AUTHOR QUERY FORM

Book: CCE36C-9780444634726

Chapter: 24

Please e-mail your responses and any

corrections to:

E-mail: R.Lakshmanan@elsevier.com

Dear Author,

Any queries or remarks that have arisen during the processing of your manuscript are listed below and are highlighted by

flags in the proof. (AU indicates author queries; ED indicates editor queries; and TS/TY indicates typesetter queries.)

Please check your proof carefully and answer all AU queries. Mark all corrections and query answers at the appropriate

place in the proof using on-screen annotation in the PDF file. For a written tutorial on how to annotate PDFs, click

http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/203560/Annotating-PDFs-Adobe-Reader-9-X-or-XI.pdf. A video

tutorial is also available at http://www.screencast.com/t/9OIDFhihgE9a. Alternatively, you may compile them in

a separate list and tick off below to indicate that you have answered the query.

Please return your input as instructed by the project manager.

Location in Chapter

Query / Remark

AU:1, page 1 Missing reference: Ban-Yam, 1997 is not listed in the ‘References’ section; please

provide complete reference details. ,

AU:2, page 10 Please check the year of publication for the reference “Popovic et al., 2014”. ,

C0024 Social Sustainabilityof Complex Systems 24

Tamara Popovic*,1, Andrzej Kraslawski*,x

*School of Industrial Engineering and Management, Lappeenranta University of Technology,

Lappeenranta, FinlandxFaculty of Process and Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland

1Corresponding author: E-mail: tamara.popovic@lut.fi

s0010 24.1 INTRODUCTIONp0010 The great majority of the systems resulting from natural evolution (atmosphere,

ocean, earth, etc.), social interactions (group, community, etc.), and engineeringactivities (city, factory, market, etc.) can be classified as complex systems(Li et al., 2004). Thus, it is not surprising that the interest for better understandingof their functioning is incessant.

p0015 Even with the increasing interest in complex systems, their generally accepteddefinition is still missing. Most commonly they are understood as sets composedof large number of interconnected elements (agents) that create stable structuresthanks to their interactions (Mitchell, 2006). That actually means that describingor understanding the function of one part of the system cannot give informationabout the function of the whole system (Ban-Yam, 1997½AU1� ). Basic characteristics ofcomplex systems are

u0010 • Unpredictable behavior,u0015 • Plethora of interconnections,u0020 • Emerging new type of behavior,u0025 • Synergy phenomena (inability to calculate it just by adding new elements), andu0030 • Ability of self-organization (Marczyk and Deshpande, 2008).

p0045 The above mentioned characteristics make complex systems closely related to so-cial, technological, and natural processes (Sokolova and Fernandez-Caballero,2012), because there is always a risk that the difficulty of predicting behavior of com-plex systems will have a negative impact on society and human well-being (Brinsmeadand Hooker, 2011). Also, Misra et al. (2010) emphasize the importance of understand-ing the vulnerabilities of complex systems, as today’s society is reliant on their variousfunctions. Therefore, complex systems, as such, can have an impact on various socialsustainability aspects such as health, comfort, safety, etc. That motivates the need ofresearch for an assessment of social sustainability of complex systems.

CHAPTER

Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, Volume 36. ISSN 1570-7946. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63472-6.00024-0

© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.1

10024-CCE36C-9780444634726

To protect the rights of the author(s) and publisherwe inform you that this PDF is an uncorrected proof for internal business use only by the author(s), editor(s), reviewer(s),

Elsevier and typesetter TNQBooks and Journals Pvt Ltd. It is not allowed to publish this proof online or in print. This proof copy is the copyright property of the publisher

and is confidential until formal publication.

s0015 24.2 SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITYp0050 It is generally accepted that the social pillar is one of the least addressed elements of

sustainability (Colantonio, 2011). And as it can be seen in Figure 24.1, social sus-tainability requires further development in order to be assimilated with environ-mental and economic sustainability and thus enable a detailed assessment of allsustainability pillars.

