Assessment 2: Annotated Bibliography

Page 1 of 3

Task: This is Assessment 2 out of 4. Before starting this Assessment first read the submitted Assessment 1. Length: 1,000 words (Reference details are not included in the word limit of this assessment.)

Due date: 12 PM Australian Central Standard Time (ACST) 30th September 2021

NO PLAGIARISM WILL BE TOLERATED AS THIS ASSESSMENT WILL BE SUBMITTED IN

UNIVERSITY TURNITIN.

Task Overview:

An annotated bibliography is a bibliography with notes that summarise and explain the relevance of each bibliographic entry.

This assessment uses the 2 core readings (See pdf files attached) to move into the next important stage in writing a

persuasive essay, which is to apply relevant information from published academic literature to:

1. Build your understanding of the topic. (THE STUDENT’S CHOSEN TOPIC IS EXTREME CLIMATE EVENTS – BUSHFIES IN AUSTRALIA)

2. Find credible evidence for supporting the ideas in your final essay.

The 2 core readings will build your knowledge of key sustainability concepts and provide approaches to developing

sustainable responses to concerns. We will also identify how these core readings relate to your chosen scenario and scope.

This assessment allows you to practise essential academic skills: reading, notetaking, summarising and writing an annotated

bibliography in the correct format.

Task details:

For each core reading:

• Write a heading that is the reading’s complete and correct APA reference (See the APA referencing guide on the CDU library website). Present these in alphabetical order by the author’s surname.

• Write a 250-word summary paragraph that summarises and paraphrases the key ideas and/or arguments in the core reading. (Use your own words; do not quote from the reading.)

• Write a 250-word commentary paragraph that explains the links between the core reading to your chosen scenario and scope. To do this, explain: how and why this source is relevant to your chosen scenario; what

information, sections, themes, or examples are the most relevant ones? For example, are they relevant because

they help define or explain an aspect of your scenario or do, they provide solutions or that could be applied to

your scenario?

Suggestions to help you complete these tasks:

• Follow the task guidelines above, for writing an annotated bibliography on the appropriate structure.

• Follow correct referencing conventions to present each core reading’s details as the heading for that section of your annotated bibliography. Use the most up-to-date guidelines for APA referencing style.

• Do not add a separate reference list at the end of your annotated bibliography. There should be no in-text citations within an annotated bibliography.

• Remember that the sections of your annotated bibliography should be presented in alphabetical order according to the surnames of the lead author of the core readings.

• Use only the 2 core readings provided.

Marking Criteria Page 2 of 3

Content (70%)

Summary

Commentary Referencing

/30 /30 /10

HD

•

•

Summaries are paraphrased accurately and concisely including all themes and relevant details Demonstrates originality and an excellent understanding of the core readings

25.5 – 30

•

•

Commentaries clearly and concisely discuss how ideas from the core readings relate to chosen scenario and scope Demonstrates originality and excellent critical thinking skills

25.5 – 30

Excellent and accurately follows current APA referencing conventions.

8.5 – 10

D

•

•

Summaries are paraphrased accurately including all themes and relevant details Demonstrates a very good understanding of the core readings

22.5 – 25

•

•

Commentaries clearly discuss how ideas from the core readings relate to chosen scenario and scope Demonstrates very good critical thinking skills

22.5 – 25

Very good and follows current APA referencing conventions.

7.5 – 8

C

•

•

Summaries are paraphrased accurately including most key themes and relevant details Demonstrates a good understanding of the core readings

19.5 – 22

•

•

Commentaries discuss how ideas from the core readings relate to chosen scenario and scope, but are missing some detail Demonstrates good critical thinking skills

19.5 – 22

Good and mostly follows current APA referencing conventions.

6.5 – 7

P

•

• Summaries are paraphrased including some key themes Demonstrates an adequate understanding of the core readings

15 – 19

•

•

Commentaries state how ideas from the core readings relate to chosen scenario and scope, but are not discussed in adequate depth Demonstrates adequate critical thinking skills

15 – 19

Adequate, but does not consistently follow current APA

referencing conventions.

5 – 6

F

•

•

Summaries are not paraphrased accurately, are missing key themes, or incomplete Does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the readings

0 – 14.5

•

•

Commentaries do not relate ideas from the core readings to chosen scenario and scope Does not demonstrate adequate critical thinking skills

0 – 14.5

Not attempted/ does not follow current APA referencing

conventions.

