Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The distinctive recognition of culture within LCSA: realising the quadruple bottom line

  • SOCIAL LCA IN PROGRESS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Cultural indicators, although present in S-LCA subcategories, are fairly limited and are not compulsory; performing an S-LCA does not guarantee the inclusion of cultural values. This paper explores the potential to distinctly represent and include cultural aspects within Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) (alongside economic, social and environmental aspects). As such, it demonstrates LCSA’s capability to communicate results along a quadruple bottom line.

Methods

A participatory LCSA case study was undertaken using a mixed methods approach. Research was carried out working in close collaboration with three key members of an indigenous community in New Zealand—the Māori tribe of Ngāti Porou. A series of semi-structured interviews with the three participants was undertaken in order to investigate alternative forestry options for Ngāti Porou land. The research involved (1) understanding the decision-making process of Ngāti Porou, (2) recognising Ngāti Porou aspirations and goals, (3) determining a range of forestry land use and product options to be reviewed within the LCSA case study, (4) selection of meaningful (to Ngāti Porou) economic, social and environmental indicators, (5) developing a bespoke cultural indicator and (6) collaboratively reviewing and discussing the results.

Results and discussion

The results of the participatory LCSA represented culture in two ways. Firstly, a bespoke cultural indicator (Cultural Indicator Matrix) was created to distinctly represent culture in LCSA. The indicator subjectively measures the perceived impact that a forestry process or product has upon a range of Ngāti Porou aspirations, and the results can be viewed alongside other LCSA indicators. Secondly, the participatory research approach made the LCSA process more culturally-inclusive. Overall, the results of the culturally-inclusive LCSA gave the participants ‘validation’ and ‘direction’ and justified their desire to pursue alternative forestry options for their land.

Conclusions

This first use of the Cultural Indicator Matrix was experienced by the participants as an effective mechanism for gathering community-based impressions of how forestry life cycle processes affect their cultural aspirations. They felt the participatory aspect was important, and considered that the ongoing communication between themselves and the LCSA practitioner provided them with more control, access to information and understanding of the LCSA process and led to higher acceptance of the final results. Thus, this research suggests that there is a place for culture in LCSA, and that distinctive representation of culture (separately from S-LCA) may be beneficial, particularly if the end-users have explicit cultural needs or concerns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson K, Gale F (1992) Introduction. In: Anderson K, Gale F (eds) Inventing places: studies in cultural geography. Longman Cheshire, Melbourne, pp. 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelsson R, Angelstam P, Degerman E, Teitelbaum S, Andersson K, Elbakidze M, Drotz MK (2013) Social and cultural sustainability: criteria, indicators, verifier variables for measurement and maps for visualization to support planning. Ambio 42(2):215–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basit T (2003) Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis. Educ Res 45(2):143–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann H, Cowell SJ (1999) An evaluative framework for conceptual and analytical approaches used in environmental management. Green Manage Int 26:109–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoît C, Norris GA, Valdivia S, Ciroth A, Moberg A, Bos U, Beck T (2010) The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):156–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bras-Klapwijk RM (2003) Procedures and tools for generating and selecting alternatives in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(5):266–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson JM (2004) What to do when stakeholders matter: stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public. Manag Rev 6(1):21–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciroth A, Finkbeiner M, Hildenbrand J, Klöpffer W, Mazijn B, Prakash S, Vickery-Niederman G (2011) Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment: making informed choices on products. Retrieved from Nairobi, Kenya

  • Clift R (2014) Social life cycle assessment: What are we trying to do? Paper presented at the International Seminar in Social LCA, Montpellier

  • Creswell JW (2009) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 3rd edn. SAGE Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • De Luca AI, Iofrida N, Strano A, Falcone G, Gulisano G (2015) Social life cycle assessment and participatory approaches: a methodological proposal applied to citrus farming in southern Italy. Integr Environ Assess Manag 11(3):383–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Internal Affairs (2002) Local Government Act 2002. (No 84). Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Government