p0055 The assessment of the sustainability is usually made using sustainability indica-tors, thus social sustainability indicators should address impact on the social systems(Brent and Labuschagne, 2006). The main role of sustainability indicators is tosimplify the evaluation process and to enable easier use of the obtained assessmentsby stakeholders, project engineers, politicians, etc. (Parkes et al., 2012). The existingmethods of social sustainability assessment are diversified and developed by manyorganizations and researchers. Social sustainability can be assessed by using indica-tor frameworks, social impact assessment (SIA) guidelines, government actions,socially responsible investment indexes, international standards and guidelines,corporate social responsibility standards, etc. (Brent and Labuschagne, 2006). Theexisting methodologies and frameworks are usually applying similar social impactcategories (Benoıt, 2010), for example, social sustainability comprises large set ofspecific impact categories. Some of them are health, housing, security, empower-ment, equity, human rights, etc. (Brent and Labuschagne, 2006). The high diversityof the existing methodologies is a basis for the further presentation of the SIA, sociallife cycle assessment (S-LCA), and global reporting initiative (GRI).

f0010 FIGURE 24.1

Three pillars of sustainability.

2 CHAPTER 24 Social Sustainability of Complex Systems

10024-CCE36C-9780444634726

To protect the rights of the author(s) and publisherwe inform you that this PDF is an uncorrected proof for internal business use only by the author(s), editor(s), reviewer(s),

Elsevier and typesetter TNQBooks and Journals Pvt Ltd. It is not allowed to publish this proof online or in print. This proof copy is the copyright property of the publisher

and is confidential until formal publication.

s0020 24.2.1 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

p0060 Social impact assessment is developed as addition to the Environmental ImpactAssessment (Benoıt and Vickery-Niederman, 2010). It is methodology that assessessocial sustainability by using qualitative and quantitative indicators useful for deci-sion makers (Benoıt and Vickery-Niederman, 2010). Guideline for social impactassessment is comprised of six principles, which are summarized in Table 24.1(US principles and guidelines, 2003).

s0025 24.2.2 SOCIAL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

p0065 S-LCA is a social impact assessment methodology that focuses on life cycle activ-ities that affect people (Dreyer et al., 2006). It is developed as an addition to LifeCycle Assessment (LCA) in order to include the social aspect of sustainability inthe LCA methodology (Jørgensen et al., 2008). However, S-LCA can be used indi-vidually without combining it with LCA. The phases in the S-LCA are derived fromthe ISO14044 framework as

u0035 • Goal and scope definition,u0040 • Life cycle inventory analysis,u0045 • Life cycle impact assessment, andu0050 • Interpretation (UNEP, 2009).

p0090 Stakeholder involvement is highly emphasized, and stakeholders play a crucialrole in the S-LCA methodology (UNEP, 2009). Therefore, indicators developedfor the evaluation in the S-LCA are phased according by the stakeholders (workers,local community, consumers, society, and value chain actors) affected by the lifecycle activities. However, an extensive list of selected indicators does not exist,because their use depends on the goal and scope of the study (UNEP, 2009).

s0030 24.2.3 GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE

p0095 GRI is one of the sustainability reporting frameworks, which assess social, environ-mental, and economic sustainability. The scope of GRI as monitoring framework is

t0010 Table 24.1 Principles of SIA

Principle 1 Evaluate existing human environment, which could be affected by thecertain action, program, or policy.

Principle 2 Evaluate social sustainability aspects from human environment that couldbe affected by certain action, program, or policy.

Principle 3 Identify methods that could be used for evaluation of impacts.

Principle 4 Collect data needed for making evaluation.

Principle 5 Verify that all social sustainability aspects are included in process ofevaluation.

Principle 6 Perform evaluation or monitoring of the certain action, program, or policy.

