Sustainable Technology of 3650

Sustainable Technology of 3650 ?

It seems like you might be asking about the Cisco Catalyst 3650 Series of network switches. While the “3650” in the name might seem like a year, it’s actually just the product number for this line of networking equipment.

These switches are designed with sustainability in mind in several ways:

• Energy Efficiency: They support Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE) which helps to reduce power consumption during periods of low network activity.
• Power over Ethernet (PoE): The switches offer PoE and PoE+ which can power devices like phones and wireless access points directly, eliminating the need for separate power adapters and reducing energy waste.
• Reduced Footprint: Some models come in a smaller form factor, allowing for deployment in tight spaces and reducing the need for larger, more resource-intensive installations.
• Long Lifespan: Cisco designs their equipment for durability and longevity, reducing the need for frequent replacements and minimizing electronic waste.

If you’re interested in learning more about the specific sustainability features of the Cisco Catalyst 3650 series, I would recommend checking out the official Cisco website or contacting their sales team. They can provide detailed information about the product’s energy efficiency, materials, and lifecycle management.

Additionally, here are some general resources about sustainable technology that you might find helpful:

• What is Sustainable Technology? – IBM: https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/sustainable-technology
• What is Sustainable Technology? | Rubicon: https://www.rubicon.com/sustainability-hub/articles/what-is-sustainable-technology/
• Sustainable Technology in 2025 – Splunk: https://www.splunk.com/en_us/blog/learn/sustainable-technology.html

I hope this helps!

What is Sustainable Technology of 3650 ?

You’re right to focus on sustainability! It’s important for all technology, even networking equipment. While the Cisco Catalyst 3650 isn’t brand new, it does have some features that contribute to more sustainable operation. Here’s a breakdown:

Key Sustainability Features of the Cisco Catalyst 3650:

• Energy Efficiency:
  • Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE): This standard allows the switch to reduce power consumption during periods of low network activity. When there’s not much data flowing, the switch can go into a low-power state, saving energy.
  • Power over Ethernet (PoE): PoE and PoE+ allow the switch to power devices like IP phones and wireless access points directly. This eliminates the need for separate power adapters for those devices, reducing energy waste and clutter.
• Resource Optimization:
  • Stacking: The 3650 supports stacking, which allows you to manage multiple switches as a single unit. This simplifies management and can lead to more efficient use of resources.
  • Long Lifespan: Cisco designs its equipment for durability. A longer lifespan means less frequent replacements, which reduces electronic waste and the need for new manufacturing.

Important Considerations:

• Age of the Technology: The 3650 is an older generation of switch. Newer Cisco switches likely have even more advanced energy-saving features.
• Software Updates: Keeping the switch’s software updated is crucial. Updates often include optimizations that can improve energy efficiency.

To Maximize Sustainability with the 3650:

• Configure EEE: Make sure EEE is enabled in the switch’s settings to take advantage of its power-saving capabilities.
• Utilize PoE: If you have devices that support PoE, use it! It’s more efficient than separate power adapters.
• Monitor Power Consumption: Use the switch’s management tools to monitor power usage and identify areas for optimization.
• Proper Disposal: When the time comes to replace the switch, ensure it’s disposed of responsibly through an e-waste recycling program.

Looking Ahead:

If you’re looking for the most sustainable options, consider newer Cisco switches. They often incorporate the latest advancements in energy efficiency and materials.

Do you have any other questions about the 3650 or sustainable networking? I’m here to help!

Who is required Sustainable Technology of 3650 ?

That’s a great question! When we talk about “who” needs sustainable technology like the Cisco Catalyst 3650, it’s not just about a single person or department. It’s a broader need that touches various stakeholders:

• Organizations of all sizes: Whether it’s a small business, a large enterprise, or a government agency, everyone benefits from reducing energy consumption and minimizing their environmental impact. Sustainable technology helps achieve these goals.
• IT departments: IT professionals are responsible for selecting and managing network infrastructure. Choosing sustainable equipment like the 3650 (or its more modern counterparts) helps them meet their organization’s sustainability goals while ensuring reliable network performance.
• End-users: Ultimately, everyone who uses the network benefits from sustainable technology. It contributes to a healthier environment and can even lead to cost savings that might be passed down to consumers.
• The environment: This is the most important stakeholder! Sustainable technology helps reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, minimize electronic waste, and conserve resources.

Why is sustainable technology important for these stakeholders?

• Cost savings: Energy-efficient equipment like the 3650 can reduce operating costs over time.
• Environmental responsibility: Organizations are increasingly aware of their environmental impact and are seeking ways to reduce their carbon footprint.
• Brand reputation: Companies with a strong commitment to sustainability often have a better public image and can attract environmentally conscious customers.
• Regulatory compliance: In some regions, there are regulations that require organizations to reduce their energy consumption and electronic waste.

In summary: The need for sustainable technology like the Cisco Catalyst 3650 extends to everyone, from individual users to large organizations and, most importantly, to the environment itself. By adopting sustainable practices and choosing energy-efficient equipment, we can all contribute to a more sustainable future.

When is required Sustainable Technology of 3650 ?

You’re asking a very timely question! The need for sustainable technology like the Cisco Catalyst 3650 (and its more modern equivalents) is now more urgent than ever. Here’s why:

• Climate Change: The effects of climate change are becoming increasingly apparent, with rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and rising sea levels. We need to act now to reduce our carbon footprint and mitigate these effects.
• Resource Depletion: Our planet’s resources are finite. We need to use them wisely and find ways to reduce our consumption of energy, materials, and water.
• E-waste: The amount of electronic waste generated globally is growing at an alarming rate. We need to find ways to reduce e-waste and ensure that electronics are recycled responsibly.
• Technological Advancements: We now have the technology to create more sustainable solutions. We need to embrace these advancements and make them widely available.

Specifically regarding the 3650:

• While it’s not the newest technology, it still has some sustainable features. As we discussed earlier, it includes Energy Efficient Ethernet and PoE, which can help reduce energy consumption.
• If you already have 3650s, it’s better to maximize their lifespan and efficiency than to immediately replace them. This reduces e-waste and the environmental impact of manufacturing new equipment.
• However, when it’s time to upgrade, prioritize newer switches with even more advanced sustainability features. This is a crucial step in reducing your organization’s environmental impact.

In general, the need for sustainable technology is constant and ongoing. It’s not something that we can address once and then forget about. We need to continually strive to improve the sustainability of our technology and our practices.

Here are some key moments when the need for sustainable technology is particularly critical:

• Technology Purchases: When choosing new equipment, prioritize energy efficiency, recyclability, and longevity.
• Network Upgrades: Use network upgrades as an opportunity to implement more sustainable solutions.
• End-of-Life Management: Ensure that old equipment is disposed of responsibly through e-waste recycling programs.
• Policy Decisions: Advocate for policies that promote sustainable technology and responsible e-waste management.

By making sustainable technology a priority in our decisions and actions, we can contribute to a more sustainable future for all.

COURTESY : Voith Group

Where is required Sustainable Technology of 3650 ?

The need for sustainable technology, including devices like the Cisco 3650 (and its more modern counterparts), exists in virtually every sector and environment. It’s not limited to one specific place. Here’s a breakdown of where sustainable technology is required:

• Offices (Small, Medium, and Large): From small businesses to multinational corporations, offices are significant consumers of energy. Sustainable networking equipment, along with energy-efficient computers and lighting, is essential.
• Data Centers: Data centers are massive energy consumers. Sustainable technology, including efficient cooling systems and power distribution units, is critical to reducing their environmental impact. Networking within data centers also needs to be efficient.
• Educational Institutions: Schools and universities use a lot of technology. Sustainable practices and equipment are needed to reduce their energy footprint and teach students about responsible technology use.
• Government Agencies: Governments at all levels have a responsibility to lead by example. They need to adopt sustainable technology in their own operations and promote its use in the wider community.
• Healthcare Facilities: Hospitals and clinics rely heavily on technology. Sustainable solutions are needed to reduce energy consumption and minimize waste.
• Manufacturing and Industrial Settings: Factories and industrial plants use a lot of energy. Sustainable technology can help reduce their environmental impact and improve efficiency.
• Homes: Even in our homes, we can make a difference by choosing energy-efficient devices and practicing responsible e-waste disposal.
• Remote and Hybrid Work Environments: As remote work becomes more common, it’s essential to ensure that the technology we use at home is also sustainable.
• Transportation: Sustainable technology is needed in transportation systems, including electric vehicles, smart traffic management systems, and more efficient infrastructure.
• Anywhere with a Network: Essentially, anywhere that uses technology and has a network can benefit from sustainable solutions. This includes retail stores, restaurants, hotels, public spaces, and more.

Focusing on the Cisco 3650 (and similar network devices):

While the 3650 itself might not be the cutting edge of sustainable networking anymore, the principles it embodies (energy efficiency, PoE) are vital. So, the “where” for needing sustainable networking applies to anywhere a network exists. Modern replacements for the 3650, offering even greater energy savings and other sustainable features, are what should be considered in new deployments.

The push for sustainable technology is a global effort. It’s not just about one location or industry; it’s about making a collective effort to reduce our environmental impact and create a more sustainable future for everyone.

How is required Sustainable Technology of 3650 ?

The Cisco 3650, while not the newest, illustrates how sustainable technology is required in network infrastructure. However, let’s be clear: we’re talking about the principles it represents, not necessarily the specific model. Here’s how sustainable technology, including modern equivalents of the 3650, is required:

1. Energy Efficiency:

• Reducing Power Consumption: Network devices consume significant amounts of electricity. Sustainable technology focuses on minimizing this consumption through features like Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE), low-power components, and intelligent power management. This translates to lower operating costs and a smaller carbon footprint.
• Power over Ethernet (PoE): PoE eliminates the need for separate power adapters for devices like IP phones and wireless access points. This reduces energy waste and simplifies cabling, making installations cleaner and more efficient.

2. Resource Optimization:

• Long Lifespan: Durable and reliable equipment reduces the need for frequent replacements, minimizing resource depletion and e-waste. This is a key aspect of sustainability.
• Virtualization and Consolidation: Network virtualization technologies allow multiple functions to run on a single physical device, reducing the number of devices needed and their associated energy consumption.
• Right-Sizing: Choosing equipment that meets the specific needs of an organization without over-provisioning is crucial. This avoids unnecessary energy consumption and resource waste.

3. Responsible Materials and Manufacturing:

• Recycled and Recyclable Materials: Sustainable technology prioritizes the use of recycled materials in manufacturing and designs products for easy disassembly and recycling at the end of their life.
• Reduced Packaging: Minimizing packaging materials reduces waste and the environmental impact of transportation.
• Sustainable Manufacturing Processes: Manufacturers are increasingly adopting sustainable practices in their production facilities, such as reducing energy and water consumption and minimizing waste generation.

4. E-waste Management:

• Proper Disposal and Recycling: Sustainable technology emphasizes the importance of responsible e-waste management. This includes proper disposal and recycling of old equipment to recover valuable materials and prevent pollution.
• Extended Product Lifecycles: Designing products for longer lifespans reduces the amount of e-waste generated.

5. Software and Management:

• Energy-Aware Software: Network management software can play a role in optimizing energy consumption by monitoring power usage and implementing power-saving policies.
• Remote Management: Remote management capabilities can reduce the need for on-site visits, saving energy and transportation costs.

How these principles apply to the 3650 (and its modern equivalents):

While the 3650 had some of these features (EEE, PoE), modern switches take them further. Newer models offer more sophisticated power management, higher efficiency components, and often a focus on recyclable materials. The core idea is that every new generation of network equipment should be more sustainable than the last.

In short, sustainable technology is required in networking to minimize environmental impact, reduce operating costs, and contribute to a more sustainable future. It’s a continuous improvement process, with each generation of technology building upon the advancements of the previous one.

Case study is Sustainable Technology of 3650 ?

It’s difficult to create a specific case study on the Cisco 3650’s sustainability impact because Cisco doesn’t typically publish granular data on the environmental performance of individual models in that level of detail. Also, the 3650 is an older model, so much of the focus has shifted to newer equipment.

However, we can construct a hypothetical case study and discuss the general principles that would apply to the 3650 (and, more importantly, to its modern equivalents) when evaluating sustainable technology in networking.

Hypothetical Case Study: Modernizing a Small Business Network

Scenario: A small business, “EcoTech Solutions,” is upgrading its network infrastructure. They are considering replacing their older Cisco 3650 switches with newer, more sustainable models.

Challenge: EcoTech Solutions wants to reduce their energy consumption, minimize their environmental impact, and lower their operating costs.

Proposed Solution: EcoTech Solutions decides to replace their 3650s with newer Cisco Catalyst 9000 series switches (or a similar modern equivalent).

Expected Benefits (based on general principles of sustainable networking):

• Reduced Energy Consumption: The newer switches offer significantly improved energy efficiency due to advancements in chip technology, power management, and more efficient cooling systems. This translates to lower electricity bills and a smaller carbon footprint. Quantitatively, this might be a 20-40% reduction in power consumption per switch (this is a hypothetical range – actual numbers vary).
• Lower Operating Costs: Reduced energy consumption directly translates to lower operating costs. For EcoTech, this could mean a savings of several hundred dollars per year per switch.
• Reduced E-waste: By extending the lifespan of their networking equipment, EcoTech reduces the need for frequent replacements, minimizing e-waste generation. They also ensure that the older 3650s are recycled responsibly.
• Improved Network Performance: Newer switches often offer improved performance, bandwidth, and security features, which can enhance productivity and business operations. While not strictly “sustainability,” this indirectly contributes by optimizing resource usage.
• Enhanced Brand Image: By demonstrating a commitment to sustainability, EcoTech can enhance its brand image and attract environmentally conscious customers.

Key Metrics (Hypothetical):

• Energy Savings: 25% reduction in total network energy consumption.
• Cost Savings: $500 per year per switch in reduced electricity costs.
• E-waste Reduction: Extended lifespan of networking equipment by 5 years.
• Carbon Footprint Reduction: A measurable decrease in the company’s overall carbon footprint.

Conclusion:

This hypothetical case study illustrates how upgrading to more sustainable networking equipment can bring significant environmental and economic benefits. While the specific numbers are illustrative, the general principles apply to any organization looking to improve the sustainability of their network infrastructure. It’s important to remember that sustainability in networking is an ongoing process that requires careful planning, implementation, and monitoring.

Important Note: To get more precise data for a real-world case study, you would need to consult with Cisco or other networking vendors for specific product information and conduct detailed energy audits. You would also need to track the actual energy consumption of your network before and after the upgrade to measure the real-world impact.

COURTESY : NPTEL-NOC IITM

White paper on Sustainable Technology of 3650 ?

I cannot provide a specific white paper on the Cisco 3650’s sustainability because Cisco, like most vendors, doesn’t usually publish detailed environmental impact reports for individual, older product models like the 3650. Their focus is generally on their current offerings.

However, I can give you a framework and the key elements that would be included in a white paper on sustainable networking technology, using the 3650 (and its modern equivalents) as a reference point. You can use this as a guide to research further or to understand what to look for in actual white papers from vendors.

Title: Sustainable Networking: A Practical Approach for [Your Organization/Industry]

Abstract:

This white paper explores the importance of sustainable technology in network infrastructure. It discusses the key principles of sustainable networking, including energy efficiency, resource optimization, responsible materials, and e-waste management. While referencing older models like the Cisco 3650, the paper focuses on modern best practices and technologies for building environmentally responsible and cost-effective networks.

1. Introduction:

• Briefly introduce the growing importance of sustainability in IT and the increasing pressure on organizations to reduce their environmental footprint.
• State the purpose of the white paper: to provide practical guidance on implementing sustainable networking practices.
• Briefly mention the evolution of networking technology, from older models like the Cisco 3650 to newer, more sustainable solutions.

2. The Need for Sustainable Networking:

• Discuss the environmental impact of traditional networking equipment, including energy consumption, resource depletion, and e-waste generation.
• Highlight the business benefits of sustainable networking, such as cost savings, improved brand reputation, and regulatory compliance.
• Briefly touch on the role of networking in enabling other sustainability initiatives (e.g., smart grids, remote work).

3. Key Principles of Sustainable Networking:

• Energy Efficiency:
  • Explain the importance of minimizing energy consumption in network devices.
  • Discuss technologies like Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE), Power over Ethernet (PoE), and advanced power management features.
  • Compare the energy efficiency of older generation equipment (like the 3650) with modern equivalents, highlighting the improvements.
• Resource Optimization:
  • Emphasize the importance of maximizing the lifespan of network equipment.
  • Discuss strategies for network virtualization and consolidation.
  • Explain the concept of “right-sizing” network deployments to avoid over-provisioning.
• Responsible Materials and Manufacturing:
  • Discuss the use of recycled and recyclable materials in network equipment.
  • Highlight the importance of sustainable manufacturing processes.
  • Mention initiatives like eco-labeling and certifications.
• E-waste Management:
  • Explain the environmental risks of improper e-waste disposal.
  • Discuss best practices for e-waste recycling and responsible disposal.
  • Mention extended product lifecycle programs and take-back initiatives.

4. Implementing Sustainable Networking:

• Provide practical guidance on how organizations can implement sustainable networking practices.
• Include recommendations for technology selection, network design, and network management.
• Discuss the importance of setting sustainability goals and tracking progress.

5. Case Studies (Hypothetical or Real Examples):

• Include case studies of organizations that have successfully implemented sustainable networking initiatives. (You might have to research real-world examples).
• You could create a hypothetical case study similar to the one I provided earlier, comparing an older network (using something like the 3650 as a reference) with a modern, sustainable network.

6. Conclusion:

• Reiterate the importance of sustainable networking and its benefits for both the environment and organizations.
• Emphasize the need for ongoing efforts to improve the sustainability of network infrastructure.

7. References:

• List any sources you consulted.

Important Note: This is a framework. A real white paper would have more detailed information, specific product data (especially for newer equipment), and more in-depth analysis. You’ll need to do further research to fill in the details. Looking at white papers from Cisco and other networking vendors (on their current product lines) will give you a good sense of what a professional white paper looks like.

Inudstrial application of Sustainable Technology of 3650 ?

While the Cisco 3650 itself might be a bit older, the principles of sustainable technology it incorporates (like energy efficiency and PoE) are highly relevant in modern industrial applications. Here’s how these principles, and their advancement in newer equipment, apply:

1. Smart Factories and Automation:

• Energy Efficiency: In factories with extensive automation, numerous devices (sensors, PLCs, robots) are connected to the network. Energy-efficient switches, like modern equivalents of the 3650, minimize power consumption across this large network, leading to significant cost savings and reduced environmental impact.
• Power over Ethernet (PoE): PoE simplifies powering devices like IP cameras for surveillance, industrial sensors, and even some robotic arms. This reduces cabling complexity and eliminates the need for individual power adapters, improving efficiency and reducing energy waste.

2. Industrial IoT (IIoT):

• Connectivity for Sensors: IIoT relies on a vast network of sensors to collect data for monitoring and optimization. Sustainable networking ensures reliable connectivity for these sensors while minimizing the energy footprint of the network infrastructure itself.
• Data Center Efficiency: As IIoT generates massive amounts of data, efficient data centers are crucial. Sustainable networking within these data centers, including high-bandwidth, low-latency switches, helps process data efficiently and reduce the energy needed for cooling and operation.

3. Transportation and Logistics:

• Smart Traffic Management: Sustainable networking plays a role in smart traffic management systems, which optimize traffic flow to reduce congestion and fuel consumption. Efficient switches in traffic control centers and along roadways help ensure reliable communication between traffic signals, sensors, and other devices.
• Logistics and Supply Chain: In warehouses and distribution centers, sustainable networking supports efficient tracking of goods, automated systems, and communication between various devices, contributing to optimized logistics and reduced waste.

4. Energy and Utilities:

• Smart Grids: Sustainable networking is crucial for smart grids, which enable efficient distribution and management of electricity. Smart grid devices, such as sensors and smart meters, rely on reliable communication networks to function effectively.
• Renewable Energy: Sustainable networking can support the monitoring and control of renewable energy installations, such as solar farms and wind turbines, helping to optimize energy production and distribution.

5. Building Management Systems:

• Energy-Efficient Buildings: In industrial settings with large office or administrative spaces, sustainable networking can be integrated with building management systems (BMS) to optimize energy use for lighting, HVAC, and other building systems. PoE can power many of these systems.

General Considerations for Industrial Applications:

• Ruggedization: Industrial environments often require ruggedized networking equipment that can withstand harsh conditions, such as extreme temperatures, humidity, and vibration.
• Reliability: Industrial networks must be highly reliable to ensure continuous operation of critical processes. Redundancy and failover mechanisms are essential.
• Security: Industrial networks are vulnerable to cyberattacks. Strong security measures are crucial to protect critical infrastructure and data.

Modern Equivalents of the 3650:

When considering sustainable technology for industrial applications today, it’s important to look at newer Cisco Catalyst switches (like the 9000 series) or industrial-grade switches specifically designed for harsh environments. These newer models offer advanced energy efficiency, higher bandwidth, enhanced security, and often ruggedization features.

By implementing sustainable networking practices and choosing energy-efficient equipment, industrial organizations can reduce their environmental footprint, lower operating costs, and improve the efficiency of their operations.

Research and development of Sustainable Technology of 3650 ?

You’re interested in the research and development (R&D) behind sustainable networking technology, particularly as it relates to the evolution from devices like the Cisco 3650 to the more sustainable equipment we have today. Here’s a look at the key areas of R&D:

1. Energy Efficiency:

• Advanced Silicon: Semiconductor technology is constantly evolving. R&D focuses on developing chips with lower power consumption while maintaining or increasing performance. This is a crucial area for improving the energy efficiency of network devices.
• Power Management: Research is being conducted on more intelligent power management algorithms and techniques. This includes features like adaptive power allocation, where switches can dynamically adjust power consumption based on network traffic and device activity.
• Cooling Systems: Efficient cooling is essential for reducing energy waste in network devices. R&D is exploring innovative cooling solutions, such as liquid cooling and improved heat dissipation designs, to minimize the energy needed for cooling.

2. Resource Optimization:

• Network Virtualization: Research in network virtualization technologies allows multiple virtual networks to run on a single physical infrastructure. This improves resource utilization and reduces the number of physical devices needed, leading to energy savings and reduced e-waste.
• Software-Defined Networking (SDN): SDN enables centralized control and management of network resources. R&D in SDN focuses on developing intelligent algorithms that can optimize network traffic flow and resource allocation, improving efficiency and reducing energy consumption.
• Lifecycle Management: Research is being conducted on extending the lifespan of network equipment through improved design, manufacturing processes, and software updates. This helps reduce e-waste and conserve resources.

3. Responsible Materials and Manufacturing:

• Sustainable Materials: R&D is exploring the use of recycled and recyclable materials in the manufacturing of network equipment. This includes research into bioplastics and other sustainable alternatives to traditional materials.
• Eco-Friendly Manufacturing: Research focuses on developing more sustainable manufacturing processes that reduce energy and water consumption, minimize waste generation, and eliminate the use of harmful chemicals.
• Design for Disassembly: R&D is exploring design principles that make it easier to disassemble and recycle network equipment at the end of its life, facilitating material recovery and reducing e-waste.

4. E-waste Management:

• Recycling Technologies: Research is being conducted on improving e-waste recycling technologies to recover valuable materials from network equipment more efficiently and reduce the environmental impact of e-waste.
• Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): R&D supports the development of EPR programs that hold manufacturers responsible for the end-of-life management of their products, encouraging them to design more sustainable equipment and implement take-back programs.

5. Software and Management:

• Energy-Aware Software: Research is focused on developing network management software that can monitor and optimize energy consumption in network devices. This includes features like power consumption dashboards, energy-saving policies, and automated power management.
• AI and Machine Learning: R&D is exploring the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) to improve network efficiency and sustainability. AI/ML algorithms can analyze network traffic patterns, predict energy consumption, and optimize resource allocation in real time.

How this relates to the 3650 and its evolution:

The Cisco 3650, when it was introduced, incorporated some early advancements in energy efficiency (like EEE). However, the R&D efforts described above have led to significant improvements in newer generations of network equipment. Modern switches have more efficient chips, more sophisticated power management, and are often designed with sustainability in mind from the initial design phase.

The evolution from the 3650 to today’s sustainable networking technology is a result of ongoing R&D in all these areas. It’s a continuous process, with researchers and engineers constantly working to develop more sustainable solutions for network infrastructure.

courtesy : Bernard Marr

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.