  • Dessein J, Soini K, Fairclough G, Horlings L (eds) (2015) Culture in, for and as sustainable development. Conclusions from the COST action IS1007 investigating cultural sustainability. University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncker PH, Spiecker H, Tojic K (2007) Definition of forest management alternatives. Retrieved from Frieburg, Germany: http://87.192.2.62/eforwood/Results/ResultArchive/tabid/222/Default.aspx

  • EFORWOOD (2007) EFORWOOD: Sustainability impact assessment of the forestry-wood chain. Retrieved from http://www.innovawood.com/eforwood/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

  • Ekener-Petersen E, Finnveden G (2013) Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—part 1: a case study of a laptop computer. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:127–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Moberg A (2005) Environmental systems analysis tools—an overview. J Clean Prod 13(12):1165–1173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenfeldt D (2003) The future of indigenous values: cultural relativism in the face of economic development. Futures 35(9):917–929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guinée JB (2016) Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges? In R. Clift & A. Druckman (Eds.), Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology, Springer, pp 45–68

  • Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Zamagni A, Masoni P, Buonamici R, Rydberg T (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ Sci Technol 45(1):90–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmsworth G (2011) Mäori perspectives on the science and innovation system. New Zeal Sci Rev 68(1):45–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmsworth G, Warmenhoven TA, Pohatu P, Page M (2002) Waiapu catchment report: Maori community goals for enhancing ecosystem health (Landcare Research Report No.: LC 0102/100). Retrieved from Palmerston North, New Zealand

  • Hawkes J (2001) The fourth pillar of sustainability: culture's essential role in public planning. Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd., Victoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges W (1994) Maori conservation ethic: a Ngati Kahungunu perspective. Retrieved from Wellington

  • Khan R (2012) A mauri-model analysis of remediation methods of industrial waste from the Tasman pulp and paper mill in Kawerau, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand. University of Auckland. Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://frontiersabroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Risalat-Khan.pdf

  • Klöpffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindner M, Werhahn-Mees W, Suominen T, Vötter D, Zudin S, Pekkanen M, Brüchert F (2012) Conducting sustainability impact assessments of forestry-wood chains: examples of ToSIA applications. Eur J Forest Res 131(1):21–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Llobera JR (2003) An invitation to anthropology: the structure, evolution and cultural identity of human societies. Berghahn Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden M (2003) In: Charles TA (ed) The woven universe: selected writings of rev. Māori Marsden. Estate of Rev. Māori Marsden, Otaki

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden M, Henare TA (1992) Kaitiakitanga: a definitive introduction to the holistic world view of the Maori. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Muñoz P, Antón A, Traverso M, Rieradevall J, Finkbeiner M (2014) Application challenges for the social life cycle assessment of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. J Clean Prod 69:34–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathe S (2014) Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the SLCA participatory approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(8):1506–1514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGavock ZC, Moewaka-Barnes H, McCreanor T (2012) Maori and pain: a literature review. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Scholarship 8(2):164–175

  • Morgan KB (2004) A Tangata Whenua Perspective on Sustainability using the Mauri Model: towards decision making balance with regard to our social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being. Paper presented at the International Conference on Sustainability Engineering and Science, Auckland, New Zealand

  • Morgan TKKB, Sardelic DN, Waretini AF (2012) The three gorges project: how sustainable? J Hydrol 460–461:1–12

  • Muthu SS (2015) Social life cycle assessment: an insight. Springer, Hong Kong

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • New Zealand Conservation Authority (1997) Maori customary use of native birds, plants and other traditional materials. Retrieved from Wellington, New Zealand

  • New Zealand Government (1991) Resource management act. (no 69). Ministry for the Environment, Wellington

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkner T, Page M, Marden M, Marutani T (2007) Gully systems under undisturbed indigenous forest, East Coast region, New Zealand. Geomorphology 84:241–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson J (2006) Maori environmental virtues. In: Koggel CM (ed) Moral issues in global perspective, vol 3, 2nd edn. Broadview Press, Ontario, pp. 283–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Peacock BC (2011). A GIS-Based Habitat Restoration and Preservation Prioritization Tool Geospatially Integrating Hydrological, Ecological, Pollution, Economic, Social and Cultural Considerations. Paper presented at the The National Conference On Undergraduate Research (NCUR), Ithaca, New York

  • Pizzirani S (2016) A culturally-focussed life cycle sustainability assessment: Analysis of forestry value chain options with Māori land owners (submitted). (PhD), Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

  • Pizzirani S, McLaren SJ, Seadon JK (2014) Is there a place for culture in life cycle sustainability assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(6):1316–1330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platia O (2012) Using the Mauri Model to Assess the Impact of the Rena Grounding on the Mauri of the Bay of Plenty, New Zealand. Civil and Environmental Engineering. Lafayette College. Easton, PA, United States. Retrieved from http://frontiersabroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/OliviaPlatia.pdf

  • Ramirez PKS, Petti L, Haberland NT, Ugaya CML (2014) Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. Part 1: methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(8):1515–1523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141(10):2417–2431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts M, Norman W, Minhinnick N, Wihongi D, Kirkwood C (1995) Kaitaikitanga: Maori perspectives on conservation. Pac Conserv Biol 2:7–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013a) Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science progress (part 2. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(9):1686–1697

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013b) Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: part 1. IntJ Life Cycle Assess 18(9):1653–1672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scion (2012) Waiapu river catchment study - final report. Retrieved from Rotorua, New Zealand

  • Simon KH (2003) Searching for synergy: Maori/indigenous and scientific conservatory values—the affinity proposition. He Puna korero. Journal of Maori and Pacific Development 4(1):44–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake RE (1995) The art of case study research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistics New Zealand (2013) Census QuickStats about Māori. Retrieved from Wellington, New Zealand: www.stats.govt.nz

  • Thabrew L, Wiek A, Ries R (2009) Environmental decision making in multi-stakeholder contexts: applicability of life cycle thinking in development planning and implementation. J Clean Prod 17(1):67–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traverso M, Finkbeiner M, Jørgensen A, Schneider L (2012) Life cycle sustainability dashboard. J Ind Ecol 16(5):680–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP & SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. Retrieved from Belgium: http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1164xPA-guidelines_sLCA.pdf

  • UNEP and SETAC (2010) Methodological sheets of sub-categories of impact for a social LCA (S-LCA). Retrieved from Nairobi, Kenya

  • UNESCO (2000) World Culture Report 2000: Cultural diversity, conflict and pluralism. Retrieved from Paris, France

  • UNESCO Sector for Culture (2001) Culture throughout the project cycle. In: Matarosso F (ed) Recognising culture: a series of briefing papers on culture and development. Comedia, the Department of Canadian Heritage and UNESCO, London, pp. 77–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker R (1990) Ka whawhai tonu matou: struggle without end. Penguin Books, Auckland

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker S (2015) Designing sustainability: making radical changes in a material world. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters F, Takamura J (2015) The decolonized quadruple bottom line: a framework for developing indigenous innovation. Wicazo sa review 30(2):77–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warmenhoven TA, Barnard T, Pohatu P, Garrett L, Porou T, Fitzgerald G, Ruru W (2014) Climate change and community resilience in the waiapu catchment. Retrieved from Wellington, New Zealand

  • Weaver P, Jansen L, van Grootveld G, van Spiegel E, Vergragt P (2000) Sustainable technology development. Greenleaf Publishing Limited, Sheffield

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh E (2002). Dealing with Data: Using NVivo in the Qualitative Data Analysis Process. 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/865/1880

  • Wrisberg N, Udo de Haes HA, Triebswetter U, Eder P, Clift R (eds) (2002) Analytical tools for environmental design and management in a systems perspective: the combined use of analytical tools, vol 10. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has been carried out with the financial support of Scion, Massey University, and the New Zealand Life Cycle Management Centre.

The authors are grateful and appreciative for the guidance provided by Dr. Tim Payn and Dr. Jeff Seadon. In addition, the comments and suggestions from the reviewers have been invaluable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Scion, 49 Sala Street, Rotorua, 3046, New Zealand

    Stefania Pizzirani

  2. Massey University, Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North, 4442, New Zealand

    Stefania Pizzirani, Sarah J. McLaren & Margaret E. Forster

  3. New Zealand Life Cycle Management Centre, Massey University, Palmerston North, 4442, New Zealand

    Stefania Pizzirani & Sarah J. McLaren

  4. He Oranga mo Nga Uri Tuku Iho Trust, Wellington, New Zealand

    Pia Pohatu & Tui Aroha Warmenhoven

  5. Ngāti Porou, Ruatoria, New Zealand

    Pia Pohatu, Tina Tangi Whaiora Porou & Tui Aroha Warmenhoven

  6. Ngāti Tuwharetoa, Tauranga, New Zealand

    Tina Tangi Whaiora Porou

Authors
  1. Stefania Pizzirani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah J. McLaren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Margaret E. Forster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pia Pohatu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tina Tangi Whaiora Porou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tui Aroha Warmenhoven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefania Pizzirani.

Ethics declarations

This research involved engagement with three Māori (Ngāti Porou) participants. A full human ethics application was submitted to and approved by the Massey University Human Ethics Committee (Southern B application, 13-58).

Additional information

Responsible editor: Alessandra Zamagni

Interview questions

Interview questions

Interview 1

  1. 1.

    Previous research

    1. a.

      In thinking about previous research with the Ngāti Porou community, how has it (or how has it not) benefited you?

    2. b.

      What are the aspects that worked or didn’t work?

    3. c.

      What would you change about how that research was done or delivered?

  2. 2.

    Ngāti Porou aspirations

    1. a.

      Have Ngāti Porou aspirations and concerns changed from the previous work? If so, how have they changed and why?

    2. b.

      What is your short-term vision (after 10 years, after 30 years) for the Ngāti Porou community?

    3. c.

      What are your immediate priorities?

    4. d.

      What is your long-term vision (after 50 years, after 100 years) for the Ngāti Porou community?

  3. 3.

    Ngāti Porou decision-making process

    1. a.

      What is the decision-making process like for Ngāti Porou? What are the key decision-making stages?

    2. b.

      Who are the key actors/people involved at each stage?

    3. c.

      What information is sought at during each stage?

    4. d.

      Where/how is this information attained?

Interview 2

  1. 4.

    General forestry questions

    1. a.

      Why are you primarily interested in forestry development for the region?

    2. b.

      What would you like to achieve with your forested land?

    3. c.

      Which of your aspirations might be achieved with your selection of forests, forest management, and forest products?

  2. 5.

    Tree species

    1. a.

      Would you rather have indigenous or exotic trees on your land?

    2. b.

      What are the reasons for your answer?

    3. c.

      What do you perceive are the implications (pros/cons) of having indigenous trees?

    4. d.

      What do you perceive are the implications (pros/cons) of having exotic trees?

    5. e.

      What are your thoughts around planting a mixture of indigenous and exotic trees?

    6. f.

      Which of your aspirations might be achieved with your selection of tree species?

  3. 6.

    Understory or secondary species

    1. a.

      Are you interested in planting an additional tree/plant species with your forested land? Why or why not?

    2. b.

      What do you perceive are the implications (pros/cons) of planting an additional tree/plant species?

    3. c.

      Which of your aspirations might be achieved with your selection of an additional tree/plant species?

Interview 3

  1. 7.

    Forest management

    1. a.

      What are your impressions of continuous cover forestry?

    2. b.

      Are you be comfortable with harvesting indigenous species? Why or why not?

    3. c.

      What are your impressions of short-rotation forestry?

    4. d.

      Are you comfortable with harvesting trees to make woodchips for energy purposes?

    5. e.

      What are your impressions of intensive forestry?

    6. f.

      Would you prefer not to have intensive forestry at all? Why or why not?

    7. g.

      Are you comfortable with using pesticides and/or herbicides on your land?

  2. 8.