0 – 4.5

Marking Criteria Page 3 of 3

Language & organisation (30%)

Academic style, voice & word choice

Fluency & organisation Grammar conventions

Formatting & word count

/10 /10 /5 /5

HD

• Excellent and consistent use of academic language, expression, and tone.

• Demonstrates originality and variety.

8.5 – 10

Excellent, clear, and logical sentence and paragraph structure.

8.5 – 10

Excellent, consistent, and accurate use of grammar

conventions

4.5 – 5

Excellent and follows formatting guidelines

4.5 – 5

D

• Very good and consistent use of academic language, expression, and tone.

• Demonstrates variety

7.5 – 8

Very good, clear, and logical sentence and paragraph structure.

7.5 – 8

Very good, consistent, and accurate use of grammar

conventions

4

Very good and follows formatting guidelines

4

C

• Consistently good use of academic language, expression, and tone.

6.5 – 7

Good, clear sentence and paragraph structure.

6.5 – 7

Good and consistent use of grammar conventions, but

occasionally affects readability

3.5

Good and mostly follows formatting guidelines

3.5

P

• Adequate but inconsistent use of academic language, expression, and tone.

5 – 6

Adequate sentence and paragraph structure.

5 – 6

Adequate use of grammar conventions, but sometimes

affects readability

2.5 – 3

Adequately follows guidelines yet multiple

errors

2.5 – 3

F

• Inappropriate/ inconsistent use of

academic language, expression, and tone.

0 – 4.5

Unclear sentence and/or paragraph structure.

0 – 4.5

Multiple errors significantly affecting readability

0 – 2

Incomplete and does not follow guidelines.

0 – 2

Total /100 Grade

The evolution of sustainability models, from descriptive, to strategic, to the three pillars framework for applied solutions Author:

Clune, William H ; Zehnder, Alexander J. B Journal Title:

Sustainability Science

ISSN:

18624065

Publication Date:

2020-05

Volume:

15

Issue:

3 Start page:

1001

End page:

1006 DOI:

10.1007/s11625-019-00776-8

Pages:

1001-1006

Vol.:(0123456789)1 3

Sustainability Science (2020) 15:1001–1006 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00776-8

N OT E A N D CO M M E N T

The evolution of sustainability models, from descriptive, to strategic, to the three pillars framework for applied solutions

William H. Clune1 · Alexander J. B. Zehnder2

Received: 28 August 2019 / Accepted: 18 December 2019 / Published online: 6 January 2020 © Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract The three pillars of sustainability framework is an applied and solutions oriented approach to sustainable development, which at the broadest and most important scale supports the creation of new economic and political institutions that embed (from start to finish) the key inputs, stakeholders, and incentive structures necessary for sustainability planning and projects to be feasible and successful. The three pillars framework is based upon the key and connected roles of: (1) technology and inno- vation; (2) laws and governance; and (3) economics and financial incentives. Through the lens of a review of the evolution of sustainability models over the last several decades, it is proposed that the three pillars framework can more effectively help us translate complex sustainability issues into ideas and an applied focus that can be better understood and acted upon by community and economic stakeholders. This, combined with full transparency, creates the necessary, and often suf- ficient, foundation for successful, scalable, more rapidly deployable, and culturally acceptable sustainability solutions. As demonstrated in practice and in numerous case studies, sustainability solutions that engage all three pillars at once—good governance, technology implementation, and creating market incentives—are most effective and durable.

Keywords Economic development · Sustainability framework · Planning tools · Policy tools

Introduction

Much of the best thinking about sustainability over the past 50 years was based on sustainability models that correctly outlined and described important inputs, major stakehold- ers, and strategic possibilities. A comprehensive look at the evolution of these sustainability models shows an important transition from frameworks trying to understand sustain- ability’s main challenges and drivers to more refined and applied modern templates for implementing sustainability

solutions at speed and scale. Some key points to consider when reviewing the evolutionary path of sustainability mod- els is how they support the success and implementation of specific and applied sustainability projects, how they support policy and strategy creation for developing new and feasible classes of sustainability solutions, and how they intelligently integrate at scope and scale sustainability thinking, planning, and applied solutions throughout all our economic, political, and social institutions.

A new approach—the three pillars of sustainability framework—is proposed here that relates to, but signifi- cantly extends, previous models. Specifically, the three pil- lars framework is more applied and solutions oriented, and at the broadest and most important scale supports the creation of new economic and political institutions that embed (from start to finish) the key inputs, stakeholders, and incentive structures necessary for sustainability planning and projects to be feasible, successful, and socially accepted. The three pillars of sustainability framework is based upon the key and connected roles of: (1) technology and innovation; (2) laws and governance; and (3) economics and financial incentives (Clune and Zehnder 2018). The three pillars are more than just required disciplinary inputs, and as will be shown they

Handled by Vinod Tewari, The Energy and resources Institute (TERI), India.

