Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is there a place for culture in life cycle sustainability assessment?

  • LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Cultures are increasingly recognised for their inherent value, yet, despite political and societal concern, culture is widely unrecognised in assessment techniques. Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), a technique encompassing environmental, social and economic aspects, is growing in popularity. However, cultural values are rarely considered in LCSA. This paper reviews the meaning of culture; current efforts to include culture in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA), social LCA (S-LCA) and LCSA; and aspects to address when investigating integration of culture in LCA, S-LCA and LCSA.

Methods

A literature review was undertaken on definitions of culture, recognition of culture in policy and decision making, and how culture is incorporated into assessment techniques. The potential for integrating culture in LCSA was evaluated in terms of the potential benefits and challenges.

Results

Culture is often intangible and inaccessible, which may then lead to a lack of recognition in decision-making processes, or if it is recognised, then it is relegated as an afterthought. Explicitly including consideration of culture within LCSA will allow its representation alongside other sustainability aspects. The challenges of representing culture within LCSA include recognising when ‘culture’ should be distinguished from ‘social’; culture’s dynamic nature; the data collection process; and the diversity of cultures between stakeholders and at different scales from community through to nation. The potential benefits of representing culture within LCSA include greater resonance of LCSA results with stakeholders; a more comprehensive decision support tool which appropriately accounts for values; and an assessment technique which may help protect communities and their diversity of cultures.

Conclusions

Representing culture in LCSA is not straightforward and, to some extent, may be addressed through social indicators. However, developing LCSA to explicitly address cultural values has potential benefits. Future research should focus on opportunities for the development of (a) a culturally inclusive LCSA process and (b) additional cultural indicators and/or dimensions of existing LCSA indicators that represent cultural values.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A value-based framework is an approach which assumes a distinct relationship between values and culture, and subsequently between culture and behaviour (Javidan et al. 2006). Scrimgeour and Iremonger (2004) argue that creating a value-based framework (including identifying culture-specific values, criteria, objectives and attributes) is useful for developing a values hierarchy which can then be used when deciding between alternatives.

References

  • Allenby B, Allen D, Davidson C (2007) Sustainable engineering: from myth to mechanism. Environ Qual Manag 17(1):17–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Alonso G, Medici M (2012) UNESCO culture for development indicators suite: a tool to incorporate culture into development strategies. In: van Hooff H, Brugman F, Betancourt G, Martin E, Guzmán B (eds) Culture and development, vol 7. UNESCO, Paris, pp 12–17

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Arcese G, Lucchetti MC, Merli R (2013) Social life cycle assessment as a management tool: methodology for application in tourism. Sustain 5:3275–3287

    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

    Google Scholar 

  • Azapagic A (2004) Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry. J Clean Prod 12(6):639–662

    Google Scholar 

  • Bare JC, Gloria TP (2008) Environmental impact assessment taxonomy providing comprehensive coverage of midpoints, endpoints, damages, and areas of protection. J Clean Prod 16(10):1021–1035

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett SR (2009) Anthropology: a student’s guide to theory and method. University of Toronto Press Incorporated, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumann H, Tillman AM (2004) The hitch hiker’s guide to LCA: an orientation in the life cycle assessment methodology and application. Studentlitteratur, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson M, Steen B (2000) Weighting in LCA—approaches and applications. Environ Prog 19(2):101–109

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Berke PR, Ericksen N, Crawford J, Dixon J (2002) Planning and Indigenous people human rights and environmental protection in New Zealand. J Plan Educ Res 22(2):115–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F (2008) Sacred ecology. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin J, Sonesson U, Tillman AM (2008) Product chain actors’ potential for greening the product life cycle. J Ind Ecol 12(1):95–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Billgren C, Holmén H (2008) Approaching reality: comparing stakeholder analysis and cultural theory in the context of natural resource management. Land Use Policy 25(4):550–562