US principles and guidelines, 2003

24.2 Social Sustainability 3

10024-CCE36C-9780444634726

To protect the rights of the author(s) and publisherwe inform you that this PDF is an uncorrected proof for internal business use only by the author(s), editor(s), reviewer(s),

Elsevier and typesetter TNQBooks and Journals Pvt Ltd. It is not allowed to publish this proof online or in print. This proof copy is the copyright property of the publisher

and is confidential until formal publication.

process industry, which can make reports about their sustainability development.It is the best known voluntary framework for sustainability reporting (Marimonet al., 2012). The framework uses indicators for the assessment of the three pillarsof sustainability.

p0100 For social sustainability, the subcategories according to which the indicators aresorted could be labor practices and decent work, human rights, society, and productresponsibility (GRI, 2013). The main purpose of GRI is to give information to stake-holders so they can make proper decisions about investments or purchase of certainproduct. Another purpose can be seen in comparing results with other corporations(Marimon et al., 2012).

s0035 24.3 SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY OF COMPLEX SYSTEMp0105 A common characteristic of previously presented assessment methodologies is the

inability to make a complete social sustainability assessment of complex systems(UNEP, 2009). The same is stated in Agenda 21 (United Nations SustainableDevelopment, 1992), that the policies for full assessment of the sustainability ofcomplex systems are still missing and that research actions should be focused ondeveloping assessment tools.

p0110 According to some authors, such as Babarenda Gamage et al. (2010), the assess-ment of sustainability of complex systems can be done by understanding character-istics of systems and their possible impacts on the various aspects of sustainability. Ifnone of the existing methodologies is able to allow for an evaluation, further devel-opment of a new model has to be performed (Babarenda Gamage et al., 2010). Basedon that approach, the steps in the social sustainability assessment of complexsystems can be presented as in Figure 24.2.

f0015 FIGURE 24.2

Steps in assessing social sustainability of complex systems.

4 CHAPTER 24 Social Sustainability of Complex Systems

10024-CCE36C-9780444634726

To protect the rights of the author(s) and publisherwe inform you that this PDF is an uncorrected proof for internal business use only by the author(s), editor(s), reviewer(s),

Elsevier and typesetter TNQBooks and Journals Pvt Ltd. It is not allowed to publish this proof online or in print. This proof copy is the copyright property of the publisher

and is confidential until formal publication.

p0115 The new methodology can be developed by incorporating two or more existingmethods in order to encompass all properties and impacts of complex systems(Babarenda Gamage et al., 2010).

s0040 24.4 CASE STUDYp0120 Even with the high diversity of assessment methodologies a generally accepted

methodology for evaluation of social sustainability of complex systems is stillmissing. This is because existing methodologies and frameworks are not fully devel-oped and cannot encompass all characteristics of complex systems. Therefore,further research and development on social sustainability is still needed.

p0125 Presented methodologies (SIA, S-LCA, GRI) can serve as the foundation forfurther development of new methodologies for assessing social sustainability ofcomplex systems. Since the main tools for measuring social sustainability are indi-cators, their development is highly encouraged. The indicators should cover a highrange of impacts and be understandable for all stakeholders as crucial elements ofassessment of social sustainability.

p0130 For instance, social sustainability indicators can be developed and classifiedaccording to aspects such as health, comfort, safety and security, social capital,social equity, and social peace (Popovic et al., 2014). Popovic et al. (2014) addressedthe social impact in the context of sustainability by proposing a set of indicators. Thedeveloped indicators have been used to enable quantitative assessment of socialsustainability of wastewater treatment facilities. The proposed indicators arepresented in Table 24.2.

p0135 The calculation and evaluation of the proposed indicators is performed on thebasis of the annual reports of various wastewater treatment plants (Popovic et al.,2014). The detailed calculation is omitted in this chapter and the obtained resultsare given in Table 24.3.

p0140 From the results obtained in Table 24.3 it can be inferred that the social sustain-ability indicators proposed by Popovic et al. (2014) can be used only for relativeevaluation of the process.

p0145 The same observations are obtained using methodologies and frameworkspresented previously (SIA, S-LCA, GRI). However, the difference between SIA,S-LCA, or GRI and the approach used by Popovic et al. (2014) consists in thefact that SIA, S-LCA, and GRI use general indicators, i.e., the social sustainabilityindicators are not specifically developed for one type of the system. That kind ofapproach could cause omission of some relevant impacts on social sustainability.It can provoke the question whether it is better to develop and use generalized indi-cators or to make them system/process specific. However, analyzing the literatureone can easily see that various complex systems have influence on different aspectsof social sustainability. Therefore, the approach based on the use of system-specificindicators appears to be more suitable to address the issue of a broader range ofimpacts.

