ASSESSMENT 2 BRIEF
Subject Code and Title SRM301 Sustainability and Resource Management
Assessment Case Study – Researched Context
Individual/Group Individual
Length 2000 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.
d) Demonstrate knowledge of the skills and abilities needed by managers of sustainable tourism organisations.
Submission Due by 11:55pm AEST Sunday end of Module 4 (Week 8).
Weighting 50%
Total Marks 100 marks
Context
Sustainable development requires the support of all tourism organisations operating within a particular destination. An organisation needs to carefully consider its actions and operations as these have the potential to impact on the sustainability of other organisations and the destination overall. Given this, it is imperative that tourism operators review their internal practices to ensure strategies are in place to continuously support sustainable tourism development. Corporate social responsibility strategies are critical to ensure operations maximise business resilience and minimise negative impacts on a destination. This assessment will allow students to review the current corporate social responsibility strategies of a tourism organisation and critically analyse the effectiveness of these strategies.
Instructions
You are required to select an existing tourism organisation that operates within the destination chosen in Assessment 1 and analyse sustainability & corporate social responsibility. Examples of appropriate organisations include (but are not limited to) tour operators, attraction management organisations, accommodation, airlines, ground transport operators, casinos & cruise lines. You will develop a report that considers sustainability practices in relation to the triple bottom line.
SRM301_Assessment 2 Case Study - Researched Context_ 01042019 Page 1 of 5
Within the report you are required to:
• Provide an overview of the chosen organisation, e.g. current operations, tourism products, target market(s), etc.
• Assess potential negative impacts of the organisation’s current operations on sustainability within the destination.
• Examine current strategies that the organisation has implemented to demonstrate corporate social responsibility OR strategies implemented by similar organisations. Evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies using the triple bottom line concept and the principles of sustainability.
• Critically analyse environmental, social and economic factors that could impact on future sustainable tourism operations for the organisation.
Referencing
You should make significant references to the subject material and substantial wider reading. A minimum of six (6) academic (scholarly books and peer-reviewed journal articles) and four (4) 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 2 Case Study: Researched 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 2 Case Study - Researched Context_ 01042019 Page 2 of 5
Assessment 2 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.
Argues for a balanced and nuanced
perspective on the
future resilience of the case in the context of the tourism industry generally.
Recommendations derived from the
analysis of the case study and relevant
commentary sources.
25%
Limited understanding of key concepts required to support the case study.
Confuses 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.
Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas.
Often conflates/confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.
Analysis and evaluation do not reflect expert judgement, intellectual independence, rigor and adaptability.
Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.
Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts.
Identifies logical flaws.
Questions viewpoints of experts.
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.
Viewpoint of experts are subject to questioning.
Analysis and evaluation reflect growing judgement, intellectual independence, rigor and adaptability.
Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.
Information is taken from sources with a high level of interpretation/evaluation to develop a comprehensive critical analysis or synthesis.
Identifies gaps in knowledge.
Exhibits intellectual independence, rigor, good
judgement and adaptability.
Effective communication
15% No logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence.
The line of reasoning is very difficult to follow.
Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is adequate, but not always clear and logical.
Line of reasoning is often difficult to follow. Information, arguments and
evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments.
Line of reasoning is easy to follow.
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.
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.