Addressing sustainability in research on distributed production: an integrated literature review

TLDR: In this paper, the authors present an integrated literature review on how the environmental sustainability of distributed production is studied in a variety of disciplinary sources, focusing on additive manufacturing processes (AMP).

About: This article is published in Journal of Cleaner Production.The article was published on 2015-11-01 and is currently open access. It has received 218 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Sustainability & Empirical research.

Figures

Table 5: Salient concerns in reviewed papers

Figure 4: Conceptualizing the distributed production landscape.

Table 2: Summary of Additive Manufacturing Processes category

Figure 6: Threats to environmental sustainability in distributed production (arising from

Figure 1. The journals targeted in this review and their scientific research fields.

Table 1: Key to articles and source abbreviations

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions mentioned in the paper "Kohtala, cindy addressing sustainability in research on distributed production: an integrated literature review" ?

This paper presents an integrated literature review on how the environmental sustainability of distributed production is studied in a variety of disciplinary sources. This affirms the emerging nature of the topic and points to a clear need for more ( and more diverse ) empirical research. It sets the stage for ‘ distributed production ’ to be examined as its own phenomenon by proposing how it can be characterized and suggests that a research agenda could build upon the work initiated here. The notion of distributed production suggests an alternative to mass production that differs in scale, location and consumer-producer relationship. Understanding its environmental implications ( and thereby dematerialization potential ) is regarded pertinent and timely. New and closer ties between producer and consumer seemed central discussions but were underdeveloped with regard to sustainability potential. The review summarizes the opportunities for greater environmental sustainability as well as potential threats that could serve to guide and improve these novel practices today. 

Q2. What have the authors stated for future works in "Kohtala, cindy addressing sustainability in research on distributed production: an integrated literature review" ?

Undesired environmental impacts may arise, the review guides further research and encourages practitioners to take them into account in their current and future activities. 

Q3. What were the preferred terms in the majority of the papers?

Preferred terms were mass customization, customization or personalization in the majority of cases (and even art customization in one paper); prosumer in several papers and prosumption as the main term in one study; and fabbing as the main term in one paper. 

Q4. What is the main reason for the lack of research papers?

The tendency to present frameworks and propositions without explaining the observations or experiences that led to them is partly due to the large number of conference papers represented, but it is also likely due to the novelty of the topic. 

Q5. How many papers were linked to projects?

About half (15/29) of the papers were from the Mass Customization, Personalization and Co-creation (MCPC) conferences; five of these were linked to projects and reported on interim results. 

Q6. What was the assumption that sustainability was addressed in the title or abstract?

With regard to environmentally relevant issues, the assumption was that ‘sustainability’ must be important enough that it was directly addressed in the title or abstract (by the wordsPlease cite as Kohtala, Cindy. 

Q7. What is the main theme of the study?

This research has especially focused on digital artefacts and internet-based initiatives, but distributed peer production of tangible products is attracting increasing interest in research and practice. 

Q8. What were the relevant keywords for the review?

The relevant keywords for the review therefore included distributed production, distributed manufacturing, mass customization, personalization, peer production, prosumption, fabbing, personal fabrication and Fab Labs, but the selection process was not restricted to these keywords, given the wide range of terminology actively used. 

Q9. What are the novel activities relevant in this study?

the most novel activities relevant in this study are for some the most intellectually compelling and for others potentially the most disruptive: that is, “personal manufacturing” (Bauwens et al., 2012), “personal fabrication” or “fabbing” (Gershenfeld, 2005), “commons-based peer production of physical goods” (Troxler, 2013) or simply “making” (Anderson, 2012; Gauntlett, 2013; Hatch, 2013).