Next Article in Journal
Economic Complexity of the City Cluster in Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area, China
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Railway Noise on People Based on Strategic Acoustic Maps
Previous Article in Special Issue
The EMAS Registration of the Livenza Furniture District in the Province of Pordenone (Italy)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 14
10.3390/su12145634
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Energy Clusters as a New Urban Symbiosis Concept for Increasing Renewable Energy Production—A Case Study of Zakopane City

by
Agnieszka Czaplicka-Kotas
1,*,
Joanna Kulczycka
2,* and
Natalia Iwaszczuk
1
1
Faculty of Management, AGH University of Science and Technology, 30-067 Cracow, Poland
2
Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, 31-261 Cracow, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(14), 5634; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su12145634
Submission received: 27 May 2020 / Revised: 7 July 2020 / Accepted: 8 July 2020 / Published: 13 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Life Cycle Thinking and Industrial Symbiosis: Challenges for A Sustainable Growth)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
One of the priority lines of action in Poland is to increase energy production from renewable energy sources (RESs). Based on the “Poland’s national energy and climate plan for the years 2021–2030”, Poland aims to achieve 21%–23% of RES share in gross final energy consumption by 2030. While coal is still the most important source of energy, new technological and organisational solutions for increasing RESs are being tested and implemented. Therefore, the creation of energy clusters based on the idea of urban and industrial symbiosis was first proposed by the Ministry of Energy in 2016. To date, there are 66 clusters in different regions in Poland, but only a few of them are active and innovative. One of them is located in the city of Zakopane, a mountain resort, which attracts about 3 million tourists annually and has developed the wide-ranging use of geothermal sources for energy supply and recreation. The paper aims to analyse the impact of the creation of energy clusters on the city’s development, including economic, social, and environmental aspects. The “willingness to pay” (WTP) method was used to calculate the impact of air pollution on Zakopane and to compare it with the Polish average to estimate the significance of the transformation to RESs in this tourist city. The results from the studies are as follows: health cost per capita in Zakopane is between 252.07 and 921.30 euro. The investigations presented can be the basis for recommendations in strategic documents in the field of regional development and environmental protection, especially on the use and promotion of urban symbiosis for increasing use of RESs.

1. Introduction

It has been observed that the rate of urbanisation has been increasing in recent years—in the 1950s, 30% of the population lived in urban areas; in the 2010s, the rate reached 55%, and according to forecasts it may be as high as 68% in the 2050s [1]. Due to ongoing change, cities are focusing their strategies on their environmental and social performance, including, e.g., climate change and energy scarcity [2,3]. Different projects designed to achieve environmental goals are underway, for example the assessment and accounting of the urban ecological footprint, effective treatment and management of municipal wastes, ecologically sustainable urban areas, planning and development of an eco-city [4]. However, there is still evidence of positive interdependence between the development of fragmented urban areas and the concentration of air pollutants [5,6]. The most common health impact of air pollutions is heart disease and stroke, which causes premature death [7]. On a global scale, air pollution is responsible for 20% of the deaths caused by cardiopulmonary disease in the world [8]. One of the leading global risks is particulate matter (PM2.5), which leads to 6%–7% of annual deaths around the world [9]—in Europe alone, the concentration of this particulate matter (PM) is responsible for 428,000 premature deaths [10]. Lelieveld et al. (2015) have estimated that pollution such as PM2.5 and O3 contributed to a global mortality of 3.3 million in 2010 [11].
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 36 of the 50 most polluted cities in the European Union are located in Poland [12]. This issue is connected with particulate matter (PM), which not only cause environmental damage but also is a key factor leading to cardiovascular diseases and lung cancer [13]. At the local level, different types of strategies are being implemented, such as low carbon planning, the eco-city, or the rules of clean production. However, this is still not enough. One of the solutions for decreasing air pollution in economic, social, and environmental areas is the development of renewable energy sources (RESs). In the long-term perspective, this is a global priority on a local and national level. On the local level, the development of RESs is supported by different programmes such as tax incentives, legal restrictions, and national support funds [14,15]. A unique idea of developing energy clusters based on idea of urban symbiosis to increase RESs was introduced in Poland in 2016 by the Act of 22 June 2016 on Renewable Energy Sources (RES Act, 2016). An energy cluster is defined as “a civil law agreement, which may include natural persons, legal persons, scientific units, research institutes or local government units, and which pertains to the generation and balancing of demand, distribution or turnover of energy from renewable sources, or other sources or fuels, within a distribution network with a rated voltage of less than 110 kV” [16]. The main goal of the activity of these entities is energy security based on local resources, which influences the achievement of the sustainable goals of a global economy at the national level. There are also other objectives that are perceived as key factors in the energy clusters’ activities, such as environmental protection, effective use of local resources, (including wasted or underutilised ones) supporting well-balanced urbanisation, and balancing the use of distributed energy generation with conventional energy.
The development of the clusters usually has a common point with urban and industrial symbiosis, which aims to use the potential synergy effects on the geographical localisation of the companies [17,18]. Moreover, urban symbiosis focuses on the possibility of cooperation in urban areas or between industry and urban functions [19]. One of the primary goals of the development of urban symbiosis is to close the loop of material and energy flows within a given urban area [20]. The research shows that implementation of the urban symbiosis has a positive impact on among others: carbon emission reduction [21,22], improvement in waste management [23], and the development of eco-town programmes [24]. Often the countries that are developing, develop or have already developed the national agenda for industrial symbiosis (i.e., Green Industrial Symbiosis in Denmark)-supported clustering such as Kalundborg and Kwinana [25,26]. The EU plans to foster circular industrial collaboration among SMEs on cluster collaboration [27]. In practice, urban symbiosis is often referring to the use of waste from urban areas as a raw material or source of energy [28].
In Poland, one of the ideas of urban symbiosis focus is the concept of energy clusters. Such a solution has been supported by three institutions, the Ministry of Energy, the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management, and the Ministry of Investment and Development [29]. So far, 66 clusters have been selected to provide the transition from conventional centralised energy generation and fossil fuel usage towards a renewables-based decentralised energy system and to contribute to business competitiveness, reduced resource demand and environmental impact, and to sustainable societal developments. Such an idea should be assessed in three dimensions (environmental, economic, and social) using a life cycle perspective [30], taking into account not only technological but also economic and social acceptance using, i.e., multi-objective model to optimise the mix of renewable energy [31]. The development of an energy cluster can bring additional social and environmental benefits, which can be estimated using the willingness to pay (WTP) method. WTP method was used, e.g., for smart home energy products and information services [32]; to calculate green electricity in Japan [33], wind energy in Canada [34], expenditure for research and development of solar energy in China [35]; to reduce CO2 emission [36], and as a determinant of tourists’ intention to pay a premium for accommodation in a hotel with renewable energy sources [37]; nevertheless, the research on WTP that supports clean air transition by using urban symbiosis for promoting RESs in tourist resorts has not been identified.
The aim of this paper is to estimate WTP for the most attractive mountain resort in Poland, i.e., Zakopane, where an energy cluster has been developed, and to compare it with the WTP for Poland which was investigated on the publication of the “External health costs of air pollution emission from the municipal and housing sector”. Based on the results of an analysis, the advantages of developing the idea of local industrial symbiosis based on energy clusters can be estimated, and those should be a critical factor in RES increase in Zakopane.