24.4 Case Study 5

10024-CCE36C-9780444634726

To protect the rights of the author(s) and publisherwe inform you that this PDF is an uncorrected proof for internal business use only by the author(s), editor(s), reviewer(s),

Elsevier and typesetter TNQBooks and Journals Pvt Ltd. It is not allowed to publish this proof online or in print. This proof copy is the copyright property of the publisher

and is confidential until formal publication.

t0015 Table 24.2 Quantitative Social Sustainability Indicators for Wastewater Treatment Facilities

Social SustainabilityAspect

Social SustainabilityIndicator Indicator Definition Method of Evaluation Unit of Measure

Health Violations Shows concentration ofpollutants, which deviate fromconcentration of pollutantsdictated by law (e.g., BOD,TSS)

Concentration at the end ofprocess/concentrationdictated by law

e

Vision Presents the goal of thewastewater treatment plant toachieve certain cleaningproperties, by estimatingpercentage of annual budgetallocated for vision

(Investment for vision/annual plant budget) 100%

%

Scope of network Shows percentage ofresidents connected tosewers

% of householdsconnected to treatment

%

Comfort Onerousness Shows occupied area by thewastewater treatment plant,as well as sewer pipedurability by estimatingfrequency of their change

km2of occupied land;km of sewer pipeschanged/year

km2;km/year

Scope of sludgetreatment

Shows percentage ofactivated sludge used inagriculture, landfills, orthermal disposal, etc.

% of treated sludge %

Safety and security Employee training Shows hours of training peryear and worker satisfactionby the level of training

h of training/year;% of workers satisfied withlevel of training

h/year;%

Research anddevelopment

Shows number of projectsdone in the wastewatertreatment plant within certaintime period

No. of successful projects/total no. of projects

e

6CHAPTER24

SocialSusta

inability

ofComplexSyste

ms

10024-CCE36C

-9780444634726

Toprotectth

erig

htsoftheauthor(s)

andpublish

erweinform

youthatth

isPDFisan

uncorrected

proofforintern

albusin

essuse

onlybytheauthor(s),ed

itor(s),rev

iewer(s),

Elsev

ierandtypesetter

TNQBooksandJournals

PvtLtd.It

isnotallo

wed

topublish

thisproofonlin

eorinprin

t.Thisproofcopyisthecopyrig

htproperty

ofthepublish

er

andisconfid

ential

until

form

alpublicatio

n.

Social capital (Popovicet al., 2014)

Customer value Shows amount of water reuseand for what purpose

% of reused water %

Subsidies Shows percentage ofsubsidies from publicinstitutions that is used e.g.,for improvement of process.

% of subsidies of total plantbudget

%

Efficiency Shows the number of expertsexchange across sectors

Number of experts in agiven organization/totalnumber of experts

e

Social equity (Popovicet al., 2014)

Fees Compares the price of thetreatment for customers andindustries

Price for residents: price forcompanies ¼ x:y

e

Local affairs/autonomy Shows existence/absence ofprice variations amongdifferent regions

(price at certain distancedminimum price)/price atcertain distance

e

Social compatibleness Shows financial accessibilityto the treatment, byestimating billing method forthe treatment

V/m3 of wastewater or % ofincome/m3

V ($)/m3 or %

Social peace (Popovicet al., 2014)

Responsiveness Shows ability of plant to reacton sudden hazard situations

Number of exercises/year No./year

Corporateenvironmentalawareness

Shows approach of differentcompanies/industries to thetreatment of its wastewater

Number of companies(industries) treating theirown wastewater/totalnumber of companies(industries) in community

e

Participativeness Shows possibility forstakeholders to be involved indecision-making

Number of elections/totalnumber of new projects

e

24.4

Case

Study

7

10024-CCE36C

-9780444634726

Toprotectth

erig

htsoftheauthor(s)

andpublish

erweinform

youthatth

isPDFisan

uncorrected

proofforintern

albusin

essuse

onlybytheauthor(s),ed

itor(s),rev

iewer(s),

Elsev

ierandtypesetter

TNQBooksandJournals

PvtLtd.It

isnotallo

wed

topublish

thisproofonlin

eorinprin

t.Thisproofcopyisthecopyrig

htproperty

ofthepublish

er

andisconfid

ential

until

form

alpublicatio

n.

