– Highly trans-disciplinary frameworks examining the system from multiple
perspectives. For instance, this can involve technical (e.g., laboratory cultivation
and mechanical testing), social (e.g., actor analysis, policy analysis, market
analysis and social acceptance), resource (e.g., material flow analysis) and
environmental (e.g., LCA) evaluations.
– Other relevant methodological frameworks referred to the integration of land
change modelling and ecosystem services modelling into LCA, the use of urban
metabolism analysis, interdisciplinary policy assessment, and environmental,
health and safety screening.
Finally, regarding the field of application of these hybrid methods, a wide range
of case studies were presented during the LCM2017 conference. An increasing
interest in bioeconomy-related case studies is observed, involving e.g. algae-based
biorefineries, bio-based high-density polyethylene, microbial production of succinic
acid from mixed food waste, and other biomass value chains. Nevertheless, many
other sectors and topics could be highlighted, such as road planning, food industry,
fishing sector, nanomaterials, and residential buildings.
3 Lessons Learned
It is seen that the development and application of methodological frameworks
involving different approaches, scopes and methods leads to a useful holistic perspective in the evaluation of product systems. In this sense, this type of nuanced
evaluation can offer a more robust foundation for decision-making processes than
one perspective or method in isolation. Nevertheless, with the aim of guaranteeing
the provision of consistent and sound results, a robust methodological harmonisation is of paramount importance, but often underdeveloped in many cases, e.g.
when defining benchmarks in MCDA studies. This arises as a key issue to be
addressed when developing and applying combined methods for multi-dimensional
assessment.
A key strength of the proposed frameworks is the enriched interpretation and
communication of the results, often providing easy-to-report results in line with the
demands of the industry and other relevant stakeholders (policy-makers, society,
etc.). Trans-disciplinary approaches can inform an arena of research and industrial
partners with different perspectives to facilitate discussion and more well-informed
decisions. Furthermore, combined methodological frameworks can even shorten the
time-to-market for new technologies. However, achieving an extended use of
multi-dimensional approaches is still a pending issue. In addition to research efforts
in the field of systems analysis, a higher level of stakeholder involvement (e.g.,
through open space workshops) could help in this direction.
Potentials and Limitations of Combined …
315
perspectives. For instance, this can involve technical (e.g., laboratory cultivation
and mechanical testing), social (e.g., actor analysis, policy analysis, market
analysis and social acceptance), resource (e.g., material flow analysis) and
environmental (e.g., LCA) evaluations.
– Other relevant methodological frameworks referred to the integration of land
change modelling and ecosystem services modelling into LCA, the use of urban
metabolism analysis, interdisciplinary policy assessment, and environmental,
health and safety screening.
Finally, regarding the field of application of these hybrid methods, a wide range
of case studies were presented during the LCM2017 conference. An increasing
interest in bioeconomy-related case studies is observed, involving e.g. algae-based
biorefineries, bio-based high-density polyethylene, microbial production of succinic
acid from mixed food waste, and other biomass value chains. Nevertheless, many
other sectors and topics could be highlighted, such as road planning, food industry,
fishing sector, nanomaterials, and residential buildings.
3 Lessons Learned
It is seen that the development and application of methodological frameworks
involving different approaches, scopes and methods leads to a useful holistic perspective in the evaluation of product systems. In this sense, this type of nuanced
evaluation can offer a more robust foundation for decision-making processes than
one perspective or method in isolation. Nevertheless, with the aim of guaranteeing
the provision of consistent and sound results, a robust methodological harmonisation is of paramount importance, but often underdeveloped in many cases, e.g.
when defining benchmarks in MCDA studies. This arises as a key issue to be
addressed when developing and applying combined methods for multi-dimensional
assessment.
A key strength of the proposed frameworks is the enriched interpretation and
communication of the results, often providing easy-to-report results in line with the
demands of the industry and other relevant stakeholders (policy-makers, society,
etc.). Trans-disciplinary approaches can inform an arena of research and industrial
partners with different perspectives to facilitate discussion and more well-informed
decisions. Furthermore, combined methodological frameworks can even shorten the
time-to-market for new technologies. However, achieving an extended use of
multi-dimensional approaches is still a pending issue. In addition to research efforts
in the field of systems analysis, a higher level of stakeholder involvement (e.g.,
through open space workshops) could help in this direction.
Potentials and Limitations of Combined …
315