2. Materials and Methods

In 2010, in countries that are part of the WHO European Region alone, the overall annual economic cost of health impacts and mortality from air pollution was estimated to be US$ 1.575 trillion [38]. In the case of air pollution, the WTP method can be used for example: as a tool for assessing how much an entity could pay to improve air quality [39], as a source of information on the costs of air quality improvement that shows a positive influence on our health [40], to eliminate the risk of death [38].
To estimate the cost of air quality improvement in Zakopane and to compare it to the rest of Poland, the methodology based on the publication of the “External health costs of air pollution emission from the municipal and housing sector” [41] was applied. The algorithm for the calculation of the external cost for the city of Zakopane is presented in Figure 1.
The first step in the analysis was to estimate the level of air pollution based on the data from the Inspector of Environmental Protection in order to demonstrate the scale of the problem. The number of deaths caused by air pollution was taken from Central Statistical Office data (based on the recommendation introduced by the WHO, the analysis only includes deaths among people over the age of 30) [38,41]. Then the number of premature deaths caused by PM2.5 and PM10 emitted by the municipal-utility sector was analysed. For these calculations, the tool based on Health Impact Assessment (HIA) practices proposed in the Aphekom project (Improving knowledge and communication for decision-making on air pollution and health in Europe) [42] was used. The following data relating to the levels in Zakopane were analysed: emissions of PM2.5 and PM10, deaths caused by pollution, population numbers.
The tool enables the calculation of the number of premature deaths in Zakopane and the preparation of an estimate of the gain in life expectancy. The calculation used the concentration–response function, which estimates the “percentage change in health outcome per unit change in pollutant levels” [43].
Then, maximum and minimum WTPs per Polish citizen, according to [41] were calculated based on the following publications:
  • “Economic valuation of air pollution mortality”, “A 9-country contingent valuation survey of the value of a life year (VOLY)” [44],
  • “Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)” [45].
The minimum WTP for the average Polish citizen is €25,000, i.e., the value of lost statistical life, and for the maximum WTP, the indicator of lost statistical life is €1.57 million [41]. These values were applied for the calculation of the total WTP value in Zakopane city (multiplying by the number of premature deaths). It also allows one to calculate the potential benefit associated with decreasing pollution through the use of RESs after implementing an energy cluster policy.

3. Case Study—Zakopane

The tourism sector significantly influences the development of the Polish economy; it accounted for 5%–6% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Poland [46]. Moreover, in 2016 Poland recorded its largest-ever number of foreign tourists: i.e., 18.3 million persons [47], primarily in Kraków and Zakopane [48].
Zakopane is a mountain resort with high-quality tourist attractions, in which there are 269 accommodation facilities [49] in an area of 84 km2 and with 27,305 inhabitants. Particularly popular and well-known tourist features include Tatra National Park–3 million tourists, The Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima in Krzeptowki—2 million travellers, the Tatra Museum in Zakopane—147,728 tourists [50]. Although Zakopane is one of the most popular tourist destinations in Poland, due to its location and the emission of dust and gas pollution, it is also one of the most polluted cities in the country. Zakopane is located in a valley, where there is often an air inversion layer that holds all dirt close to the ground causing smog. In the EU, it is ranked in 19th place in terms of PM10 pollution and 11th place in terms of PM2.5 [51]. A high concentration of PM in the air results from, among other sources, emissions from municipal sources, transport, the combustion of fuels in district heating and ineffective coal combustion systems in heating stoves and coal-fired boilers [52].
So far, Zakopane city has been implementing different actions and projects for environmental protection, including:
  • A low-interest rate loan programme “JAWOR” for installing heating systems for individuals,
  • financial support from National Fund of Environmental Protection and Water Management for thermo-modernization of the building and replacement or purchase and installation of low-emission heat sources.
Zakopane city implemented a programme for a low-carbon economy (also covering The Low Emissions Reduction Programme [53] and the Urban Mobility Plan for the Zakopane area [54]), in which the main goals for 2020 are as follows:
  • reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 14,022.84 Mg/year, i.e., 3.87%,
  • reduction of energy consumption by 2020 by 18,982.65 MWh/year,
  • an increase in the share of renewable energy in total consumption of 0.16% per annum (excluding the heating network) and by 0.5% (including the heating network).
The aim is to reduce pollution by increasing the energy production from RESs with the support of the government. In Zakopane, the total share of RESs is much higher than the Polish average. It amounts to 16.45% due to the use of geothermal energy, which accounts for about 80% of renewable energy in the RES consumption [53]. The distributor and producer of heat from this resource is Geotermia Podhalańska S.A., which provides approx. 35% of the heat demand in Zakopane (in 2015, the sale of heat from geothermal energy was 356.15 TJ and that from natural gas was 37.34 TJ) [55]. Geotermia Podhalańska S.A. is the first installation in Poland since 2005 to start using geothermal resources, contributing directly to the reduction in the SO2 concentration by about 68% after the project was put into operation, lowering the suspended particulate matter concentration (PM10), and reducing CO2 emissions [56]. The company’s activity covers not only heating but also air conditioning, tourism, recreation, and balneology. The Regional Operational Programme for the Małopolska Region project on “Construction of heating networks and connections in the commune of the city of Zakopane and the communes of Poronin, Biały Dunajec and Szaflary in order to increase the use of RESs and reduce the emission of pollutants into the air” includes work planned in Zakopane on the construction of a heating network, a new pumping station, and connections to existing and new facilities [57].
Based on the small share of other RESs, some initiatives are being taken at the local level to promote projects on solar energy, hydropower, and energy from biomass, among others. Data analysis shows high solar radiation (1467 h/year), understood as time, given in hours per year, during which sunlight is directly reaching the Earth’s surface, [58] indicating the possible development of photovoltaic energy in the area of five hydroelectric power stations in Kuźnice, Olcza, Zakopane-Ustup, Zakopane-Jaszczurówka [53]. This is in line with the idea of an energy cluster, therefore, there are two certificated clusters, that have been created in Zakopane and provided organisational changes and new investment, which are in line with urban symbiosis, i.e.,:
  • Klaster Zielone Podhale comprises 32 units which aim to improve peoples’ quality of life and promote the sustainable development of a tourist region through increasing the production of energy from RESs, mainly geothermal and solar. Members of the cluster are local administrations, heat and energy producers, large energy consumers, and a scientific organisation, i.e., AGH University of Science and Technology. The geothermal water is used not only for heating (about 90% of hotels in Zakopane are already connected to the heating network), but there are few aqua parks, which are providing additional touristic attractiveness in the region. Cluster partners applied for different environmental programmes for research, new drillings, and setting of new infrastructure [59]. Moreover, the cluster partners plan to a build Tatra solar power plant, which aims to obtain an energy surplus of 2962 MWh/year [60].
  • Klaster Serce Podhala aims to increase the use of geothermal resources by initialling a joint initiative of the Szaflary commune and the existing Geotermia Podhalańska S.A.
The cluster influences not only on Zakopane but the whole Tatra Poviat, which includes Zakopane and rural communes: Biały Dunajec, Bukowina Tatrzańska, Kościelisko, Poronin. The main aim of the creation of an energy cluster is to reduce air pollution, develop local energy sources, increase efficiency, and ensure safe energy sources. As the cluster is managed by the local community, the price of heat and energy could be lower for cluster members, which can be a stimulus for regional development. Moreover, the energy cluster policy in Poland proposes more benefits for members of energy clusters and local communities by:
  • Decreasing the investment risk due to balancing the supply and demand side,
  • Creation of a synergy effect for all stakeholders to ensure a stable source of energy with a reasonable price,
  • Decreasing the impact on the environment due to the limiting of emissions, management of waste, etc.
  • Development and effective use of a dispersed source of energy,
  • Promoting innovative solutions and closer cooperation between science and business,
  • Raising local awareness of the environmental aspects due to better education and the promotion of environmentally friendly investment.

4. Results

To estimate the advantages of developing the idea of energy clusters and the increase in the use of RESs in Zakopane, a calculation of external costs using WTP was conducted and compared to the calculation of WTP in each step for Poland, which was investigated by Adamkiewicz [41]. According to the methodology presented, first, the sources of pollution and the number of deaths caused by air pollution were analysed. In Poland, the municipal and housing sector has a significant role in the levels of concentration of air pollution [61,62,63]. Based on data from the Report [41], the municipal and housing sector is responsible for 41% of PM2.5 emissions in urban areas. An analysis of PM in Poland (urban areas), which was investigated in the Report [41] and in Zakopane, was taken into account in the estimation of premature deaths and the statistical value of a life (Table 1).
Based on the data presented in Table 1, it can be concluded that, in the analysis period, the concentration of PM2.5 in the air in Zakopane is decreasing, whereas, in Poland, the PM2.5 in the air in 2013 was higher than that in 2011 [41]. The indirect reasons for the decrease of concentration of air pollutions in Zakopane are among others: subsidies for replacement of coal boilers from European Funds [64] and investments related to geothermal sources of energy [65]. In addition to that, the national programmes such as “Clean Air” or “Stop Smog” (also in Zakopane), which mainly focused on the reduction of air pollutions, were introduced. Low-efficiency heating devices for solid fuels are mostly causing the concentration of PM in the municipal and housing sector in Zakopane as well as in other polluted cities in Poland.
Due to lower PM2.5 concentrations, the number of deaths caused by air pollution in Zakopane calculated by the Central Statistical Office (CSO) was one death for every eighty-nine people (1/89), whereas in Poland it was 1/70. The main causes of death in Zakopane were cardiovascular diseases (44.7%), cancer (22%), and respiratory diseases (7%) [66].
The next step was to calculate the number of deaths for Zakopane and compare it with that in the rest of Poland (summarise urban and extra-urban areas), which were investigated in the Report [41]. According to the WHO recommendations, this should take into account the adult population (age 30+ years) to estimate the long-term health impact caused by PM2.5 (Table 2).
The research carried out by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) shows that the negative impact on life expectancy due to the density of PM2.5 for the average citizen of Poland accounts for 6–12 months, and for an inhabitant of Zakopane for more than 12 months [67]. In Zakopane, one of the factors related to premature deaths is air pollution generated by municipal and housing sector through the use of the low-quality coal and obsolete coal furnaces. Therefore, due to the Air Protection Program adopted by the Malopolska in 2013, Zakopane by the end of 2015 was obliged to eliminate 496 coal-fired furnaces and by 2023, the remaining 2230 furnaces [68].
According to the algorithm presented, it is estimated that there were 15–16 premature deaths caused by PM from the municipal and housing sector in Zakopane in the period analysed (Table 3) and compared to 19,000–22,000 in Poland based on the Report [41]. For Poland, Adamkiewicz [41] used methodology based on the health risks of air pollution—HRAPIE project and for Zakopane, the Aphekom project—both approaches are based on concentration–response functions [43].
The number of premature deaths and value of lost statistical life in Zakopane was calculated using an Excel tool. In the light of the recommendations of the Aphekom project, the long-term impacts of PM2.5 were taken into account based on two scenarios [43]:
  • Scenario 1, where the PM2.5 yearly mean is decreased to 5 µg/m3. In that case, ∆x = 5 µg/m3, RR per 10 µg/m3 = 1.06 [1.02–1.11], β = 0.0058269) [13],
  • Scenario 2, where the PM2.5 yearly mean is decreased to 10 µg/m3. In that case, ∆x = ([PM2.5] mean 10 µg/m3). ∆x = 0 if [PM2.5] mean < 10, RR per 10 µg/m3 = 1.12 [1.08–1.15] β = 0.0056664) [69],
(∆x is the decrease in the concentration defined by the scenario, β is the concentration–response functions, relative risk ratio (RR) per 10 µg/m3 = exp (10* β)).
Premature deaths in Zakopane consist of 0.07%–0.08% of the total premature deaths in Poland (Table 3) and years of life lost (YLL) consists of from 13% to 17% of the total YLL in Poland. Due to the analysis of data in Table 3, comparing 2011 and 2016, it can be deduced that in Poland the total number of premature deaths and YLL decreased [41], while the increase in Zakopane has been noted. In EU-28, the number of premature deaths has decreased by 10%. The same trend was observed in the case of YLL, where a decrease of 8% was noticed throughout the same period [70,71].
In the next step of the analysis, results were calculated according to the algorithm presented (VOLY, [35]) and the maximum values (OECD, [36]) of WTP (Table 4) for Zakopane and compared with the results from Poland, which were provide in the Report [41]. The calculation of WTP took into account the whole population of Poland and Zakopane.
The amount of health cost per capita in Zakopane was between 252.07 and 921.30 euro, whereas in Poland it was between 274.34 and 912.46 euro in 2011–2016 [41] (Table 4). During the analysed period, the average citizen of Zakopane was willing to pay more for fresh air than the average citizen of Poland (Table 4). This proves that the inhabitants of Zakopane suffer because of the high concentration of PM in the air, which is related to, among other factors, the municipal and housing sector. Based on the geographical location of the city, during the winter, the London type of smog occurs in Zakopane. The maximum concentration of benzopyrene in the air was 900% of the norm, what among others has a negative impact on the health of the habitats of Zakopane [72]. Each year the number of days surpassing the limit of dust concentration in the air has passed 67. This is the equivalent of 2139 cigarettes smoked by each inhabitant of Zakopane annually [73]. The situation has majorly raised the awareness of the citizens of Zakopane throughout the last years. The process of replacing 700 old boilers with ecological heat sources is currently ongoing in Zakopane [74].
However, the health cost of pollution is relatively high in comparison to that in some other studies where the use of the WTP method was applied for examining issues related to polluted air. In China, for example, the mean value of WTP for mitigating smog is 206.15 euro per year, which is 1% of income [75], in the United States, the air improvement is worth about $40 [76]. In Mexico, it costs 2000 dollars for a one-unit reduction in particulate matter emissions per year [77]. Compared to the results of WTP for Zakopane and the research in the Report [41], it may be concluded that citizens of Poland and Zakopane are willing to pay more for the reduction of air pollution. The difference between the WTP results in different countries are caused by, among others: awareness of the local community, effective implementation of clean air policy, and various shares of sources of pollution emissions.
Therefore, the topic will be extended in the discussion on the level of pollution, the health cost, and the role of the cluster, which may have a positive impact on the health and quality of people’s lives in Zakopane.