    Products

    1. a.

      Are you interested in developing non-timber products with your forested land? Why or why not?

    2. b.

      What type of product is interesting to you (e.g. medicinal, wood-based, food)?

    3. c.

      What are the reasons for your answer?

    4. d.

      Would you prefer a product with a short life span or a long life span?

    5. e.

      What would you like to achieve with your product?

    6. f.

      Which of your aspirations might be achieved with your selection of products?

Interview 4

  1. 9.

    Potential forestry scenarios

    1. a.

      What aspirations do you think this forestry scenario might fulfil?

    2. b.

      What challenges do you think might arise out of this scenario?

    3. c.

      What could we change to avoid that challenge?

    4. d.

      Would you prefer to harvest Manuka at the end of the honey production cycle and then replant, or let it grow until it begins to decay?

    5. e.

      Once it starts to decay, would you prefer to harvest it or let it decay on the land?

  2. 10.

    Potential product scenarios

    1. a.

      Of the three potential Manuka products (honey, essential oil, and firewood) which would you like me to pursue?

    2. b.

      Are the products chosen for the case studies suitable? Why or why not?

    3. c.

      Would you prefer I look at a different product?

Interview 5

  1. 11.

    Potential indicators

    1. a.

      Which of the indicators that I have listed speak the loudest to you? Why?

    2. b.

      What other measures of success would you like to see included in the study?

  2. 12.

    Cultural Indicator Matrix

    1. a.

      What would be the most significant cultural measure of success?

    2. b.

      How might we be able to measure that throughout the forestry value chain?

    3. c.

      Can some of the Ngāti Porou aspirations be grouped together?

    4. d.

      Can you define what the aspirations mean to you?

    5. e.

      Do you think we can apply a weighting to the aspirations?

Interview 6

  1. 13.

    Cultural Compliance process

    1. a.

      When in each value chain does this process occur?

    2. b.

      What are the figures associated with costs, employment, wages, and machinery used?

Interview 7

  1. 14.

    Cultural Compliance process and Cultural Indicator Matrix

    1. a.

      Why is Cultural Compliance necessary?

    2. b.

      Will it always be necessary when dealing with land use?

    3. c.

      What are the benefits of including Cultural Compliance in the value chains? In the short-term? In the long-term?

    4. d.

      Do you feel that Cultural Compliance add economic value to the value chain product?

    5. e.

      Does Cultural Compliance relate to branding or certification? If so, how?

    6. f.

      Are there any issues regarding scale and terminology regarding the Cultural Indicator Matrix?

    7. g.

      Do you think the Cultural Indicator Matrix is functional and transferrable?

    8. h.

      Do the forestry vale chain processes make sense in the Cultural Indicator Matrix?

Interview 8

  1. 15.

    Review and refinement of the Cultural Indicator Matrix

    1. a.

      What are your impressions of the Cultural Indicator Matrix?

    2. b.

      Is it too long?

    3. c.

      Is it meaningful?

    4. d.

      Is it confusing?

    5. e.

      Is it culturally appropriate?

    6. f.

      Can you see this being useful in decision making?

    7. g.

      Any aspects you would change?

    8. h.

      How long did it take you to complete?

    9. i.

      Would you prefer to complete the Matrix alone, in a group, or alone then in a group?

Interview 9

  1. 16.

    Review and discussion of the culturally-inclusive LCSA results

    1. a.

      Where do you currently see yourselves in this life cycle-value chain?

    2. b.

      Has seeing all of this data made you interested in pursuing other forestry processes? If so, which ones and why?

    3. c.

      Do you feel this LCSA technique/process can aid your decision making? Why or why not?

    4. d.

      What would you need to carry this work forward yourselves?

    5. e.

      Has seeing these results changed or confirmed your thinking on any particular process?

    6. f.

      With this data in mind, what do you see are the next steps?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pizzirani, S., McLaren, S.J., Forster, M.E. et al. The distinctive recognition of culture within LCSA: realising the quadruple bottom line. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23, 663–682 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1193-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1193-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation