Recent Question/Assignment

ASSESSMENT 1 BRIEF
Subject Code and Title SRM301 Sustainability and Resource Management
Assessment Case Study - Supplied Context
Individual/Group Individual
Length 1000 words (+/- 10%)
Learning Outcomes a) Identify the nature and context of environmental, social and economic trends that impact the management of tourism.
b) Appraise the environmental, social and financial factors required to develop business resilience and sustainability in the tourism industry.
c) Apply theories and concepts as they relate to sustainable development.
Submission Due by 11:55pm AEST Sunday end of Module 2 (Week 4)
Weighting 25%
Total Marks 100 marks
Context
As consumers become more aware of the impact of their actions on the planet, sustainability is becoming a significant factor in the management of tourism destinations. Many destinations around the world are currently experiencing tourism-related issues that are or have the potential to cause irreparable damage. As a result, destinations are focusing on adopting initiatives & strategies that support sustainable social, economic and environmental development. The United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) is ‘responsible for the promotion of responsible, sustainable and universally accessible tourism’ and ‘assists destinations in their sustainable positioning in ever more complex and international markets’ (UNWTO, n.d.). This assessment will allow students to consider sustainability issues in global destinations and consider the role of the UNWTO in supporting sustainable development.
Instructions
Please select one (1) of the case studies from the following list. Please be aware that you will be using the destination within your chosen case study for subsequent assessments. You will also need to review the UNWTO Sustainable Tourism for Development Guidebook
(http://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/devcoengfinal.pdf) as you are required to apply this to your case study analysis:
• Venice: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-12/venice-is-it-being-killed-by-masstourism/10887226
SRM301_Assessment 1 Case Study - Supplied Context_ 01042019 Page 1 of 5
• Mount Everest: https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/08/shocking-true-impact-tourism-mounteverest-7815396/
• Queenstown: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/08/queenstown-considerstourist-levy-after-claim-crowds-threaten-wellbeing
• Santorini: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/28/santorini-popularity-soarsbut-locals-say-it-has-hit-saturation-point
• Amsterdam: https://www.dw.com/en/how-amsterdam-is-fighting-mass-tourism/a47806959
Once you have selected your case study you are required to submit a report in which you address the following:
• Provide a brief overview of the chosen case study & destination.
• Discuss environmental, social and economic conditions that have contributed to the tourismrelated issues currently being experienced in the destination.
• Apply the UNWTO Sustainable Tourism for Development framework to propose actions that could be implemented in the destination to support future sustainability in the tourism industry.
Referencing
You should make significant references to the subject material and substantial wider reading. A minimum of three (3) academic (scholarly books and peer-reviewed journal articles) and three (3) other sources (newspaper articles, trade publications, websites, etc.) must be used. These should be referenced in the APA style, both in-text and in a reference list. References to ‘Wikipedia’ or similar unsubstantiated sources will not be accepted.
You must recognise all sources of information; including images that you include in your work. Reference your work according to the APA 6th edition guidelines. Please see more information on referencing here http://library.laureate.net.au/research_skills/referencing
Submission Instructions
Submit your Case Study Report in the Assessment 1 Case Study - Supplied Context submission link in the Assessment section found in the main navigation menu of the subject Blackboard site. A rubric will be attached to the assessment. The Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the learning portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.
Extensions cannot be granted by the lecturer after the submission date. In the event of serious illness or unusual circumstances, a student may apply for Special Consideration in accordance with the rules and regulations governing this application, but it is important that such requests be made as soon as the circumstance is known.
SRM301_Assessment 1 Case Study - Supplied Context_ 01042019 Page 2 of 5
Assessment 1 Rubric
Assessment Attributes Fail
(Below minimum standard)
0-49% Pass
(Functional)
50-64% Credit
(Proficient) 65-74% Distinction
(Advanced)
75-84% High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85-100%
Demonstrates knowledge and
understanding of
sustainability theory and principles of
sustainability.
25% Limited and inadequate understanding of required concepts and knowledge. Adequate knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline.
Often confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. Thorough knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline/s.
Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.
Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. Highly developed understanding of the field or discipline/s.
Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.
Well demonstrated capacity
to explain and apply relevant concepts. A sophisticated understanding of the field or discipline/s.
Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.
Mastery of concepts and application to new situations and further learning.
Presents an analysis of the factors contributing to concerns over
sustainability in the case study and
examines progress that has been made in
achieving sustainability in the case study industry
25% Limited and inadequate analysis of factors – does not present an adequate account of initiatives taken by the case study industry Adequately demonstrated analysis - presents an adequate account of initiatives taken by the case study industry
Well-developed analysis - presents a satisfactory account of initiatives taken by the case study industry Thoroughly developed and creative analysis - presents a thorough and advanced account of initiatives taken by the case study industry Highly sophisticated and creative analysis - presents a thorough and exceptional account of initiatives taken by the case study industry
Application of critical reasoning to articulate recommendations derived from the
analysis of the case study and relevant
commentary sources
25% Inadequate understanding of key concepts required to support the case study.
Appears to confuse logic and emotion.
Information taken from reliable sources but without a coherent analysis or synthesis.
Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact with little questioning.
Limited understanding of key concepts required to support the case study.
Often conflates/confuses personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.
Viewpoints of experts are questioned. Analysis and evaluation of the viewpoints of experts is limited and basic.
There is limited intellectual independence, rigour and adaptability.
Satisfactory understanding of key concepts required to support the case study.
Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts to articulate recommendation for the
case study industry
Questions and tests viewpoints of experts. Analysis and evaluation of the viewpoints of experts is satisfactory
Demonstrates intellectual independence, rigour and adaptability in this testing.
Identifies logical flaws. Demonstrates an advanced understanding of key concepts required to support the case study.
Demonstrates an advanced explanation and analysis of concepts to articulate a wide range of recommendations for the case study industry.
Questions and tests viewpoints of experts. Analysis and evaluation of expert viewpoints is advanced and reflects growing judgement, intellectual independence, rigour and adaptability.
Information is substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.
Systematically and critically discriminates between key concepts required to support the case study.
Demonstrates an exceptional explanation and analysis of concepts to articulate a wide range of recommendations for the case study industry. .
Information is taken from sources with a high level of interpretation/evaluation to develop a comprehensive critical analysis or synthesis. Information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.
Identifies gaps in knowledge. Exhibits intellectual independence, rigour, good judgement and adaptability.
Effective communication
15% No logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence.
Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is adequate, but not always clear and logical.
Information, arguments and
evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments.
Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented; the work is logical, clear and well supported by evidence. Expertly presented; the work is logical, persuasive, and well supported by evidence, demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments.
The line of reasoning is very difficult to follow.
Line of reasoning is often difficult to follow. Line of reasoning is easy to follow.
Correct citation of key resources and evidence
10%
Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas.
Referencing is omitted or does not resemble APA.
Demonstrates use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed.
Referencing resembles APA, with frequent or repeated errors. Demonstrates use of credible resources to support and develop ideas.
Referencing resembles APA, with occasional errors. Demonstrates use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and statements.
Show evidence of wide scope within the organisation for sourcing evidence.
APA referencing is free from errors. Demonstrates use of highquality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and position statements.
Show evidence of wide scope within and without the organisation for sourcing evidence.
APA referencing is free from errors.

Looking for answers ?


Recent Questions