5. Discussion

Our study undertook a comparison of the WTP approach for estimating the health cost for the municipal utility sector for results from Zakopane and compare it to the results presented by Adamkiewicz [41]. In 2016, there is a difference between the health cost per capita in Zakopane, which was 921.3 euro, and in Poland where the “maximum” cost was 775.75 euro [41] (Table 4). It can also be observed in the number of premature deaths between 2011 and 2016, which in Zakopane accounted for between 15 and 16 people, compared to the whole of Poland where the range was between 19,000 and 22,000 people [41]. Ligus (2018) [78], using a contingent valuation survey, demonstrated that the WTP for clean air for a Polish citizen was 59.48 EUR. On the basis of the above-mentioned research, it may be observed that Polish citizens can pay six times less in the best option for clean air.
Statistics show that almost 60% of premature deaths in Europe between 1990 and 2015 were caused by PM2.5 emissions European Environment Agency (EEA). Based on the EEA data, particulate matter in Europe continues to cause the premature death of more than 400,000 Europeans annually (in 2014, 1700 premature deaths were caused by PM10 and 46,020 by PM2.5) [79]. In 2015, Poland was ranked in third place in the EU-28 in numbers of premature deaths (there were 38,006 premature deaths annually) as well as third place in years of life lost (YLL) (1403 YLL per 100,000 inhabitants) (EEA) [80]. Similar results are confirmed in the literature on the subject, for example, Tainio et al. (2013) estimated that 39,800 premature deaths were caused by PM2.5 pollution in the year 2000 in Poland [81].
There are a few reasons, among others, which result in these outcomes:
  • The data obtained for the analyses of PM10 and PM2.5 were taken from one monitoring station in Zakopane operated by the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection. The analysis would be more comprehensive if it were possible to receive data from different monitoring stations.
  • Following the results of the WHO [82] and the Report [41], the analysis took the number of deaths of people over the age of thirty into account, excluding all other deaths. In 2016, newborns, children, and teenagers represented more than 32% of the total population of Zakopane [66].
  • The data only took the inhabitants of Zakopane into account although the city is one of the most heavily visited tourist destinations in Poland. The Tatra National Park alone, for example, was visited by 3 million tourists in 2016. Therefore, the study should be extended to cover the tourists visiting Zakopane.
On the other hand, at the local level, one should also take into consideration the fact that the WTP for health cost might be lower due to, among other reasons, creation of urban and industrial symbiosis for increasing RES production. In the long-term perspective, we are able to observe that the clusters are an effective method of collaboration between representatives from different sectors.
Zakopane already has a broad scope of application of geothermal energy in place. The current state-of-play is related to the direct and indirect actions of the energy cluster in Tatra Poviat. Geothermal energy consumption is estimated at around 35% of total heat consumption [65]. Nevertheless, the potential of possible development seems to be yet unreached. The projects from European funds are stimulating the further development of solutions connected with geothermal resources, R&D, and infrastructure for the local energy sector. The examples of such projects are the following:
-
construction of heating networks and connections with a full length of approx. 4.5 km for 150 individual customers [83]; approx. 6.21 km for 123 individual customers [57];
-
increase of the efficiency of primary energy use and reducing the energy consumption of Geotermia Podhalańska S. A. by increasing the production of energy from renewable sources [84];
-
modernisation of the infrastructure and systems related to geothermal resources [85].
Actions taken in the field of effective use of geothermal raw materials are associated with urban symbiosis. Although there is still a struggle with gathering the pieces of information that could be easily interpreted to promote solutions related to urban symbiosis. Support for the concept of urban symbiosis can influence the founding of a tourism–energy nexus. To summarise the possibilities of implementing urban symbiosis by energy clusters, a SWOT stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats SWOT analysis was carried out (Table 5).
Moreover, the role of the regional networks is highlighted in the sustainable transition of energy systems. Access to resources and the level of consumption and production are some of the most important factors that influence security in the region [86]. Therefore, the energy cluster initiative has a really important role in balancing demand for energy from renewable sources, which influences the sustainable development of the region [87].
From the global perspective, the concept of the clean air is in line with sustainable development goals such as: SDG 3 (good health and well-being), SDG target 7.2 on access to clean energy in the housing, SDG target 11.6 on air quality in cities [88]. In order to reach the goals, tools such as life cycle thinking are needed to support the decision-making process that will be in line with the environmental, social, and economic aspects [89].