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1162 5-019-00776 -8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

* William H. Clune [email protected]

1 Asian School of the Environment, Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore, Singapore

2 School of Biological Science, Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore, Singapore

1002 Sustainability Science (2020) 15:1001–1006

1 3

describe and focus on the institutional and market spaces where social stakeholders (consumers, citizens, and gov- ernment) and other sectors (corporations and NGOs) must intersect and engage with each other to create economically and technologically feasible, as well as socially acceptable, sustainability solutions.

The three pillars framework translates complex sustain- ability issues into ideas and an applied focus that can be bet- ter understood and acted upon by community and economic stakeholders. As demonstrated in practice and in numerous case studies, sustainability solutions that engage all three pillars at once—good governance, technology implementa- tion, and creating market incentives—are most effective and durable. The paper begins with a section on the evolution of sustainability models, followed by a section on the three pillars framework that extends these discussions.

The Evolutionary Path of Sustainability Models

The Club of Rome and The Limits to Growth in 1972 is a good starting place in the evolution of sustainability mod- els (Meadows et al. 1972). Although it received criticism at the time, its central thesis that the Earth’s key resources are exhaustible (and being exhausted) was always (potentially) correct (Turner 2014). It is possible to irreversibly damage or destroy ecosystems with rates of use, extraction, or pol- lution burden that exceed replacement and renewal (Rock- ström et al. 2009). What was missing was the full dynamic potential of technology development and resource discovery that was hard to imagine in the 1970s. Indeed, it is now well understood that the transformative and disruptive potential of technology is crucial to meeting our sustainability and development goals (UN Commission on Science and Tech- nology 2019).

The Stockholm Declaration (1972) was a powerful first step toward the modern concept of sustainability in describ- ing key environmental goals as connected to economic development drivers, as well as in the integrated nature of the solutions path it describes. This included roles for governance, technology transfer, and sensitivity to cultural and economic differences between nations and stakehold- ers. Actually, from a holistic and broad perspective, this groundbreaking document got most things right, including some important recognition of sustainability’s dynamic and systems-oriented nature. Yet, there was again a significant underestimation of the effects of technology, as well as the related effects of how changing culture, public policy, and economic markets together drive beneficial technology development.

To this point, parallel to advancements in policy think- ing, basic environmental law and regulatory practices were

changing during the 1970s and 1980s in places such as the USA and Europe, including an understanding of the poten- tial of harnessing economic markets and incentives for tech- nology forcing regulations and pollution trading schemes (Sandor et al. 2015).

The framework of the Brundtland Report (WCED 1987) included much of the Stockholm Declaration’s understand- ing of the primary challenges of economic consumption, production, and development to achieving sustainabil- ity, and of the need to bridge gaps of cooperation, finan- cial resources, and access to technology for a more global implementation of sustainability solutions. It also described in new terms risk scenarios, food and water security, the importance of regional cooperation and governance (in addi- tion to international efforts), and roles for environmental and ecosystem services and valuation. It roughed out the steps, or at least some key pieces, for a large-scale transition to a low-carbon global economy, including how industry could more efficiently and by deploying (and developing) new technologies start “producing more with less.”

The triple bottom line framework was a natural extension of the Brundtland Report. It is powerfully descriptive of sustainability’s potential and primary objectives (Elkington 1998). Sustainability combines the creation of a feasible and livable space for human society within environmental protection and ecological objectives, while the economic component correctly acknowledges that all of our environ- mental challenges and necessary (for survival) productive targets are connected to economic production and consump- tion. Importantly, it highlighted some of the key relation- ships between social, cultural, and economic institutions in relation to environmental goals. We realized we needed much more intelligent, analytical thinking about econom- ics and markets, not less, if we wanted to achieve global sustainability.

The bombshell that changed the focus and discussion was climate change. While the scientific research and evidence regarding anthropogenic climate change had been growing since the 1960s (SCOPE-Rep. No. 13 1979), the first Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change (McG Tegart et al. 1990) impact assessment report marks the beginning of a much broader and significant thinking about climate change across many fields, sectors, and activities. An understanding and acceptance of the inevitable scale, massive risk expo- sures, and adaptation costs of climate change shifted the urgency and priorities of sustainability. It highlighted exactly how interdisciplinary and integrated our efforts would need to become.