    Google Scholar 

  • Bras-Klapwijk RM (1998) Are life cycle assessments a threat to sound public policy making? Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(6):333–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunklaus B, Thormark C, Baumann H (2010) Illustrating limitations of energy studies of buildings with LCA and actor analysis. Build Res Inf 38(3):265–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger J (2011) Valuation of environmental quality and eco-cultural attributes in northwestern Idaho: Native Americans are more concerned than Caucasians. Environ Res 111(1):136–142

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J, Gochfeld M, Pletnikoff K, Snigaroff R, Snigaroff D, Stamm T (2008) Ecocultural attributes: evaluating ecological degradation in terms of ecological goods and services versus subsistence and tribal values. Risk Anal 28(5):1261–1272

    Google Scholar 

  • Capitano C, Traverso M, Rizzo G, Finkbeiner M (2011) Life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to marble products. LCM 2011 Conference, Berlin, 29–31 August 2011

  • Chan K, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Klain S, Satterfield T, Basurto X, Bostrom A, Chuenpagdee R, Gould R, Halpern BS (2012a) Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Biogeosciences 62(8):744–756

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan K, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012b) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 74:8–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi HC, Sirakaya E (2006) Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tour Manag 27(6):1274–1289

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciroth A, Finkbeiner M, Hildenbrand J, Klöpffer W, Mazijn B, Prakash S, Sonnermann G, Traverso M, Ugaya C, Valdivia S, Vickery-Niederman G (2011) Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment: making informed choices on products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane P (2006) Exploring cultural capital and its importance in sustainable development. Ecol Econ 57(2):318–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Coelho CRV, McLaren SJ (2013) Rethinking a product and its function using LCA—experiences of New Zealand manufacturing companies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:872–880

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffin AN, Kawe TP (2011) Matakana island planning: an assessment of cultural values and identification of potential effects of urbanisation and land-use change on Maori communities of Makatana and Rangiwaea islands. Tauwhao Te Ngare Trust

  • Cooper I (2011) Economic and social influences on the nature, functioning and sustainability of rainfed farming systems. In: Tow PG (ed) Rainfed farming systems. Springer, London, pp 299–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowell SJ (1998) Environmental life cycle assessment of agricultural systems: integration into decision-making. University of Surrey, Guildford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlbo H, Koskela S, Pihkola H, Nors M, Federley M, Seppälä J (2013) Comparison of different normalised LCIA results and their feasibility in communication. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:850–860

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ricketts TH, Salzman J, Shallenberger R (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):21–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalziel P, Matunga H, Saunders C (2006) Cultural well-being and local government: lessons from New Zealand. Australas J Reg Stud 12(3):267–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis M (2006) Bridging the gap or crossing a bridge? Indigenous knowledge and the language of law and policy. In: Reid WV, Berkes F, Wilbanks TJ, Capistrano D (eds) Bridging scales and knowledge systems: concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment. Island Press, Washington, pp 145–163

    Google Scholar 

  • De Schryver AM, Brakkee KW, Goedkoop MJ, Huijbregts MAJ (2009) Characterization factors for global warming in life cycle assessment based on damages to humans and ecosystems. Environ Sci Technol 43(6):1689–1695

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (2003) Sustainable development for New Zealand: programme of action. Wellington, New Zealand

    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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenfeld JR (1997) The importance of LCAs—warts and all. J Ind Ecol 1(2):41–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Elghali L, Cowell SJ, Begg KG, Clift R (2006) Support for sustainable development policy decisions: a case study from highway maintenance. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):29–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Elghali L, Clift R, Begg KG, McLaren S (2008) Decision support methodology for complex contexts. Eng Sustain 161:7–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellyard P (2008) Designing and innovating a sustainable society. In: Newton P (ed) Transitions: pathways towards sustainable urban development in Australia. CSIRO, Collingwood, pp 675–682

    Google Scholar 

  • English A (2002) More than archaeology: developing comprehensive approaches to Aboriginal heritage management in NSW. Aust J Environ Manag 9(4):218–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Espeland WN (2001) Value-matters. Econ Polit Wkly 36(21):1839–1845