6. Conclusions

Poland has not implemented any national plans for industrial or urban symbiosis. With the development of the circular economy and obligation towards the EU to increase RESs, new local solutions promoting urban symbiosis have been introduced. Closed-loop initiatives such as energy clusters aim to share infrastructure and resources to enhance their collective efficiency. This increases their chances of success when applying for financial support from national and EU funds and enables them to collaborate on developing new RESs. It was particularly crucial that for the touristic area as in Poland more transparent data were available due to on-line air monitoring of PM2.5 and PM10 in Polish cities, for example from the Zakopane Main Inspector of Environmental Protection [90]. Zakopane is one of the most well-known mountain resorts in Poland.
The WTP method confirmed that for inhabitants of Zakopane, clean air regulation could be more important compared to the rest of Poland. The research indicates that the funding for the energy cluster was well allocated. Various publications indicate that WTP for RESs depends on many factors such as social status, income, age, environmental awareness, and types of RES. In this study, the WTP method was used to assess the acceptance of RES policy and to identify the priorities for energy clusters in Poland. The scope of this study is limited; therefore, it is necessary to develop a more comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of implementing the WTP approach for all 66 clusters in Poland. The introduction of assessment of urban symbiosis based on WTP method could have a positive impact on the reduction of air pollution.
Most countries face huge challenges in terms of developing RESs by 2020 and 2030. One of the goals is to decrease the level of air pollution. The role of local cooperation and networks is highlighted in the sustainable transition of the energy system. In Zakopane, energy production from RES is higher than the average for Poland. The city has access to geothermal resources, but it also uses solar panels and hydroelectric power stations, thanks to the initiatives of other clusters such as the Zielone Podhale Energy Cluster.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed in the development of the current paper. The concept were prepared by A.C.-K., N.I. and J.K., while the detailed literature review, discussion, and development of reaserch were done by A.C.-K., N.I. and J.K.; Data curation, A.C.-K.; Investigation, N.I.; Methodology, J.K.; Writing—original draft, A.C.-K. and J.K.; Supervision was done by A.C.-K. and J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange (NAWA) as the part of the project “International Cooperation for Rational Use of Raw Materials and Circular Economy” (COOPMLN), which is conducted in the Division of Strategic Research in the MEERI PAS (2019–2020), project no. PPI/APM/2018/1/00003. This research was also supported by AGH University of Science and Technology in Cracow.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. United Nation. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision. 2018. Available online: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-KeyFacts.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2020).
  2. Halder, P.K.; Paul, N.; Joardder, M.U.H.; Sarker, M. Energy scarcity and potential of renewable energy in Bangladesh. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 51, 1636–1649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rosenzweig, C.; Solecki, W.; Hammer, S.A.; Mehrotra, S. Cities lead the way in climate–change action. Nature 2010, 467, 909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Dou, X.; Shasha, L.; Jing, W. Ecological strategy of city sustainable development. APCBEE Procedia 2013, 5, 429–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Rodríguez, M.C.; Dupont-Courtade, L.; Oueslati, W. Air pollution and urban structure linkages: Evidence from European cities. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 53, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Martins, H. Urban compaction or dispersion? An air quality modelling study. Atmos. Environ. 2012, 54, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. EEA. Air Pollution Health Impacts of Air Pollution. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/downloads/e4ae0fe5a80b45b5a9c5126f15e2a8b3/1580212454/health-impacts-of-air-pollution.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2020).
  8. Cohen, A.J.; Ross Anderson, H.; Ostro, B.; Pandey, K.D.; Krzyzanowski, M.; Künzli, N.; Smith, K. The global burden of disease due to outdoor air pollution. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 2005, 68, 1301–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cohen, A.J.; Brauer, M.; Burnett, R.; Anderson, H.R.; Frostad, J.; Estep, K.; Balakrishnan, K.; Brunekreef, B.; Dandona, L.; Dandona, R.; et al. Estimates and 25-year trends of the global burden of disease attributable to ambient air pollution. An analysis of data from the Global Burden of Diseases study. Lancet 2015, 389, 1907–1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. European Environmental Agency. EEA Report No 13/2017. 2017. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu//publications/air-quality-in-europe-2017 (accessed on 20 August 2018).
  11. Lelieveld, J.; Evans, J.S.; Fnais, M.; Giannadaki, D.; Pozzer, A. The contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale. Nature 2015, 525, 367–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Available online: https://www.who.int/airpollution/data/cities/en/ (accessed on 10 June 2020).
  13. Pope, C.A.; Burnett, R.T.; Thun, M.J.; Calle, E.E.; Krewski, D.; Ito, K. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA 2002, 287, 1132–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Del, R.P.; Burguillo, M. Assessing the impact of renewable energy deployment on local sustainability: Towards a theoretical framework. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2008, 12, 1325–1344. [Google Scholar]
  15. Dincer, I. Renewable energy and sustainable development: A crucial review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2000, 4, 157–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gronkowska, J. Model energy cluster—special energy zone delivering integrated territorial energy. Geomat. Landmanagement Landsc. 2017, 3, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Taddeo, R.; Simboli, A.; Ioppolo, G.; Morgante, A. Industrial Symbiosis, Networking and Innovation: The Potential Role of Innovation Poles. Sustainability 2017, 9, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Yoon, S.; Nadvi, K. Industrial clusters and industrial ecology: Building ‘eco-collective efficiency’ in a South Korean cluster. Geoforum 2018, 90, 159–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Harris, S.; Mirata, M.; Broberg, S.; Carlsson, P.; Martin, M. A Roadmap for Increased Uptake of Industrial Symbiosis in Sweden. 2018. Available online: https://www.ivl.se/download/18.14bae12b164a305ba1118a2a/1540309079798/A%20Roadmap%20for%20Industrial%20Symbiosis%20in%20Sweden%20-%20final.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2020).
