies (Lev€ anen and Hukkinen, 2013; . Another information-related barrier is a lack of broader community awareness .
Despite the broad discussion of IS barriers in the literature,  point to a lack of real cases describing the process of investigation and overcoming these barriers. To this can be added a lack of discussion on which actors are most appropriate for overcoming what barriers. This article aims to investigate the role of local governments in this process, and the following section addresses this issue further.

Local governments and local governing modes
While early IS literature largely focused on industries, later studies explored a broader range of actor roles including those of public organizations, local governments and municipalities (e.g. Paquin and Howard-Grenville, 2012;Boons and Spekkink, 2012). Van Berkel et al. (2009), for example, addressed the role of public actors when describing the symbiotic relationships between industries and cities in Japan's government-led eco-town programme.  studied how local authorities supported symbiotic resource exchanges in the city of Rotterdam, in the Netherlands. They found that local authorities were more active in designing urban symbiosis projects than in implementing them. The local authority served as coordinator, facilitator and information provider between different parties in the design phase, and then took a step back during the implementation phase.
Industrial symbiosis scholars have also tried to integrate symbiosis principles into local planning processes. Music (2019) describes the possibility of including IS into municipal spatial development plans in the city of Ljubljana. Likewise, Birmingham's Big City Plan has been cited as an interesting example of a planning document that merges city development with IS philosophy. Waste, infrastructure, procurement and industry are other examples of planning domains in which local authorities could integrate IS principles .
While the importance of public actors, and specifically local governments, has been addressed in the literature, a more systematic understanding of how local governance can be applied to overcome typical IS barriers still needs to be developed. Velenturf (2016) provides an excellent introduction on this topic in her study of the governance system in the Humber region, UK. Focusing on regulatory barriers linked to the implementation of resource efficiency policy and regulation, she divides potential governmental roles and activities into four categories: strategic regulator, strategic facilitator, operational regulator, and operational facilitator.
In light of the differences in barriers experienced throughout IS development (see Appendix A), we suggest that an in-depth exploration of the potential roles and measures adopted by local governments is needed.
We suggest that the typology developed by Bulkeley and Kern (2006) can be used for this purpose, and extrapolated to IS. They previously studied local climate governance in energy, transport, and land use, and presented four modes of governing that local governments tend to adopt in various combinations as local climate governance strategies. These are: governing through provision, governing by authority, governing through enabling, and self-governing. A fifth category was later added by Bulkeley et al. (2009), namely, governing through partnership (see Fig. 1). Researchers applying this typology show how local governments manage and steer a sustainable transition. This includes Smedby and Quitzau (2016), who examined governance in the building sector, and In this typology, self-governing is linked to the capacity of the local government to control or manage its own activities and operations. It is based on an organizational management approach, and includes measures such as developing internal procurement guidelines, energy standards, etc for municipal organizations and buildings. Governing through provision concerns the provision of different goods, services and resources. It is effectuated through material and infrastructural means, such as providing public transport services, infrastructure, and recycling and composting schemes for citizens and/or companies. Governing by authority concerns more traditional forms of authority, such as regulation, enforcement and the use of sanction. Typically, this type of governing is done through strategic planning and policy making that induces climate-friendly practices. Governing through enabling refers to the "role of local government in facilitating, coordinating and encouraging action through partnership with private-and voluntary-sector agencies, and to various forms of community engagement" Kern, 2006, p. 2242). It works through argument, persuasion, and inducements, for example when introducing energy efficiency campaigns, or granting distribution to promote renewable energy. Finally, governing through partnership describes a situation where state and non-state actors work together in an equal relationship. This can be done through project implementation, voluntary agreements, knowledge building and information sharing in situations where the local government has no formal governing power over other actors (Bulkeley et al., 2009). Within the different governing modes, local government can use different policy instruments and measures (UNEP, 2015).
In the following analysis we will lean on earlier research to examine the role of local governments in IS (Bulkeley and Kern, 2006;Bulkeley et al., 2009). We will then discuss how different governing modes, with available policy instruments, can contribute to reducing existing barriers to IS.

Material and methods
This study has an explorative purpose and follows a qualitative methodology . The material is based on desk-based research, for which we have collected previous research materials from primarily Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) as two of the most recognized databases for obtaining high-quality articles. We conducted a number of searches, the last of which was conducted in June 2020.
In the search to identify previous studies that had summarized barriers to IS, we used the key words "industrial symbiosis", "barriers" and "barriers and review". This resulted in 74 unique hits. A refined search was conducted of these; we selected only those articles that included a review or mapping of different barriers to IS. Seventeen barrier-related articles remained. To these, nine articles were added from reference lists. The total of 30 articles are summarized and categorized in Appendix A.
We also searched for articles focusing on IS and local governments. Key words used were "industrial symbiosis" combined with "governing modes", "local government", "local authority/authorities" and "municipality/municipalities". In total, the Scopus and WoS searches yielded 121 hits. To these, another twelve articles were added from reference lists included in these articles. From a total of 133 articles, 23 articles were selected for the final sample.
We have not included articles that only mentioned that local governments, authorities and municipalities were part of a network, as we were interested in a more in-depth examination of the role of these actors. The analysis was not country-specific; rather, it included themes and categories across all documents, which were related to different modes of governance, instruments and measures, as mentioned in Section 2. The analysed articles were published between 2004 and 2019. This article therefore has a contemporary outlook on local governments and IS.
A systematic text analysis was then performed on the 23 documents. This is a descriptive type of analysis in which the aim is to highlight and explain the most essential content within each text. In practice, this can be done by classifying content into intelligible categories and clarifying different thought structures therein (Esaiason et al., 2007). For the purpose of this paper, we used the typology developed by Bulkeley and Kern (2006), and Bulkeley et al. (2009) to code what governing modes have been used by local governments in earlier studies on IS. See Appendix 2 for a summary of the articles and manual coding. By combining earlier research on IS barriers with this categorization on governing modes, we could develop a framework for how local governments can approach different barriers to IS (see Table 1).

Results
The aim of this section is to provide an understanding of the role local governments play in IS, as described in the academic literature, and especially how this links to different governing modes, policy instruments and measures (see also Appendix B).
Results show that previous research has rarely focused on the role of local governments in IS. Rather, local governments are featured as one potential actor among an otherwise business-dominated partner network. The scant reference to local governments in texts also corresponds to the relatively small number of articles found in the literature searches (see "Methodology" above).
The literature provides few theoretical perspectives on governance (e.g. different governing approaches in IS networks) and even fewer perspectives on local governance and the meaning of creating publicprivate networks (e.g., Rhodes 1997;Sørensen and Torfing, 2007). Several articles had a conceptual approach combining economic evaluation, environmental assessment (e.g. CO 2 reduction), business, and modelling theories . One study looked at IS through the lens of innovation . Three articles compared different IS developments in Europe and/or the US . Five articles referred to organizational  and institutional theories . Out of these, two investigated the human dimension for capacity building and focused on social barriers . One focused on knowledge brokering and informational barriers . Elaborated perspectives on public-private partnerships for IS were suggested by  and .  and  examined the relationship between city planning and IS. Van Berkel et al. (2009), likewise, adopted a city perspective when studying the fundamentals of urban material and resource exchanges. Mapping city or local governments against strategies for local governance (Bulkeley and Kern, 2006;Bulkeley et al., 2009), however, appears to be a novel contribution to the field. Fig. 2 shows the frequency of reporting governing modes in the literature sample. The strongest correlation between local governments and IS networks seems to be linked to governing through enabling. Through the integration and coordination of actors, local governments mainly address economic, regulatory, social and information barriers. Indeed, several of the articles refer to local governments as important coordinators for, or "anchor tenants" in, IS networks . In this role, local authorities initiate, facilitate, promote and maintain the development of material exchanges and services Van Berkel, Fujita, Hashimoto & Geng, 2009;. They engage in knowledge brokering, and they simplify administrative processes, set common goals, and work to attract new members and partners for the IS network . To overcome information-related barriers such as lack of information exchange, a common strategy has been to provide a platform for data sharing . Lenhart et al. (2015, p. 595) address several of these factors when claiming that -Locally, public authorities often provide an initiating/coordinating function to steer urban symbiosis and facilitate action.
[…] They may serve as symbiosis facilitator or promoter: taking responsibility, providing information, discussing economic advantages with private actors, identifying champions or encouraging legislation […]. As local authorities are accountable to their citizens and businesses, they must provide transparent information and foster trust amongst a broad range of urban stakeholders.
Local governments usually do not have an equally prominent role in legislation and regulation as the national government, which makes it more difficult for some local governments to overcome regulatory barriers. In the IS literature, however, there are numerous examples of local governments governing by authority, by developing legal frameworks, policies and strategies, and planning documents for regulating the local and regional IS landscape (e.g. . In this context, Xiang and Yuan (2019, p. 277) suggest that, "to meet the needs of smart industrial parks, local governments should design targeted incentive policies to encourage information sharing, attract talent, save energy, reduce emissions, and protect the environment".
Governing through provision was another common strategy identified in previous studies. The role played by local governments in dealing with barriers related to lack of technology and infrastructure has been described by ,  and , while others have discussed barriers such as inappropriate institutional and structural capacity, including meeting venues . Through municipally owned waste and energy companies, local government can sustain IS networks by providing both goods and services. Moreover, local governments have been reported to manage economic barriers, provide advertising and assess regional markets for positive or negative competition (e.g. . Governing through partnership was mainly described in situations where local authorities had an active participatory role in the IS network (e.g. . More elaborated perspectives on public-private partnerships for IS have also been suggested by . For example, to overcome economic and social barriers, local governments could act as consumers of materials and by-products offered by corporate members of the IS network . Or they can engage in close collaboration with neighbouring local governments to strengthen an existing IS through urban and regional planning . Governing by partnership was also used as strategy to overcome information-related barriers (Wolf  -Governing through partnership -Governing by authority -Selfgoverning -Local governments collaborating with each other in urban and regional planning. -Local government developing policies that specify local and regional IS regulations. -Local government as producer and consumer of materials and by- Although less common, the literature sample also provided some examples of local governments engaging in IS through self-governing. This occurred especially in situations where local governments had started to implement their own symbiosis solutions, or where they owned facilities that were crucial to the functioning of the IS (e.g. . In this instance, the traditional business-to-business (B2B) approach in IS evolved into an authority-to-business (A2B) approach . City authorities thus established a relationship between their material (e.g. waste) flows and other industrial organizations. Self-governing was also practised in situations where organizational management processes were strengthened in urban and regional planning to specifically benefit IS implementation . Table 1 connects different governing modes to IS barriers, and examples of instruments and measures that can be applied to overcome them. For simplicity, we have grouped those barriers that fall within the same category and can be addressed by the same governing modes.

Discussion
Results show that all governing modes have a function and local governments can make use of several modes in combination to support the emergence and development of IS. Fig. 3 summarizes the theoretical framework developed in Table 1, and recapitulates the barriers addressed by local governments through different modes of governing. These frameworks can be used as inspiration for future activities, and be developed by adding or combining more examples of governing strategies.
Governing by self-government includes activities where the city has full control and manages its own operations. This can be an attractive tool if a municipality wants to push a market or a certain action (Bulkeley and Kern, 2006;Palm et al., 2020). However, this governing mode has been practised surprisingly little in IS. It was only found in relation to technical barriers, such as a lack of technology and infrastructure readiness (e.g. . The reason for this is probably that there is no formal requirement for local governments to implement IS; and that implementation requires collaboration and sharing of resources between several actors. Governing by authority, where local governments use strategies and sanctions to mandate an action , was primarily practised in relation to regulatory barriers. However, it was also applied to technical barriers such as lack of infrastructure development . Examples from previous research include situations where local governments have developed supportive local policies and programmes . Most of the regulatory barriers were related to unclear legislation , conflicting waste codes and regulations  and difficulties to obtain legal approval . Commonly, these barriers must be approached by national rather than local governments, which can explain why local governments have not been more active in this mode (Aid et al., 2017).
