Exploring the potential of participatory systems thinking techniques in progressing SLCA
- 403 Downloads
There are a range of systems thinking-based methods well established for participatory actions that allow for greater integration of various mental models and understanding of systems that should be considered in advancing engagement methods in SLCA. This paper highlights the potential application of participatory modelling approaches based in systems thinking theory as a potential entry point in stakeholder inclusion and understanding impact pathways and system behaviour in social life cycle assessment (SLCA).
We discuss the application of various systems thinking methodologies to SLCA, along with pertinent examples from literature, and develop a framework that integrates both methodologies.
Results and discussion
Here we propose three distinct benefits of group modelling approaches; (1) procedural benefits through the ability to be inclusive of mental models, various perspectives and enhance stakeholder conceptualisation of a system; and the ability to combine both (2) qualitative and (3) quantitative analysis techniques under a cohesive framework. We propose the specific merits of combining the use of agent-based (AB) and system dynamic (SD) modelling in SLCA due to the emphasis upon consumer decisions and behaviour and the inherently dynamic non-linear cause-effect chains that are common in social systems.
We conclude that many facets of participatory modelling techniques can align with SLCA across the methodology, particularly if enhanced consideration of stakeholders and their various values is desired. We recommend the further development and inclusion of participatory systems thinking-based frameworks to advance the SLCA methodology with specific reference to the ability to enhance interpretation through the analysis of feedbacks that may not be addressed in current approaches.
KeywordsGroup modelling Mental models Participatory modelling Social life cycle assessment System dynamics Systems thinking
The authors would like to extend their gratitude to the anonymous review panel for their invaluable and constructive comments. We would also like to thank Amy Quinton for the integral insight and guidance that led to the enhancement of this paper.
- AnyLogic (2015) AnyLogic: multimethod simulation softwareGoogle Scholar
- Benoît C, Mazijn B (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Bérard C (2010) Group model building using system dynamics: an analysis of methodological frameworks. Electron J Bus Res Meth 8:35–45Google Scholar
- Braun W (2001) The systems modeling workbook. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Checkland P (1999) Soft systems methodology: a 30-year retrospective. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
- Checkland P, Poulter J (2006) Learning for action: a short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers, and students. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
- Ford A (2000) Modeling the environment: an introduction to system dynamics modeling of environmental systems. Island PressGoogle Scholar
- Garrod G, Raley M, Aznar O, Espinosa OB, Barreteau O, Gomez M, Schaft F, Turpin N (2013) Engaging stakeholders through participatory modelling. Proc Inst Civ Eng Eng Sustain 166:75–84Google Scholar
- Gaube V, Kaiser C, Wildenberg M, Adensam H, Fleissner P, Kobler J, Lutz J, Schaumberger A, Schaumberger J, Smetschka B, Wolf A, Richter A, Haberl H (2009) Combining agent-based and stock-flow modelling approaches in a participative analysis of the integrated land system in Reichraming, Austria. Landsc Ecol 24:1149–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hsu C-W, Wang S-W, Hu AH (2013) Development of a new methodology for impact assessment of SLCA, Re-engineering Manufacturing for Sustainability. Springer, pp 469–473Google Scholar
- ISEE Systems (2015) Stella: Systems Thinking for Education and ResearchGoogle Scholar
- Jackson MC (2003) Systems thinking: creative holism for managers. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
- Klugman J (2010) Rapport sur le Développement Humain 2010 - La vraie richesse des nations: les chemins du développement humain, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Korres N, O’Kiely P, Benzie J, West J (2013) Bioenergy production by anaerobic digestion. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
- Laurenti R, Lazarevic D, Poulikidou S, Montrucchio V, Bistagnino L, Frostell B, Hållbar utveckling mot Miljöstrategisk a, Kth, Industriell e, Skolan för arkitektur och s (2014) Group Model-Building to identify potential sources of environmental impacts outside the scope of LCA studies. J Clean Prod 72:96–109Google Scholar
- Lektauers A, Trusins J, Trusina I (2011) Combined multi-scale system dynamics and agent-based framework for sustainable community modelling. Sci J Riga Tech Univ 2:23–27Google Scholar
- Maani K, Cavana RY (2007) Systems thinking, system dynamics: managing change and complexity, 2nd. Prentice Hall, AucklandGoogle Scholar
- Meadows D (1972) The limits to growth: a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Senge PM (2006) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization, rev. and updated. Doubleday/Currency, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Sherwood D (2002) Seeing the forest for the trees: a manager’s guide to applying systems thinking. Nicholas Brealey Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
- Vennix JAM (1996) Group model-building: facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
- Ventana Systems Inc. (2014) VensimGoogle Scholar
- Wilkinson RG, Pickett K (2009) The spirit level: why more equal societies almost always do better. Allen Lane, LondonGoogle Scholar