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner M, Schau EM, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustain 2(10):3309–3322

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G (1997) Valuation methods within LCA—where are the values? Int J Life Cycle Assess 2(3):163–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G (1999) A critical review of operational valuation/weighting methods for life cycle assessment. Stockholm, Sweden

  • Finnveden G, Nilsson M, Johansson J, Persson Å, Moberg Å, Carlsson T (2003) Strategic environmental assessment methodologies—applications within the energy sector. Environ Impact Assess Rev 23:91–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Gluch P, Baumann H (2004) The life cycle costing (LCC) approach: a conceptual discussion of its usefulness for environmental decision-making. Build Environ 39(5):571–580

    Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (1999) The Eco-indicator'99: a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment: methodology report. Amersfoort, the Netherlands

  • Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2013) ReCiPe 2008: a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. http://www.lcia-recipe.net/. Accessed 9 October 2013

  • Gould H (2001) Culture and social capital. 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 69–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Granato J, Inglehart R, Leblang D (1996) The effect of cultural values on economic development: theory, hypotheses, and some empirical tests. Am J Polit Sci 40(3):607–631

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy DJ, Patterson MG (2012) Cross-cultural environmental research in New Zealand: insights for ecological economics research practice. Ecol Econ 73:75–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris SG, Harper BL (1997) A Native American exposure scenario. Risk Anal 17(6):789–795

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild MZ (2005) Assessing environmental impacts in a life-cycle perspective. Environ Sci Technol 39(4):81A–88A

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild MZ, Dreyer L, Jørgensen A (2008) Assessing social impacts in a life cycle perspective—lessons learned. CIRP Ann-Manuf Tech 57(1):21–24

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Head L, Trigger D, Mulcock J (2005) Culture as concept and influence in environmental research and management. Conserv Soc 3(2):251

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Huppes G, Guinée JB (2010) Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of products, materials and technologies: toward a scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis. Polym Degradation Stab 95(3):422–428

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hein L, Van Koppen K, De Groot RS, Van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57(2):209–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiskanen E (1999) Every product casts a shadow: but can we see it, and can we act on it? Env Sci Pol 2:61–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiskanen E (2000) Managers’ interpretations of LCA: enlightenment and responsibility or confusion and denial? Bus Strat Env 9(4):239–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiskanen E (2001) Institutionalization of life-cycle thinking in the everyday discourse of market actors. J Ind Ecol 4(4):31–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiskanen E (2002) The institutional logic of life cycle thinking. J Clean Prod 10:427–437

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellweg S, Hofstetter T, Hungerbuhler K (2003) Discounting and the environment: should current impacts be weighted differently than impacts harming future generations? Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(1):8–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Morcillo M, Plieninger T, Bieling C (2013) An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecol Indic 29:434–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK (2001) A decision-analytic framework for impact assessment. Part I: LCA and decision analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(1):5–12

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede G (1980) Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values, vol 5. Sage, London

  • Hofstetter P, Baumgartner T, Scholz RW (2000) Modelling the valuesphere and the ecosphere: integrating the decision makers’ perspectives into LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(3):161–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Howden K (2001) Indigenous traditional knowledge and native title. Univ New South Wales Law J 24(1):60–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu M, Kleijn R, Bozhilova-Kisheva KP, Di Maio F (2013) An approach to LCSA: the case of concrete recycling. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(9):1793–1803

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hunkeler DJ (2006) Societal LCA methodology and case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):371–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins MJ, Sutherland JW (2008) An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. J Clean Prod 16(15):1688–1698

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart R, Baker WE (2000) Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. Am Soc Rev 65(1):19–51

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006) ISO 14044 international standard. Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2010) ISO 26000: social responsibility. International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson S (2006) Compartmentalising culture: the articulation and consideration of Indigenous values in water resource management. Aust Geogr 37(1):19–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs P, Mulvihill P (1995) Ancient lands: new perspectives. Towards multi-cultural literacy in landscape management. Landsc Urban Plann 32(1):7–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Javidan M, House RJ, Dorfman PW, Hanges PJ, De Luque MS (2006) Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: a comparative review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches. J Int Bus Stud 37(6):897–914