t0020 Table 24.3 The Assessment of the Values of Social Sustainability Indicators

Social SustainabilityAspect Indicator Obtained Value (result) Source

Health Violations 0.11 (BOD); 0.24 (TSS) Operations report (2012)

Vision 93%

Scope of network 76.3%

Comfort Onerousness 630.54 km

Scope of sludge treatment 1407 t

Safety and security Employee training 91.67% of satisfied workers

Research and development 0.71

Social capital Customer value 19% for irrigation Assefaw et al. (2009)

Subsidies 55.7% Assefaw et al. (2009)

Efficiency Lack of data e

Social equity Fees Price for residents: price forindustry ¼ (8.50$ þ (3.46$/1000 gallons)): ((8.50$ þ (3.46$/1000 gallons)) þ surcharge fees)

Rates and Fees (2013)

Local affairs/autonomy 0dsame price regardless of the distance Rates and Fees (2013)

Social compatibleness $/1000 gallons Rates and Fees (2013)

Social peace Responsiveness 96 work observations/year Annual Report (2011)

Corporate environmental awareness Lack of data e

Participativeness 1dstakeholders included in decision-making

Assefaw et al. (2009)

8CHAPTER24

SocialSusta

inability

ofComplexSyste

ms

10024-CCE36C

-9780444634726

Toprotectth

erig

htsoftheauthor(s)

andpublish

erweinform

youthatth

isPDFisan

uncorrected

proofforintern

albusin

essuse

onlybytheauthor(s),ed

itor(s),rev

iewer(s),

Elsev

ierandtypesetter

TNQBooksandJournals

PvtLtd.It

isnotallo

wed

topublish

thisproofonlin

eorinprin

t.Thisproofcopyisthecopyrig

htproperty

ofthepublish

er

andisconfid

ential

until

form

alpublicatio

n.

p0150 However, social sustainability as a wide, emerging field requires further develop-ment and research as well as the involvement of a wide range of scholars special-izing in engineering and social scientists.

REFERENCESAnnual Report, 2011. Water andWastewater Treatment Branch, City of Saskatoon. saskatoon.

ca/DEPARTMENTS/City%20Clerks%20Office/Pages/ReportsAndPublications.aspx

(accessed 10.12.13.).Assefaw, M., Karani, P., Hamza, A., Njuguna, P.E., Askari, K., 2009. In: Gabal El-Asafar

Wastewater Treatment Plante Stage II Phase II Project, Project Appraisal Report. African

Development Bank. afdb.org/en/documents/document/egypt-gabal-el-asfar-wastewater-

treatment-plant-stage-ii-phase-ii-project-appraisal-report-40978/ (accessed 17.12.13.).Babarenda Gamage, G., Boyle, C., McDowall, R., 2010. The development of an integrated

model for assessing sustainability of complex systems. In: 4th International Conference

on Sustainability Engineering and Science, Auckland, NZ.Benoıt, C., Vickery-Niederman, G., 2010. Social sustainability assessment literature review.

In: The Sustainability Consortium. Arizona State University and University of Arkansas,

USA.Brent, A., Labuschagne, C., 2006. Social indicators for sustainable project and technology life

cycle management in the process industry. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11 (1), 3e15.Brinsmead, T.S., Hooker, C., 2011. Complex system dynamics and sustainability: conception,

method and policy. In: Hooker, C. (Ed.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science,

Philosophy of Complex Systems, vol. 10. Elsevier, BV.Colantonio, A., 2011. Social sustainability: exploring the linkages between research, policy

and practice. In: Jaeger, C.C., Tabara, J.D., Jaeger, J. (Eds.), European Research on

Sustainable Development. Springer, Berlin.Dreyer, L.C., Hauschild, M.Z., Schierbeck, J., 2006. A framework for social life cycle impact

assessment. Int. J. LCA 11 (2), 88e97.GRI (Global Reporting Initiative), 2013. G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. GRI,

Amsterdam, Netherlands.Jørgensen, A., Le Bocq, A., Nazarkina, L., Hauschild, M., 2008. Methodologies for social life

cycle assessment. Int. J. LCA 13 (2), 96e103.Li, J., Zhang, J., Ge, W., Liu, X., 2004. Multi-scale methodology for complex system. Chem.

Eng. Sci. 59, 1687e1700.Marczyk, J., Deshpande, B., 2008. Measuring and tracing complexity in science. In:

Minai, A., Braha, D., Bar-Yam, Y. (Eds.), Unifying Themes in Complex Systems e

Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Complex Systems. Springer, Berlin.Marimon, F., del Mar Alonso-Almeida, M., del Pilar Rodrıguez, M., Cortez Alejandro, K.A.,

2012. The worldwide diffusion of the global reporting initiative: what is the point?

J. Clean. Prod. 33, 132e144.Mishra, V., Dion, H., Bar-Yam, Y., 2010. Vulnerability analysis of high dimensional complex

systems. In: Dolev, S., Cobb, J., Fischer, M., Yung, M. (Eds.), Stabilization, Safety, and

Security of Distributed Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Mitchell, M., 2006. Complex systems: network thinking. Artif. Intell. 170 (18), 1194e1212.

References 9

10024-CCE36C-9780444634726

To protect the rights of the author(s) and publisherwe inform you that this PDF is an uncorrected proof for internal business use only by the author(s), editor(s), reviewer(s),

Elsevier and typesetter TNQBooks and Journals Pvt Ltd. It is not allowed to publish this proof online or in print. This proof copy is the copyright property of the publisher

and is confidential until formal publication.

Operations report, 2012. Water and Sewer Department. City of Greeley, CO, USA. http://www.greeleygov.com/Water/documentlibrary.aspx%20 (assessed 01.09.14.).

Parkes, O., Bogle, I.D.L., Littieri, P., 2012. Toward defining quantitative methodology toenhance the sustainability performance of major international events. In: LockhartBogle, I.D., Fairweather, M. (Eds.), Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, 30,pp. 46e50.

Popovic, T., Kraslawski, A., Heiduschke, R., Repke, J.-U., 2014. Indicators of social sustain-ability for wastewater treatment processes. In: Eden, M., Siirola, J.D., Towler, G.P. (Eds.),Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, 34, pp. 723e729.½AU2�

Rates and Fees, 2013. City of Longmonton, CO. Official Government Website. ci.longmont.co.us/pwwu/water/fees.htm#surcharge (accessed 17.12.13.).

Sokolova, M.V., Fernandez-Caballero, A., 2012. Decision Making in Complex System.Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

UNEP e United Nations Environmental Programme, 2009. Guidelines for Social Life CycleAssessment of Products.

United Nations Sustainable Development, 1992. United Nations Conference on Environment& Development. Agenda 21, Rio de Janerio, Brazil.

US principles and guidelines, 2003. Principles and guidelines for social impact assessment inthe USA. Impact Assessment and Project Apprasial 21 (3), 231e250.

10 CHAPTER 24 Social Sustainability of Complex Systems

10024-CCE36C-9780444634726

To protect the rights of the author(s) and publisherwe inform you that this PDF is an uncorrected proof for internal business use only by the author(s), editor(s), reviewer(s),

Elsevier and typesetter TNQBooks and Journals Pvt Ltd. It is not allowed to publish this proof online or in print. This proof copy is the copyright property of the publisher

and is confidential until formal publication.

CCE36C: 24

Non-Print Items

Abstract:

Behavior of complex systems can interfere with various sustainability aspects, for example social issues like impact on human

health, safety, comfort, etc. The growing need for sustainable development, which relies on complex systems, motivates many

organizations and researchers to study the assessment of social sustainability. The review of existing methodologies shows the

drawbacks in using them for the assessment of the sustainability of complex systems. Therefore, further development is

required. Some approaches based on the concept of indicators are presented in this article. As both complex systems and

social sustainability are emerging research areas, there still exists a need for new studies on development of assessment of

social sustainability of complex systems.

Keywords: Complex systems; Social impact assessment; Social life cycle assessment; Social sustainability; Wastewater

treatment.