Question Details

[answered] Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc. SUSTAINABILITY, THE


Writing Assignment #3:? Literature Review

Due Dates

First Draft: ?Nov. 8 for peer review (on paper, in class)

Second Draft: Nov. 13 for instructor review.? (Drafts submitted late may not be eligible for feedback!)

Final Draft: ?Nov. 29

Assignment Goals

Write a complete essay in academic style, using strong topic sentences and a statement of purpose (thesis)

Synthesize several sources showing similarities and differences among them

Paraphrase effectively and appropriately

Demonstrate your ability to edit your work for grammatical accuracy.

Practice the citation style used in your field.

The Assignment

Referring to prior literature is a defining feature of scholarly and research writing. The skills associated with writing a Literature Review, either as stand-alone work or part of a larger one, allow you to demonstrate how your current research interests fit or are different from other researchers? work; thus, the Literature Review situates your own work within a larger research context. A Literature Review can serve numerous functions but basically falls into two basic types: 1. A survey article and 2. A Literature Review as part of a research paper, proposal, thesis, or dissertation. In order to provide you with the opportunity to practice this type of writing, your next writing assignment will be to craft a Literature Review.

From Sheryl Holt (2013) in SWGSW, ?Your goal is not to show how much you have read, but, rather the goal is to present an overview of what previous research has shown?It is your job to bring together the ideas of the literature to point out similarities and differences, trends, methods used to date, or approaches that have been taken? (p. 167).

Your Literature Review can explore any ONE of the following aspects:

  • Trends in the research
  • Chronological (historical) development of an area ?if appropriate (see p. 168)!
  • Different methodologies used to approach a problem
  • Different ways of examining a problem??

(p.168)

?

Regardless of the topic that you choose, you will organize your essay around a central thesis that ?assesses the history of research devoted to a particular topic (p. 168).

Elements of a Literature Review

Introduction: a brief general introduction, which will state the research question and a preview of the major trends or patterns to be discussed in the review. ?The introduction should include a clear, strong statement of purpose.

Topic Sentences in Body (Point) Paragraphs: Your topic sentences should be your own points that you want to make about the research being considered.? They should not be from a source. Your sources should support your own ideas!?

Conclusion: You may conclude with a summary of the principal findings and a restatement of your purpose.? It may include: the value or significance of the study and a brief outline of what might be next steps for researchers (you!).?

Organization of Point Paragraphs

Keeping in mind the particular aspect of your topic you are exploring: trends, historical, or different methodologies, you should avoid copied structure.? That is, do NOT organize your paper around the sources.? For example, if you have 5 different sources, it is tempting to have 5 different points?one from each source.? However, in academic writing, this is not appropriate.? Instead look for commonalities among the sources and then create YOUR OWN topic sentences in your own words and use the sources to support your ideas.? You will be integrating information from sources (synthesizing) information from sources, but the main voice of the essay should be your own.? Use your sources; don?t let them use you!? J?

Below is a pattern that you may follow for your point paragraphs:

Topic Sentence:?

The point you want to make from the research in YOUR OWN WORDS, not from a source.

Reflects what the paragraph is about

Serves as a transition between points

Explain your Point first

Then, incorporate sources (at least two different ones)

Use signal phrases to introduce source material.

Paraphrase accurately

Cite sources using the documentation style of your field

Discuss what the source information means in relationship to your point/argument.? Don?t just stick in your source?s information.? There should be no ?stand-alone? quotes!

Wrap up your point in your own words not a source?s.? Tie the discussion back to your point/argument.?

Additional Requirements:

Your Literature Review must be? 6 ? 8 full pages long, using the documentation style preferred in your field. ?

Include at least 8 sources.? You may use the five sources you gathered from the beginning of the semester.?

Paraphrase accurately and appropriately.?

Include a Works Cited/References/Bibliography page in the style of your field.?

Edit your work carefully. Pay special attention to any grammar or style points we discuss in class, and be sure to apply what you?re learning to your writing. ?

Format

Typed, double spaced, in 12-point Times New Roman, with 1 inch margins.

Length: 6 ? 8 full pages

Include your name, my name, the course title, and the date in the upper left-hand corner of the page. You do not need to include a Title Page. ?


Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc.

 

SUSTAINABILITY, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND NEW URBANISM: AN ASSESSMENT AND

 

AGENDA FOR RESEARCH

 

Author(s): Stacey Swearingen White and Cliff Ellis

 

Source: Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Summer, 2007), pp.

 

125-142

 

Published by: Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc.

 

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43030796

 

Accessed: 29-09-2016 06:15 UTC

 

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted

 

digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about

 

JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

 

http://about.jstor.org/terms Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

 

access to Journal of Architectural and Planning Research This content downloaded from 129.1.11.117 on Thu, 29 Sep 2016 06:15:09 UTC

 

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 24:2 (Summer, 2007) 125 SUSTAIN ABILITY, THE ENVIRONMENT,

 

AND NEW URBANISM:

 

AN ASSESSMENT AND AGENDA FOR RESEARCH Stacey Swearingen White

 

Cliff Ellis As a movement in the fields of architecture , urban planning , and landscape architecture , New

 

Urbanism represents an ideal subject for investigating sustainability and the built environment. While

 

New Urbanism has seen its share of commentary and analysis from both supporters and detractors, thus far there has been no comprehensive effort to examine the movements contributions to a sustainable future. This paper focuses specifically on the links between sustainability, the

 

environment, and New Urbanist design. Although sustainability is a balance among economic, social, and environmental concerns, an emphasis on its environmental aspects serves as a first step in

 

understanding this critical area. There are three main sections of the paper in which we (1) synthesize

 

the literature pertaining to environmental sustainability and the built environment, (2) examine the nexus between New Urbanism and sustainability /environmental concerns, and (3) describe and illustrate the use of a framework for evaluating the environmental impacts of the built environment

 

across various scales. Copyright ? 2007, Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc. Chicago, IL, USA All Rights Reserved This content downloaded from 129.1.11.117 on Thu, 29 Sep 2016 06:15:09 UTC

 

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 24:2 (Summer, 2007) 126 INTRODUCTION Sustainability has become a critical if not the most important filter for evaluating the bui ment. Linking these two themes, Godschalk (2004:5) writes, "Sustainable development communities represent the big visionary ideas of contemporary urban planning." New Urba

 

cornerstone of the livable communities discussion, can be a key for investigating sustainabi

 

Thus far, however, little scholarship has merged these ideas. Part of the difficulty of such an endeavor stems from contradictory goals among the thre dations of sustainability: ecology, economy, and equity (Campbell, 1996). Moreover, ub

 

uses of the terms sustainability and sustainable development have diluted their mea

 

have confused the question of what they entail in practice (Pezzoli, 1 997). 1 Neverthe

 

ceptual clarifications and appropriate assessment criteria are necessary to advance su

 

land use and design at various scales. New Urbanism represents an ideal subject for investigating sustainability and the built env

 

As a movement in the fields of architecture, urban planning, and landscape architecture, N

 

ism began to coalesce in the 1970s and 1980s as a reaction to the relentless but unsustainabl

 

in sprawling development patterns across the American urban landscape. While New Urbani

 

seen its share of commentary and analysis from both supporters and detractors, to date ther

 

no comprehensive effort to examine the movement's contributions to a sustainable future. We seek to fill this gap in the literature by focusing specifically on the links between sust the environment, and New Urbanist design. While acknowledging that sustainability i

 

among economic, social, and environmental concerns (see Burchell, et al., 2002; Frumk 2004; Krizek and Power, 1996; e.g.), we emphasize the latter in an effort to crack open the

 

(Campbell, 1996) or prism (Godschalk, 2004) binding these values. While the parts of the wh

 

eventually be reassembled, we believe our environmental emphasis will allow a thorough un

 

ing of this critical area. In addition to this analysis, we present a framework for evaluating the environmental imp

 

built environment across various scales. Such a framework may be used to evaluate existing

 

posed New Urbanist projects. The sections that follow strive to (1) synthesize the literature

 

to environmental sustainability and the built environment, (2) examine the nexus between banism and sustainability/environmental concerns, and (3) describe and illustrate the u

 

evaluative framework. We conclude by offering suggestions for future research. DEFINING AND UNDERSTANDING SUSTAINABILITY Countless researchers have engaged various aspects of sustainable development. Pezzoli (1997)

 

comprehensive and multidisciplinary review of this vast body of work and identified 1 0 major sustainable development literature.2 Our focus is the category he termed "Eco-design and th

 

ronment," as it most closely relates to the environmental emphasis of our investigation. A dilemma with environmental sustainability of the built environment is that sustainable

 

should be consumed at a rate no faster than they can be replaced with an adequate substit

 

and Cobb, 1989). Land, however, is not only finite, it is also without an adequate subs

 

analyses of ecological sustainability and the built environment must treat issues of scale.

 

sustainability of the built environment, design professionals need to pay attention to the f

 

its interactive impacts, from a particular building to a region and beyond. Literature on ecological footprint analysis, environmental impacts of land use, and sm facilitate investigation of these notions of scale and ecological sustainability of the built e This content downloaded from 129.1.11.117 on Thu, 29 Sep 2016 06:15:09 UTC

 

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 24:1 (Summer, 2007) 127 Each of these research areas contributes insight into the land development proce

 

cess may advance or detract from sustainability goals. Wackernagel and Rees (1995) developed the idea of the ecological footprint to ana mental impacts of a particular place. As Randolph (2004:611) observed, an ec inverse to the notion of carrying capacity. A carrying capacity analysis evaluates

 

tion that can be supported in a given area. In contrast, an ecological footprint anal

 

much land is necessary to support the activities of a specific population in a spec ting. Quite simply, a human population requires a certain area of land to su tion of resources and to absorb its waste products. For Vancouver, Bri (1996) determined that the average citizen would require 4.2 hectares of lan

 

her needs, a number that is not sustainable if extended to all (or even mo

 

planet. As difficult as it may be to gather the specific data concerning fossi

 

diet, and so on, an ecological footprint analysis provides a compelling illust

 

able patterns within the built environment. A second important literature identifies the environmental impacts of land use.

 

urban sprawl has resulted in numerous studies of such impacts. Complicating the

 

that "although environmental impacts of sprawl are seemingly numerous and in

 

forward to observe they are much more difficult to measure " (Johnson, 2001 :722 Environmental Protection Agency (2001), though, has reviewed empirical evid negative environmental impacts of land use and transportation patterns on the n The agency identified the following categories of impact as the most signifi

 

fragmentation, degradation of water resources and water quality, degradatio

 

greenhouse gas emissions/climate change (see also Gallagher, 2001, and Lei

 

categories provide a useful foundation for assessing the sustainability of particu

 

including New Urbanist designs. Finally, the smart growth literature suggests ways to avoid or to mitigate the del tal impacts of urban form. In some ways, this literature synthesizes aspects

 

Nelson (2002:88-89) described five smart growth goals: (1) preserve public go verse land-use impacts, (3) maximize positive land-use impacts, (4) minimize publ

 

(5) maximize social equity. Each goal, in turn, is supported by specific principles,

 

contiguous areas of habitat and incorporating transit-oriented design features. Operationalizing and quantifying smart growth principles, such as those pro

 

gaining prominence. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (2 Smart Growth Index Program, or SGI. Twenty pilot communities in 17 states ini

 

EPA to test its GIS-based software model for quantifying and comparing the im development scenarios. Indicators used to measure these impacts include com residential energy and water use, vehicle miles traveled, and emissions of variou

 

nities may use the results of these analyses to broaden public participation, shap

 

tation planning efforts, and address other issues of concern. The relationship between environmental sustainability and New Urbanism has be with these developments in the academic literature. In addition, New Urban practical efforts to establish their place in this area. For example, the Congress fo

 

(CNU) is an active participant in the Smart Growth Network, an alliance of organ the EPA, the Urban Land Institute, and the American Farmland Trust. At th Growth Network conference in 1998, Andres Duany observed, "New Urbanism fo the physical design of buildings, neighborhoods, towns and regions, complem

 

grams. Smart growth concerns itself with physical design, but also broader context for the design" (Tregoning, 1998:17). Poticha (2000:21) further clarified t difference, she said, "is that New Urbanism sets out specific strategies for growth's] goals. ... Essentially, without the tools offered by New Urbanism, smar This content downloaded from 129.1.11.117 on Thu, 29 Sep 2016 06:15:09 UTC

 

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 24:2 (Summer, 2007) 128 skeleton with no meat on its bones - it won't hold together." What remains is t

 

tions of these relationships and their evolution over time. ORIGINS OF NEW URBANISM AND CONNECTIONS WITH SUSTAINABILITY Examining the origins of New Urbanism shows it to be a dynamic movement rooted in guiding principles. Its early practitioners sought a practical, resilient, well-founded, and bui alternative to sprawl. They have made use of traditional urban patterns and have also t

 

account of modern technological, social, and economic realities. New Urbanism advocate ation of metropolitan regions that are composed of (1) well-structured cities, towns, and nei hoods with identifiable centers and edges; (2) compact development that preserves farm environmentally sensitive areas; (3) infill development to revitalize city centers; (4) intercon

 

streets, friendly to pedestrians and cyclists, usually in modified grid or web-like patterns; (

 

land uses rather than single-use pods; (6) careful placement of garages and parking space

 

auto-dominated landscapes; (7) transit-oriented development; (8) well-designed and sited civic

 

ings and public gathering places; (9) the use of building and street typologies to create coher

 

form; ( 1 0) high-quality parks and conservation lands used to define and connect neighborh districts; and (11) architectural design that shows respect for local history and regional

 

(Ellis, 2002; Katz, 1994; Leccese and McCormick, 2000). These criteria have clear links to

 

the sustainability literature described above. The Congress for the New Urbanism was originally formed by six individuals, all trained in

 

ture: Peter Calthorpe, Andres Duany, Elizabeth Moule, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, Stefanos Poly

 

and Daniel Solomon. Calthorpe, in particular, came to New Urbanism with a concern for sust

 

development practices and had co-authored the book Sustainable Communities with Sim Van

 

(1991). While New Urbanists share many basic principles, there is no single, authoritative spo

 

son for New Urbanism, and the movement remains the site of lively debate.3 From its inception, New Urbanism sought to reduce the negative environmental impact development. New Urbanist theorists and practitioners have formulated explicit design princ

 

reduce land consumption, to preserve open space, and to provide alternatives to automobile d dency. Over time, these design professionals have incorporated additional elements of su development into their practice repertoire, such as designs for stormwater management, lan

 

with native plants, recycling of building materials, and energy conservation. The work of P

 

Condon and his associates at the University of British Columbia is especially notable as a pion

 

effort to merge sustainable development techniques with New Urbanist design principles (Co 1996; Condon and Proft, 1999). New Urbanism's attention to environmental concerns is found in the Charter of New Urbani

 

ciples first adopted in 1996 (Leccese and McCormick, 2000). The Charter addresses a broad arr issues concerning the design of human settlements, including a sense of community, civ affordable housing, transportation, and regional planning. But the CNU Charter also display mitment to planning for environmental conservation. Although some commentators (as below) have criticized the ultimate results of these principles, their intent is important. For

 

New Urbanists support plans that respect the natural boundaries that define metropolitan re

 

ibid. Charter Principles 1-4). Moreover, they endorse architecture and site-planning solution

 

respond to natural landscape conditions rather than ignoring or defying them (see ibid. Char

 

ciples 24 and 26). Development guided by such awareness marks a clear departure from typic

 

patterns in the United States. Certainly, additional principles could strengthen the charter's focus on environment and sus ity. The Congress for the New Urbanism considered such revisions at its most recent

 

(Filmanowicz, 2004; Langdon, 2004). For example, some New Urbanist practitioners are with the U.S. Green Building Council to develop a rating system similar to the LEED (Leaders This content downloaded from 129.1.11.117 on Thu, 29 Sep 2016 06:15:09 UTC

 

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 24:1 (Summer, 2007) 129 FIGURE 1. The New Urbanist transect. Source: Duany Plater-Zyberk and Co., 200 1 . Energy and Environmental Design) ratings now used for individual buildings. Recognizing the need to "learn from and ally themselves more closely with, the environmental movement," these New

 

Urbanists continue to debate the most appropriate form for such a rating system (Langdon, 2004:3).

 

New Urbanists are also currently using methods from ecological analysis to apply their Charter Principles. Most notably, they have used the concept of the transect (see Figure 1) as a means to "organize

 

the elements of urbanism - building, lot, land use, street, and all of the other physical elements of the

 

human habitat - in ways that preserve the integrity of different types of urban and rural environ- ments" (Talen, 2002:293; see also Duany and Talen, 2002, and Duany Plater-Zyberk and Co., 2001).

 

Using the transect system, designers can permanently preserve ecologically sensitive land as the "green infrastructure" of regions. They concentrate urbanization on appropriate sites with compact,

 

mixed-use, and transit-supportive communities. Their plans provide a transition from city to country

 

with a carefully managed gradient. Rather than separating design theories from ecological realities,

 

New Urbanists are striving to relate them via the transect.

 

Currently, there is no comprehensive inventory of the environmental impacts, either positive or negative, that built New Urbanist projects have created. During the early years of the New Urbanist movement, many designers did not incorporate extensive sustainability features internal to the site or as

 

part of building construction. However, this early practice does not justify critics' claims that "New

 

Urbanism is not strongly environmental in orientation" (Beatley and Manning, 1997:21). This debate

 

between proponents and detractors of New Urbanism merits further understanding. CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON NEW URBANISM AND SUSTAINABILITY AND A

 

RESPONSE Many New Urbanists consider their alliance with the environmental movement to be a

 

They believe that without the specific design principles provided by New Urbanism, their

 

achieve compact development, open-space preservation, and transportation alternatives

 

fail. People will resist living in higher-density environments unless design professional

 

ance density with an array of benefits (walkable streets, well-designed town centers, ci access to transit, and high-quality urban design). In this view, New Urbanism defin

 

planning strategy - from the region down to neighborhoods and individual buildin ment the principles of sustainability and smart growth. Written policies are not enoug

 

planning professionals must provide detailed templates for new types of built landscape Many critics claim that New Urbanists have insufficiently incorporated environmentall design into their projects (Beatley, 2000; Beatley and Manning, 1997; Durack, 200 This content downloaded from 129.1.11.117 on Thu, 29 Sep 2016 06:15:09 UTC

 

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 24:2 (Summer, 2007) 130 Zimmerman, 2001). Kentlands, a New Urbanist project in Maryland, is the foc severe reviews. Nelson (2002), for example, argued that Kentlands is a poor example

 

He alleged that Kentlands is located too far from existing urban centers, unnecessa urban fringe, requires long commutes to jobs and shopping, and "is not design

 

transit connections and has no transit-oriented development relationships" (N

 

Also focusing on Kentlands, Alex Marshall (1996:71) has more harshly called the

 

grand fraud," merely a way of "selling repackaged subdivisions," and a new for

 

continued environmental consequences. These critiques and others reflect a narrow view of New Urbanism. They fail t range of New Urbanist projects, and their evaluations are incomplete. With Kentlan writer Philip Langdon (2002:17) pointed out: Actually, Kentlands sits less than three miles from the downtown of Gaithersburg,

 

city in Maryland . Buses run from Kentlands to both the Metro and the MARC com

 

Pick-up areas and a right-of-way have already been identified for a proposed ligh would serve Kentlands. As for "leapfrog development, " this frog has puny Washington area leapfrog development is in West Virginia ... . As for the compar

 

housing balance, there are plenty of jobs, in hundreds of thousands of square feet

 

Kentlands, and there are about 50, 000 square feet of office space in Kentlands itsel

 

home offices and 50 live/work units). Without resolving this debate, we argue that design and planning professionals nee

 

when assessing New Urbanist projects, to make sure that information is accurate an

 

to understand clearly the spatial and temporal aspects of the projects. Many critics seem to be unaware of the numerous New Urbanist infill projects that

 

ber 2002 survey of New Urbanist projects (Steuteville, 2002), New Urban News iden

 

borhood-scale projects either built, under construction, or in planning in the United percent (269) were greenfield projects and 43% (204) were infill developmen brownfield reuses. This survey used "a fairly strict definition of infill, one that e

 

undeveloped properties that are not largely surrounded by urban blocks and street

 

defined "neighborhood-scale" as 15 acres or larger.4 Infill development is a large co

 

Urbanism, and it is inaccurate to characterize all New Urbanism as just a new form

 

urban edge. Granting the importance of New Urbanist infill projects, is it environmentally soun ists to be involved in so much construction on greenfield sites? Environmental forcefully use this criticism against New Urbanism, and many believe a greenfield

 

fies a project as "sustainable." This criticism reflects the inherent tension involved

 

use of finite resources such as land. Are all greenfield projects a mistake, and shou

 

refuse to build on greenfield sites? It is not possible to place all new development during the next 20 years on infill si

 

and 2025, Nelson (2002:85) estimated that "the United States will add, roughly: 60 m

 

million households, and 56 million jobs, of which half will be in business, professio

 

services." Clearly, there will be growth on greenfield sites, and the only question i

 

growth. Most U.S. cities have only weak forms of growth management, and drama

 

political situation are not on the horizon. Unfortunately, the innovative regional p

 

established in Portland, Oregon, is not widely emulated in other major American c

 

situation, New Urbanists are realistic when arguing that building high-density, pe

 

mixed-use projects in suburban locations is a net gain over the sprawl alternative. T

 

would not be better off if New Urbanists stood on the sidelines while sprawl devel

 

building. This content downloaded from 129.1.11.117 on Thu, 29 Sep 2016 06:15:09 UTC

 

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 24:1 (Summer, 2007) 131 The overall environmental soundness of New Urbanist greenfield projects cannot be

 

one project to the next without understanding their relationship with long-term reg

 

patterns . In a discussion of sprawl in Atlanta, Ellen Dunham-Jones (2004:65) exp

 

The difficulty of assessing whether a greenfield project is smart "enough " is fun

 

question of whether it only serves its immediate inhabitants or serves the larger

 

words , without a more developed regional plan to show how a single development, noble its intentions , significantly connects its roads, buildings, and open

 

transportation, economic, and environmental systems, can we really determin sprawling such growth is? A New Urbanist project constructed on a greenfield site today will be one of two typ may be a building block for a well-planned, environmentally progressive regio high-density nodes, transit-oriented development, and extensive preservation of fa

 

areas, and other open space. Second, a project may be an inappropriately placed urba

 

poor connections to any long-term regional vision. Deciding which project type is p

 

determined by just visiting the site and walking around. An accurate evaluation mu

 

scope and projected out into the future. From the movement's beginning, New Urbanists have advocated regional planni

 

criteria. The CNU Charter explicitly states the importance of regionalism and t

 

environmental resources. Transect theory is an emerging application of these i statements of principle, New Urbanists have made major contributions to the devel

 

plans, moving beyond verbal policy statements to detailed designs (Calthorpe, 1

 

Fulton, 2001). This explicitness is the kind of specific, graphically illustrated p

 

ensure that individual development projects come together to form sustainable reg

 

However, New Urbanists do not have the power to sweep aside political opposition t

 

ning. Without well-articulated, ecologically-based regional plans, New Urbanist plan

 

opers can only use their best judgment and whatever regional planning mechanisms

 

ensure that individual project locations make sense. Finally, the diffusion of innovation literature (Rogers, 2003) helps to assess New Ur

 

tial. Critics often ignore the difficulties New Urbanists faced to get the movement

 

any form. They have advanced their projects in the face of (1) obstructive developm (2) public subsidies for sprawl, (3) lack of regional planning, (4) inertia and res

 

development process, and (5) public opposition (Pollard, 2001). Initially, bankers

 

estate experts, and municipal officials viewed New Urbanist projects as a radica familiar, low-risk, and quite profitable sprawl development. The first wave of proj

 

cal role as exemplars or prototypes , showing what was possible to build at that tim

 

were essential stepping stones in a process of learning and innovation diffusion. Th

 

possible for bolder projects with more extensive sustainable development features t ensuing years. If New U...

 


Solution details:
STATUS
Answered
QUALITY
Approved
ANSWER RATING

This question was answered on: Sep 18, 2020

PRICE: $15

Solution~0001013302.zip (25.37 KB)

Buy this answer for only: $15

This attachment is locked

We have a ready expert answer for this paper which you can use for in-depth understanding, research editing or paraphrasing. You can buy it or order for a fresh, original and plagiarism-free copy from our tutoring website www.aceyourhomework.com (Deadline assured. Flexible pricing. TurnItIn Report provided)

Pay using PayPal (No PayPal account Required) or your credit card . All your purchases are securely protected by .
SiteLock

About this Question

STATUS

Answered

QUALITY

Approved

DATE ANSWERED

Sep 18, 2020

EXPERT

Tutor

ANSWER RATING

GET INSTANT HELP/h4>

We have top-notch tutors who can do your essay/homework for you at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments.

You can also use these solutions:

  • As a reference for in-depth understanding of the subject.
  • As a source of ideas / reasoning for your own research (if properly referenced)
  • For editing and paraphrasing (check your institution's definition of plagiarism and recommended paraphrase).
This we believe is a better way of understanding a problem and makes use of the efficiency of time of the student.

NEW ASSIGNMENT HELP?

Order New Solution. Quick Turnaround

Click on the button below in order to Order for a New, Original and High-Quality Essay Solutions. New orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.

WE GUARANTEE, THAT YOUR PAPER WILL BE WRITTEN FROM SCRATCH AND WITHIN YOUR SET DEADLINE.

Order Now