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeswani HK, Azapagic A, Schepelmann P, Ritthoff M (2010) Options for broadening and deepening the LCA approaches. J Clean Prod 18(2):120–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):96–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen A, Finkbeiner M, Jørgensen MS, Hauschild MZ (2010) Defining the baseline in social life cycle assessment. Int J of Life Cycle Assess 15(4):376–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Gregory RS (2005) Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of objectives. Op Res 53(1):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketola T, Salmi T (2010) Sustainability life cycle comparison of biofuels: sewage the saviour? Manag Env Qual: An Int J 21(6):796–811

    Google Scholar 

  • King TF (2000) What should be the “cultural resources” element of an EIA? Environ Impact Assess Rev 20(1):5–30

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuruppu N (2009) Adapting water resources to climate change in Kiribati: the importance of cultural values and meanings. Env Sci Pol 12(7):799–809

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane MB (2006) The role of planning in achieving indigenous land justice and community goals. Land Use Policy 23(4):385–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung K, Bhagat RS, Buchan NR, Erez M, Gibson CB (2005) Culture and international business: recent advances and their implications for future research. J Int Bus Stud 36(4):357–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay NJ (2005) Toward a cultural model of indigenous entrepreneurial attitude. Acad Mark Sci Rev 5:1–15

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Löfgren B, Tillman A-M, Rinde B (2011) Manufacturing actor’s LCA. J Clean Prod 19:2025–2033

    Google Scholar 

  • Luckman PG (2006) KiwiGrow(TM): a community and environmental health framework for sustainable development. In: Mander U, Brebbia CA, Tiezzi E (eds) The sustainable city IV: urban regeneration and sustainability. WIT Press, Ashurst, pp 155–168

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLean D (1996) Environmental ethics and human values. In: Cothern RC (ed) Handbook for environmental risk decision making: values, perceptions & ethics. CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Macnaghten P, Jacobs M (1997) Public identification with sustainable development: investigating cultural barriers to participation. Glob Environ Chang 7(1):5–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Macombe C, Leskinen P, Feschet P, Antikainen R (2013) Social life cycle assessment of biodiesel production at three levels: a literature review and development needs. J Clean Prod 52:205–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, Lomas PL, Montes C (2009) Effects of spatial and temporal scales on cultural services valuation. J Environ Manag 90(2):1050–1059

    Google Scholar 

  • Mettier TM, Hofstetter P (2004) Survey insights into weighting environmental damages: influence of context and group. J Ind Ecol 8(4):189–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Miettinen P, Hämäläinen RP (1997) How to benefit from decision analysis in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA). Eur J Op Res 102(2):279–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends, vol 1. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Molina-Murillo SA, Smith TM (2009) Exploring the use and impact of LCA-based information in corporate communications. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:184–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Montes de Oca Munguia O, Harmsworth G, Young R, Dymond J (2009) The use of an agent-based model to represent Māori cultural values. 18th World IMACS/MODSIM Congress, Cairns, Australia, pp 2849–2855

  • Moriizumi Y, Matsui N, Hondo H (2010) Simplified life cycle sustainability assessment of mangrove management: a case of plantation on wastelands in Thailand. J Clean Prod 18(16):1629–1638

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1994) Building consensus: risk assessment and management in the Department of Energy’s environmental remediation program. Washington, DC

  • Nissinen A, Grönroos J, Heiskanen E, Honkanen A, Katajajuuri J-M, Kurppa S, Mäkinen T, Mäenpää I, Seppälä J, Timonen P (2007) Developing benchmarks for consumer-oriented life cycle assessment-based environmental information on products, services and consumption patterns. J Clean Prod 15:538–549

