Leave a Comment / Blog, Sustainable technology of 4800 / By
79 / 100
Powered by Rank Math SEO

Sustainable technology of 4800 ?

In 4800 BC, some examples of sustainable technology would be:

  • Farming Practices: Crop rotation and the use of natural fertilizers helped to maintain soil health and prevent erosion.
  • Building Materials: Homes were often constructed from locally sourced materials like mud, clay, and wood, which are renewable resources.
  • Water Management: Early forms of irrigation systems, like canals and ditches, were developed to efficiently distribute water for agriculture.
  • Transportation: Boats and rafts were used to travel along rivers and coastlines, reducing the need for land-based transportation and its associated environmental impact.
  • Energy Sources: Firewood was a primary source of energy for heating and cooking, a renewable resource if managed sustainably.
  • Waste Management: Organic waste was likely composted and used as fertilizer, reducing waste and enriching the soil.

It’s important to remember that the concept of “sustainability” as we understand it today may not have existed in the same way in 4800 BC. However, many of the practices and technologies used by people during that time were inherently more sustainable than some of the practices we rely on today.

What is Sustainable technology of 4800 ?

While the concept of “sustainable technology” as we understand it today might not have existed in 4800 BC, people still relied on practices and tools that were inherently more sustainable than many modern technologies. Here are some examples:

  • Farming Practices:
    • Crop rotation: Planting different crops in the same area in successive seasons helped to maintain soil fertility and prevent erosion.
    • Natural fertilizers: Animal manure and other organic materials were used to enrich the soil, reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers.
  • Building Materials:
    • Homes were often constructed from locally sourced materials like mud, clay, and wood, which are renewable resources.
  • Water Management:
    • Early forms of irrigation systems, like canals and ditches, were developed to efficiently distribute water for agriculture.
  • Transportation:
    • Boats and rafts were used to travel along rivers and coastlines, reducing the need for land-based transportation and its associated environmental impact.
  • Energy Sources:
    • Firewood was a primary source of energy for heating and cooking, a renewable resource if managed sustainably.
  • Waste Management:
    • Organic waste was likely composted and used as fertilizer, reducing waste and enriching the soil.

It’s important to remember that the concept of “sustainability” as we understand it today may not have existed in the same way in 4800 BC. However, many of the practices and technologies used by people during that time were inherently more sustainable than some of the practices we rely on today.

Who is required Sustainable technology of 4800 ?

In 4800 BC, the need for sustainable technology was universal, as survival depended heavily on it. Here’s a breakdown of who required it and why:

  • Farmers: Sustainable farming practices were essential for producing enough food to support the population. Crop rotation and natural fertilizers helped maintain soil health and prevent erosion, ensuring long-term food production.
  • Builders: Constructing homes from locally sourced, renewable materials like mud, clay, and wood minimized environmental impact and ensured access to shelter.
  • Communities: Efficient water management through irrigation systems was crucial for agriculture and daily life, especially in drier regions.
  • Travelers: Boats and rafts reduced reliance on land-based transportation, minimizing the environmental impact of road construction and animal-powered transport.
  • Everyone: Firewood was a primary energy source, and its sustainable use ensured continued access to heating and cooking fuel.

Essentially, everyone in 4800 BC relied on sustainable technology for their basic needs. These practices were not just environmentally friendly; they were essential for survival and the long-term well-being of communities.

When is required Sustainable technology of 4800 ?

The need for sustainable technology in 4800 BC was constant and ongoing. It wasn’t a matter of occasional implementation, but rather a way of life deeply intertwined with daily survival. Here’s why:

  • Continuous Resource Management: Sustainable practices were essential for ensuring the long-term availability of resources. Overuse of land or unsustainable harvesting of firewood would have led to shortages, threatening the community’s survival.
  • Adapting to Environmental Changes: People had to adapt to seasonal changes, weather patterns, and potential environmental challenges. Sustainable technologies and practices allowed them to cope with these variations and maintain a stable livelihood.
  • Meeting Basic Needs: The fundamental needs for food, shelter, water, and energy were directly linked to sustainable practices. Without them, these basic needs could not be consistently met.
  • Community Well-being: Sustainable technology contributed to the overall well-being of the community. It ensured a stable food supply, safe housing, and access to essential resources, fostering a healthy and prosperous society.

In essence, sustainable technology in 4800 BC was not a one-time solution but a continuous requirement for survival and prosperity. It was woven into the fabric of daily life, shaping how people interacted with their environment and ensured the long-term viability of their communities.

COURTESY : NPTEL-NOC IITM

Where is required Sustainable technology of 4800 ?

You’re right to think about the “where” of sustainable technology in 4800 BC! It was needed everywhere people lived and interacted with the environment. Here are some key areas:

  • Agricultural Lands: Farmlands were the primary site for sustainable practices like crop rotation, natural fertilizers, and water management systems. These techniques were essential for maintaining soil fertility and ensuring long-term food production.
  • Settlements and Villages: Homes and other structures were built using locally sourced, renewable materials like mud, clay, and wood. This minimized environmental impact and ensured access to shelter.
  • Water Sources: Rivers, lakes, and groundwater were managed sustainably through irrigation systems, wells, and other techniques. Efficient water use was crucial for agriculture, sanitation, and daily life.
  • Transportation Routes: Rivers and coastlines were important transportation routes, with boats and rafts used to move people and goods. These methods reduced reliance on land-based transportation and its environmental impact.
  • Forests and Woodlands: Sustainable forestry practices were necessary to ensure a continuous supply of firewood for heating and cooking. This involved careful harvesting and management of forest resources.

Essentially, sustainable technology in 4800 BC was required wherever humans interacted with the natural world. It was a fundamental aspect of life, shaping how people lived and ensured the long-term viability of their communities in diverse environments.

How is required Sustainable technology of 4800 ?

That’s a great question! It gets at the heart of how sustainable technology was integrated into life in 4800 BC. Here’s how it was required:

  • Necessity for Survival: Sustainable practices were not a choice, but a necessity. If resources were depleted or the environment was damaged, communities would struggle to survive. This inherent need drove the development and implementation of sustainable technologies.
  • Traditional Knowledge and Practices: Sustainable techniques were often passed down through generations, becoming ingrained in the culture and practices of communities. This ensured that knowledge was preserved and applied consistently.
  • Community Cooperation: Many sustainable technologies, such as irrigation systems or communal farming practices, required cooperation and shared responsibility within the community. This fostered a sense of collective ownership and ensured the long-term maintenance of these systems.
  • Adaptation and Innovation: People constantly adapted and innovated to meet the challenges of their environment. This led to the development of new sustainable technologies and practices to address specific needs and circumstances.
  • Respect for Nature: In many cultures, there was a deep respect for nature and a recognition of its interconnectedness. This worldview often translated into sustainable practices that aimed to maintain balance and harmony with the environment.

In essence, sustainable technology in 4800 BC was required through a combination of necessity, tradition, community cooperation, adaptation, and a respect for nature. It was an integral part of life, shaping how people interacted with their environment and ensured the long-term well-being of their communities.

Case study is Sustainable technology of 4800 ?

While we don’t have the same level of detailed records from 4800 BC as we do for later periods, we can piece together information from archaeology and anthropology to create something like a case study of sustainable technology in that era. Here’s an example focusing on a hypothetical Neolithic village:

Case Study: Sustainable Living in a Neolithic Village (circa 4800 BC)

Location: A fertile river valley in the Middle East (this could be adapted to other regions with similar conditions)

Community: A small village of around 150-200 people, primarily engaged in farming and some animal husbandry.

Challenge: The community needs to ensure a reliable supply of food, shelter, water, and energy for long-term survival in their environment.

Sustainable Technologies and Practices:

  • Agriculture:
    • Crop Rotation: The villagers practice a simple form of crop rotation, alternating between grains like wheat and barley and legumes like peas and beans. This helps maintain soil fertility and reduces pest problems.
    • Natural Fertilizers: Animal manure is collected and used to enrich the soil, providing essential nutrients for crops.
    • Water Management: A small-scale irrigation system, consisting of ditches and canals, diverts water from the river to the fields, ensuring crops receive enough water even during dry periods.
  • Housing:
    • Locally Sourced Materials: Houses are constructed from readily available materials like mudbricks, timber, and reeds. These materials are renewable and require minimal processing.
    • Passive Heating and Cooling: Houses are designed to take advantage of natural ventilation and sunlight to regulate indoor temperatures, reducing the need for additional heating or cooling.
  • Energy:
    • Firewood: Firewood is the primary source of energy for cooking and heating. The villagers likely manage nearby woodlands to ensure a sustainable supply of firewood, avoiding deforestation.
  • Waste Management:
    • Composting: Organic waste, such as food scraps and animal manure, is composted and used as fertilizer, reducing waste and enriching the soil.

Outcomes and Benefits:

  • Food Security: Sustainable farming practices ensure a reliable food supply for the village, reducing the risk of famine.
  • Resource Efficiency: The use of locally sourced materials and renewable energy sources minimizes the community’s environmental impact.
  • Community Resilience: Sustainable practices help the village adapt to environmental challenges and ensure long-term survival.

Lessons Learned:

  • This case study demonstrates how sustainable technologies and practices were essential for survival in Neolithic societies.
  • It highlights the importance of integrating resource management, environmental awareness, and community cooperation for long-term sustainability.

Limitations:

  • This is a hypothetical case study based on our current understanding of Neolithic societies.
  • Further archaeological research may reveal more details about the specific technologies and practices used in different regions.

This “case study” approach helps us understand how different elements of sustainable technology might have worked together in a real-world setting in 4800 BC.

COURTESY : Bernard Marr

White paper on Sustainable technology of 4800 ?

A White Paper: Sustainable Technologies in the Neolithic Era (circa 4800 BC)

Abstract:

This white paper explores the concept of “sustainable technology” in the context of the Neolithic era, specifically around 4800 BC. While the term “sustainability” as we understand it today might not have been explicitly defined, the practices and technologies employed by Neolithic communities demonstrate a deep understanding of resource management and environmental balance. This paper examines key areas where sustainable practices were crucial for survival and societal development, emphasizing the interconnectedness of human activity and the natural world.

Introduction:

The Neolithic period marked a significant shift in human history, with the development of agriculture, settled communities, and new technologies. Around 4800 BC, communities were transitioning from hunter-gatherer lifestyles to agrarian societies. This transition necessitated a new approach to resource management, one that ensured long-term viability and stability. This paper argues that many of the technologies and practices developed during this period were inherently sustainable, reflecting an understanding of ecological principles and the need to live in harmony with nature.

Key Areas of Sustainable Technology:

  1. Sustainable Agriculture:
    • Crop Rotation: Evidence suggests that early farmers practiced forms of crop rotation, alternating crops to maintain soil fertility and reduce pest infestations. This minimized soil depletion and ensured long-term productivity.
    • Natural Fertilizers: The use of animal manure and other organic materials as fertilizers replenished soil nutrients, reducing reliance on external inputs and closing nutrient loops.
    • Water Management: Early irrigation systems, including canals and ditches, allowed for controlled distribution of water, maximizing agricultural output while minimizing water waste. These systems often relied on understanding natural water flows and seasonal variations.
  2. Sustainable Building Practices:
    • Locally Sourced Materials: Neolithic dwellings were typically constructed from readily available local resources such as mudbrick, timber, and reeds. This minimized transportation costs and environmental impact while also ensuring the buildings were well-adapted to the local climate.
    • Passive Heating and Cooling: House designs often incorporated passive heating and cooling strategies, such as orientation to maximize sunlight in winter and ventilation to cool in summer. This reduced the need for energy-intensive heating and cooling systems.
  3. Sustainable Energy Use:
    • Firewood Management: Firewood was the primary energy source for cooking and heating. Sustainable harvesting practices, such as selective logging and allowing for regrowth, were likely employed to prevent deforestation and ensure a continuous supply of fuel.
  4. Sustainable Waste Management:
    • Composting: Organic waste was likely composted and used as fertilizer, recycling nutrients back into the agricultural system and reducing waste accumulation.

Interconnectedness and Community:

The sustainability of Neolithic technologies was not solely based on individual practices but also on community cooperation and shared responsibility. Irrigation systems, for example, often required communal effort for construction and maintenance. This fostered a sense of collective ownership and ensured the long-term viability of these essential resources.

Lessons for the Modern World:

The sustainable practices of Neolithic communities offer valuable lessons for the modern world. Their emphasis on local resources, resource efficiency, and community cooperation provides a model for developing more sustainable technologies and practices today. By understanding the principles that guided Neolithic societies, we can gain insights into how to create a more sustainable future for ourselves.

Conclusion:

While the term “sustainable technology” may be a modern construct, the practices and technologies employed by Neolithic communities around 4800 BC demonstrate a profound understanding of sustainability principles. Their ability to thrive for centuries is a testament to the effectiveness of their approach. By studying these ancient practices, we can gain valuable insights into how to live more sustainably in the 21st century and beyond.

Further Research:

Further archaeological and anthropological research is needed to fully understand the complexities of Neolithic sustainable technologies. Investigating specific sites and analyzing material remains can provide more detailed information about the tools, techniques, and social structures that supported sustainable living in this era.

Industrial application of Sustainable technology of 4800 ?

This is a fascinating question, as it pushes us to think about how the principles of sustainability might have been applied even before the formal concept of “industry” as we know it existed. While 4800 BC wasn’t an “industrial” era, there were certainly specialized crafts and production activities that could be considered early forms of industry. Here are some examples of how sustainable technologies might have been applied in these contexts:

1. Pottery Production:

  • Resource Management: Potters would have needed to source clay, temper (materials added to clay to improve workability), and fuel for their kilns. Sustainable practices would involve:
    • Clay sourcing: Utilizing clay deposits responsibly, avoiding over-extraction, and potentially allowing for regeneration of clay sources.
    • Temper selection: Choosing readily available and renewable materials for temper, such as crushed shells, plant fibers, or sand.
    • Fuel efficiency: Designing kilns for optimal heat retention and using sustainably harvested firewood or other renewable fuel sources.
  • Waste Reduction: Potters could have recycled broken pots or clay scraps, re-using them as temper or in new clay mixtures.

2. Textile Production:

  • Fiber Sourcing: Early textiles were likely made from plant fibers (linen, hemp) or animal fibers (wool). Sustainable practices would include:
    • Cultivation: If plant fibers were cultivated, employing sustainable agricultural techniques like crop rotation to maintain soil health.
    • Animal husbandry: If using wool, raising sheep in a way that allowed for sustainable grazing and avoided overstocking of pastures.
  • Processing:
    • Natural dyes: Utilizing natural dyes from plants and minerals, which are often less harmful to the environment than synthetic dyes.
    • Water use: Minimizing water use in the dyeing and washing processes, and potentially developing methods for water recycling.

3. Toolmaking:

  • Material Selection: Toolmakers would have relied on materials like stone, bone, and wood. Sustainable practices would involve:
    • Stone quarrying: Extracting stone in a way that minimized waste and environmental disruption.
    • Resource management: Carefully managing forests to ensure a continuous supply of wood for tool handles and other implements.
  • Tool Design: Designing tools for durability and longevity, reducing the need for frequent replacement.

4. Food Processing:

  • Preservation: Techniques like drying, smoking, and fermenting food would have been used to preserve food and extend its shelf life. These methods often relied on natural resources (sun, smoke, specific microorganisms) and minimized waste.

General Principles:

Even in these early forms of “industry,” the principles of sustainability would have been essential:

  • Resource efficiency: Minimizing waste and maximizing the use of available resources.
  • Renewable resources: Relying on renewable resources and managing them sustainably.
  • Environmental awareness: Understanding the impact of human activities on the environment and taking steps to minimize negative effects.

It’s important to remember that our understanding of these practices is based on archaeological evidence and anthropological studies. However, it’s reasonable to assume that even in 4800 BC, people were aware of the need to live in balance with their environment and that this awareness would have influenced their production activities.

Research and development of Sustainable technology of 4800 ?

You’re asking a very insightful question! It’s important to remember that “research and development” as we understand it today didn’t exist in 4800 BC. However, that doesn’t mean innovation and improvement weren’t happening. Here’s how we can think about R&D in that context:

1. Observation and Experimentation:

  • Farmers: Early farmers constantly observed their crops, soil, and weather patterns. They experimented with different planting techniques, seed varieties, and methods of water management. This trial-and-error approach led to improvements in crop yields and more sustainable farming practices.
  • Craftspeople: Potters, weavers, and toolmakers experimented with different materials, techniques, and designs. They learned through experience which materials were most durable, which designs were most efficient, and how to optimize their processes for minimal waste.

2. Knowledge Sharing and Transmission:

  • Oral Tradition: Knowledge about sustainable technologies was passed down through generations via oral tradition. Elders and experienced practitioners shared their expertise with younger members of the community, ensuring that valuable knowledge was preserved and built upon.
  • Community Learning: Communities learned collectively through shared experiences and observation of each other’s practices. If one farmer discovered a more effective method of irrigation, for example, that knowledge would likely spread throughout the community.

3. Adaptation and Innovation:

  • Responding to Challenges: People constantly adapted their technologies and practices to meet new challenges, such as changes in climate, resource availability, or population growth. This led to the development of innovative solutions and improvements in existing techniques.
  • Incremental Improvements: While there might not have been formal “research labs,” innovation occurred through a process of incremental improvements. Small changes and adaptations were made over time, gradually leading to more efficient and sustainable technologies.

Examples of “R&D” in Action:

  • Developing new crop varieties: Farmers likely experimented with different wild grains, selecting and cultivating those with desirable traits like higher yields or greater resistance to drought.
  • Improving irrigation systems: Early irrigation systems were likely simple at first, but through trial and error, people learned how to design more efficient canals, ditches, and water storage systems.
  • Refining toolmaking techniques: Toolmakers constantly sought to improve the design and materials used for their tools, making them more durable, efficient, and specialized for different tasks.

Key Takeaways:

  • While formal R&D didn’t exist, innovation and improvement were still happening in 4800 BC through observation, experimentation, knowledge sharing, and adaptation.
  • This “informal R&D” played a crucial role in the development of sustainable technologies and practices that allowed Neolithic communities to thrive.

It’s important to appreciate that even without the scientific methods and institutions we have today, people in 4800 BC were actively engaged in a process of learning, adapting, and innovating to improve their lives and ensure the long-term sustainability of their communities.

COURTESY : Tech Evaluate

Reference

  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.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Translate »