I am taking a civil course which is urban ecology and the assignment is about urban metabolism. I have to choose a city from a table (I choose Sydney) and do some researches about that city. There is a 4 tasks question and I need to visualize the second task. I mean task #2 should not be just a messy diagram.
I also send the rubric that has a checklist. I need all the items from the first class column
CIV 220F URBAN ENGINEERING ECOLOGY â€“ Fall 2016
Assignment: The Metabolism of Cities
The study of urban metabolism provides understanding of urban systems by drawing upon an analogy with the metabolic processes of organisms. The parallel is apparent: ?Cities transform raw materials, fuel, and water into the built environment, human biomass and waste? (Decker et al. 2000). First applied to a hypothetical American city of 1 million people (Wolman 1965), there have been close to 10 metabolism studies of actual cities worldwide. These studies quantify the inputs and outputs of energy, water, nutrients, materials and wastes.
The aim of this assignment is to study the metabolism of a city and demonstrate an understanding of urban metabolism by summarizing and assessing how it is influenced by engineered infrastructure and by critiquing the urban metabolism concept.
Complete the four tasks described below by composing a coherent report with an appropriate introduction, sections, and a clear conclusion. Below is a general description of the tasks; see the detailed rubric for specific requirements for each task.
Task 1 (10%): Select one city or urban region where a study of urban metabolism has been conducted. (Several examples are given in Table 1; you may also try to find more recent examples.) Set the context for the report by defining the concept of urban metabolism and briefly describing the urban region: e.g. its size, location. In particular, discuss attributes that are likely to impact the region?s metabolism: e.g. climate, land-use, major infrastructure. As an introduction, this section should include a purpose statement for the report.
Task 2 (20%): Construct a diagram displaying different components of your chosen region?s metabolism. This could be quite fun; be creative. Different metabolism studies have quantified different components, but at very least your diagram should show the following quantities (and units):
? input of energy (GJ/person/ year)
? input of clean water (tonnes/person/year)
? output of wastewater (tonnes/person/year)
? output of residential solid waste (tonnes/person/year)
? output of airborne contaminants, e.g. NOx, SO2, (tonnes/person/year)
A more complete diagram might break these categories down further; for example, into specific types of airborne contaminants or solid wastes. If you have chosen a city other than those identified below, you may not be able to source these exact statistics or in those units; in that case, please show the calculations you used to get to per capita numbers, or provide alternative metrics, explaining why they are appropriate (in an Appendix). This diagram will be assessed on its completeness, clarity, and aesthetic appeal, as well as the credibility of the included numbers (both source attribution and, where necessary, an explanation). Please integrate this diagram into the body of the report, and refer to specific numbers to justify your choices in Task 3.
Task 3 (50%): In order for our cities to develop in sustainable ways it is generally thought that they must have more efficient metabolism, e.g., lower per capita inputs and outputs, or more circular metabolism. Discuss 2 (or a maximum of 3) ways in which URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE could change to make this happen. In particular, provide practical recommendations on how greenhouse gas emissions or other parameters that are associated with the urban metabolism could be substantially reduced through changes to infrastructure, and quantify the potential impact of those changes. Provide details specific to your chosen city, and be sure to explain how the changes are suitable for and would be implemented in the specific city in question, assessing their key strengths and weaknesses.
Task 4 (20%): Assess the usefulness of the urban metabolism analogy that has structured your above analysis of a city, using research that you?ve done and knowledge you?ve picked up from lectures and your notes. In your assessment, you may want to consider some of the following questions, but you don?t need to answer all of them. How valid is the analogy between a city and a natural entity? Where does the analogy work well? Where does it fall apart? In what ways has the analogy been useful in understanding your city? Also, what does looking at the city in this way hide, obscure, or miss? Argue for why the strengths offer sufficient value to outweigh the weaknesses, or vice versa. Finally, consider whether it would be more or less correct to think about a city as an ecosystem, versus as an organism? What differences are implied by each analogy? There is no right or wrong answer here, but you will need to present a logical argument for your claims.
The COVER PAGE may be as simple as you like. It must include your signature. It must also have a statement indicating that the report is entirely your own and that it appropriately references sources of information.
Use 2.5-cm (1-inch) margins on all sides. Use a 12 pt font size and 1.5 line spacing to make your document easier to read by the graders. Be sure to use appropriate headings for the subsections of this report. Start new paragraphs with an indentation, as this paragraph does, with no blank lines between paragraphs. Cite references as required, and start the list of references that you cited immediately following the last section of the main body of your report (there is no need to start the reference list on a separate page). Be certain to check the Engineering Communication Program web pages for information about when and how to cite references: http://ecp.engineering.utoronto.ca/online-handbook/accurate-documentation/
If you would like assistance with the mechanics of writing, everything from how to organize your thoughts to the nitty-gritty details of constructing grammatically correct sentences, please contact your respective communications instructors for CIV282 (CIV students). For nonCIV students, and in addition to your CIV282 instructors, you can also book appointments for communication tutoring with the Engineering Communication Program here:
https://awc.wdw.utoronto.ca/ or, you can visit: http://ecp.engineering.utoronto.ca/resources/ for tips for writing engineering material.
SAVE YOUR MONEY! â€“ DO NOT USE ANY ADDITIONAL PROTECTIVE PAGES
(e.g. clear plastic or coloured heavy paper) OR BINDERS, but instead simply STAPLE the pages of your report together.
Submit one copy of your five (5) page document (excluding cover page, figures and references). Specific submission details will be provided via the Blackboard site; a soft copy of the document, including the visual (take a high quality picture or scan if hand drawn), will also be required for submission to Turnitin.com.
This assignment is worth 20% of your final grade in this course (and will be submitted for CIV282 as well for Civil Engineering students). It will be marked on both its technical content and its ability to communicate technical information according to the rubric posted to the course website. In addition, each student?s grade on this assignment will be determined according to one of following three scenarios:
(1) The originally-submitted report is considered to be generally acceptable, although some areas for revision may be identified. If the submission is acceptable enough, the student may choose to accept the assigned grade without further work.
(2) The originally-submitted report is considered to be generally acceptable, although some areas for revision may be identified. The student may choose to attempt to improve the weaker elements and resubmit their report. In this case, half of the grade for the assignment will be based on the original submission, and half will be based on the resubmitted report. Even good grades may be improved through this process.
(3) The originally-submitted report has several elements that have been identified as unacceptable or in need of revision. The student will be required to work with the CIV282 instructors to improve those elements and then resubmit their report. In this case, half of the grade for the assignment will be based on the original submission, and half will be based on the resubmitted report.
Chartered Institute of Wastes Management. 2002. A resource flow and ecological footprint analysis of Greater London. London: Best Foot Forward.
Decker, H., S. Elliott, F.A. Smith, D.R. Blake, F. Sherwood Rowland. 2000 Energy and Material Flow Through the Urban Ecosystem. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 25. 685-740.
Duvigneaud, P. and S. Denayeyer-De Smet. 1977. L?Ecosyst?me Urbs, in L?Ecosyst?me Urbain Bruxellois, in Productivit? en Belgique, P. Duvigneaud, and P. Kestemont, ed. Traveaux de la Section Belge du Programme Biologique International, Bruxelles: 581-597.
Hanya, T. and Y. Ambe. 1976. A study on the metabolism of cities, in Science for a Better Environment HSEC, Science Council of Japan: 228-233.
Hendriks, C. et al. 2000. Material flow analysis: a tool to support environmental policy decision making. Case studies on the city of Vienna and the Swiss lowlands. Local Environment 5: 311-328.
Newcombe, K. et al. 1978. The metabolism of a city: The case of Hong Kong. Ambio 7: 3-15.
Newman, P.W.G. 1999. Sustainability and cities: extending the metabolism model. Landscape and Urban Planning 44: 219-226
Sahely, H.R., S. Dudding, and C.A. Kennedy. 2003. Estimating the urban metabolism of Canadian cities: GTA case study. Canadian Journal for Civil Engineering 30: 468-483.
Warren-Rhodes, K. and A. Koenig. 2001. Escalating trends in the urban metabolism of Hong Kong: 1971-1997. Ambio 30(7): 429-438.
White, R. 2003. Building the Ecological City Cambridge: Woodhead.
Wolman, A. 1965. The metabolism of cities. Scientific American 213(3): 179-190.
Table 1. Characteristics of cities (greater regional areas) where urban metabolism studies have been conducted (as of 2006).
City Reference Year Population Urban Location Altitude Av. temperature
(million) Density (m) (?C)
(pers./km2) Summer Winter
US typical Wolman 1965 1965 1.0
Brussels Duvigneaud and
Denayeyer-De Smet 1977 1970s 1.075 6,640 50? N
4? E 76 16.4 4.2
Tokyo Hanya and Ambe 1976 1970 11.513 6,632 35? N
139? E 17 24.3 6.9
Kong Newcombe et al. 1978
Warren-Rhodes and Koenig. 2001 1971
58,000 22? N
114? E 88 28.0 17.0
Sydney Newman 1999 1970
2,000 33? S
151? E 0 22.3 13
Toronto Sahely et al. 2003 1987
2,920 43? N
79? W 105 19.9 -1.8
Vienna Hendriks et al. 2000 1990s 1.5 3,710 48? N
16? E 170 18.5 1.8
London Chartered Institute of Wastes
White 2003 2000 7.4 6,730 51? N
0? W 14 16.7 4.9
Page 5 of 5
CIV220/282 URBAN METABOLISM ASSIGNMENT FALL 2013
Student Name Student Number Initials 0.5 ?
Criteria Unacceptable Mediocre Good First Class
Introduction to Region and Urban Metabolism (Task 1 â€“ 10%)
1. Purpose Statement
2. Urban Metabolism (UM)
3. Regional Information
4. Major Metabolism Influences Fails to introduce topic, provide purpose statement
Urban metabolism (UM) definition not given, context not well developed
Failed to report location, population, info year, or other key information
Missing or limited information given on attributes that impact metabolism, e.g., climate, land- use and major infrastructure. Purpose of the report remains unclear, or is not explicitly identified
Only very basic or cited definition of urban metabolism is provided as context
Reported location, population, & info year
Identifies most important attributes but lacks description and/or link with UM. Purpose of the report is explicitly identified, & specific to city under study
Definition of UM is well thought out, & put into context of this study
Reported location, population, & info year, along with other brief history/cultural aspects relevant to metabolism study
Shows understanding of how important, unique attributes of the city effect inputs/ outputs of urban region. Specific, clearly articulated purpose statement captures full goal(s) of report
Definition of UM builds on authoritative definitions, providing a complete
understanding of the term in context of study
Reported location, population, & info year, makes brief description of other aspects clearly relevant to metabolism study
Identifies key, unique attributes of the city & clearly explains how they impact inputs/ outputs of urban region
Diagram (Task 2 â€“
2. Key Data
3. Diagram labeling
5. Documentation (Y/N) Low quality diagram provided
Failed to report some/all of the quantities required or acknowledge lack of data where needed
Failure to accurately label diagram, with process flows or units not given
Not integrated into the body of the report
References for information, or study year not provided Only a basic metabolism diagram
All quantities reported, but some inaccuracies, or failed to acknowledge lack of data where applicable
Labeling of diagram incomplete, or requested units were not used
Referred to in the text of the report, but not integrated into discussion in useful way Clear, attractive, & complete metabolism diagram that satisfies the needs of report
All required quantities reported, acknowledges lack of data where applicable, & adds further metabolism parameters
Labeling of diagram complete, with requested units used
Clearly introduces & contextualizes diagram, & integrates parts of the diagram into discussion Creative, thoughtful metabolism diagram that enhances its role in the report
All quantities reported in the required units, adding other metabolism parameters key to the rest of the report
Labeling of diagram clear, clean, & complete, with requested units used
Text functions to highlight key aspects of the diagram, and integrates parts of the diagram into the discussion well
Proposed Changes to
Urban Infrastructure (Task 3 â€“ 50%)
1. Understanding of UM issues
2. Urban Infrastructure Changes
3. Analysis of Impacts Does not define the inefficiencies identified through the UM study
Recommendations are not mostly Urban Infrastructure (UI) related
Limited explanation of how most proposed changes impact UM, laundry list of solutions Defines, but does not fully explain, inefficiencies id?ed via UM study
Most recommendations involve UI, but not made specific to city or described clearly
Explanations of how proposed changes impact UM provided, but incomplete or purely qualitative Defines & explains the source of UM inefficiencies
Recommendations involve UI, & specifies how changes can be implemented
Most explanations are clearly & thoroughly discussed in context of city?s UM; quantitative measures discussed Clearly identifies and links inefficiencies in UM to key attributes of city (infrastructure, climate, land use, history, culture etc.)
UI recommendations are thoughtful, specific, and take into account the context of the city
All proposed changes are clearly, throughly, and quantitatively discussed in context of the city?s UM situation
Critique of Urban
Metabolism (Task 4 â€“ 20%)
1. Understanding of UM analogy
2. Usefulness of analogy
3. Conclusion Shows little understanding of the UM analogy, failing to identify specific strengths or limitations
Does not address the value or usefulness of the UM analogy
Fails to provide a conclusive analysis on UM as tool for engineering analysis Shows limited understanding of UM analogy, identifying only basic strengths or limitations
Makes only generic statements about the usefulness of the UM analogy
Arrives at conclusion, but unbacked by thoughtful analysis Demonstrates understanding of UM analogy, identifying most key limits or strengths
Compares the city as organism to city as ecosystem to help flesh out the usefulness of the analogy
Argues conclusively for value or lack of value in UM as a tool for engineering analysis Demonstrates strong understanding of UM analogy; points out how specific gaps in analogy lead to limitations
Makes arguments about the usefulness & difference of the two analogies by referring to the just completed analysis
Conclusive analysis of UM that is thoughtful, focused, and convincing
Assignment Constraints: ?12 point font ? 1.5 spacing ? 1? margins ? 5 pages (excl. figures, references, etc.) ? Documentation (citation and list of references) done properly ? Appropriate sources used
Our Service Charter
Excellent Quality / 100% Plagiarism-FreeWe employ a number of measures to ensure top quality essays. The papers go through a system of quality control prior to delivery. We run plagiarism checks on each paper to ensure that they will be 100% plagiarism-free. So, only clean copies hit customers’ emails. We also never resell the papers completed by our writers. So, once it is checked using a plagiarism checker, the paper will be unique. Speaking of the academic writing standards, we will stick to the assignment brief given by the customer and assign the perfect writer. By saying “the perfect writer” we mean the one having an academic degree in the customer’s study field and positive feedback from other customers.
Free RevisionsWe keep the quality bar of all papers high. But in case you need some extra brilliance to the paper, here’s what to do. First of all, you can choose a top writer. It means that we will assign an expert with a degree in your subject. And secondly, you can rely on our editing services. Our editors will revise your papers, checking whether or not they comply with high standards of academic writing. In addition, editing entails adjusting content if it’s off the topic, adding more sources, refining the language style, and making sure the referencing style is followed.
Confidentiality / 100% No DisclosureWe make sure that clients’ personal data remains confidential and is not exploited for any purposes beyond those related to our services. We only ask you to provide us with the information that is required to produce the paper according to your writing needs. Please note that the payment info is protected as well. Feel free to refer to the support team for more information about our payment methods. The fact that you used our service is kept secret due to the advanced security standards. So, you can be sure that no one will find out that you got a paper from our writing service.
Money Back GuaranteeIf the writer doesn’t address all the questions on your assignment brief or the delivered paper appears to be off the topic, you can ask for a refund. Or, if it is applicable, you can opt in for free revision within 14-30 days, depending on your paper’s length. The revision or refund request should be sent within 14 days after delivery. The customer gets 100% money-back in case they haven't downloaded the paper. All approved refunds will be returned to the customer’s credit card or Bonus Balance in a form of store credit. Take a note that we will send an extra compensation if the customers goes with a store credit.
24/7 Customer SupportWe have a support team working 24/7 ready to give your issue concerning the order their immediate attention. If you have any questions about the ordering process, communication with the writer, payment options, feel free to join live chat. Be sure to get a fast response. They can also give you the exact price quote, taking into account the timing, desired academic level of the paper, and the number of pages.