Sustainable Technology of 3110

Sustainable Technology of 3110 ?

It appears you might be thinking of the Nokia 3110 Evolve, a mobile phone model released in the late 2000s. This phone was marketed as an “environmentally-friendly” option due to some of its features:

• Recyclable Materials: The phone’s covers were made from over 50% recyclable materials.  
• Energy-Efficient Charger: The 3110 Evolve came with a new energy-efficient charger designed to minimize energy waste when left plugged in without the phone.  
• Recycled Packaging: The packaging for the phone was made of 60% recycled material.  

While these features were a step towards sustainability in the mobile phone industry, the Nokia 3110 Evolve was far from being a perfect eco-friendly device. It still had limitations in terms of biodegradability and overall environmental impact.

It’s worth noting that technology has advanced significantly since the release of the Nokia 3110 Evolve. Modern smartphones often incorporate more sustainable materials, energy-efficient components, and recycling programs to minimize their environmental footprint.Sources and related content

What is Sustainable Technology of 3110 ?

You’re likely thinking of the Nokia 3110 Evolve, a mobile phone model released in the late 2000s. This phone was marketed as an “environmentally-friendly” option due to some of its features:  

• Recyclable Materials: The phone’s covers were made from over 50% recyclable materials.  
• Energy-Efficient Charger: The 3110 Evolve came with a new energy-efficient charger designed to minimize energy waste when left plugged in without the phone.  
• Recycled Packaging: The packaging for the phone was made of 60% recycled material.  

While these features were a step towards sustainability in the mobile phone industry, the Nokia 3110 Evolve was far from being a perfect eco-friendly device. It still had limitations in terms of biodegradability and overall environmental impact.

It’s worth noting that technology has advanced significantly since the release of the Nokia 3110 Evolve. Modern smartphones often incorporate more sustainable materials, energy-efficient components, and recycling programs to minimize their environmental footprint.  

Who is required Sustainable Technology of 3110 ?

It seems you’re interested in the Nokia 3110 Evolve and its “sustainable technology.” While it was marketed as an eco-friendly option, its sustainable features were quite basic compared to modern standards.

Here’s a breakdown of who might have been interested in the Nokia 3110 Evolve’s sustainable technology:

• Environmentally Conscious Consumers: People who were becoming aware of the environmental impact of technology and wanted to make slightly more sustainable choices. The 3110 Evolve’s recyclable materials and energy-efficient charger appealed to this growing segment of consumers.
• Early Adopters of Green Tech: Individuals who were interested in the latest trends and were curious about exploring “green” technology, even in its early stages.
• Nokia Fans: Loyal Nokia customers who were due for an upgrade and were interested in the 3110 Evolve as a slightly more eco-friendly option within the Nokia brand.

However, it’s important to note that the Nokia 3110 Evolve’s “sustainable technology” was limited. It primarily focused on:

• Recyclable Materials: The phone’s covers were made from over 50% recyclable materials.
• Energy-Efficient Charger: It came with a charger designed to minimize energy waste when left plugged in without the phone.  
• Recycled Packaging: The packaging used recycled materials.

These features were a starting point, but the phone still had limitations in terms of overall environmental impact.

In today’s world, the concept of “sustainable technology” has evolved significantly. Modern smartphones often incorporate more advanced features like:

• Durable Design: Longer-lasting devices reduce the need for frequent replacements.
• Repairability: Easier repairs extend the lifespan of devices.
• Recycled and Bio-based Materials: Using more sustainable materials in the phone’s construction.
• Energy-Efficient Components: Minimizing energy consumption during use.
• Software Updates: Regular updates keep devices secure and efficient for longer.
• Recycling Programs: Facilitating the responsible disposal and recycling of old devices.

While the Nokia 3110 Evolve was a small step in the right direction, today’s sustainable technology in smartphones focuses on a more holistic approach to minimize environmental impact throughout the device’s lifecycle.

When is required Sustainable Technology of 3110 ?

The Nokia 3110 Evolve was announced in December 2007 and released in 2008. So, that’s when its “sustainable technology” was relevant.

However, it’s important to remember that the “sustainability” features of the Nokia 3110 Evolve were quite basic compared to modern standards. It primarily focused on:

• Recyclable Materials: The phone’s covers were made from over 50% recyclable materials.  
• Energy-Efficient Charger: It came with a charger designed to minimize energy waste when left plugged in without the phone.  
• Recycled Packaging: The packaging used recycled materials.

These features were a starting point, but the phone still had limitations in terms of overall environmental impact.

In today’s world, the concept of “sustainable technology” has evolved significantly. Modern smartphones often incorporate more advanced features like:

• Durable Design: Longer-lasting devices reduce the need for frequent replacements.  
• Repairability: Easier repairs extend the lifespan of devices.
• Recycled and Bio-based Materials: Using more sustainable materials in the phone’s construction.
• Energy-Efficient Components: Minimizing energy consumption during use.
• Software Updates: Regular updates keep devices secure and efficient for longer.  
• Recycling Programs: Facilitating the responsible disposal and recycling of old devices.

While the Nokia 3110 Evolve was a small step in the right direction, today’s sustainable technology in smartphones focuses on a more holistic approach to minimize environmental impact throughout the device’s lifecycle.

So, while the Nokia 3110 Evolve’s “sustainable technology” was relevant in 2008, the standards and expectations for sustainable technology in mobile phones have changed dramatically since then.

COURTESY : Voith Group

Where is required Sustainable Technology of 3110 ?

It seems you’re asking where the “sustainable technology” of the Nokia 3110 Evolve was applied. The answer is:

• In the phone itself: The phone’s covers were made from over 50% recyclable materials. This was a key element of its “green” marketing.
• In the charger: The 3110 Evolve came with an energy-efficient charger designed to minimize energy waste when left plugged in without the phone.  
• In the packaging: The packaging for the phone was made of 60% recycled material.  

So, the “sustainable technology” was incorporated into the phone’s materials, its accessories, and its packaging.

However, it’s important to remember that the “sustainability” features of the Nokia 3110 Evolve were quite basic compared to modern standards. It primarily focused on:

• Recyclable Materials: The phone’s covers.
• Energy-Efficient Charger: To reduce energy waste.
• Recycled Packaging: To minimize environmental impact.

These features were a starting point, but the phone still had limitations in terms of overall environmental impact.

In today’s world, the concept of “sustainable technology” has evolved significantly. Modern smartphones often incorporate more advanced features like:

• Durable Design: Longer-lasting devices.
• Repairability: Easier repairs to extend lifespan.
• Recycled and Bio-based Materials: More sustainable materials in construction.
• Energy-Efficient Components: Minimizing energy consumption.
• Software Updates: Keeping devices secure and efficient.
• Recycling Programs: Responsible disposal and recycling.

While the Nokia 3110 Evolve was a small step in the right direction, today’s sustainable technology in smartphones focuses on a more holistic approach to minimize environmental impact throughout the device’s lifecycle.Sources and related content

How is required Sustainable Technology of 3110 ?

It seems you’re asking how the “sustainable technology” was implemented in the Nokia 3110 Evolve. Here’s a breakdown:

• Recyclable Materials: The phone’s covers were made from over 50% recyclable materials. This means that when the phone was eventually disposed of, a significant portion of the plastic casing could be recycled and reused in other products, reducing the need for new plastic production.
• Energy-Efficient Charger: The 3110 Evolve came with a new energy-efficient charger. This charger was designed to minimize energy waste when the phone was left plugged in after it was fully charged. This helped to reduce energy consumption and the associated environmental impact.  
• Recycled Packaging: The packaging for the phone was made of 60% recycled material. This meant that less new material was needed to create the packaging, reducing the impact on forests and other natural resources.  

In essence, the “sustainable technology” of the Nokia 3110 Evolve was implemented through:

• Material Choices: Using recyclable plastics for the phone’s covers.
• Accessory Design: Including an energy-efficient charger.
• Packaging: Utilizing recycled materials for the packaging.

However, it’s crucial to remember that the “sustainability” features of the Nokia 3110 Evolve were quite basic compared to modern standards. It primarily focused on these three areas.

Today’s sustainable technology in smartphones has advanced significantly and encompasses a more holistic approach, including:

• Durable Design: Creating longer-lasting devices.
• Repairability: Making it easier to repair and extend the lifespan of devices.
• Recycled and Bio-based Materials: Using more sustainable materials in the phone’s construction.
• Energy-Efficient Components: Minimizing energy consumption during use.
• Software Updates: Providing regular updates to keep devices secure and efficient for longer.
• Recycling Programs: Facilitating the responsible disposal and recycling of old devices.

While the Nokia 3110 Evolve was a small step in the right direction, today’s sustainable technology in smartphones focuses on a more comprehensive strategy to minimize environmental impact throughout the device’s entire lifecycle.

Case study is Sustainable Technology of 3110 ?

While the Nokia 3110 Evolve had some “sustainable” features, it wouldn’t be considered a strong case study in sustainable technology by today’s standards. Here’s why:

Limited Scope:

• Focus on Materials and Packaging: The 3110 Evolve’s main sustainable features were the recyclable covers, energy-efficient charger, and recycled packaging. These are important, but they represent a limited scope of sustainability considerations.
• Lack of Holistic Approach: Modern sustainable technology in electronics considers the entire lifecycle of the product, from material sourcing and manufacturing to use, repair, and end-of-life management. The 3110 Evolve’s approach was more focused on specific components.

Outdated Technology:

• Basic Features: The 3110 Evolve was a basic phone with limited functionality compared to modern smartphones. This inherently reduces its energy consumption compared to feature-rich devices.  
• Technological Advancements: Since 2008, when the 3110 Evolve was released, there have been significant advancements in materials science, energy efficiency, and manufacturing processes. Modern devices can incorporate more sustainable technologies that weren’t available then.

Why it’s not a strong case study:

• Lack of Innovation: While the 3110 Evolve’s features were a step in the right direction, they weren’t particularly innovative or groundbreaking. Many companies were already exploring similar approaches.
• Limited Impact: The overall environmental impact of the 3110 Evolve’s sustainable features was relatively small compared to the impact of the broader electronics industry.

However, the Nokia 3110 Evolve can be seen as an early example of raising awareness about sustainability in the mobile phone industry. It highlighted the potential for using recycled materials and energy-efficient components.

A stronger case study in sustainable technology would likely focus on a modern smartphone that incorporates a wider range of sustainable features, such as:

• Modular design for repairability and upgrades
• Use of recycled and bio-based materials
• Energy-efficient components and software
• Responsible manufacturing processes
• End-of-life recycling and take-back programs

These types of initiatives demonstrate a more comprehensive approach to sustainable technology in the electronics industry

COURTESY : Accenture

White paper on Sustainable Technology of 3110 ?

Unfortunately, a specific white paper dedicated solely to the “Sustainable Technology of the Nokia 3110 Evolve” is unlikely to exist.

Here’s why:

• Limited Scope: The 3110 Evolve’s sustainable features were quite basic compared to modern standards. A full white paper usually delves into in-depth analysis and research, which might not be warranted for this phone’s limited “green” aspects.
• Marketing Focus: The sustainable features of the 3110 Evolve were primarily used for marketing purposes to appeal to environmentally conscious consumers at the time. Companies rarely release extensive white papers for such specific, older product features.
• Technological Advancements: Since 2008, when the 3110 Evolve was released, sustainable technology in electronics has evolved significantly. Any white paper focusing on such an old device would be outdated and not relevant to current practices.

However, if you’re interested in learning more about the broader context of sustainable technology in mobile phones around that time, you might find some relevant information in:

• Industry Reports: Reports from organizations like the GSM Association (GSMA) or the Sustainable Electronics Coalition (SEC) might have discussed trends in sustainable mobile phone design in the late 2000s.
• Academic Papers: Search for academic papers on sustainable electronics or green technology in the mobile phone industry around that time. These papers might mention the 3110 Evolve as an example of early attempts at sustainable design.
• Nokia’s Sustainability Reports: Nokia (now HMD Global) might have published sustainability reports around that time that discussed their environmental initiatives, including the 3110 Evolve.

Keep in mind that these resources might not focus specifically on the 3110 Evolve, but they can provide valuable insights into the evolution of sustainable technology in the mobile phone industry.

If you’re interested in more recent advancements in sustainable smartphone technology, you can look for white papers or reports on topics like:

• Lifecycle Assessment of Smartphones: These papers analyze the environmental impact of smartphones throughout their entire lifecycle.
• Circular Economy in Electronics: This concept focuses on designing products for reuse, repair, and recycling to minimize waste.
• Sustainable Materials in Electronics: These papers explore the use of recycled, bio-based, and less harmful materials in electronic devices.

By exploring these broader topics, you can gain a better understanding of how sustainable technology has evolved in the mobile phone industry since the Nokia 3110 Evolve’s time.

Industrial application of Sustainable Technology of 3110 ?

While the Nokia 3110 Evolve itself might not be a prime example of cutting-edge sustainable technology, its limited “green” features do touch upon some broader industrial applications:

• Recycled Plastics: The use of recycled plastics in the phone’s covers is a small-scale example of a larger trend in the plastics industry. Industries are increasingly looking to incorporate recycled plastics into their products to reduce reliance on virgin materials and minimize plastic waste. This applies to various sectors, including automotive, packaging, and consumer goods.  
• Energy-Efficient Chargers: The 3110 Evolve’s energy-efficient charger reflects a broader push for energy efficiency in electronics and other industries. Companies are designing products and systems to minimize energy consumption during use and standby modes. This has implications for everything from appliances and lighting to industrial equipment and data centers.  
• Recycled Packaging: The use of recycled materials in the phone’s packaging is part of a larger movement towards sustainable packaging solutions. Industries are exploring ways to reduce packaging waste and use more recycled and biodegradable materials. This is relevant to various sectors, including food and beverage, consumer goods, and logistics.  

Beyond these specific examples, the 3110 Evolve’s “sustainable” features highlight the growing importance of sustainability in industrial design and manufacturing. Industries are facing increasing pressure to:

• Reduce their environmental footprint: This includes minimizing energy and resource consumption, reducing waste, and preventing pollution.
• Use more sustainable materials: This involves incorporating recycled, bio-based, and less harmful materials into their products and processes.
• Design for durability and recyclability: This means creating products that last longer, are easier to repair, and can be recycled at the end of their life.

While the Nokia 3110 Evolve’s sustainable features were limited, they represent an early step towards a more sustainable approach in the electronics industry. Today, many industries are adopting more comprehensive strategies to minimize their environmental impact and contribute to a circular economy.Sources and related content

Research and developement of Sustainable Technology of 3110 ?

You’re asking about the research and development behind the sustainable technology of the Nokia 3110 Evolve. While specific details might be limited, here’s what we can infer:

Focus Areas:

• Recycled Plastics: Research would have gone into identifying suitable recycled plastic sources, ensuring they met quality and durability standards for phone covers, and developing manufacturing processes to mold them effectively.
• Energy-Efficient Charger: This likely involved research into charger circuitry design to minimize energy draw when the phone was not actively charging. This could have built on existing energy-saving charger technologies but adapted for Nokia’s phone models.
• Recycled Packaging: Development here would have focused on sourcing recycled materials suitable for packaging, designing packaging that was protective yet minimal, and potentially collaborating with packaging suppliers.

Challenges and Considerations:

• Material Sourcing: Finding reliable sources of high-quality recycled plastics would have been key. Ensuring consistency and avoiding contaminants in the recycled material would be important for product quality.
• Cost-Effectiveness: Balancing the cost of sustainable materials and technologies with the target price point of the phone would have been a factor.
• Consumer Perception: At that time, “eco-friendly” features might not have been a primary driver for many consumers. Research might have explored how to present these features in a way that resonated with the target market.

Broader Context:

• Nokia’s R&D: Nokia likely had internal R&D teams exploring sustainable materials and energy efficiency in their products. This would have been part of their broader efforts to improve product design and potentially reduce environmental impact.
• Industry Trends: Around that time, there was growing awareness of environmental issues in the electronics industry. Nokia might have been responding to these trends and exploring ways to incorporate sustainable practices into their product development.

Limitations:

• Limited Information: Specific details about the R&D process for the 3110 Evolve’s sustainable features might not be publicly available. Companies often keep such information confidential for competitive reasons.
• Basic Technology: As mentioned before, the “sustainable technology” in the 3110 Evolve was relatively basic compared to modern standards. This might imply that the R&D efforts were also more focused on incremental improvements rather than groundbreaking innovations.

In summary, the research and development behind the Nokia 3110 Evolve’s sustainable technology likely involved a combination of material science, electronics engineering, and packaging design, with a focus on cost-effectiveness and consumer appeal. While it might not have been a major technological breakthrough, it represented an early effort to incorporate sustainability considerations into mobile phone design.

COURTESY : NPTEL-NOC IITM

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.