    Google Scholar 

  • Noll H-H (2002) Towards a European system of social indicators: theoretical framework and system architecture. Soc Indic Res 58(1–3):47–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordic Council of Ministers (2010) Arctic social indicators: follow-up to the Artic Human Development report. TemaNord, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Nurse K (2006) Culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development. In: Small states: economic review and basic statistics, vol 11. Commonwealth Secretariat, London, pp 28–40

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2011) Society at a glance 2011—OECD social indicators. www.oecd.org/els/social/indicators/SAG. Accessed 10 July 2013

  • Palmer S (2011) Pilot of a tool for cultural impact assessment in local government RMA decisions: based on the Waiora concept of Maori wellbeing. Tumana Research, Coromandel, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Parent J, Cucuzzella C, Revéret J-P (2010) Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:164–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Plieningera T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, Bieling C (2013) Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33:118–129

    Google Scholar 

  • RMA Quality Planning Resource (2012) Consent support guidance note FAQ’s about cultural impact assessments. RMA Quality Planning Resource, Auckland, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Roccas S, Sagiv L (2010) Personal values and behavior: taking the cultural context into account. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 4(1):30–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross A, Pickering K (2002) The politics of reintegrating Australian Aboriginal and American Indian indigenous knowledge into resource management: the dynamics of resource appropriation and cultural revival. Hum Ecol 30(2):187–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Saastamoinen O (2005) Multiple ethics for multidimensional sustainability of forestry? Silva Carelica 49:37–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Saint-Arnaud M, Asselin H, Dube C, Croteau Y, Paptie C (2009) Developing criteria and indicators for Aboriginal forestry: mutual learning through collaborative research. In: Stevenson MG, Natcher DC (eds) Changing the culture of forestry in Canada: building effective institutions for Aboriginal engagement in sustainable forest management, vol 60. CCI Press Occasional Publication, Edmonton

    Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield T, Gregory R, Klain S, Roberts M, Chan KM (2013) Culture, intangibles and metrics in environmental management. J Environ Manag 117:103–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaich H, Bieling C, Plieninger T (2010) Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research. GAIA-Ecol Pers Sci Soc 19(4):269–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt W-P, Sullivan J (2002) Weighting in life cycle assessments in a global context. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(1):5–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz SH (1999) A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Appl Psychol 48(1):23–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz SH (2006) A theory of cultural value orientations: explication and applications. Comp Sociol 5(2–3):137–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Scrimgeour F, Iremonger C (2004) Maori sustainable economic development in New Zealand: indigenous practices for the quadruple bottom line. University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiller R, Lake C (2003) Investing in culture—the 4th bottom line. Ethical Invest 22:14–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson J (2008) The cultural values model: an integrated approach to values in landscapes. Landsc Urban Plann 84(2):127–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson J, Moller H (2009) Cross-cultural environmental research and management: challenges and progress. J R Soc N Z 39(4):139–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson MG (1996) Indigenous knowledge in environmental assessment. Arctic 49(3):278–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Te Ao Marama Inc. (2004) Cultural impact assessment on the Ngai Tahu spiritual and cultural relationship with the Manawapopore/Hikuraki (Mavora Lakes) area

  • Teddlie C, Tashakkori A (2008) Foundations of mixed methods research: integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Tengberg A, Fredholm S, Eliasson I, Knez I, Saltzman K, Wetterberg O (2012) Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosyst Serv 2:14–26

    Google Scholar 

  • The Montréal Process (2009) Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests, 4th edn

  • Thompson M, Ellis R, Wildavsky A (1990) Cultural theory. Political cultures series. Westview, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Thrift N, Whatmore S (2004) Cultural geography: critical concepts in the social sciences. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Tipa G, Teirney LD (2003) A Cultural Health Index for streams and waterways: indicators for recognising and expressing Māori values. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Traverso M, Asdrubali F, Francia A, Finkbeiner M (2012) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(8):1068–1070

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tukker A (2000) Life cycle assessment as a tool in environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:435–456

    Google Scholar 

  • Tukker A (2002a) Life-cycle assessment and the precautionary principle. Environ Sci Technol 36(3):70A–75A