It was in the early to mid-1990s that Michael Porter and Stephan Schmidheiny opened the lens to the possibility that sustainable development was an opportunity for business, not just a cost, and was therefore a necessity for modern business strategy. Porter (1991) reconceived the "greening"

1003Sustainability Science (2020) 15:1001–1006

1 3

of business as a cost-reduction and profit-making proposi- tion in several key respects, including more efficient mate- rial use (pollution as wasted resources), innovation poten- tial (corporations as powerful responders to constraints and challenges with creativity and new solutions), and a variety of public opinion and marketing advantages (less regula- tory oversight, more public trust, growing green product markets).

Stephan Schmidheiny (1992) spoke in broader (and per- haps bolder) strategic terms in Changing Course, which was certainly a precursor to Creating Shared Value (CSV) and other, more modern strategic sustainability paradigms (Por- ter and Kramer 2011). The notion that corporate practices must align with sustainability objectives was ahead of its time and speaks directly to a process of matching the scope and scale of the challenges to an equivalent scope and scale in our institutional arrangements and practices.

In fact, recognizing that sustainability was not only a project in which different stakeholders played their parts, but in which major stakeholders could actually transform the paradigm and playing field through economic markets, was a major milestone. It was no longer economy versus environment, but how we need to align economic markets and actors within and in support of the goals of sustain- able development. The potential was grasped that business and economic market development would no longer be a liability to sustainability, but could become one of its most powerful drivers and foundations. In fact, sustainability is not achievable without business and the modern corporation fully engaged given their global reach, impact, and economic power (Dow Jones Sustainability Index, see cases below; Schmidheiny and Zorraquin 1996).

With the creation of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in the early 1990s, as a positive reaction to the Brundtland Report and the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Devel- opment (UNCED), also known as the Rio Earth Summit, the tide had certainly turned in favor of implementing sustainability solutions that are fully integrated, involve all stakeholders working cooperatively, engage economic markets and incentive systems, and are global in scale. The WBCSD’s very existence, with comprehensive corporate representation and membership, is as significant as the perspectives it develops and endorses. In terms of models, WBCSD’s Circular Economy projects speak directly of transforming economic production and consumption to align with sustainable economic development, and is an evolution from earlier versions of the Factor approaches at the Wup- pertal Institute in Germany (von Weizsäcker et al. 1997; Schmidt-Bleek 1997).

Without dismissing the relevance of Environmen- tal Social and Governance (ESG) standards or Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) criteria developed and applied

in earnest in the early 2000s, these somewhat general guide- lines have substantially repackaged the triple bottom line approach (UNCTAD 2015). On the other hand, the finan- cial sector’s process, for example, for making investments (or divestments), and for internal corporate governance, has always been somewhat conservative, so ESG’s more gen- eral ideas and flexible roadmaps may help trigger changes in thinking and practices. The issue, however, is speed and focus in making the needed transitions, and in driving more applied, successful sustainability solutions.

The evolution of sustainability approaches and thinking more recently was greatly influenced by urbanization, with the key role for cities in addressing and supporting the concept of resilience. Rapid global urbanization is a fact. It will have major impacts on how most people live their lives, and with big implications (and opportunities) for sustainable economic development. Organizations like C40 and 100 Resilient Cities were created and grew quickly in response to the city–sus- tainability nexus, concentrating increasingly on resilience given the integrated, multidisciplinary, and complex reality of achieving sustainability and other major social goals.1

In the twenty-first century, Creating Shared Value (CSV) takes a fully modern and proactive approach with market actors and corporations creating positive social impacts, sus- tainability opportunities, and new green markets consistent with long-term profitability and survival (compact with soci- ety) strategies (Porter and Kramer 2011). Aligning business opportunities with our most pressing human needs and wants has, actually, always been a good business strategy. Now, the pressing nature of sustainability is creating a pressure (through changing culture and public opinion, its uptake by legal institu- tions, and resulting new consumer demand for green products) that is both a necessity and an opportunity.

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a set of universal objectives developed within a process that included civil society, academia, government, and the pri- vate sector (https ://susta inabl edeve lopme nt.un.org). The focus on issues like poverty and gender equality recog- nized the large numbers of people who sustainability has left behind and failed over the years. SDG 11 focuses spe- cifically on Sustainable Cities and Communities, which has supported and catalyzed organizations and efforts in the city space. There is no question the SDGs are now the leading organizational and planning template across many sectors and projects, and one supported in a complementary manner by the more solutions-oriented focus of the three pillars of sustainability framework.

1 see C40 (https ://www.c40.org/) and 100 Resilient Cities (https :// www.100re silie ntcit ies.org/).

1004 Sustainability Science (2020) 15:1001–1006

1 3

The three pillars of sustainability framework for applied solutions

Looking at the current set of sustainability models, goals, and templates, an action-oriented strategic model or framework is still missing (Clune and Zehnder 2018). This is important if we want to integrate at scope and scale sus- tainability thinking, planning, and applied solutions across all of our major economic, political, and social activities and institutions. The three pillars framework fills this gap. It is an effective and pragmatic approach for translating sustainability science into action and application, and for moving from theory to practice. Sustainability solutions and effective implementations in cities and communities are what is needed now as a rapid response to our most serious global environmental impact challenges, and this is precisely what is meant by a three pillars approach that is action and application oriented.

Truly interdisciplinary, or even transdisciplinary, work is hard to do (Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2006). To overcome disciplinary boundaries, it helps to translate the issues at stake to well-defined themes, topics, and solution require- ments (Burkhardt-Holm and Zehnder 2018). There are many examples of sustainability solutions with good potential that fail because one of the pillars is missing. The framework also applies more broadly to institutional and market transformation by elaborating, for example, the ways the SDGs operate and engage in ordinary and institutional practices.

The relationship and connections between all three pil- lars is crucial because of the way economic, legal, politi- cal, and other semi-autonomous systems connect and inter- act (Clune 2011). Having all three pillars of sustainability present and engaged is prerequisite for the success of all sustainability solutions, policy implementations, and plan- ning exercises. For illustration, we test our framework with nine cases (summarized below, and presented in detail in the Supplementary Material).

Cases for technology and innovation

As long as a crucial technology or innovation is missing, sustainability solutions will fail, even with strong public support, sufficient economic incentives, and capable law and regulatory backing.

• Chlorof luorohydrocarbons (CFC) contribute to the ozone depletion of the upper atmosphere. 23 nations signed a protocol to reduce CFC release. Their ban was only possible after hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) were invented.

• Since the 1960s, it was clear that phosphate was the main trigger for eutrophication of surface waters. Many nations, as well as states and localities, were ready to ban phosphate from detergents. Low phosphate deter- gents were also a potential economic advantage in being lower in weight and smaller in volume. But only after the invention of zeolites in the 1970s as an effec- tive replacement for phosphates did rapid and large- scale phosphate bans occur.

• The Clean Air Act and California’s vehicle emissions reduction efforts in the 1970s show how connecting regulatory baselines, economic interests, and incentives of corporate stakeholders is pivotal for creating miss- ing or stalled technologies and innovations necessary for achieving environmental goals. In other words, the production of essential technologies not only supports new economic and regulatory options, but may often be the result of supportive legal and economic baselines.

Cases for laws and governance

The pillar of laws and governance supports sustainability solutions by enabling implementation of projects at mid- dle and later stages (applied projects deployed in our com- munities intersect with legal and regulatory requirements at many levels), or at first stages through the many ways legal institutions, regulatory baselines, and public policy create the foundations for supporting new technology development, creating new markets, and ensuring competitive, healthy economies.

• Precious Woods is a global leader in the sustainable man- agement of tropical forests. It faced many of the typical challenges (including free rider and "race to the bottom") in its early attempts to introduce sustainable and respon- sible forestry. It was the creation of a governance struc- ture in the form of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) guidelines that supported the deployment of all relevant technologies, and realized full economic potentials creat- ing a virtuous cycle that incentivized other market actors and stakeholders.

• Large parts of the world’s fisheries are unmanaged, despite there being both clear economic benefits and no technological impediments to more sustainable manage- ment. A lack of effective governance has often resulted in the tragedy of the commons. Individual and cooperative governance efforts, even though piecemeal and occurring over several decades, have been a good start and have played a major role in slowing resource exploitation.

• There are significant, potential sustainability and envi- ronmental advantages to using local and trustworthy green suppliers and sources for government or corpo- rate procurement. In the EU (and other places), the ten-

1005Sustainability Science (2020) 15:1001–100

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.

Do you need an answer to this or any other questions?

Order Plagiarism Free Answer Here

About Wridemy

We are a professional paper writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework. We offer HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE Papers.

How It Works

To make an Order you only need to click on “Order Now” and we will direct you to our Order Page. Fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Are there Discounts?

All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.

Hire a tutor today CLICK HERE to make your first order

Related Tags

Academic APA Writing College Course Discussion Management English Finance General Graduate History Information Justify Literature MLA