Governing by enabling refers to the capacity to persuade and encourage action through, e.g., subsidies, information, or facilitation of different initiatives (Palm et al., 2019). Governing by enabling could be identified in several of the earlier studies and was used in relation to economic, regulatory, social and information barriers. By taking a proactive role and establishing meeting arenas and test beds, local authorities facilitated and actively contributed to exchanges of resources between actors . Local governments also enabled knowledge and information exchange and made it easier for local and regional actors to come together in the pursuit of IS .
Governing by provision was used to approach four of the five barriers: technical, economic, social and information-related ones. Even if governing by provision deals with many different barriers, more or less similar measures are used across all cases. The strategy is to provide services and goods supporting IS. This can spur resource exchanges and circular solutions, but it can also negatively affect the market and outcompete local actors Palm et al., 2020).
Governing by partnership was likewise connected to several barrier categories. Compared with governing by enabling, this governing mode is based on a more equal relationship between local government and the other actors. While the local government has a distinct "external" role in governing through enabling (with responsibility to contribute, e.g., resources), governing by partnership allows investments to be evenly shared between partners. When this was used as a strategy, the main resource invested by the local government was time. The municipal administration thus engaged in different collaborations, gathering and circulating information to various stakeholders . Fig. 3 shows how different modes of governing can address typical IS barriers. For example, if a barrier of economic nature arises, local governments can look specifically into applying enabling or provisionary governing measures. This is intended to help companies and policymakers towards the implementation of industrial symbiosis.

Conclusions
This article has described a theoretical framework explaining how local governments can reduce barriers to the implementation of IS through different modes of governing: governing through enabling, provision, and partnership, governing by authority, and self-governing. The results show that local governments can adopt different governing roles to engage in IS through their means of operation. Commonly, local governments support IS in an enabling or providing function by promoting, coordinating and maintaining IS networks as well as by providing information, infrastructure and funding. They also leverage authoritarian and self-governance mechanisms, developing IS-relevant policies and regulation, and planning and controlling their own activities linked to material and resource flows. In doing so, they address economic, technical, regulatory, social and information-related barriers to IS in different ways.
In terms of policy recommendations for the future, we suggest that local governments establish a strategy on IS, including clearly defined goals and responsibilities, and methods to achieve these goals. Table 1 and Fig. 3 can be used as inspiration and tools for this purpose. Political support plays an important role both in legitimacy and for creating trust in a market or activity that the local government will invest in. Another recommendation is to strengthen governing by authority, by including physical planning as an instrument to coordinate actions across sectors. Another way forward is for local governments to demand certain IS services and, in this way, create an interest in IS solutions on the market. Alternatively, if resources exist, local governments could also initiate pilot projects.
For future research, it would be interesting to deepen the analysis of the potential policy instruments and measures that can be applied in relation to each of the five governing modes.

Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Barriers to industrial symbiosis (IS), by type and literature reference.

Category Barriers References Economic barriers
High investment costs  Difficulty in acquiring external investment capital; lack of funding, resources and time Tudor et al, 2007; Division of income and costs between organizations The use of by-products increases the effort of designing and operating production systems (additional treatment processes, tracking of sourcing, etc) and storage facilities  Mismatch between demand and supply; vulnerabilities due to material fluctuations Tudor et al, 2007 Variations in, or issues related to, waste quality   Other priorities in the company/companies  Lack of trust between organizations  Asymmetric interdependencies and power imbalances between actors  Lack of institutional support for integration, coordination and communication  Information-related barriers Lack of necessary information or data; lack of training for implementing IS  Lack of facilitation; insufficient information systems for collecting, storing and working with operational data  Lack of awareness of IS concepts; lack of information about other companies' by-products and waste flows Tudor et al, 2007 Lack of contact and communication between companies; lack of information sharing Levänen & Hukkinen, 2013;Tudor et al, 2007 Unclear roles of public and private actors involved in the IS Tudor et al, 2007 Lack of community awareness and technical knowledge   public sector stakeholders from local, regional and national government agencies;  …" (p. 987)

6
Horvath & Harazin (2015). A framework for an industrial ecological decision support system to foster partnerships between businesses and governments for sustainable development.
1. Self-governing/ governing through partnership 1. "… local authorities ought to consider a more active participation in industrial ecological systems, transcending the traditional role of legislator, and assuming one as consumer of by-products of industrial processes, in order to better fulfil their responsibilities where this is feasible." (p. 215) 2. Governing by authority 2. "… local governments need to take a proactive role in creating streamlined decision-making mechanisms to facilitate closing open loops." (p. 215) 3. Governing through enabling 3. "… through a more proactive and coordinative role of the local authority, the intensity of industrial ecology is increased. Planning and advanced coordination are a prerequisite." (p. 217) 7 . is coordinated by Rotterdam's local authority, in partnership with architects and academic institutions in its design, and housing corporations and energy companies in its implementation." (p. 593) 2. Governing though enabling 2. "Locally, public authorities often provide an initiating/coordinating function to steer urban symbiosis and facilitate action … They may serve as symbiosis facilitator or promoter: taking responsibility, providing information, discussing economic advantages with private actors, identifying champions or encouraging legislation […]. As local authorities are accountable to their citizens and businesses, they must provide transparent information and foster trust amongst a broad range of urban stakeholders." (p. 595) 3. Governing through enabling/self-governing 3. "In its initial stage(s), REAP is predominantly 'led' by the local authority, with architects and academics included in the design stage. In later stages, housing corporations, energy companies and infrastructure providers were brought in. The local authority serves as coordinator, facilitator and information provider. This is in part because of REAP's nature, which attempts to address energy and urban planning simultaneously; and the possible ambiguity of this approach, which could lead to internal fragmentation if different departments (with competing perspectives and priorities) disagree.
[…] To limit competing perspectives or possible (internal) fragmentation, the local authority initially acted rather introverted, developing an internal vision among its departments; external partners were engaged only later." (p. 599) 4. Governing through enabling 4. "Moving from design to implementation, the local authority took a step back in the case of REAP: providing information, support and stimulation, but making limited use of regulatory measures." (p. 596) 8 . A paradigm of constructing industrial symbiosis and coupling in China's county-region economic sustainable development.
1. Governing by authority 1. "The local government should guide the scientific planning of county-region industries' layout, structure, symbiosis, and coupling relationships. By means of environmental cost internalization, region industries' symbiosis and coupling size, roles of social network, cultivation of innovative culture, guidance of government subsidy, pressure from public monitoring, the market mechanism, and economic incentives will play roles in resource allocation." (p. 1218) 2. Governing through enabling 2. "In practice, the local government or industrial authority can design the 'lack in' value chain parts and package them into some feasible and profitable projects open to the market investors, encourage firms to participate [in] regional industrial symbiosis and coupling, and construct a complete industrial chain or network, in order to realize the integration of closedcircuit industry, higher value-added ecological agriculture, tourism and related service sectors, creative economic industrial park[s], urbanization, and [the] ecological environment. This will avoid the heavy damage from traditional industrialization and urbanization on [the] county-regional ecological environment, and then realize the harmony development of [a] county-regional recycle economy, society, and environment." (p. 1218) 9 Music (2019) This was the result of the interaction between national, local government, industries, and other entities who, from a set of concerted actions, such as the provision of a large area at lower prices for industri [al] implementation, holding meetings to inform and promote relationships between agents, and through waste management facilities, provide a cluster for waste treatment and recovery, attract more companies to the site and make them participate in the industrial symbiosis network, and thus contribute to the development of the municipality …" (p. 9) 2. Governing through enabling 2. "… it was important to have a facilitating entity that analyzed the possible symbioses in advance with the quantification of some of the potential benefits to be achieved and promoted […] trusting relationships [with the companies] that served as the foundation of the industrial symbiosis networks. This facilitating role can be performed by different entities, whether public or private, such as local authorities and private or public organizations … Regional governments can also play an important role in creating industrial symbiosis relationships because they are closer to businesses and have an interest in developing the municipality from an economic and environmental point of view." (p. 16) 3. Governing through enabling 3. "Further, the example of Relvão Eco Industrial Park illustrates how important local government is and how it can act as a driving force for symbiosis relations. However, there is a need for the central government to provide information and sensitization to local authorities so that they are motivated to take action to trigger the establishment of industrial symbiosis networks." (p. 16) 11 . A critical appraisal of an UK county waste minimisation programme: the requirement for regional facilitated development of industrial symbiosis/ecology. industry and academia. The strategy aims to strengthen circular economy implementation in real-world systems through five identified goals.
[…] a move towards a circular economy is supported through regional strategy implementation. […] Regulations need to support the implementation of effective symbioses emerging from new solutions, but are also needed to safeguard the environment and human health when closing biological loops." (p. 1) 2. Governing by authority 2. "… the Finnish governance system with its multi-stakeholder co-operation is interesting from the point of view of CE [circular economy] implementation because Finnish municipalities are granted a high level of authority, while regional governments consist of a consortium of such municipalities […].
The key role of municipalities has been acknowledged in, for instance, climate change mitigation, where they have been leading the way with stricter greenhouse gas emission reduction targets than those developed at the national level ..." (p. 2) 3. Governing through enabling 3. "… to achieve a CE, it is essential for national, regional and local authorities and governments to enable such transition […]. This means that a CE requires efforts at macro, meso and micro levels in order to promote the change." (p. 1) 16 . Understanding and addressing business needs and sustainability challenges: lessons from Devens eco-industrial park.
1. Governing through provision/governing by authority 1. "… local government efforts to develop Devens infrastructure and establish supportive sustainability policies and programs were in line with business needs and a key factor for Devens' success." (p. 375) 2. Governing by authority 2. "Local governments can play a particularly important role in promoting cluster development and firm competitiveness by setting clear and measurable social goals which can promote social development and business sustainability (e.g. around energy use, health and safety or infrastructure improvement) ..." (p. 377) 17 Von . Networking for knowledge transfer: towards an understanding of local authority roles in regional industrial ecosystem management.
1. Governing through enabling 1. "LAs [local authorities], besides initiating networks and being network brokers and managers, can act as 'knowledge banks' or 'knowledge brokers'. As a 'knowledge bank', officers in the LA hold the knowledge transferred to companies and engage closely with the companies in small active networks. As 'knowledge brokers', LA officers are less active and mainly help companies to get in contact with consultants and technical experts who hold the knowledge needed for developing environmental management in the companies. In all, the roles identified could be seen as more specific approaches to be taken by the LA when playing the overall role of an institutional anchor tenant, facilitating development and management of regional industrial ecosystems." (p. 334) 2. Governing by authority/governing through enabling/ governing through partnership/self-governing 2. "LAs have long since been involved in the greening of industry and environmental governance in general, but are now playing more diverse roles than in the early days of environmental policy. In Sweden and many other European countries, LAs have changed from serving primarily as regulatory supervisors, controlling hierarchically what is going on in industry, to also serve as agitators and role models towards other actors in the local communities, as well as mutually dependent collaborating partners in regional networks for environmental management […]. The central participation of LAs in industrial ecosystem development and management is not only hypothetical. In fact, LAs are taking an active part in the realworld development of eco-industrial parks ..." (p. 336) 3. Governing through partnerships/ governing through provision 3. "… LAs initiate the PPPs [public-private partnerships] and facilitate the creation of regional networks with an expectation to contribute to the development of economic and particularly social structures of the regions, as a means to enable a positive regional welfare development. Moreover, they act as network hub actors and they care for the leadership of the collaborative actions. They also play an important role in providing funding [for] the collaborative activities, though many companies have to invest themselves, and substantial support is provided by grants from the national business development agency …" (p. 339) 4. Governing through enabling 4. "Acting as a knowledge broker, the LA, or rather some of its units, plays a central role in the process of individual and organizational learning among the companies in the network. However, it does not engage operatively in the specific knowledge creation and transfer process. Rather, it acts to enable the ones that [are] in need of knowledge and ideas, i.e. the companies that are to develop their environmental management, to get in contact with the actors that hold the relevant knowledge, information and ideas to help the companies, i.e. the external consultancies." (p. 339) 5. Governing through enabling 5. "… the LA, or rather some of its units, also plays a central role in the process of individual and organizational learning among the companies in the network when it acts as a knowledge bank.
[…] however, the LA now engages actively and operatively in the specific knowledge creation and transfer process, providing the knowledge needed in the companies that are to develop their environmental management." (p. 340)