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tukker A (2002b) Risk analysis, life cycle assessment—the common challenge of dealing with the precautionary frame (based on the toxicity controversy in Sweden and the Netherlands). Risk Anal 22(5):821–832

    Google Scholar 

  • Udo de Haes HA (2000) Weighting in life cycle assessment: is there a coherent perspective? J Ind Ecol 3(4):3–7

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP, SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Belgium

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (1972) Resolutions and recommendations 3.3: studies and development of culture, vol 1. Paris, France

  • UNESCO (2001) UNESCO universal declaration on cultural diversity. Resolution 15 adopted by the General Conference at its 31st session, vol 1. Paris, France

  • UNESCO (2003) Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. Paris, France

  • UNESCO (2005) Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions. Paris, France

  • UNESCO (2009) Investing in cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue. Paris, France

  • UNESCO (2010) Towards a UNESCO suite of indicators on culture and development: literature review

  • United Nations (2007) United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, vol G.A. Res. 61/295. United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Valdivia S, Ugaya CML, Hildenbrand J, Traverso M, Mazijn B, Sonnemann G (2013) A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio+20. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(9):1673–1685

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Bos K, Poortvliet PM, Maas M, Miedema J, van den Ham E-J (2005) An enquiry concerning the principles of cultural norms and values: the impact of uncertainty and mortality salience on reactions to violations and bolstering of cultural worldviews. J Exp Soc Psych 41:91–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay F (2002) Conceptualising social impacts. Environ Impact Assess Rev 22(3):183–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Venn TJ, Quiggin J (2007) Accommodating indigenous cultural heritage values in resource assessment: Cape York Peninsula and the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Ecol Econ 61(2):334–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinyes E, Oliver-Solà J, Ugaya C, Rieradevall J, Gasol CM (2013) Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(2):445–455

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walz R, Herrchen M, Keller D, Stahl B (1996) Impact category ecotoxicity and valuation procedure. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1(4):193–198

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema BP, Lindeijer E (2001) Physical impacts of land use in product life cycle assessment. Final report of the EURENVIRON-LCAGAPS sub-project on land use. Lyngby, Denmark

  • Weinstein JA (2005) Social and cultural change: social science for a dynamic world, 2nd edn. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner F (2005) Ambiguities in decision-oriented life cycle inventories: the role of mental models and values. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner F, Scholz RW (2002) Ambiguities in decision-oriented life cycle inventories: the role of mental models. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(6):330–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood R, Hertwich EG (2012) Economic modelling and indicators in life cycle sustainability assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(9):1710–1721

    Google Scholar 

  • World Commission on Culture and Development (1995) Our creative diversity: report of the World Commission on Culture and Development. UNESCO Publishing, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A (2012) Life cycle sustainability assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:373–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A, Buttol P, Buonamici R, Masoni P, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Heijungs R, van der Voet E, Ekvall T, Rydberg T (2009) D20 blue paper on life cycle sustainability analysis

  • Zamagni A, Amerighi O, Buttol P (2011) Strengths or bias in social LCA? Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):596–598

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou Z, Jiang H, Qin L (2007) Life cycle sustainability assessment of fuels. Fuel 86(1):256–263

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The literature review highlighted in this paper is part of a PhD project which is funded by the New Zealand Life Cycle Management Centre, Massey University and Scion. The authors would like to thank Dr Margaret Forster and Dr Tim Payn for their valuable input and feedback during the process of writing this paper and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive and encouraging feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Stefania Pizzirani & Jeffrey K. Seadon

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

    Stefania Pizzirani & Sarah J. McLaren

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

    Stefania Pizzirani, Sarah J. McLaren & Jeffrey K. Seadon

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. Jeffrey K. Seadon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefania Pizzirani.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Alessandra Zamagni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pizzirani, S., McLaren, S.J. & Seadon, J.K. Is there a place for culture in life cycle sustainability assessment?. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19, 1316–1330 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0722-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0722-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation