Sustainable Technology of 3350

Sustainable Technology of 3350 ?

It seems you might be thinking of STANAG 3350, which is a NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG) that defines standards for analog video signals used in military aircraft avionics systems.

Here’s what I found about it:

• Purpose: STANAG 3350 ensures that different avionics systems in NATO aircraft can display and process video signals correctly, even if they are made by different manufacturers. This is crucial for interoperability in military operations.
• Technical Details: The standard specifies various parameters for analog component RGB video signals, including:
  • Resolution: The number of horizontal and vertical lines in the image.
  • Refresh Rate: How many times per second the image is redrawn.
  • Timing: The precise timing of the video signals.
• Classes: STANAG 3350 defines different classes of video signals, each with its own specific parameters:
  • Class A: 875 lines, 30 Hz refresh rate.
  • Class B: 625 lines, 25 Hz refresh rate (similar to PAL standard).
  • Class C: 525 lines, 30 Hz refresh rate (similar to NTSC standard).

Sustainability:

While STANAG 3350 itself doesn’t directly relate to environmental sustainability, it plays a role in the broader context of military technology. Modern military systems are increasingly focused on energy efficiency and reducing their environmental impact. This can involve:

• Reducing fuel consumption: Aircraft with standardized video systems may be more efficient due to better integration and data sharing.
• Extending the lifespan of equipment: Standardization can make it easier to maintain and upgrade systems, potentially reducing the need for frequent replacements.
• Minimizing waste: By ensuring interoperability, STANAG 3350 can help avoid compatibility issues that could lead to wasted resources.

In conclusion: STANAG 3350 is a technical standard for video signals in military aircraft. While not directly related to environmental sustainability, it can contribute to more efficient and potentially less wasteful military technology in the long run.

What is Sustainable Technology of 3350 ?

It seems you might be thinking of STANAG 3350, which is a NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG) that defines standards for analog video signals used in military aircraft avionics systems.

Here’s what I found about it:

• Purpose: STANAG 3350 ensures that different avionics systems in NATO aircraft can display and process video signals correctly, even if they are made by different manufacturers. This is crucial for interoperability in military operations.
• Technical Details: The standard specifies various parameters for analog component RGB video signals, including:
  • Resolution: The number of horizontal and vertical lines in the image.
  • Refresh Rate: How many times per second the image is redrawn.
  • Timing: The precise timing of the video signals.
• Classes: STANAG 3350 defines different classes of video signals, each with its own specific parameters:
  • Class A: 875 lines, 30 Hz refresh rate.
  • Class B: 625 lines, 25 Hz refresh rate (similar to PAL standard).
  • Class C: 525 lines, 30 Hz refresh rate (similar to NTSC standard).

Sustainability:

While STANAG 3350 itself doesn’t directly relate to environmental sustainability, it plays a role in the broader context of military technology. Modern military systems are increasingly focused on energy efficiency and reducing their environmental impact. This can involve:

• Reducing fuel consumption: Aircraft with standardized video systems may be more efficient due to better integration and data sharing.
• Extending the lifespan of equipment: Standardization can make it easier to maintain and upgrade systems, potentially reducing the need for frequent replacements.
• Minimizing waste: By ensuring interoperability, STANAG 3350 can help avoid compatibility issues that could lead to wasted resources.

In conclusion: STANAG 3350 is a technical standard for video signals in military aircraft. While not directly related to environmental sustainability, it can contribute to more efficient and potentially less wasteful military technology in the long run.

Who is required Sustainable Technology of 3350 ?

It seems you’re asking who needs to comply with STANAG 3350. Here’s the breakdown:

• NATO Member Nations: This is the core group. Any military aircraft operating within NATO or participating in joint operations with NATO allies needs to adhere to STANAG 3350 to ensure their video systems are compatible. This includes:
  • Aircraft Manufacturers: Companies that design and build military aircraft for NATO countries must ensure their avionics systems can output video signals that conform to STANAG 3350.
  • Avionics Suppliers: Companies that provide components like displays, cameras, and video processing units for military aircraft must also comply with the standard.
  • Military Operators: Air forces of NATO member nations are required to use equipment that meets STANAG 3350 standards in their aircraft.
• Countries Cooperating with NATO: Even nations that aren’t full NATO members but participate in joint military exercises or operations with NATO forces often need to comply with STANAGs, including 3350, for interoperability purposes.

In essence, anyone involved in the design, production, or operation of military aircraft that need to seamlessly share video data with other NATO systems must adhere to STANAG 3350. This ensures that, regardless of the aircraft’s origin or the specific equipment used, video feeds can be displayed and processed correctly across different platforms.

When is required Sustainable Technology of 3350 ?

STANAG 3350 is required whenever there’s a need to ensure interoperability of analog video signals in military aircraft avionics systems within NATO or in cooperation with NATO forces. This translates to a few key situations:

• New Aircraft Development: When a new military aircraft is being designed or built for use by NATO members, it must be equipped with video systems that comply with STANAG 3350 from the outset. This ensures that the aircraft can seamlessly integrate with other NATO systems from day one.
• Avionics Upgrades: If an existing aircraft’s video systems are being upgraded or replaced, the new components must be compliant with STANAG 3350. This maintains interoperability and avoids creating compatibility issues.
• Joint Operations: During joint military exercises or operations involving NATO and partner nations, all participating aircraft must have compatible video systems. This often means adhering to STANAG 3350 to allow for shared situational awareness and effective coordination.
• Procurement of Equipment: When military organizations are purchasing new video equipment for their aircraft, they will typically specify that it must comply with STANAG 3350. This ensures that the new equipment will work seamlessly with existing systems.

Essentially, the requirement for STANAG 3350 compliance kicks in whenever there’s a need to guarantee that video signals can be reliably shared and displayed between different aircraft and systems within a NATO context. This could be during development, upgrades, operations, or procurement.

It’s important to note that STANAG 3350 is specifically for analog video signals. With the increasing prevalence of digital video technology, newer standards and protocols might be used in future systems. However, for now, STANAG 3350 remains relevant for many existing aircraft and operations.

COURTESY : Tech Evaluate

Where is required Sustainable Technology of 3350 ?

STANAG 3350 is required in a variety of settings where interoperability of analog video signals is crucial in military aircraft systems. Here are the key areas where you’ll find it:

• Military Aircraft Cockpits: This is the primary location. Displays in the cockpit that show video feeds from sensors (like cameras, radar, or targeting pods) need to be compatible with STANAG 3350 to ensure pilots can see the information correctly.
• Avionics Systems: The various electronic systems within the aircraft that process and display video data must adhere to STANAG 3350. This includes video processing units, display controllers, and any other components that handle analog video signals.
• Ground Stations: In some cases, ground stations that receive video feeds from aircraft may also need to be compatible with STANAG 3350 to ensure the information can be displayed and analyzed correctly.
• Training Simulators: Flight simulators used for training military pilots often incorporate STANAG 3350 compatible systems to provide a realistic training environment that mirrors the actual aircraft.
• Testing and Maintenance Equipment: Equipment used to test and maintain aircraft avionics systems may also need to be able to handle STANAG 3350 signals to ensure compatibility during diagnostics and repairs.

Essentially, anywhere within the military aviation ecosystem where analog video signals are being used and shared between different systems, there’s a potential need for STANAG 3350 compatibility. This ensures that everyone involved in the operation can see the same information and that the systems can work together seamlessly.

How is required Sustainable Technology of 3350 ?

It seems you’re asking about the technical requirements for implementing STANAG 3350. Here’s a breakdown of how it’s typically achieved:

1. Understanding the Standard:

• Signal Types: STANAG 3350 deals with analog component RGB video signals. This means the video information is transmitted as three separate signals: Red, Green, and Blue, along with synchronization signals.
• Classes: The standard defines three classes (A, B, and C), each with different resolutions and refresh rates. These classes are based on existing civilian standards like RS-343, PAL, and NTSC.
• Timing: Precise timing of the signals is critical for proper display. This includes the horizontal and vertical synchronization pulses that tell the display when to draw each line and frame.

2. Hardware Implementation:

• Video Sources: Devices like cameras, radar, or FLIR (Forward-Looking Infrared) systems that output analog video need to generate signals that conform to the chosen STANAG 3350 class.
• Cables and Connectors: High-quality coaxial cables and connectors are used to transmit the analog signals with minimal loss or interference.
• Processing Units: Video processing units within the avionics system may need to convert or scale the video signals while maintaining STANAG 3350 compliance.
• Displays: Cockpit displays must be able to accept and correctly display the STANAG 3350 signals.

3. Software Considerations:

• Signal Generation: Software within the video source devices needs to accurately generate the timing and signal levels required by STANAG 3350.
• Processing and Conversion: Software in the avionics system might need to handle tasks like deinterlacing, scaling, or color correction while preserving the signal integrity.
• Display Drivers: Drivers for the cockpit displays need to be able to interpret and render the STANAG 3350 signals correctly.

4. Testing and Compliance:

• Signal Measurement: Specialized test equipment is used to verify that the generated video signals meet the STANAG 3350 specifications.
• Interoperability Testing: It’s crucial to test the compatibility of different systems to ensure they can work together seamlessly.

Key Considerations:

• Analog Nature: STANAG 3350 deals with analog signals, which can be more susceptible to noise and interference compared to digital signals.
• Legacy Systems: Many older military aircraft rely on STANAG 3350, so maintaining compatibility with these legacy systems is important.
• Transition to Digital: Modern avionics are increasingly moving towards digital video standards. However, STANAG 3350 remains relevant for existing aircraft.

In essence, implementing STANAG 3350 requires a combination of hardware and software design, careful attention to signal integrity, and thorough testing to ensure interoperability within the military aviation environment.

Case study is Sustainable Technology of 3350 ?

Unfortunately, finding specific case studies detailing the implementation of STANAG 3350 can be challenging. This is because:

• Military Sensitivity: Details about military avionics systems and their specific implementations are often classified or considered sensitive information. Publicly available case studies with detailed technical information are rare.
• Proprietary Information: Avionics manufacturers and integrators often treat their specific implementations as proprietary and competitive information. They may not release detailed case studies for commercial reasons.
• Focus on Interoperability: STANAG 3350’s primary goal is interoperability. Case studies might focus on how different systems from various manufacturers successfully worked together, rather than the specific technical details of each system’s implementation.

However, we can discuss some general scenarios where STANAG 3350 would be relevant and how it might be applied:

Scenario 1: Integrating a new sensor on an existing aircraft

• Situation: An air force wants to add a new high-resolution camera to an existing aircraft that currently uses STANAG 3350 for its displays.
• STANAG 3350’s Role: The new camera’s video output needs to be compatible with STANAG 3350. This might involve:
  • Ensuring the camera can output analog RGB signals in one of the specified classes (A, B, or C).
  • Matching the timing and synchronization signals to the existing display system.
  • Potentially using a video converter to translate the camera’s native output to STANAG 3350 if necessary.
• Outcome: By adhering to STANAG 3350, the new camera’s video feed can be seamlessly integrated into the aircraft’s displays, providing the pilot with crucial situational awareness information.

Scenario 2: Joint operation with different aircraft types

• Situation: NATO forces from different countries are participating in a joint military exercise. Their aircraft have different video systems and displays.
• STANAG 3350’s Role: If these aircraft need to share video feeds (e.g., from targeting pods or reconnaissance cameras), STANAG 3350 ensures compatibility. This allows pilots in different aircraft to see the same information, even if their aircraft were built by different manufacturers.
• Outcome: STANAG 3350 facilitates shared situational awareness and improves coordination during the joint operation, enhancing overall effectiveness.

General takeaways from these scenarios:

• STANAG 3350 is crucial for ensuring that video information can be shared and displayed correctly across different systems in military aircraft.
• Its implementation might involve signal conversion, timing adjustments, and hardware/software integration to achieve compatibility.
• While specific case studies with detailed technical information might be limited, the standard plays a vital role in enabling interoperability and effective collaboration in military operations.

If you’re interested in more specific examples, you might try searching for information from avionics manufacturers or military publications that discuss video system integration in aircraft. However, keep in mind that detailed technical information might be restricted due to security concerns.

COURTESY : Carnegie India

White paper on Sustainable Technology of 3350 ?

Unfortunately, finding a dedicated white paper specifically on STANAG 3350 can be quite difficult. This is mainly due to the sensitive nature of military avionics and the fact that detailed technical information is often kept confidential for security and competitive reasons.

However, I can offer some potential avenues for finding relevant information and suggest what a white paper on this topic might cover:

Potential Sources of Information:

• NATO Standardization Office: The official source for STANAGs. While they might not have a dedicated white paper, their publications and documents on STANAG 3350 would be the most authoritative.
• Avionics Manufacturers: Companies that produce avionics equipment for military aircraft (e.g., BAE Systems, Thales, Leonardo) might have technical documentation or white papers that touch upon STANAG 3350, though likely not with excessive detail.
• Military Publications: Journals and magazines focusing on military technology and aerospace engineering might have articles or reports that discuss video systems in aircraft and mention STANAG 3350 in the context of interoperability.
• Academic Research: University research papers or theses dealing with avionics, video processing, or military technology might contain some information about STANAG 3350, though again, detailed implementation specifics would be unlikely.

What a White Paper on STANAG 3350 Might Cover:

• Introduction to STANAG 3350:
  • Background and purpose of the standard.
  • Importance of interoperability in military aviation.
  • Overview of analog video signals and their use in avionics.
• Technical Details of STANAG 3350:
  • Description of the different classes (A, B, and C).
  • Explanation of signal characteristics, timing, and synchronization.
  • Discussion of analog component RGB video and its advantages/limitations.
• Implementation Considerations:
  • Hardware and software aspects of STANAG 3350 compliance.
  • Challenges of integrating with legacy systems.
  • Signal conversion and processing techniques.
  • Testing and verification procedures.
• Evolution and Future of STANAG 3350:
  • Trends towards digital video in avionics.
  • Potential transition to newer standards and protocols.
  • Continued relevance of STANAG 3350 for existing aircraft.
• Case Studies (if available):
  • Examples of how STANAG 3350 has been implemented in specific aircraft or systems.
  • Lessons learned and best practices.

Key Takeaway:

While a dedicated white paper on STANAG 3350 might be elusive, information can be gathered from various sources like official NATO documents, industry publications, and academic research. The hypothetical white paper outline above provides an idea of the topics that would be covered to give a comprehensive understanding of this important standard.

Industrial application of Sustainable Technology of 3350 ?

While STANAG 3350 is primarily designed for military applications, some of its underlying principles and technologies can find relevance in certain industrial settings. However, it’s important to remember that STANAG 3350 is specifically tailored for the rugged and demanding environment of military aircraft, which often involves unique requirements and considerations.

Here are some potential areas where concepts related to STANAG 3350 might be applied in industry:

1. Aerospace and Defense Industries:

• Avionics Testing and Simulation: Companies involved in developing and manufacturing avionics systems for both military and civilian aircraft might use equipment and test setups that are compatible with STANAG 3350 to ensure interoperability and proper functioning of video displays and processing units.
• Ground Control Stations: In some industrial settings, ground control stations are used to monitor and control remote systems or vehicles. If these systems involve video feeds that need to be displayed on ruggedized displays, concepts from STANAG 3350, such as signal integrity and standardized video formats, could be relevant.

2. Harsh Environment Applications:

• Industrial Inspection Systems: Some industrial inspection systems operate in harsh environments where ruggedness and reliability are crucial. If these systems use analog video signals for cameras or sensors, adapting certain aspects of STANAG 3350, such as robust connectors and signal conditioning, might be beneficial.
• Remote Monitoring in Extreme Conditions: Industries like oil and gas or mining often involve remote monitoring in extreme conditions. If these operations rely on analog video feeds, some of the principles behind STANAG 3350, such as ensuring signal quality over long distances, could be applicable.

3. Legacy Systems Integration:

• Upgrading Older Equipment: Some industries might have older equipment that relies on analog video signals. When upgrading these systems, there might be a need to interface with existing displays or processing units that use formats similar to STANAG 3350. In such cases, understanding the principles of STANAG 3350 could be helpful for ensuring compatibility.

Important Considerations:

• Digital Transition: Many industrial applications are moving towards digital video technologies, which offer better image quality and more features. STANAG 3350, being an analog standard, might not be the most suitable choice for new systems in most industries.
• Cost and Complexity: Implementing STANAG 3350-like systems in industrial settings might involve additional costs and complexity due to the specialized nature of the standard and its focus on military requirements.

In summary: While STANAG 3350 is primarily designed for military aircraft, some of its underlying principles related to signal integrity, ruggedness, and interoperability could find relevance in certain industrial applications, particularly those involving harsh environments or legacy systems. However, the ongoing transition to digital video technologies means that STANAG 3350 might not be the most common or ideal choice for most new industrial systems.

Research and development of Sustainable Technology of 3350 ?

While STANAG 3350 itself is a well-established standard, research and development efforts continue in related areas to improve video systems in military aircraft. Here are some key areas of focus:

1. Transition to Digital Video:

• New Standards: Research is ongoing to develop new digital video standards for avionics systems that can replace or complement STANAG 3350. These standards aim to offer better image quality, higher resolutions, more features, and improved resistance to noise and interference.
• Digital Interfaces: Development of new digital interfaces and protocols for transmitting video data within aircraft, such as those based on Ethernet or other high-speed serial communication technologies.
• Compression Techniques: Research into efficient video compression algorithms that can reduce the bandwidth requirements for transmitting high-resolution video while maintaining acceptable image quality.

2. Enhanced Video Processing:

• Image Enhancement: Development of algorithms and hardware for improving the quality of video images, such as noise reduction, sharpening, and contrast enhancement.
• Video Analytics: Research into techniques for automatically analyzing video feeds to extract useful information, such as object recognition, tracking, and threat detection.
• Sensor Fusion: Combining video data from multiple sensors (e.g., cameras, radar, infrared) to create a more comprehensive view of the environment.

3. Display Technology:

• Improved Displays: Research and development of new display technologies for cockpit use, such as higher resolution LCDs, OLED displays, or head-mounted displays.
• Human Factors: Studies on how to present video information to pilots in the most effective way to minimize workload and maximize situational awareness.

4. Ruggedization and Reliability:

• Harsh Environment Testing: Research and testing to ensure that video systems can withstand the extreme conditions encountered in military aircraft, such as temperature extremes, vibration, and electromagnetic interference.
• Reliability and Maintainability: Development of systems that are highly reliable and easy to maintain, with features like built-in diagnostics and redundancy.

5. Cybersecurity:

• Secure Video Transmission: Research into methods for securing video feeds against unauthorized access or tampering, including encryption and authentication techniques.
• Cyber Resilience: Development of systems that are resilient to cyberattacks and can continue to operate even if some components are compromised.

Key Considerations:

• Interoperability: Any new technologies or standards need to be compatible with existing systems to ensure interoperability within NATO and with allied forces.
• Certification: New avionics systems must undergo rigorous testing and certification to ensure they meet safety and performance requirements.

In summary: While STANAG 3350 is a mature standard, research and development efforts continue in related areas to improve video systems in military aircraft. These efforts focus on transitioning to digital video, enhancing video processing, improving display technology, ensuring ruggedness and reliability, and addressing cybersecurity concerns.

COURTESY : SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS

References

1. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r} Purvis, Ben; Mao, Yong; Robinson, Darren (2019). “Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins”. Sustainability Science. 14 (3): 681–695. Bibcode:2019SuSc…14..681P. doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5. ISSN 1862-4065.  Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
2. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} Ramsey, Jeffry L. (2015). “On Not Defining Sustainability”. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 28 (6): 1075–1087. Bibcode:2015JAEE…28.1075R. doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9578-3. ISSN 1187-7863. S2CID 146790960.
3. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f} Kotzé, Louis J.; Kim, Rakhyun E.; Burdon, Peter; du Toit, Louise; Glass, Lisa-Maria; Kashwan, Prakash; Liverman, Diana; Montesano, Francesco S.; Rantala, Salla (2022). “Planetary Integrity”. In Sénit, Carole-Anne; Biermann, Frank; Hickmann, Thomas (eds.). The Political Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals: Transforming Governance Through Global Goals?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 140–171. doi:10.1017/9781009082945.007. ISBN 978-1-316-51429-0.
4. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f} Bosselmann, Klaus (2010). “Losing the Forest for the Trees: Environmental Reductionism in the Law”. Sustainability. 2 (8): 2424–2448. doi:10.3390/su2082424. hdl:10535/6499. ISSN 2071-1050.  Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 International License
5. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u} Berg, Christian (2020). Sustainable action: overcoming the barriers. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-57873-1. OCLC 1124780147.
6. ^ Jump up to:^a b c “Sustainability”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 31 March 2022.
7. ^ “Sustainable Development”. UNESCO. 3 August 2015. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
8. ^ Jump up to:^a b Kuhlman, Tom; Farrington, John (2010). “What is Sustainability?”. Sustainability. 2 (11): 3436–3448. doi:10.3390/su2113436. ISSN 2071-1050.
9. ^ Nelson, Anitra (31 January 2024). “Degrowth as a Concept and Practice: Introduction”. The Commons Social Change Library. Retrieved 23 February 2024.
10. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d UNEP (2011) Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth, A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel. Fischer-Kowalski, M., Swilling, M., von Weizsäcker, E.U., Ren, Y., Moriguchi, Y., Crane, W., Krausmann, F., Eisenmenger, N., Giljum, S., Hennicke, P., Romero Lankao, P., Siriban Manalang, A., Sewerin, S.
11. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Vadén, T.; Lähde, V.; Majava, A.; Järvensivu, P.; Toivanen, T.; Hakala, E.; Eronen, J.T. (2020). “Decoupling for ecological sustainability: A categorisation and review of research literature”. Environmental Science & Policy. 112: 236–244. Bibcode:2020ESPol.112..236V. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.016. PMC 7330600. PMID 32834777.
12. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Parrique T., Barth J., Briens F., C. Kerschner, Kraus-Polk A., Kuokkanen A., Spangenberg J.H., 2019. Decoupling debunked: Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability. European Environmental Bureau.
13. ^ Parrique, T., Barth, J., Briens, F., Kerschner, C., Kraus-Polk, A., Kuokkanen, A., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2019). Decoupling debunked. Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability. A study edited by the European Environment Bureau EEB.
14. ^ Hardyment, Richard (2024). Measuring Good Business: Making Sense of Environmental, Social & Governance Data. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN 9781032601199.
15. ^ Bell, Simon; Morse, Stephen (2012). Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable?. Abington: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-84407-299-6.
16. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Howes, Michael; Wortley, Liana; Potts, Ruth; Dedekorkut-Howes, Aysin; Serrao-Neumann, Silvia; Davidson, Julie; Smith, Timothy; Nunn, Patrick (2017). “Environmental Sustainability: A Case of Policy Implementation Failure?”. Sustainability. 9 (2): 165. doi:10.3390/su9020165. hdl:10453/90953. ISSN 2071-1050.
17. ^ Jump up to:^a b Kinsley, M. and Lovins, L.H. (September 1997). “Paying for Growth, Prospering from Development.” Archived 17 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine Retrieved 15 June 2009.
18. ^ Jump up to:^a b Sustainable Shrinkage: Envisioning a Smaller, Stronger Economy Archived 11 April 2016 at the Wayback Machine. Thesolutionsjournal.com. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
19. ^ Apetrei, Cristina I.; Caniglia, Guido; von Wehrden, Henrik; Lang, Daniel J. (1 May 2021). “Just another buzzword? A systematic literature review of knowledge-related concepts in sustainability science”. Global Environmental Change. 68: 102222. Bibcode:2021GEC….6802222A. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102222. ISSN 0959-3780.
20. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Benson, Melinda Harm; Craig, Robin Kundis (2014). “End of Sustainability”. Society & Natural Resources. 27 (7): 777–782. Bibcode:2014SNatR..27..777B. doi:10.1080/08941920.2014.901467. ISSN 0894-1920. S2CID 67783261.
21. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Stockholm+50: Unlocking a Better Future. Stockholm Environment Institute (Report). 18 May 2022. doi:10.51414/sei2022.011. S2CID 248881465.
22. ^ Jump up to:^a b Scoones, Ian (2016). “The Politics of Sustainability and Development”. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 41 (1): 293–319. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-090039. ISSN 1543-5938. S2CID 156534921.
23. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h i} Harrington, Lisa M. Butler (2016). “Sustainability Theory and Conceptual Considerations: A Review of Key Ideas for Sustainability, and the Rural Context”. Papers in Applied Geography. 2 (4): 365–382. Bibcode:2016PAGeo…2..365H. doi:10.1080/23754931.2016.1239222. ISSN 2375-4931. S2CID 132458202.
24. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d United Nations General Assembly (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 – Development and International Co-operation: Environment.
25. ^ United Nations General Assembly (20 March 1987). “Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future; Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 – Development and International Co-operation: Environment; Our Common Future, Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development; Paragraph 1″. United Nations General Assembly. Retrieved 1 March 2010.
26. ^ “University of Alberta: What is sustainability?” (PDF). mcgill.ca. Retrieved 13 August 2022.
27. ^ Jump up to:^a b Halliday, Mike (21 November 2016). “How sustainable is sustainability?”. Oxford College of Procurement and Supply. Retrieved 12 July 2022.
28. ^ Harper, Douglas. “sustain”. Online Etymology Dictionary.
29. ^ Onions, Charles, T. (ed) (1964). The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 2095.
30. ^ “Sustainability Theories”. World Ocean Review. Retrieved 20 June 2019.
31. ^ Compare: “sustainability”. Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) The English-language word had a legal technical sense from 1835 and a resource-management connotation from 1953.
32. ^ “Hans Carl von Carlowitz and Sustainability”. Environment and Society Portal. Retrieved 20 June 2019.
33. ^ Dresden, SLUB. “Sylvicultura Oeconomica, Oder Haußwirthliche Nachricht und Naturmäßige Anweisung Zur Wilden Baum-Zucht”. digital.slub-dresden.de (in German). Retrieved 28 March 2022.
34. ^ Von Carlowitz, H.C. & Rohr, V. (1732) Sylvicultura Oeconomica, oder Haußwirthliche Nachricht und Naturmäßige Anweisung zur Wilden Baum Zucht, Leipzig; translated from German as cited in Friederich, Simon; Symons, Jonathan (15 November 2022). “Operationalising sustainability? Why sustainability fails as an investment criterion for safeguarding the future”. Global Policy. 14: 1758–5899.13160. doi:10.1111/1758-5899.13160. ISSN 1758-5880. S2CID 253560289.
35. ^ Basler, Ernst (1972). Strategy of Progress: Environmental Pollution, Habitat Scarcity and Future Research (originally, Strategie des Fortschritts: Umweltbelastung Lebensraumverknappung and Zukunftsforshung). BLV Publishing Company.
36. ^ Gadgil, M.; Berkes, F. (1991). “Traditional Resource Management Systems”. Resource Management and Optimization. 8: 127–141.
37. ^ “Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 16 September 2005, 60/1. 2005 World Summit Outcome” (PDF). United Nations General Assembly. 2005. Retrieved 17 January 2022.
38. ^ Barbier, Edward B. (July 1987). “The Concept of Sustainable Economic Development”. Environmental Conservation. 14 (2): 101–110. Bibcode:1987EnvCo..14..101B. doi:10.1017/S0376892900011449. ISSN 1469-4387.
39. ^ Jump up to:^a b Bosselmann, K. (2022) Chapter 2: A normative approach to environmental governance: sustainability at the apex of environmental law, Research Handbook on Fundamental Concepts of Environmental Law, edited by Douglas Fisher
40. ^ Jump up to:^a b “Agenda 21” (PDF). United Nations Conference on Environment & Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. 1992. Retrieved 17 January 2022.
41. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d United Nations (2015) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1 Archived 28 November 2020 at the Wayback Machine)
42. ^ Scott Cato, M. (2009). Green Economics. London: Earthscan, pp. 36–37. ISBN 978-1-84407-571-3.
43. ^ Jump up to:^a b Obrecht, Andreas; Pham-Truffert, Myriam; Spehn, Eva; Payne, Davnah; Altermatt, Florian; Fischer, Manuel; Passarello, Cristian; Moersberger, Hannah; Schelske, Oliver; Guntern, Jodok; Prescott, Graham (5 February 2021). “Achieving the SDGs with Biodiversity”. Swiss Academies Factsheet. Vol. 16, no. 1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.4457298.
44. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f} Raskin, P.; Banuri, T.; Gallopín, G.; Gutman, P.; Hammond, A.; Kates, R.; Swart, R. (2002). Great transition: the promise and lure of the times ahead. Boston: Stockholm Environment Institute. ISBN 0-9712418-1-3. OCLC 49987854.
45. ^ Ekins, Paul; Zenghelis, Dimitri (2021). “The costs and benefits of environmental sustainability”. Sustainability Science. 16 (3): 949–965. Bibcode:2021SuSc…16..949E. doi:10.1007/s11625-021-00910-5. PMC 7960882. PMID 33747239.
46. ^ William L. Thomas, ed. (1956). Man’s role in changing the face of the earth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-79604-3. OCLC 276231.
47. ^ Carson, Rachel (2002) [1st. Pub. Houghton Mifflin, 1962]. Silent Spring. Mariner Books. ISBN 978-0-618-24906-0.
48. ^ Arrhenius, Svante (1896). “XXXI. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground”. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science. 41 (251): 237–276. doi:10.1080/14786449608620846. ISSN 1941-5982.
49. ^ Jump up to:^a b c UN (1973) Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1, Stockholm, 5–16 June 1972
50. ^ UNEP (2021). “Making Peace With Nature”. UNEP – UN Environment Programme. Retrieved 30 March 2022.
51. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Ripple, William J.; Wolf, Christopher; Newsome, Thomas M.; Galetti, Mauro; Alamgir, Mohammed; Crist, Eileen; Mahmoud, Mahmoud I.; Laurance, William F.; 15,364 scientist signatories from 184 countries (2017). “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice”. BioScience. 67 (12): 1026–1028. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix125. hdl:11336/71342. ISSN 0006-3568.
52. ^ Crutzen, Paul J. (2002). “Geology of mankind”. Nature. 415 (6867): 23. Bibcode:2002Natur.415…23C. doi:10.1038/415023a. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 11780095. S2CID 9743349.
53. ^ Jump up to:^a b Wilhelm Krull, ed. (2000). Zukunftsstreit (in German). Weilerwist: Velbrück Wissenschaft. ISBN 3-934730-17-5. OCLC 52639118.
54. ^ Redclift, Michael (2005). “Sustainable development (1987-2005): an oxymoron comes of age”. Sustainable Development. 13 (4): 212–227. doi:10.1002/sd.281. ISSN 0968-0802.
55. ^ Daly, Herman E. (1996). Beyond growth: the economics of sustainable development (PDF). Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-4708-2. OCLC 33946953.
56. ^ United Nations (2017) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017, Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/71/313)
57. ^ “UN Environment | UNDP-UN Environment Poverty-Environment Initiative”. UN Environment | UNDP-UN Environment Poverty-Environment Initiative. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
58. ^ PEP (2016) Poverty-Environment Partnership Joint Paper | June 2016 Getting to Zero – A Poverty, Environment and Climate Call to Action for the Sustainable Development Goals
59. ^ Boyer, Robert H. W.; Peterson, Nicole D.; Arora, Poonam; Caldwell, Kevin (2016). “Five Approaches to Social Sustainability and an Integrated Way Forward”. Sustainability. 8 (9): 878. doi:10.3390/su8090878.
60. ^ Doğu, Feriha Urfalı; Aras, Lerzan (2019). “Measuring Social Sustainability with the Developed MCSA Model: Güzelyurt Case”. Sustainability. 11 (9): 2503. doi:10.3390/su11092503. ISSN 2071-1050.
61. ^ Davidson, Mark (2010). “Social Sustainability and the City: Social sustainability and city”. Geography Compass. 4 (7): 872–880. doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2010.00339.x.
62. ^ Missimer, Merlina; Robèrt, Karl-Henrik; Broman, Göran (2017). “A strategic approach to social sustainability – Part 2: a principle-based definition”. Journal of Cleaner Production. 140: 42–52. Bibcode:2017JCPro.140…42M. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.059.
63. ^ Boyer, Robert; Peterson, Nicole; Arora, Poonam; Caldwell, Kevin (2016). “Five Approaches to Social Sustainability and an Integrated Way Forward”. Sustainability. 8 (9): 878. doi:10.3390/su8090878. ISSN 2071-1050.
64. ^ James, Paul; with Magee, Liam; Scerri, Andy; Steger, Manfred B. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315765747.
65. ^ Liam Magee; Andy Scerri; Paul James; James A. Thom; Lin Padgham; Sarah Hickmott; Hepu Deng; Felicity Cahill (2013). “Reframing social sustainability reporting: Towards an engaged approach”. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 15 (1): 225–243. Bibcode:2013EDSus..15..225M. doi:10.1007/s10668-012-9384-2. S2CID 153452740.
66. ^ Cohen, J. E. (2006). “Human Population: The Next Half Century.”. In Kennedy, D. (ed.). Science Magazine’s State of the Planet 2006-7. London: Island Press. pp. 13–21. ISBN 9781597266246.
67. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Aggarwal, Dhruvak; Esquivel, Nhilce; Hocquet, Robin; Martin, Kristiina; Mungo, Carol; Nazareth, Anisha; Nikam, Jaee; Odenyo, Javan; Ravindran, Bhuvan; Kurinji, L. S.; Shawoo, Zoha; Yamada, Kohei (28 April 2022). Charting a youth vision for a just and sustainable future (PDF) (Report). Stockholm Environment Institute. doi:10.51414/sei2022.010.
68. ^ “The Regional Institute – WACOSS Housing and Sustainable Communities Indicators Project”. www.regional.org.au. 2012. Retrieved 26 January 2022.
69. ^ Virtanen, Pirjo Kristiina; Siragusa, Laura; Guttorm, Hanna (2020). “Introduction: toward more inclusive definitions of sustainability”. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 43: 77–82. Bibcode:2020COES…43…77V. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2020.04.003. S2CID 219663803.
70. ^ “Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development”. United Cities and Local Governments. Archived from the original on 3 October 2013.
71. ^ James, Paul; Magee, Liam (2016). “Domains of Sustainability”. In Farazmand, Ali (ed.). Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 1–17. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2760-1. ISBN 978-3-319-31816-5. Retrieved 28 March 2022.
72. ^ Jump up to:^a b Robert U. Ayres & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh & John M. Gowdy, 1998. “Viewpoint: Weak versus Strong Sustainability“, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 98-103/3, Tinbergen Institute.
73. ^ Pearce, David W.; Atkinson, Giles D. (1993). “Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: an indicator of “weak” sustainability”. Ecological Economics. 8 (2): 103–108. Bibcode:1993EcoEc…8..103P. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(93)90039-9.
74. ^ Ayres, Robert; van den Berrgh, Jeroen; Gowdy, John (2001). “Strong versus Weak Sustainability”. Environmental Ethics. 23 (2): 155–168. doi:10.5840/enviroethics200123225. ISSN 0163-4275.
75. ^ Cabeza Gutés, Maite (1996). “The concept of weak sustainability”. Ecological Economics. 17 (3): 147–156. Bibcode:1996EcoEc..17..147C. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(96)80003-6.
76. ^ Bosselmann, Klaus (2017). The principle of sustainability: transforming law and governance (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-4724-8128-3. OCLC 951915998.
77. ^ Jump up to:^a b WEF (2020) Nature Risk Rising: Why the Crisis Engulfing Nature Matters for Business and the Economy New Nature Economy, World Economic Forum in collaboration with PwC
78. ^ James, Paul; with Magee, Liam; Scerri, Andy; Steger, Manfred B. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315765747.
79. ^ Jump up to:^a b Hardyment, Richard (2 February 2024). Measuring Good Business. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003457732. ISBN 978-1-003-45773-2.
80. ^ Jump up to:^a b Bell, Simon and Morse, Stephen 2008. Sustainability Indicators. Measuring the Immeasurable? 2nd edn. London: Earthscan. ISBN 978-1-84407-299-6.
81. ^ Dalal-Clayton, Barry and Sadler, Barry 2009. Sustainability Appraisal: A Sourcebook and Reference Guide to International Experience. London: Earthscan. ISBN 978-1-84407-357-3.^{[page needed]}
82. ^ Hak, T. et al. 2007. Sustainability Indicators, SCOPE 67. Island Press, London. [1] Archived 2011-12-18 at the Wayback Machine
83. ^ Wackernagel, Mathis; Lin, David; Evans, Mikel; Hanscom, Laurel; Raven, Peter (2019). “Defying the Footprint Oracle: Implications of Country Resource Trends”. Sustainability. 11 (7): 2164. doi:10.3390/su11072164.
84. ^ “Sustainable Development visualized”. Sustainability concepts. Retrieved 24 March 2022.
85. ^ Jump up to:^a b Steffen, Will; Rockström, Johan; Cornell, Sarah; Fetzer, Ingo; Biggs, Oonsie; Folke, Carl; Reyers, Belinda (15 January 2015). “Planetary Boundaries – an update”. Stockholm Resilience Centre. Retrieved 19 April 2020.
86. ^ “Ten years of nine planetary boundaries”. Stockholm Resilience Centre. November 2019. Retrieved 19 April 2020.
87. ^ Persson, Linn; Carney Almroth, Bethanie M.; Collins, Christopher D.; Cornell, Sarah; de Wit, Cynthia A.; Diamond, Miriam L.; Fantke, Peter; Hassellöv, Martin; MacLeod, Matthew; Ryberg, Morten W.; Søgaard Jørgensen, Peter (1 February 2022). “Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities”. Environmental Science & Technology. 56 (3): 1510–1521. Bibcode:2022EnST…56.1510P. doi:10.1021/acs.est.1c04158. ISSN 0013-936X. PMC 8811958. PMID 35038861.
88. ^ Ehrlich, P.R.; Holden, J.P. (1974). “Human Population and the global environment”. American Scientist. Vol. 62, no. 3. pp. 282–292.
89. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Wiedmann, Thomas; Lenzen, Manfred; Keyßer, Lorenz T.; Steinberger, Julia K. (2020). “Scientists’ warning on affluence”. Nature Communications. 11 (1): 3107. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11.3107W. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 7305220. PMID 32561753. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
90. ^ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis (PDF). Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
91. ^ TEEB (2010), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB
92. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Jaeger, William K. (2005). Environmental economics for tree huggers and other skeptics. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN 978-1-4416-0111-7. OCLC 232157655.
93. ^ Groth, Christian (2014). Lecture notes in Economic Growth, (mimeo), Chapter 8: Choice of social discount rate. Copenhagen University.
94. ^ UNEP, FAO (2020). UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. 48p.
95. ^ Raworth, Kate (2017). Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. London: Random House. ISBN 978-1-84794-138-1. OCLC 974194745.
96. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} Berg, Christian (2017). “Shaping the Future Sustainably – Types of Barriers and Tentative Action Principles (chapter in: Future Scenarios of Global Cooperation—Practices and Challenges)”. Global Dialogues (14). Centre For Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21), Nora Dahlhaus and Daniela Weißkopf (eds.). doi:10.14282/2198-0403-GD-14. ISSN 2198-0403.
97. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Pickering, Jonathan; Hickmann, Thomas; Bäckstrand, Karin; Kalfagianni, Agni; Bloomfield, Michael; Mert, Ayşem; Ransan-Cooper, Hedda; Lo, Alex Y. (2022). “Democratising sustainability transformations: Assessing the transformative potential of democratic practices in environmental governance”. Earth System Governance. 11: 100131. Bibcode:2022ESGov..1100131P. doi:10.1016/j.esg.2021.100131.  Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
98. ^ European Environment Agency. (2019). Sustainability transitions: policy and practice. LU: Publications Office. doi:10.2800/641030. ISBN 9789294800862.
99. ^ Noura Guimarães, Lucas (2020). “Introduction”. The regulation and policy of Latin American energy transitions. Elsevier. pp. xxix–xxxviii. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-819521-5.00026-7. ISBN 978-0-12-819521-5. S2CID 241093198.
100. ^ Kuenkel, Petra (2019). Stewarding Sustainability Transformations: An Emerging Theory and Practice of SDG Implementation. Cham: Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-03691-1. OCLC 1080190654.
101. ^ Fletcher, Charles; Ripple, William J.; Newsome, Thomas; Barnard, Phoebe; Beamer, Kamanamaikalani; Behl, Aishwarya; Bowen, Jay; Cooney, Michael; Crist, Eileen; Field, Christopher; Hiser, Krista; Karl, David M.; King, David A.; Mann, Michael E.; McGregor, Davianna P.; Mora, Camilo; Oreskes, Naomi; Wilson, Michael (4 April 2024). “Earth at risk: An urgent call to end the age of destruction and forge a just and sustainable future”. PNAS Nexus. 3 (4): pgae106. doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae106. PMC 10986754. PMID 38566756. Retrieved 4 April 2024.  Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
102. ^ Smith, E. T. (23 January 2024). “Practising Commoning”. The Commons Social Change Library. Retrieved 23 February 2024.
103. ^ Jump up to:^a b Haberl, Helmut; Wiedenhofer, Dominik; Virág, Doris; Kalt, Gerald; Plank, Barbara; Brockway, Paul; Fishman, Tomer; Hausknost, Daniel; Krausmann, Fridolin; Leon-Gruchalski, Bartholomäus; Mayer, Andreas (2020). “A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights”. Environmental Research Letters. 15 (6): 065003. Bibcode:2020ERL….15f5003H. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a. ISSN 1748-9326. S2CID 216453887.
104. ^ Pigou, Arthur Cecil (1932). The Economics of Welfare (PDF) (4th ed.). London: Macmillan.
105. ^ Jaeger, William K. (2005). Environmental economics for tree huggers and other skeptics. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN 978-1-4416-0111-7. OCLC 232157655.
106. ^ Roger Perman; Yue Ma; Michael Common; David Maddison; James Mcgilvray (2011). Natural resource and environmental economics (4th ed.). Harlow, Essex: Pearson Addison Wesley. ISBN 978-0-321-41753-4. OCLC 704557307.
107. ^ Jump up to:^a b Anderies, John M.; Janssen, Marco A. (16 October 2012). “Elinor Ostrom (1933–2012): Pioneer in the Interdisciplinary Science of Coupled Social-Ecological Systems”. PLOS Biology. 10 (10): e1001405. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001405. ISSN 1544-9173. PMC 3473022.
108. ^ “The Nobel Prize: Women Who Changed the World”. thenobelprize.org. Retrieved 31 March 2022.
109. ^ Ghisellini, Patrizia; Cialani, Catia; Ulgiati, Sergio (15 February 2016). “A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems”. Journal of Cleaner Production. Towards Post Fossil Carbon Societies: Regenerative and Preventative Eco-Industrial Development. 114: 11–32. Bibcode:2016JCPro.114…11G. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007. ISSN 0959-6526.
110. ^ Nobre, Gustavo Cattelan; Tavares, Elaine (10 September 2021). “The quest for a circular economy final definition: A scientific perspective”. Journal of Cleaner Production. 314: 127973. Bibcode:2021JCPro.31427973N. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127973. ISSN 0959-6526.
111. ^ Zhexembayeva, N. (May 2007). “Becoming Sustainable: Tools and Resources for Successful Organizational Transformation”. Center for Business as an Agent of World Benefit. Case Western University. Archived from the original on 13 June 2010.
112. ^ “About Us”. Sustainable Business Institute. Archived from the original on 17 May 2009.
113. ^ “About the WBCSD”. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Archived from the original on 9 September 2007. Retrieved 1 April 2009.
114. ^ “Supply Chain Sustainability | UN Global Compact”. www.unglobalcompact.org. Retrieved 4 May 2022.
115. ^ “”Statement of Faith and Spiritual Leaders on the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP21 in Paris in December 2015″” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 December 2015. Retrieved 21 March 2022.
116. ^ “The Statement — Interfaith Climate”. www.interfaithclimate.org. Retrieved 13 August 2022.
117. ^ McDilda, Diane Gow (2007). The everything green living book: easy ways to conserve energy, protect your family’s health, and help save the environment. Avon, Mass.: Adams Media. ISBN 978-1-59869-425-3. OCLC 124074971.
118. ^ Gambino, Megan (15 March 2012). “Is it Too Late for Sustainable Development?”. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 12 January 2022.
119. ^ Blühdorn (2017). “Post-capitalism, post-growth, post-consumerism? Eco-political hopes beyond sustainability”. Global Discourse. 7 (1): 42–61. doi:10.1080/23269995.2017.1300415. ISSN 2043-7897.
120. ^ Watson, Bruce (20 August 2016). “The troubling evolution of corporate greenwashing”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on 18 October 2016.
121. ^ “The Troubling Evolution Of Large Scale Corporate Greenwashing”. www.bloomberg.ca. BNN Bloomberg. 18 August 2018.
122. ^ “The Troubling Evolution Of Large Scale Corporate Greenwashing”. The Conversation. 18 August 2011.
123. ^ Ebrahimi Sirizi, Mohammad; Taghavi Zirvani, Esmaeil; Esmailzadeh, Abdulsalam; Khosravian, Jafar; Ahmadi, Reyhaneh; Mijani, Naeim; Soltannia, Reyhaneh; Jokar Arsanjani, Jamal (19 October 2023). “A scenario-based multi-criteria decision-making approach for allocation of pistachio processing facilities: A case study of Zarand, Iran”. Sustainability. 15 (20): 15054. doi:10.3390/su152015054. ISSN 2071-1050.