  20. Vernay, A.L.; Mulder, K.F. Organising urban symbiosis projects. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability; Thomas Telford Ltd.: London, UK, 2015; Volume 169, pp. 181–188. [Google Scholar]
  21. Dong, H.; Ohnishi, S.; Fujita, T.; Geng, Y.; Fujii, M.; Dong, L. Achieving carbon emission reduction through industrial & urban symbiosis: A case of Kawasaki. Energy 2014, 64, 277–286. [Google Scholar]
  22. Fujii, M.; Fujita, T.; Dong, L.; Lu, C.; Geng, Y.; Behera, S.K.; Chiu, A.S.F. Possibility of developing low-carbon industries through urban symbiosis in Asian cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 376–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Geng, Y.; Tsuyoshi, F.; Chen, X. Evaluation of innovative municipal solid waste management through urban symbiosis: A case study of Kawasaki. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 993–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Van Berkel, R.; Fujita, T.; Hashimoto, S.; Geng, Y. Industrial and urban symbiosis in Japan: Analysis of the Eco-Town program 1997–2006. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1544–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chertow, M.; Jooyoung, P. Scholarship and practice in industrial symbiosis: 1989–2014. In Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 87–116. [Google Scholar]
  26. MacLachlan, I. Kwinana Industrial Area: Agglomeration economies and industrial symbiosis on Western Australia’s Cockburn Sound. Aust. Geogr. 2013, 44, 383–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. EU. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A New Circular Economy Action Plan For a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe. Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9903b325-6388-11ea-b735-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (accessed on 10 January 2020).
  28. Neves, A.; Godina, R.; G Azevedo, S.; Pimentel, C.; CO Matias, J. The potential of industrial symbiosis: Case analysis and main drivers and barriers to its implementation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Nowakowski, P. Energy Clusters as an Example of Energy Communities in Poland—Policy and Results. Available online: http://www.lvif.gov.lv/uploaded_files/sadarbiba/WinWind/ (accessed on 10 January 2020).
  30. Kalbar, P.; Das, D. Advancing life cycle sustainability assessment using multiple criteria decision making. In Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment for Decision-Making; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 205–224. [Google Scholar]
  31. Karunathilake, H.; Hewage, K.; Brinkerhoff, J.; Sadiq, R. Optimal renewable energy supply choices for net-zero ready buildings: A life cycle thinking approach under uncertainty. Energy Build. 2019, 201, 70–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Daziarno, R.A. Flexible Customer Willingness to Pay for Bundled Smart Home Energy Products and Services. Available online: https://0-www-sciencedirect-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/science/article/abs/pii/S0928765519303227?dgcid=rss_sd_all (accessed on 10 January 2020).
  33. Nomura, N.; Akai, M. Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method. Appl. Energy 2004, 78, 453–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Koto, P.S.; Yiridoe, E.K. Expected Willingness to pay for wind energy in Atlantic Canada. Energy Policy 2019, 129, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jin, J.; Wan, X.; Lin, Y.; Kuang, F.; Ning, J. Public willingness to pay for the research and development of solar energy in Beijing, China. Energy Policy 2019, 134, 110962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Alberini, A.; Bigano, A.; Šcasný, M.; Zverinoá, I. Preferences for energy efficiency vs. renewables: What is the Willingness to pay to reduce CO2 emissions? Ecol. Econ. 2016, 144, 171–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kostakis, I.; Sardianou, E. Which factors affect the Willingness of tourists to pay for renewable energy? Renew. Energy 2012, 38, 169–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. World Health Organization. Economic Cost of the Health Impact of Air Pollution in Europe: Clean Air, Health and Wealth; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  39. Carlsson, F.; Johansson-Stenman, O. Willingness to pay for improved air quality in Sweden. Appl. Econ. 2000, 32, 661–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, H.; Mullahy, J. Willingness to pay for reducing fatal risk by improving air quality: A contingent valuation study in Chongqing China. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 367, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Adamkiewicz, Ł. External Health Costs of Air Pollution Emission from the Municipal and Housing Sector” (“Zewnętrzne Koszty Zdrowotne Emisji Zanieczyszczeń Powietrza z Sektora Bytowo-Komunalnego”). Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Technology, 2017. Available online: http://www.mpit.gov.pl/media/61515/Raport__zewnetrzne_koszty_zdrowotne_emisji_zanieczyszczen_powietrza_z_sektora_bytowo_komunalnego.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2018).
  42. Available online: http://aphekom.org/web/aphekom.org/home (accessed on 20 June 2018).
  43. Aphekon, Guidelines for Assessing the Health Impacts of Air Pollution in European Cities. Available online: http://aphekom.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=4f388abf-61e5-415d-ae22-e437a4e25937&groupId=10347 (accessed on 15 June 2020).
  44. Desaigues, B.; Ami, B.; Bartczak, A.; Braun-Kohlová, M.; Chilton, S.; Czajkowski, M.; Farreras, V.; Hunt, A.; Hutchison, M.; Jeanrenaud, C.; et al. Economic valuation of air pollution mortality: A 9-country contingent valuation survey of value of a life year (VOLY). Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11, 902–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. OECD. The Cost of Air Pollution: Health Impacts of Road Transport, OECD Publishing. Table 2.13. 2014. Available online: http://0-dx-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1787/9789264210448-en (accessed on 21 August 2018).
  46. Resolution no. 143/2015 of the Council of Ministers of 18 August 2015 on the adoption of the Tourism Development Programme until 2020. 18 August 2015. Available online: https://www.msit.gov.pl/download/3/12550/TourismDevelopmentProgrammeuntil20201f3c.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2020).
  47. Ministry of Sport and Tourism of the Republic of Poland. 2017. Available online: https://www.msit.gov.pl/pl/turystyka/badania-rynku-turystycz/statystyka-komunikaty-i/7834,Wiecej-turystow-zagranicznych-w-Polsce-w-2017-roku.html (accessed on 10 August 2018).
  48. Borkowski, K.; Grabiński, T.; Seweryn, R.; Mazanek, L.; Grabińska, E. Ruch turystyczny w Krakowie w 2016 roku. Available online: https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjm1-b_t8TqAhXS-GEKHe98AxAQFjAAegQIBhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bip.krakow.pl%2Fplik.php%3Fzid%3D185106%26wer%3D0%26new%3Dt%26mode%3Dshw&usg=AOvVaw2mStStwGdgrEWt_WcEdwaR (accessed on 15 January 2020).
  49. Central Statistical Office. Available online: https://krakow.stat.gov.pl/vademecum/vademecum_malopolskie/portrety_gmin/powiat_tatrzanski/zakopane.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2020).
  50. Kruczek, Z. Frekwencja w atrakcjach turystycznych. Polska Organizacja Turystyczna. Kraków-Warszawa 2014, 29, 62. [Google Scholar]
  51. World Health Organization. Global Urban Ambient Air Pollution Database. 2016. Available online: http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/databases/cities/en/ (accessed on 10 August 2018).
  52. Nowobilska, E.; Nowobilska-Luberda, A.; Ziernicka-Wojtaszek, A.; Zawora, T. Możliwości wykorzystania zasobów wód termalnych w rejonie Podhala. Inżynieria Ekol. 2011, 27, 139. [Google Scholar]
  53. The Low Emissions Reduction Programme for Zakopane in 2015–2020. Available online: https://www.zakopane.eu/artykuly/ochrona-rodowiska/plan-gospodarki-niskoemisyjnej (accessed on 10 August 2018).
  54. Topór-Huciański, K. Program Life w gminie Zakopane. 2016. Available online: https://powietrze.malopolska.pl/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Dzialania-Eko-doradca_Zakopane.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2020).
  55. Kępińska, B. Przegląd stanu wykorzystania energii geotermalnej w Polsce w latach 2013–2015. Technika Poszukiwań Geologicznych Geotermia. Zrównoważony Rozw. 2016, 1, 22. [Google Scholar]
  56. Geotermia Podhalańska, S.A. Available online: http://geotermia.pl/ochrona-srodowiska/ (accessed on 10 August 2018).
  57. Geotermia Podhalańska, S.A. Available online: http://geotermia.pl/fundusze-unijne-nasze-projekty/budowa-sieci-i-przylaczy-cieplowniczych-na-terenie-gminy-miasto-zakopane-oraz-gmin-poronin-bialy-dunajec-i-szaflary-w-celu-zwiekszenia-wykorzystania-odnawialnych-zrodel-energii-i-ograniczenia-emisji// (accessed on 10 August 2018).
  58. Hodana, M.; Holtzer, G.; Kalandyk, K.; Szymańska, A.; Szymański, B.; Żymankowska-Kumon, S. Odnawialne źródła energii” Poradnik Kraków. 2012. Available online: http://home.agh.edu.pl/~szk/files/docs/OZE_poradnik.pdf (accessed on 14 August 2018).
  59. Kępińska, B. Geothermal Energy Use—Country Update for Poland, 2016–2018. In Proceedings of the European Geothermal Congress 2019, Den Haag, The Netherlands, 11–14 June 2019; Available online: http://europeangeothermalcongress.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/CUR-21-Poland.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2020).
  60. Gronkowska, J. Nowe perspektywy wykorzystania odnawialnych źródeł energii na Podhalu Klaster Energii—Słoneczna Elektrownia Tatry. Available online: https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj9tOmptcTqAhVICKwKHe4sC4oQFjAAegQIAxAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fyadda.icm.edu.pl%2Fyadda%2Felement%2Fbwmeta1.element.baztech-338798ae-6b07-4d7d-9c81-17aefb83f8bf%2Fc%2Ftpg2017_1_gronkowska_nowe_perspektywy.pdf&usg=AOvVaw18TJoXSG2dZNyPyKCPdoe7 (accessed on 21 June 2020).
  61. Urban Agenda for the EU, for Toolkit Communicating on Air Quality and Health Inspiring Practices, Challenges and Tips. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/181008_final_toolkit_on_communicating_on_air_quality_and_health_heal.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2019).
  62. Czarnecka, M.; Kalbarczyk, R. Warunki meteorologiczne kształtujące zmienność stężenia pyłu zawieszonego na Pomorzu. Acta Agrophys. 2018, 11, 357–368. [Google Scholar]
  63. WHO. The top 10 Causes of Death. 2018. Available online: http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death (accessed on 14 August 2018).
  64. Available online: https://www.zakopane.pl/strefa-miejska/srodowisko/podstawowe-informacje-o-dotacji (accessed on 14 June 2020).
  65. Ślimak, C. PEC Geotermia Podhalańska SA–stan obecny, perspektywy rozwoju. ekologicznie i ekonomicznie “na plusie”. Tech. Poszuk. Geol. 2013, 52, 25–33. [Google Scholar]
  66. Available online: https://www.polskawliczbach.pl/Zakopane (accessed on 18 June 2018).
  67. Maas, R.; Grennfelt, P. (Eds.) Towards Cleaner Air; Scientific Assessment Report 2016; EMEP Steering Body and Working Group on Effects of the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution: Oslo, Norway, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  68. Atmoterm, S.A. Program ochrony powietrza dla województwa małopolskiego. Małopolska 2023-w zdrowej atmosferze. Available online: https://powietrze.malopolska.pl/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Program_ochrony_powietrza_dla_wojewodztwa_malopolskiego_2013.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2020).
  69. Pope, C.A.; Burnett, R.T., III; Thurston, G.D.; Thun, M.J.; Calle, E.E.; Krewski, D.; Godleski, J.J. Cardiovascular mortality and long-term exposure to particulate air pollution: Epidemiological evidence of general pathophysiological pathways of disease. Circulation 2004, 109, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. European Environment Agency. Air quality in Europe—2019 Report; Report No. 12/2019; European Environment Agency: Luxembourg, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  71. European Environment Agency. Air quality in Europe—2015 Report; Report No. 12/2015; European Environment Agency: Luxembourg, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  72. Łukaszczyk, Z. Węgiel tak, smog nie–świadomość i odpowiedzialność. Syst. Wspomagania Inżynierii Prod 2018, 7, 484–496. [Google Scholar]
  73. Smogowy, K.A. Smog Albo Zdrowie! 2016. Available online: https://depot.ceon.pl/handle/123456789/15435 (accessed on 15 June 2020).
  74. Available online: http://www.tatry.pl/aktualnosci/1461.html (accessed on 15 June 2020).
  75. Sun, C.; Yuan, X.; Yao, X. Social acceptance towards the air pollution in China: Evidence from public’s Willingness to pay for smog mitigation. Energy Policy 2016, 92, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Levinson, A. Valuing public goods using happiness data: The case of air quality. J. Public Econ. 2012, 96, 869–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Rodríguez-Sánchez, J.I. Do Mexicans care about air pollution? Latin Am. Econ. Rev. 2014, 23, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Ligus, M. Measuring the Willingness to Pay for Improved Air Quality: A Contingent Valuation Survey. Polish J. Environ. Stud. 2018, 27, 763–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. EEA. Premature Deaths Attributable to PM2.5, NO2 and O3 Exposure in 41 European Countries and the EU-28. 2014. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/improving-air-quality-in-european/premature-deaths-2014 (accessed on 14 August 2018).
  80. EEA. Air Quality in Europe—2018 Report. Available online: https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiQ6Yqss8TqAhXaMN4KHXO9AaEQFjABegQIBRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eea.europa.eu%2Fpublications%2Fair-quality-in-europe-2018%2Fdownload&usg=AOvVaw0MDfQr2t138zhph0R56s6D (accessed on 22 June 2020).
  81. Tainio, M.; Juda-Rezler, K.; Reizer, M.; Warchałowski, A.; Trapp, W.; Skotak, K. Future climate and adverse health effects caused by fine particulate matter air pollution: Case study for Poland. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2013, 13, 705–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. WHO Health Risks of Air Pollution—HRAPIE Project. 2013. Available online: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/238956/Health_risks_air_pollution_HRAPIE_project.pdf?ua=1 (accessed on 21 August 2018).
  83. Available online: http://geotermia.pl/fundusze-unijne-nasze-projekty/budowa-przylaczy-i-sieci-cieplowniczych-na-terenie-gminy-miasto-zakopane-w-celu-zwiekszenia-i-wykorzystania-odnawialnych-zrodel-energii-i-ograniczenie-emisji-zanieczyszczen-do-powietrza/ (accessed on 22 June 2020).
  84. Available online: http://geotermia.pl/fundusze-unijne-nasze-projekty/rozbudowa-systemu-geotermalnego-w-celu-zwiekszenia-mocy-odnawialnego-zrodla-energii-cieplnej-dla-pec-geotermia-podhalanska-s-a/ (accessed on 20 June 2020).
  85. Available online: http://geotermia.pl/fundusze-unijne-nasze-projekty/rozwoj-infrastruktury-sluzacej-do-produkcji-przesylu-i-dystrybucji-energii-geotermalnej/ (accessed on 22 June 2020).
  86. European Research Area Network, Smart Energy Systems. Available online: https://www.eranet-smartenergysystems.eu/global/images/cms/Content/Call%20Texts/ERANetSESRegSysCallText_FINAL_VERSION.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2018).
  87. Gawlik, L. The Polish power industry in energy transformation process. Mlneral Econ. 2018, 31, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Available online: https://sdg.iisd.org/news/who-global-conference-recommends-reducing-deaths-from-air-pollution-by-two-thirds-by-2030/ (accessed on 18 June 2020).
  89. UNEP. Greening the Economy Through Life Cycle Thinking. Available online: https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiNqdqYusTqAhUKd6wKHTaADAIQFjAAegQIAhAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unep.fr%2Fshared%2Fpublications%2Fpdf%2FDTIx1536xPA-GreeningEconomythroughLifeCycleThinking.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2VHGJOezljF7KnYTyMWwFx (accessed on 22 June 2020).
  90. Available online: http://powietrze.gios.gov.pl/pjp/current (accessed on 22 June 2020).
Sustainability 12 05634 g001 550
Figure 1. The algorithm for the calculation of willingness to pay (WTP) for the city of Zakopane. Source: based on the Report [41].
Figure 1. The algorithm for the calculation of willingness to pay (WTP) for the city of Zakopane. Source: based on the Report [41].
Sustainability 12 05634 g001
Table
Table 1. Concentration of PM2.5 in the air.
Table 1. Concentration of PM2.5 in the air.
2011201320152016
PM2.5 [µg/m3]Poland27.128.4 26.024.5
Zakopane28.025.321.423.7
Source: Inspector of Environmental Protection, [41].
Table
Table 2. Population and deaths in Poland and Zakopane covered by the analysis of the impact on mortality.
Table 2. Population and deaths in Poland and Zakopane covered by the analysis of the impact on mortality.
Poland
2011 2013 2015 2016
PopulationDeathPopulationDeathPopulationDeathPopulationDeath
30–343,141,27029683,235,19827683,245,47427583,217,3512863
35–392,864,32042493,004,27339873,102,84640003,113,2124004
40–442,410,69659242,546,24856292,730,56255222,831,7705595
45–492,411,46397612,333,56886422,334,02581962,370,6748159
50–542,848,81819,2962,599,28816,4912,408,30214,2282,351,40813,420
55–592,916,64228,7682,936,83028,3062,837,05026,4112,737,88224,994
60–642,471,54734,2632,620,15136,9652,726,53637,3592,751,81136,760
65–691,459,74228,2571,789,65833,8612,161,75840,4852,272,89142,721
70–741,328,31638,4471,252,45436,0681,208,23333,9701,299,76033,870
75–791,146,66651,3861,147,35450,3721,139,33248,5111,118,91445,852
80–84834,49461,785859,37863,589862,71162,104869,32158,783
85+555,79782,497623,76493,508704,384105,083742,519105,018
Total24,389,771375,50124,948,164387,31225,461,213394,92125,677,513388,009
% death 1.54 1.55 1.55 1.51
Zakopane
2011 2013 2015 2016
PopulationDeathPopulationDeathPopulationDeathPopulationDeath
30–3420912216422162-21753
35–3918652196312036120403
40–4416863172911821718442
45–4918609170271683316733
50–54205415198316183713180915
55–59224525219223205820197915
60–64183429199620211725211123
65–69119315136117158422169627
70–74111928109729104731106226
75–791049381021349993696837
80–8476048794587924679855
85+541686107969710273393
Total18,29728718,61229218,83330818,888304
% death 1.57 1. 57 1.63 1.61
Source: Central Statistical Office, [41].
Table
Table 3. Premature deaths in Poland and Zakopane caused by emissions from the municipal and housing sector.
Table 3. Premature deaths in Poland and Zakopane caused by emissions from the municipal and housing sector.
2011201320152016
The number of premature deaths in Poland22,39819,46019,74118,990
Value of lost statistical life in Poland495,235423,386421,749439,980
The number of premature deaths in Zakopane15151616
Value of lost statistical life in Zakopane284.5279.5289.8329.4
Source: own studies, [41].
Table
Table 4. External health cost per inhabitant by the WTP approach for Poland and for Zakopane [euro].
Table 4. External health cost per inhabitant by the WTP approach for Poland and for Zakopane [euro].
2011201320152016
Desaigues and Potential Years of Life Lost Poland321.26275.37274.34286.20
OECD premature death912.46793.65806.34775.75
Desaigues and Potential Years of Life LostZakopane255.12252.07264.01301.59
OECD premature death844.72849.54919.98921.30
OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; Source: own studies, Central Statistical Office of Poland, [41].
Table
Table 5. Assessment of possibilities of introduction urban symbiosis by energy clusters to increase the use of renewable energy.
Table 5. Assessment of possibilities of introduction urban symbiosis by energy clusters to increase the use of renewable energy.
Strength
S1: Zakopane region is rich in geothermal resources
S2: Zakopane is a mountain resort most frequently visited
S3: Above-average WTP results for Zakopane
S4: Transparent data available online (PM2.5 and PM10 concentration)		Opportunities
O1: Raise the awareness of the local communities
O2: Development of eco-tourism in the resort of Zakopane
O3: Create jobs through energy cluster and urban symbiosis
O4: Improve air quality due to elimination of pollutions
Weakness
W1: Lack of comprehensive understanding of the environmental problem i.e., waste management sector
W2: High investment cost in the infrastructure and research and development in case of geothermal resources
W3: Lack of effective mechanism management of knowledge in the cluster		Threat
T1: Lack of policy and national plan which will support the clustering and urban symbiosis
T2: Lack of policy dedicated to the energy cluster activities
T3: There is only one monitoring station located in Zakopane

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Czaplicka-Kotas, A.; Kulczycka, J.; Iwaszczuk, N. Energy Clusters as a New Urban Symbiosis Concept for Increasing Renewable Energy Production—A Case Study of Zakopane City. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5634. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su12145634

AMA Style

Czaplicka-Kotas A, Kulczycka J, Iwaszczuk N. Energy Clusters as a New Urban Symbiosis Concept for Increasing Renewable Energy Production—A Case Study of Zakopane City. Sustainability. 2020; 12(14):5634. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su12145634

Chicago/Turabian Style

Czaplicka-Kotas, Agnieszka, Joanna Kulczycka, and Natalia Iwaszczuk. 2020. "Energy Clusters as a New Urban Symbiosis Concept for Increasing Renewable Energy Production—A Case Study of Zakopane City" Sustainability 12, no. 14: 5634. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su12145634

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop