Lessons Learned About the Hindering Factors for Regional Cooperation Towards the Mitigation of Climate Change

  • Pınar Gökçin ÖzuyarEmail author
Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)


As the importance of climate change mitigation and adaptation increases, tools to assist these ranging from training materials, awareness raising event models to company level cooperation tools are being introduced to various stakeholders. These tools can only be effective by extensive utilisation throughout the globe which requires the communication and awareness raising on climate change. The actual implementation and impact assessment of these tools need to be further investigated. Opportunities and barriers for the use of such tools and whether climate change communication is an enhancing or hindering effect is very important in this investigation. As an example for such a tool, an industrial symbiosis model where an unorthodox regional approach is taken rather than close proximity cooperating companies, has been implemented in the Western Black Sea Region countries. The results of the study include three major barriers; namely, lack of regional policy and relevant legislation, trust among companies and a common working language in the region. The effects of other barriers and possible opportunities that would hinder these barriers are discussed in this study including the lack of regional policies on climate change based on one-to-one interviews with selected company representatives in the region. The lessons learned are significant for similar regional exemplary tools of sustainable development and climate change mitigation practices.


Industrial symbiosis Regional cooperation Industry Cross-border activities Sustainable development 


  1. Aydin M, Triantaphyllou D (2010) A 2020 vision for the Black Sea region: the Commission on the Black Sea proposes. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 10(3):373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baas LW, Boons FA (2004) An industrial ecology project in practice: exploring the boundaries of decision-making levels in regional industrial systems. J Clean Prod 12:1073–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boons FA, Baas LW (1997) Types of industrial ecology: the problem of coordination. J Clean Prod 5(1–2):79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Capstick SB, Pidgeon NF (2014) What is climate change scepticism? Examination of the concept using a mixed methods study of the UK public. Glob Environ Change 24:389–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chertow M (2000) Industrial symbiosis: literature and taxonomy. Ann Rev Energ Environ 25:313–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chertow M (2007) Uncovering industrial symbiosis. J Ind Ecol 11(1):11–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chertow MR, Ashton WS, Espinosa JC (2008) Industrial symbiosis in Puerto Rico: environmentally related agglomeration economies. Reg Stud 42(10):1299–1312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davy R, Gnatiuk N, Pettersson L, Bobylev L (2017) Climate change impacts on wind energy potential in the European domain with a focus on the Black Sea. Renew Sustain Energ Rev. (In Press, Corrected Proof) Scholar
  9. Delgado JA, Li R (2016) The Nanchang communication about the potential for implementation of conservation practices for climate change mitigation and adaptation to achieve food security in the 21st century. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 4:148–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dulic A, Angel J, Sheppard S (2016) Designing futures: inquiry in climate change communication. Futures 81:54–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ebi KL, Frumkin H, Hess JJ (2017) Protecting and promoting population health in the context of climate and other global environmental changes. Anthropocene 19:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frosch RA, Gallopoulos NE (1989) Strategies for manufacturing. Sci Am 266:144–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gavras P (2010) The current state of economic development in the Black Sea Region. Southeast Eur Black Sea Stud 10(3):263–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glaser EG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Weidenfeld and Nicplson, London, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  15. Glass E, Ballantyne AG, Neset T-S, Linner B-O, Navarra C, Johansson TO, Rod JK, Goodsite ME (2015) Facilitating climate change adaptation through communication: insights from the development of a visualization tool. Energ Res Soc Scie 10:57–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hart A, Clift R, Riddlestone S, Buntin J (2005) Use of life cycle assessment to develop industrial ecologies—a case study: graphics paper. Process Saf Environ Prot 83(4):359–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jelinski LW, Graedel TE, Laudise RA, McCall DW, Patel CKN (1992) Industrial ecology: concepts and approaches. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 89:793–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaltenborn BP, Olve Krange O, Tangeland T (2017) Cultural resources and public trust shape attitudes toward climate change and preferred futures—a case study among the Norwegian public. Futures 89:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Manzo K (2017) The usefulness of climate change films. Geoforum 84:88–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCright AM, Marquart-Pyatt ST, Shwom RL, Brechin SR, Allen S (2016) Ideology, capitalism, and climate: explaining public views about climate change in the United States. Energ Res Soc Sci 21:180–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schmidt A, Ivanova A, Schafer MS (2013) Media attention for climate change around the world: a comparative analysis of newspaper coverage in 27 countries. Glob Environ Change 23:1233–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thompson JE (2017) Survey data reflecting popular opinions of the causes and mitigation of climate change. Data in Brief 14:412–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tvinnereim E, Fløttum K, Gjerstad Ø, Johannesson MP, Nordø AD (2017) Citizens’ preferences for tackling climate change. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of their freely formulated solutions. Glob Environ Change 46:34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Valentine SV (2016) Kalundborg symbiosis: fostering progressive innovation in environmental networks. J Clean Prod 118:65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Van Berkel R, Fujita T, Hashimoto S, Fuji M (2009) Quantitative assessment of urban and industrial symbiosis in Kawasaki (Japan). Environ Sci Technol 43(5):1271–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wolf A (2007) Industrial symbiosis in the Swedish forest industry. Doctoral dissertation thesis, Department of Management and Engineering, Linkoping Institute of Technology, Linkoping, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhao Y, Shang J, Chong C, Wu H (2008) Simulation and evaluation on the eco-industrial system of Changchun economic and technological development zone China. Environ Monit Assess 139:339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BusinessOzyegin UniversityAlemdagTurkey

Personalised recommendations