Sustainable technology of 4940

79 / 100

Sustainable technology of 4940 ?

The “4940 Building” is known for its sustainability features. It has several eco-friendly technologies, including a rooftop solar installation, a geothermal heating and cooling system, and rainwater capture. These features contribute to energy efficiency and water conservation.

What is Sustainable technology of 4940 ?

The 4940 Building is a LEED Platinum certified building that showcases a variety of sustainable technologies. Here are some of the key features:

Geothermal Heating and Cooling System: This system uses the earth’s constant temperature to efficiently heat and cool the building, reducing energy consumption.
Rooftop Solar Installation: A 25 kW solar array generates clean, renewable energy, reducing the building’s reliance on fossil fuels.
Rainwater Capture: The building captures rainwater for irrigation, minimizing water usage and conserving this precious resource.
Low-flow Fixtures: Water-efficient fixtures such as low-flow faucets and toilets reduce water consumption.
Daylighting and Shade Control Systems: The building is designed to maximize natural light, reducing the need for artificial lighting and saving energy. Automated shade systems help regulate temperature and further reduce energy demands.
Improved Indoor Air Quality: The building features advanced air filtration systems, UV-C sanitation, and a living plant wall to ensure clean and healthy indoor air.
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: The building provides charging stations for electric vehicles, encouraging sustainable transportation.
3D Building Automation Graphic Interface: This system allows for precise monitoring and control of building systems, optimizing energy usage and overall performance.

These features, combined with other sustainable practices, make the 4940 Building a model for environmentally responsible design and operation.

Who is required Sustainable technology of 4940 ?

While the specific requirements for sustainable technology in the 4940 Building would have been determined during its design and construction phase, here’s a breakdown of who is typically involved in requiring and implementing such technologies in a building project:

1. Building Owners/Developers:

They set the overall vision and goals for the project, including sustainability targets.
They make the final decisions on which sustainable technologies to incorporate, considering factors like cost, feasibility, and return on investment.
In the case of the 4940 Building, Morrissey Engineering likely played a key role in advocating for and implementing the sustainable features.

2. Architects and Engineers:

They are responsible for designing the building and its systems, including incorporating sustainable design principles and technologies.
They work closely with the owners/developers to select appropriate technologies that meet the project’s goals and budget.
For the 4940 Building, Sinclair Hille Architects provided conceptual design, and Holland Basham Architects were the architects of record.

3. LEED Consultants:

If the building is aiming for LEED certification (as the 4940 Building achieved), LEED consultants are often involved to guide the process.
They help the project team understand LEED requirements and identify strategies to achieve the desired level of certification.

4. Contractors and Subcontractors:

They are responsible for constructing the building and installing the chosen sustainable technologies.
Their expertise is crucial in ensuring that the technologies are implemented correctly and efficiently.
Meyers Carlisle Leapley Construction Co. was the general contractor for the 4940 Building project.

5. Building Occupants:

While not directly involved in the initial requirements, building occupants benefit from the sustainable technologies through improved indoor air quality, comfort, and reduced environmental impact.
Their feedback and engagement can also contribute to the ongoing optimization of building performance.

6. Local Authorities and Regulations:

Local building codes and regulations may also influence the inclusion of certain sustainable features, such as energy efficiency requirements or water conservation measures.

In the case of the 4940 Building, it’s likely that Morrissey Engineering, as the owner and a leader in sustainable design, played a significant role in requiring and implementing the building’s impressive array of sustainable technologies.

It’s important to remember that the decision to incorporate sustainable technology is often driven by a combination of factors, including environmental concerns, cost savings, tenant demand, and a desire to create a healthier and more comfortable building environment.

When is required Sustainable technology of 4940 ?

The sustainable technology in the 4940 Building was required and implemented during the design and construction phase of the project.

Here’s why:

Integrated Design: Sustainable technologies are most effective when they are incorporated from the very beginning of the design process. This allows architects and engineers to optimize the building’s form, orientation, and systems to maximize energy efficiency and minimize environmental impact.
Construction Phase: The actual installation and implementation of sustainable technologies, such as solar panels, geothermal systems, and rainwater harvesting systems, takes place during the construction phase.

Therefore, the decision to incorporate sustainable technology in the 4940 Building was made early on, and the technologies were integrated into the building’s design and construction, which was completed in January 2020.

Essentially, sustainable technology is not something that’s “required” at a specific point in time, but rather a set of principles and practices that are integrated into a building project from its inception to create a more environmentally responsible and resource-efficient structure.

COURTESY : SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS

Where is required Sustainable technology of 4940 ?

The sustainable technology of the 4940 Building is required and implemented in the building itself, located at 4940 N 118th St, Omaha, NE 68164.

More specifically, the sustainable features are integrated into the building’s:

Structure: This includes elements like the building’s orientation to maximize daylight, the use of reflective roofing materials, and the living plant wall.
Systems: This encompasses the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, such as the geothermal heating and cooling system, the rooftop solar installation, and the rainwater capture system.
Interior: This includes features like low-flow fixtures, daylighting and shade control systems, and the advanced air filtration systems.
Site: This includes elements like the electric vehicle charging stations and the landscaping that utilizes captured rainwater for irrigation.

Essentially, the sustainable technology is not just an add-on but an integral part of the entire building, contributing to its overall performance and environmental impact.

How is required Sustainable technology of 4940 ?

The sustainable technology in the 4940 Building was “required” in the sense that the building’s owners and designers made a conscious decision to prioritize sustainability and incorporate these features. It wasn’t necessarily a legal mandate (though some elements might align with local codes), but rather a commitment to environmentally responsible building practices. Here’s how that translates into the process of how it was implemented:

Vision and Goal Setting: Morrissey Engineering, as the owner and a company focused on sustainability, likely established clear goals for the project, including achieving LEED Platinum certification. This vision drove the decision to incorporate sustainable technologies.
Integrated Design Process: The architects (Sinclair Hille Architects for conceptual design and Holland Basham Architects as architects of record) and engineers (presumably including Morrissey Engineering’s expertise) worked together from the initial design stages to integrate sustainable features into the building’s form, systems, and materials. This collaborative approach is crucial for successful sustainable design.
Technology Selection: The project team carefully considered various sustainable technologies, evaluating their feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and potential impact. They selected the specific technologies that best aligned with the project’s goals and budget, such as geothermal, solar, rainwater harvesting, etc.
Detailed Design and Engineering: The chosen technologies were then incorporated into the detailed design and engineering plans for the building. This involved specifying the equipment, materials, and installation methods.
Construction and Implementation: The general contractor (Meyers Carlisle Leapley Construction Co.) and subcontractors were responsible for installing the sustainable technologies during the construction phase, ensuring they were implemented correctly and efficiently.
Commissioning and Testing: After construction, the building systems were commissioned and tested to ensure they were performing as designed. This includes verifying the performance of the sustainable technologies.
LEED Certification Process: The project team worked with a LEED consultant to document and submit the necessary information to the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) to achieve LEED Platinum certification. This involved demonstrating that the building met specific performance criteria related to energy efficiency, water conservation, materials, and indoor environmental quality.

In short, the sustainable technology was “required” by the project’s vision and then implemented through a comprehensive and integrated design and construction process, culminating in LEED Platinum certification.

Case study is Sustainable technology of 4940 ?

Yes, the 4940 Building serves as an excellent case study for sustainable technology in building design and construction. Its integrated approach and achievement of LEED Platinum certification demonstrate how various sustainable technologies can be effectively combined to create a high-performing, environmentally responsible building.

Here’s why it’s a valuable case study:

Comprehensive Approach: The 4940 Building showcases a wide range of sustainable technologies, from geothermal heating and cooling to solar power and rainwater harvesting. This comprehensive approach provides a real-world example of how different technologies can work together to achieve significant energy and resource savings.
LEED Platinum Certification: Achieving LEED Platinum certification is a testament to the building’s high level of sustainability performance. It demonstrates that the building meets rigorous standards for energy efficiency, water conservation, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality.
Real-World Example: The 4940 Building is a functioning office building, not just a theoretical model. This makes it a valuable case study for architects, engineers, and developers who are looking to implement sustainable technologies in their own projects. It provides practical insights into the challenges and opportunities associated with sustainable building design and construction.
Data and Performance: The building’s performance data, such as energy consumption and water usage, can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the sustainable technologies and identify areas for improvement. This data can also inform the design of future sustainable buildings.
Inspiration and Education: The 4940 Building serves as an inspiration for others in the building industry and beyond. It demonstrates that sustainable building practices are not only environmentally responsible but also economically viable and can create comfortable and healthy spaces for occupants.

By studying the 4940 Building, professionals and the public can learn valuable lessons about sustainable technology and how it can be applied to create a more sustainable built environment.

COURTESY : Tech Evaluate

White paper on Sustainable technology of 4940 ?

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a specific white paper dedicated solely to the sustainable technology of the 4940 Building. However, there are resources that provide similar information and insights:

Morrissey Engineering Website: As the owner and a leader in sustainable design, Morrissey Engineering has information about the 4940 Building on their website, highlighting its sustainable features and performance. You can find details about the building’s energy efficiency, LEED certification, and specific technologies used.
Tune Facilities Website: Tune Facilities, involved in the building’s operations, also provides information about the 4940 Building, emphasizing its energy efficiency, indoor air quality, and various sustainable features.
LEED Case Studies: The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) may have a case study on the 4940 Building as part of their LEED project database. This would include details about the building’s sustainable strategies and performance data.
Sustainability Publications: Articles or case studies about the 4940 Building may have been published in sustainability-focused magazines or journals.
General White Papers on Sustainable Building Technology: While not specific to the 4940 Building, many white papers discuss sustainable building technologies in general. These can provide valuable context and insights into the types of technologies used in the 4940 Building and their benefits.

While a dedicated white paper might not be readily available, these resources can still provide valuable information about the sustainable technology implemented in the 4940 Building and its impact.

Remember that a white paper is a specific type of document, usually more in-depth and focused on a particular issue or solution. In the case of the 4940 Building, the information might be spread across different sources rather than compiled into a single white paper.

Industrial application of Sustainable technology of 4940 ?

While the 4940 Building is primarily an office building, the sustainable technologies it employs have strong relevance and potential application in industrial settings. Here are some key examples:

1. Energy Efficiency:

Geothermal Heating and Cooling: Industrial facilities often have large heating and cooling demands. Geothermal systems, like the one in the 4940 Building, can provide a highly efficient and sustainable way to regulate temperature in factories, warehouses, and other industrial spaces. This can lead to significant energy cost savings and reduced reliance on fossil fuels.
Solar Power: Industrial buildings typically have large roof areas suitable for solar panel installations. Solar power can be used to generate electricity for manufacturing processes, lighting, and other needs, reducing reliance on grid power and lowering operating costs.
Daylighting and Smart Lighting: Maximizing natural daylight and using energy-efficient LED lighting with smart controls can significantly reduce electricity consumption in industrial facilities. This is particularly beneficial in warehouses and production areas where lighting needs are high.

2. Water Conservation:

Rainwater Harvesting: Industrial facilities can utilize rainwater harvesting systems for non-potable water uses, such as irrigation, toilet flushing, and even some industrial processes. This can significantly reduce water consumption and lower water bills.
Low-flow Fixtures and Water-Efficient Landscaping: Even in industrial settings, implementing low-flow fixtures in restrooms and break rooms, along with water-efficient landscaping, can contribute to overall water conservation efforts.

3. Materials and Waste Management:

Recycled and Sustainable Materials: Industrial buildings can incorporate recycled and sustainably sourced materials in their construction and operations, reducing their environmental impact. This can include using recycled steel, reclaimed wood, and other eco-friendly materials.
Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs: Implementing robust waste reduction and recycling programs in industrial facilities can minimize waste generation and divert materials from landfills.

4. Indoor Environmental Quality:

Improved Air Quality: Industrial facilities can benefit from improved air filtration systems and the use of low-emitting materials, similar to those in the 4940 Building, to create a healthier and more productive work environment for employees.

5. Transportation:

Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: Providing EV charging stations at industrial sites can encourage employees to adopt electric vehicles and reduce transportation-related emissions.

Specific Examples in Industrial Applications:

Manufacturing Plants: Geothermal energy can be used for process heating, solar panels can power production equipment, and rainwater can be used for cooling towers.
Warehouses: Daylighting and smart lighting can significantly reduce electricity costs, and rainwater harvesting can be used for irrigation and cleaning.
Data Centers: Geothermal cooling can help maintain optimal temperatures for servers, and solar power can provide a backup power source.

By adopting these sustainable technologies, industrial facilities can reduce their environmental footprint, lower operating costs, and create a healthier and more sustainable work environment. The 4940 Building serves as a valuable model for demonstrating the feasibility and benefits of these technologies in a real-world setting.

Research and development of Sustainable technology of 4940 ?

While the specific research and development (R&D) behind the sustainable technologies in the 4940 Building might not be publicly documented in a dedicated way, we can infer the types of R&D that likely contributed to its success:

1. Geothermal Heat Pump Technology:

Efficiency Improvements: R&D in geothermal heat pump technology focuses on increasing efficiency, reducing installation costs, and improving heat exchange with the ground. This likely played a role in the 4940 Building’s geothermal system selection and design.
Ground Source Heat Exchangers: Research on optimizing the design and materials for ground source heat exchangers is crucial for efficient heat transfer. This would have been relevant to the 4940 Building’s system.

2. Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Technology:

Panel Efficiency: Ongoing R&D in solar PV technology aims to improve the efficiency of solar panels in converting sunlight into electricity. Higher efficiency panels would have been beneficial for maximizing energy generation on the 4940 Building’s rooftop.
Integration with Building Design: Research on integrating solar PV systems seamlessly into building design, including optimizing orientation and angle for sunlight capture, would have informed the 4940 Building’s installation.

3. Rainwater Harvesting and Greywater Recycling:

Filtration and Treatment: R&D in rainwater harvesting focuses on developing effective and affordable filtration and treatment systems to ensure water quality for various uses. This would have been important for the 4940 Building’s rainwater capture system.
Storage and Distribution: Research on optimizing storage tank design and water distribution systems for rainwater harvesting would have contributed to the efficiency of the 4940 Building’s system.

4. Building Management Systems (BMS):

Smart Controls and Optimization: R&D in BMS focuses on developing intelligent control algorithms and software to optimize building performance, including energy usage, lighting, and HVAC systems. This would have been crucial for the 4940 Building’s 3D Building Automation Graphic Interface.
Data Analytics and Predictive Maintenance: Research on using data analytics to predict building system performance and schedule maintenance would have contributed to the ongoing optimization of the 4940 Building’s operations.

5. Sustainable Building Materials:

Life Cycle Assessment: R&D in sustainable building materials involves assessing the environmental impact of materials throughout their life cycle, from extraction to manufacturing to disposal. This would have informed the selection of materials for the 4940 Building.
Recycled and Bio-based Materials: Research on developing and improving recycled and bio-based building materials would have provided more sustainable options for the 4940 Building’s construction.

General R&D Contributions:

LEED Standards Development: The ongoing development and refinement of LEED standards by the USGBC, based on research and best practices, would have provided a framework for the 4940 Building’s sustainable design and certification.
Building Performance Simulation and Modeling: Advancements in building performance simulation and modeling software would have enabled the project team to optimize the building’s design for energy efficiency and other sustainability goals.

It’s important to note that while the 4940 Building itself might not have been a research facility, it benefited from the broader R&D efforts in sustainable building technologies that have been ongoing for many years. The building serves as a practical application and demonstration of the effectiveness of these technologies.

COURTESY : Bernard Marr

References

^ 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
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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
^ 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.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c “Sustainability”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 31 March 2022.
^ “Sustainable Development”. UNESCO. 3 August 2015. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
^ 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.
^ Nelson, Anitra (31 January 2024). “Degrowth as a Concept and Practice: Introduction”. The Commons Social Change Library. Retrieved 23 February 2024.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ Hardyment, Richard (2024). Measuring Good Business: Making Sense of Environmental, Social & Governance Data. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN 9781032601199.
^ Bell, Simon; Morse, Stephen (2012). Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable?. Abington: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-84407-299-6.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ “University of Alberta: What is sustainability?” (PDF). mcgill.ca. Retrieved 13 August 2022.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Halliday, Mike (21 November 2016). “How sustainable is sustainability?”. Oxford College of Procurement and Supply. Retrieved 12 July 2022.
^ Harper, Douglas. “sustain”. Online Etymology Dictionary.
^ Onions, Charles, T. (ed) (1964). The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 2095.
^ “Sustainability Theories”. World Ocean Review. Retrieved 20 June 2019.
^ 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.
^ “Hans Carl von Carlowitz and Sustainability”. Environment and Society Portal. Retrieved 20 June 2019.
^ Dresden, SLUB. “Sylvicultura Oeconomica, Oder Haußwirthliche Nachricht und Naturmäßige Anweisung Zur Wilden Baum-Zucht”. digital.slub-dresden.de (in German). Retrieved 28 March 2022.
^ 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.
^ Basler, Ernst (1972). Strategy of Progress: Environmental Pollution, Habitat Scarcity and Future Research (originally, Strategie des Fortschritts: Umweltbelastung Lebensraumverknappung and Zukunftsforshung). BLV Publishing Company.
^ Gadgil, M.; Berkes, F. (1991). “Traditional Resource Management Systems”. Resource Management and Optimization. 8: 127–141.
^ “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.
^ 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.
^ 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
^ 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.
^ 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)
^ Scott Cato, M. (2009). Green Economics. London: Earthscan, pp. 36–37. ISBN 978-1-84407-571-3.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ Carson, Rachel (2002) [1st. Pub. Houghton Mifflin, 1962]. Silent Spring. Mariner Books. ISBN 978-0-618-24906-0.
^ 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.
^ 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
^ UNEP (2021). “Making Peace With Nature”. UNEP – UN Environment Programme. Retrieved 30 March 2022.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Wilhelm Krull, ed. (2000). Zukunftsstreit (in German). Weilerwist: Velbrück Wissenschaft. ISBN 3-934730-17-5. OCLC 52639118.
^ 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.
^ Daly, Herman E. (1996). Beyond growth: the economics of sustainable development (PDF). Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-4708-2. OCLC 33946953.
^ 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)
^ “UN Environment | UNDP-UN Environment Poverty-Environment Initiative”. UN Environment | UNDP-UN Environment Poverty-Environment Initiative. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
^ 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
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ James, Paul; with Magee, Liam; Scerri, Andy; Steger, Manfred B. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315765747.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ “The Regional Institute – WACOSS Housing and Sustainable Communities Indicators Project”. www.regional.org.au. 2012. Retrieved 26 January 2022.
^ 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.
^ “Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development”. United Cities and Local Governments. Archived from the original on 3 October 2013.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ Bosselmann, Klaus (2017). The principle of sustainability: transforming law and governance (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-4724-8128-3. OCLC 951915998.
^ 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
^ James, Paul; with Magee, Liam; Scerri, Andy; Steger, Manfred B. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315765747.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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]}
^ Hak, T. et al. 2007. Sustainability Indicators, SCOPE 67. Island Press, London. [1] Archived 2011-12-18 at the Wayback Machine
^ 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.
^ “Sustainable Development visualized”. Sustainability concepts. Retrieved 24 March 2022.
^ 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.
^ “Ten years of nine planetary boundaries”. Stockholm Resilience Centre. November 2019. Retrieved 19 April 2020.
^ 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.
^ Ehrlich, P.R.; Holden, J.P. (1974). “Human Population and the global environment”. American Scientist. Vol. 62, no. 3. pp. 282–292.
^ 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
^ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis (PDF). Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
^ TEEB (2010), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB
^ 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.
^ Groth, Christian (2014). Lecture notes in Economic Growth, (mimeo), Chapter 8: Choice of social discount rate. Copenhagen University.
^ UNEP, FAO (2020). UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. 48p.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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
^ European Environment Agency. (2019). Sustainability transitions: policy and practice. LU: Publications Office. doi:10.2800/641030. ISBN 9789294800862.
^ 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.
^ Kuenkel, Petra (2019). Stewarding Sustainability Transformations: An Emerging Theory and Practice of SDG Implementation. Cham: Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-03691-1. OCLC 1080190654.
^ 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
^ Smith, E. T. (23 January 2024). “Practising Commoning”. The Commons Social Change Library. Retrieved 23 February 2024.
^ 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.
^ Pigou, Arthur Cecil (1932). The Economics of Welfare (PDF) (4th ed.). London: Macmillan.
^ Jaeger, William K. (2005). Environmental economics for tree huggers and other skeptics. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN 978-1-4416-0111-7. OCLC 232157655.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ “The Nobel Prize: Women Who Changed the World”. thenobelprize.org. Retrieved 31 March 2022.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ “About Us”. Sustainable Business Institute. Archived from the original on 17 May 2009.
^ “About the WBCSD”. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Archived from the original on 9 September 2007. Retrieved 1 April 2009.
^ “Supply Chain Sustainability | UN Global Compact”. www.unglobalcompact.org. Retrieved 4 May 2022.
^ “”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.
^ “The Statement — Interfaith Climate”. www.interfaithclimate.org. Retrieved 13 August 2022.
^ 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.
^ Gambino, Megan (15 March 2012). “Is it Too Late for Sustainable Development?”. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 12 January 2022.
^ 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.
^ Watson, Bruce (20 August 2016). “The troubling evolution of corporate greenwashing”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on 18 October 2016.
^ “The Troubling Evolution Of Large Scale Corporate Greenwashing”. www.bloomberg.ca. BNN Bloomberg. 18 August 2018.
^ “The Troubling Evolution Of Large Scale Corporate Greenwashing”. The Conversation. 18 August 2011.
^ 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.