Lives We Have Reason to Value

  • Dave Moore


This chapter considers the overall importance of understanding and assimilating values when undertaking projects concerned with designing for sustainable futures, in particular when working in large transdisciplinary teams. Examples are drawn from two projects of varying size in New Zealand. The specific roles of a human factors and ergonomics (HFE) professional in transdisciplinary work are also outlined using one of these examples and Hollnagel’s five Nitty Gritty first principles. An additional value for the discipline of HFE is proposed in the form of a commitment to democracy.


Forms of capital Values, Sustainable Livelihoods Framework Multiple value cost benefit Worldviews Transdisciplinary Democracy 



Tim Barnard, SCION Research and the Advisory Board of the Weaving the Korowai Project. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment: funders of the Weaving the Korowai Project 2016–2019 phase.

Members of the New Zealand Fishing Safety Forum, and the Centre of Occupational Health and Safety Research at Auckland University of Technology: funders of the multi-value cost-benefit study.


  1. Alkire, S. (2005). Valuing freedoms: Sen’s capability approach and poverty reduction. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bebbington, J., Higgins, C., & Frame, R. (2009). Initiating sustainable development reporting: Evidence from New Zealand. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22, 588–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clerc, J. M. (Ed.). (1985). Introduction to working conditions and environment. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization.Google Scholar
  4. Closing the Gap. The spirit level for New Zealand. Accessed 24 Aug 2017.
  5. Elkington, J. (2004). Enter the triple bottom line. In A. Henriques & J. Richardson (Eds.), The triple bottom line: Does it all add up? London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  6. (The) Equality Trust. Slides of key graphs and tables from The Spirit Level (2009). Downloaded 24 Aug 2017.
  7. Gaskin, H., Edwin, M., Moore, D., & Guard, D. (2015). Multi-value cost-benefit analysis in the NZ fishing sector. In G. Lindgaard & D. Moore (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Triennial International Ergonomics Association Congress, Melbourne, 2015.
  8. Hollnagel, E. (2017). The nitty-gritty of human factors. In S. Shorrock & C. Williams (Eds.), Human factors and ergonomics in practice improving system performance & human wellbeing in the real world. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  9. Jollands, N., & Harmsworth, G. (2007). Participation of indigenous groups in sustainable development monitoring: Rationale and example from New Zealand. Ecological Economics, 62, 716–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lange-Morales, K., Thatcher, A., & García-Acosta, G. (2014). Towards a sustainable world through human factors and ergonomics: It is all about values. Ergonomics, 57(11), 1603–1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McCarthy, C. (1994). The crossing. (page 413). London: Picador.Google Scholar
  12. Meister, D. (1999). The history of human factors and ergonomics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Moore, D., & Barnard, T. (2012). With eloquence and humanity? Human factors/ergonomics in sustainable human development. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54(6), 940–951. Special Edition of Keynote Addresses from the 18 IEA Congress, Recife, Brazil. HFES, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
  14. Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. O’Neill, D., & Moore, D. (2017). The evolving realities of HF/E practice in agriculture. In S. Shorrock & C. Williams (Eds.), Human factors and ergonomics in practice improving system performance & human wellbeing in the real world. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analysing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Paine, T. (1776, February 14). Common sense; Addressed to the inhabitants of America (W&T Bradford’s 3rd edition). Philadelphia. Downloaded 24 Aug 2017 from Project Gutenberg.
  18. Pickett, K., & Wilkinson, R. (2010). The spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  19. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Steinbeck, J. (1939). Grapes of wrath. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  21. Tappin, D., Bentley, T., & Vitalis, T. (2008). The role of contextual factors for musculoskeletal disorders in the New Zealand meat processing industry. Ergonomics, 51, 1576–1593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tappin, D., Vitalis, T., & Bentley, T. (2016). The application of an industry level participatory ergonomics approach in developing MSD interventions. Applied Ergonomics, 52, 151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilkin, P. (2010). The ideology of ergonomics. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11, 230–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilson, J. (2014). Fundamentals of systems ergonomics/human factors. Applied Ergonomics, 45, 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dave Moore
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Built Environment Engineering, Faculty of Design and Creative TechnologiesAuckland University of TechnologyAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations