AT3 scenario AT3 scenario Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeIntroduction and context setting 5 Pts Excellent Comprehensive and clear introduction to the broader issue...

hey ,please read everything carefully as this assessment stands for 40%and already got only passing marks in the last ones so it is really important for me and othere thing please keep it in mind this one is for masters so should be perfect dont disappoint me


AT3 scenario AT3 scenario Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeIntroduction and context setting 5 Pts Excellent Comprehensive and clear introduction to the broader issue of the impact of the built environment on the triple bottom line considerations of sustainability. Clear and concise overview of report structure. Definition of sustainable development is logical and evidenced and goes beyond Brundtland definition. Excellent overview on key sustainability metrics and measures including which one/s could be used to evaluate this development site. 3.75 Pts Good Good introduction to some of the broader issue of the impact of the built environment on the triple bottom line considerations of sustainability. Clear overview of report structure. Definition of sustainable development is mostly logical and evidenced and goes beyond Brundtland definition. Good overview on key sustainability metrics and measures including which one/s could be used to evaluate this development site. 2.5 Pts Satisfactory Satisfactory introduction to a few of the broader issue of the impact of the built environment on the triple bottom line considerations of sustainability. May have some key ideas from the course missing or not fully address each of the triple bottom line considerations. An overview of report structure is provided but may lack detail. A definition of sustainable development is provided but may not be logical or go beyond Brundtland definition. Limited discussion on sustainability metrics and measures including which one/s could be used to evaluate this development site. 1.25 Pts Unsatisfactory Limited or missing introduction which discusses the broader issue of the impact of the built environment on the triple bottom line considerations of sustainability. Overview of report structure may be provided but lacks logic and detail. A definition of sustainable development is either not provided, is Brundtland definition or is not logical and evidenced. Limited or missing discussion on sustainability metrics and measures. 5 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeAustralian and international best practice 5 Pts Excellent Comprehensive and clear discussion of what best practice is for new estates such as the case study from a triple bottom line perspective. Discussion includes different scales in the development (e.g. building scale, estate scale). Presents this from both an Australian and International perspective including excellent case studies from each. 3.75 Pts Good Good discussion of what best practice is for new estates such as the case study from a triple bottom line perspective. Presents this from both an Australian and International perspective including good case studies from each. 2.5 Pts Satisfactory Satisfactory discussion of what best practice is for new estates such as the case study from a triple bottom line perspective. May be some issues with logic or evidence. Presents an Australian and international perspective although lacking detail and some critical details. 1.25 Pts Unsatisfactory Limited or missing discussion of what best practice is for new estates. Does not present from an Australian and International perspective. Presentation/ evaluations/ assessment of case studies missing or lacking significant details. 5 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeCase study discussion 15 Pts Excellent Comprehensive and clear introduction to the case study development site. Includes all relevant information needed to understand the site and what will be delivered under the existing plan. Excellent discussion against all the key themes of the course content and how they apply to the development site. Clear and evidenced arguments for where design considerations need to change or remain the same are provided against triple bottom line considerations. Includes an updated drawing/sketch of the master plan which matches discussion from text. 11 Pts Good Good introduction to the case study development site which includes most of the relevant information needed to understand the site. Good discussion against all the key themes of the course content and how they apply to the development site. Clear and evidenced arguments for where design considerations need to change or remain the same are provided against triple bottom line considerations. Includes an updated drawing/sketch of the master plan which matches discussion from text. 7.5 Pts Satisfactory Satisfactory introduction to the case study development site but may be missing some key elements of information. Satisfactory discussion against most of the key themes of the course content and how they apply to the development site. Mostly clear arguments for where design considerations need to change or remain the same are provided but may not be mapped against triple bottom line considerations. Includes an updated drawing/sketch of the master plan which mostly matches discussion from text. There may be some logic issues with the revised drawing/sketch. 3.5 Pts Unsatisfactory Limited or missing introduction to the case study development site. Lack of discussion against the key themes of the course content and how they apply to the development site. Limited or lack of discussion about what elements in the design should change or stay the same and not discussed against triple bottom line criteria. Does not include a revised drawing/sketch of the development site or major issues with what was provided. 15 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeRecommendations 5 Pts Excellent Comprehensive and clear recommendations (at least 5) are presented about what could change on the proposed development site to improve sustainability outcomes across the triple bottom line. Recommendations are logical and show a progression of knowledge gained in the course. 3.75 Pts Good Good recommendations (at least 3) are presented about what could change on the proposed development site to improve sustainability outcomes across the triple bottom line. 2.5 Pts Satisfactory Satisfactory recommendations (at least 3) are presented about what could change on the proposed development site to improve sustainability outcomes but may lack information across the triple bottom line. 1.25 Pts Unsatisfactory Limited or no recommendations are presented about what could change on the proposed development site to improve sustainability outcomes. Recommendations are not logical or evidenced. 5 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeReport layout and presentation 5 Pts Excellent The report flows easily and key points are easy to find. Presentation is clear and professional, following report writing guidelines. Narrative is engaging and logical. Voice is consistent. 3.75 Pts Good The report flows easily and key points are easy to find. Presentation reasonable and professional, following report writing guidelines. Narrative is logical. 2.5 Pts Satisfactory Report is satisfactory and mostly follows report writing guidelines. Presentation contains some minor errors. Report may be difficult to navigate or lack a narrative in parts. 1.25 Pts Unsatisfactory Report is disjointed. Presentation contains numerous errors. No/limited narrative. 5 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeReferences and evidence 5 Pts Excellent Contains at least five (5) high quality references. Includes at least four (4) journal articles. Correct referencing style is used. 3.75 Pts Good Includes five (5) good quality references. Includes at least three (3) journal articles. Correct referencing style is used. 2.5 Pts Satisfactory Includes five (5) references of mixed quality. Correct referencing style is used although some minor errors. 1.25 Pts Unsatisfactory Less than five (5) references used an/or poor-quality references. Incorrect referencing style is used. 5 pts Total points: 40 Microsoft Word - Assessment task 3 BUIL1225SustainabilityintheBuilt Environment–AssessmentTask3:Sustainable developmentscenario(individualassessment)   Due date:     Friday 28th May 2021, 11.59pm (week 12)    Assessment:     40% of the final mark for BUIL1225  Course Learning Outcomes: CLO1, CLO3, CLO4, CLO5 (detailed descriptions below)  Marking criteria:  Assessment rubric (attached).  Submission:    Electronic submission through Canvas  Output format:  Formal report  Report must be typed and with a logical structure   Report length: 4,000 – 5,000 words (without reference list)  For help with report writing, visit the Study and Learning Centre or explore  their online resources here:  https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/content/reports‐0    Submission details:  Submit your final presentation as one electronic PDF file through the link on  the BUIL1225 Canvas website. Ensure that you include the authorisation  statement “I declare that in submitting all work for this assessment I have  read, understood and agree to the content and expectations of the  Assessment Declaration.”. More details on this declaration can be found  here: https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student‐essentials/assessment‐ and‐exams/assessment/assessment‐declaration   File format:    *.pdf (To generate an Adobe PDF file, either save your file as PDF or print to  a PDF printer, such as “Cute PDF”.)  Submission format:   Name your file as: First name_surname_development scenario.pdf  (e.g. Tom_Smith_development scenario.pdf)  Paper size: A4    Referencing style:   RMIT’s Harvard Style http://www.rmit.edu.au/library/referencing  This task is to be submitted in accordance with the University submissions policy. The policies  associated with requests for extension and special consideration can be found at the link below.  Please ask the course coordinator/program manager if you are in doubt regarding the policy.  https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student‐essentials/assessment‐and‐exams    Submissions must be made by the due date and time. Late submissions without a granted  extension of time or special consideration are marked as zero.    The policies associated with requests for extension of time can be found at this link:  https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student‐essentials/assessment‐and‐ exams/assessment/extensions‐of‐time‐for‐submission‐of‐assessable‐work. You can lodge  the Application for extension of time (up to seven days) with the Course Coordinator.    The policies associated with requests for special consideration can be found at this link:  https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student‐essentials/assessment‐and‐ exams/assessment/special‐consideration. These applications will be assessed by specialist  staff.  Context As we have discussed throughout this semester, there are several ways in which improved  sustainability can be designed and delivered in the built environment across a scale from an  individual dwelling to a whole city. Depending on what scale you are looking at, there are different  options for improving sustainability outcomes. Understanding how these options interplay at  different levels of scale is important if we are to deliver more suitable outcomes. In this assessment  task you will take the role of an ESD consultant who has been asked by the local council to undertake  a critical review of a proposed development of a new estate which has already been designed. You  will critique this development based upon the key topics covered in this course. You will be expected  to justify why you support key inclusions and/or propose changes to the plan and how these will  impact on triple bottom line outcomes based upon your learning in this semester and further  exploration of the literature. This will help you improve your skills of looking more holistically at  sustainability in our built environment which is an increasingly important skill required working in  the industry.  This assessment task builds upon the content and discussions from the semester as well as  assessment tasks 1 and 2. You will complete this assessment individually. This assessment task  addresses Course Learning Outcomes 1, 3, 4 and 5:  1. Identify the characteristics of best‐practice in sustainable building initiatives  3. Apply Identify and analyse effective strategies for achieving sustainable buildings and  sustainable design outcomes  4. Critically analyse Australian sustainability policy and project initiatives  5. Evaluate and communicate the effectiveness of current sustainability initiatives and assess  whether these initiatives are operating in an effective sustainability framework.  Depending on the types of evaluation you include in your report, this assessment addresses Program  Learning Outcomes 1, 2, 3 and 4:  1. Determine and apply knowledge of complex sustainable building theory, principles and  practice, to contribute to the design and management of sustainable buildings  2. Critically analyse, synthesise and reflect on sustainable building theory and recent  developments, both local and international, to extend and challenge knowledge and practice  3. Professionally communicate and justify sustainable building design principles, strategies,  solutions and/or outcomes, engaging effectively with diverse stakeholders, including across  the government and industry sectors  4. Adopt a building performance and systems approach, and apply specialist knowledge and  technical skills to creatively address the diverse needs of sustainable building stakeholders  Taskdescription 1. Your case study is the old Amcor papermill site in Alphington which is now known as Yarra  Bend – Alphington. You can find out further information about the site and the development  plan here: https://yarrabend.com.au/  You can draw upon other information available online about this development site.      Master plan: https://yarrabend.com.au/masterplan  2. You will prepare a report as an ESD (Ecologically Sustainable Development) Consultant on  behalf of the local council. The council wants to know your expert opinion on the proposed  development and what, if any, recommendations you think may improve design and  sustainability outcomes. Note that for this report the council is interested in more than just  environmental sustainability and also wants to see considerations across the triple bottom  line (i.e. environmental, social and economic). For elements that you feel do not need any  changes, you will be required to explain why you support the design inclusions. All  discussions should be presented within considerations of the triple bottom line approach.  3. You will use the weekly topics in the course to frame your critique. In addition to the weekly  content you will need to draw on evidence from the literature.  4. It is required that you cover at least the following (as taken from the weekly topics) in your  formal report:  a. An introduction to the broader issue of the impact of the built environment on triple  bottom line sustainability considerations. Make sure that you state the intent of the  report in the introduction.  b. Your definition of sustainable development.  c. An overview on metrics for measuring sustainability outcomes, including what you  recommend using to evaluate this proposed development. You should include a  discussion of minimum building code requirements.  d. What is Australian and international best practice for a development like this? You  will need to define what is meant by best practice and introduce an Australian and  international case with which you can compare the proposed development.  e. Present an introduction to the case study development site.  f. Assess the proposed design against environmental sustainability, economic  sustainability, social sustainability and lifecycle thinking. Within these domains you  should also make sure the following are covered:  i. Energy  ii. Water  iii. Materials  g. Compare the proposed development to the Australian and international best  examples. (Note: you may want to use a sustainability measure/index here to do the  evaluation such as Green Star or BESS).  h. Recommendations  i. Summary  5. There will be in class questions each week which will help prepare your answers.  6. If you want to redesign parts (or the whole) development, that is ok. Please provide a sketch  of any design changes to the masterplan and include drawings/pictures/sketches of other  elements.  Additional information –The intent is to work more broadly across the themes. You can go into as  much detail for each theme/element in the design that you feel is required.  Reference all your sources using the Harvard referencing style as described on the RMIT website:  http://www.rmit.edu.au/library/referencing  If you are unsure as to how to structure your report, the following link provides some useful  guidance: https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/content/reports‐0  Assessment This assessment task will be assessed in accordance with Table 1. The task is worth a total of 40  marks.     Excellent  Good  Satisfactory  Unsatisfactory  Introduction and  context setting  Marks available: 5  Points: 5  Comprehensive and clear  introduction to the  broader issue of the  impact of the built  environment on the triple  bottom line considerations  of sustainability. Clear and  concise overview of report  structure. Definition of  sustainable development  is logical and evidenced  and goes beyond  Brundtland definition.  Excellent overview on key  sustainability metrics and  Points: 3.75  Good introduction to some  of the broader issue of the  impact of the built  environment on the triple  bottom line considerations  of sustainability. Clear  overview of report  structure. Definition of  sustainable development  is mostly logical and  evidenced and goes  beyond Brundtland  definition. Good overview  on key sustainability  metrics and measures  Points: 2.5  Satisfactory introduction  to a few of the broader  issue of the impact of the  built environment on the  triple bottom line  considerations of  sustainability. May have  some key ideas from the  course missing or not fully  address each of the triple  bottom line  considerations. An  overview of report  structure is provided but  may lack detail. A  Points: <2.5  limited or missing ="" introduction which ="" discusses the broader ="" issue of the impact of the ="" built environment on the ="" triple bottom line ="" considerations of ="" sustainability. overview of ="" report structure may be ="" provided but lacks logic ="" and detail. a definition of ="" sustainable development ="" is either not provided, is ="" brundtland definition or is ="" not logical and evidenced. ="" measures including which ="" one/s could be used to ="" evaluate this development ="" site. ="" including which one/s ="" could be used to evaluate ="" this development site. ="" definition of sustainable ="" development is provided ="" but may not be logical or ="" go beyond brundtland ="" definition. limited ="" discussion on sustainability ="" metrics and measures ="" including which one/s ="" could be used to evaluate ="" this development site. ="" limited or missing ="" discussion on sustainability ="" metrics and measures. ="" australian and ="" international best ="" practice ="" marks available: 5 ="" points: 5 ="" comprehensive and clear ="" discussion of what best ="" practice is for new estates ="" such as the case study ="" from a triple bottom line ="" perspective. discussion ="" includes different scales in ="" the development (e.g. ="" building scale, estate ="" scale). presents this from ="" both an australian and ="" international perspective ="" including excellent case ="" studies from each. ="" points: 3.75 ="" good discussion of what ="" best practice is for new ="" estates such as the case ="" study from a triple bottom ="" line perspective. presents ="" this from both an ="" australian and ="" international perspective ="" including good case ="" studies from each. ="" points: 2.5 ="" satisfactory discussion of ="" what best practice is for ="" new estates such as the ="" case study from a triple ="" bottom line perspective. ="" may be some issues with ="" logic or evidence. presents ="" an australian and ="" international perspective ="" although lacking detail and ="" some critical details. =""><2.5  limited or missing ="" discussion of what best ="" practice is for new estates. ="" does not present from an ="" australian and ="" international perspective. ="" presentation/ evaluations/ ="" assessment of case studies ="" missing or lacking ="" significant details. ="" case study ="" discussion ="" marks available: ="" 15 ="" points: 15 ="" comprehensive and clear ="" introduction to the case ="" study development site. ="" includes all relevant ="" information needed to ="" understand the site and ="" what will be delivered ="" under the existing plan. ="" excellent discussion ="" against all the key themes ="" of the course content and ="" how they apply to the ="" development site. clear ="" and evidenced arguments ="" for where design ="" considerations need to ="" change or remain the ="" same are provided against ="" triple bottom line ="" considerations. includes an ="" updated drawing/sketch of ="" the master plan which ="" matches discussion from ="" text. ="" points: 11 ="" good introduction to the ="" case study development ="" site which includes most of ="" the relevant information ="" needed to understand the ="" site. good discussion ="" against all the key themes ="" of the course content and ="" how they apply to the ="" development site. clear ="" and evidenced arguments ="" for where design ="" considerations need to ="" change or remain the ="" same are provided against ="" triple bottom line ="" considerations. includes an ="" updated drawing/sketch of ="" the master plan which ="" matches discussion from ="" text. ="" points: 7.5 ="" satisfactory introduction ="" to the case study ="" development site but may ="" be missing some key ="" elements of information. ="" satisfactory discussion ="" against most of the key ="" themes of the course ="" content and how they ="" apply to the development ="" site. mostly clear ="" arguments for where ="" design considerations ="" need to change or remain ="" the same are provided but ="" may not be mapped ="" against triple bottom line ="" considerations. includes an ="" updated drawing/sketch of ="" the master plan which ="" mostly matches discussion ="" from text. there may be ="" some logic issues with the ="" revised drawing/sketch. =""><7.5  limited or missing ="" introduction to the case ="" study development site. ="" lack of discussion against ="" the key themes of the ="" course content and how ="" they apply to the ="" development site. limited ="" or lack of discussion about ="" what elements in the ="" design should change or ="" stay the same and not ="" discussed against triple ="" bottom line criteria. does ="" not include a revised ="" drawing/sketch of the ="" development site or major ="" issues with what was ="" provided. ="" recommendations ="" marks available: 5 ="" points: 5 ="" comprehensive and clear ="" recommendations (at least ="" 5) are presented about ="" what could change on the ="" proposed development ="" points: 3.75 ="" good recommendations ="" (at least 3) are presented ="" about what could change ="" on the proposed ="" development site to ="" points: 2.5 ="" satisfactory ="" recommendations (at least ="" 3) are presented about ="" what could change on the ="" proposed development =""><2.5  limited or no ="" recommendations are ="" presented about what ="" could change on the ="" proposed development ="" site to improve ="" sustainability outcomes ="" across the triple bottom ="" line. recommendations ="" are logical and show a ="" progression of knowledge ="" gained in the course.  ="" improve sustainability ="" outcomes across the triple ="" bottom line. ="" site to improve ="" sustainability outcomes ="" but may lack information ="" across the triple bottom ="" line. ="" site to improve ="" sustainability outcomes. ="" recommendations are not ="" logical or evidenced. ="" report layout and ="" presentation ="" mark available: 5 =""  ="" points: 5 ="" the report flows easily, ="" and key points are easy to ="" find. presentation is clear ="" and professional, following ="" report writing guidelines. ="" narrative is engaging and ="" logical. voice is consistent.  =""  ="" points: 3.75 ="" the report flows easily, ="" and key points are easy to ="" find. presentation ="" reasonable and ="" professional, following ="" report writing guidelines. ="" narrative is logical.  ="" points: 2.5 ="" report is satisfactory and ="" mostly follows report ="" writing guidelines. ="" presentation contains ="" some minor errors. report ="" may be difficult to ="" navigate or lack a narrative ="" in parts.  =""><2.5  report is disjointed.  presentation contains  numerous errors.  no/limited narrative.   references and  evidence  mark available: 5  points: 5  contains at least five (5)  high quality references.  includes at least four (4)  journal articles. correct  referencing style is used.  points: 3.75  includes five (5) good  quality references report is disjointed. ="" presentation contains ="" numerous errors. ="" no/limited narrative.  ="" references and ="" evidence ="" mark available: 5 ="" points: 5 ="" contains at least five (5) ="" high quality references. ="" includes at least four (4) ="" journal articles. correct ="" referencing style is used. ="" points: 3.75 ="" includes five (5) good ="">