1. Describe Stakeholders
1.1. Add Client(s)
1.2. Add Decision Maker(s)
1.3. Add Professional(s)
1.4. Add Witness(es)
2. Describe Terminology
2.1. carbon footprint model ...
2.1.1. "All the above estimations assumed that only presenters who can reach the conference venue in less than 5 h on the street network would choose not to fly."
2.1.2. "Based on the 2017 origindestination matrix, a distance minimising location is calculated us ing an iterative “median centre” algorithm (see Burt, Barber 1996). Figure 2 illustrates the dif ferent median centres for different samples of Lhe parLicipanLs list. Despite Lhe hiPTh nNmber of attendants from Portugal, the median centre for all participants is located in the northeast of France, aboNt IOO km north of Dijon."
2.1.2.1. "'For the Lisbon venNe, the EN_lidean distances between all 977 origindestination pairs were calculated using the Near function (geodesic) in ArcGIS, totalling 5.89 million km return. The DEFRA (2016) carbon conversion factors were Nsed to `transíaLe these distances Lo carbon emissions'. AccordinPT to these Ğ sumptions, the total carbon impact of the 2017 AESOP conference eqNals IO52 metric tons of COz 2 _. We assNmed parLicipants opLed for Lrain travel for disLanceš of Np_to 75o km_"
3. Set Problem Statement
3.1. Conference-based carbon footprint
3.1.1. "Scholars across diverse disciplines are beginning to question whether frequent academic fling is necessary, sustainable, and even ethical (see for example Bows-Larkin 2015, Nevins 2014; Rosen 2017; Wilde 2015)."
3.1.1.1. necessary
3.1.1.1.1. "The importance of engagement in transnational networks is reflected in the ‘internationalization’ -discourses of academic institutions, in which ‘bra in circulation’ is considered vital for early-career s cientists and therefore stimulated by funding agenc ies (Ackers 2008). In doing so, mobility is implicitly stimulated and there is hardly any room to debate i ts environmentally alarming character (Glover et al., 2017)."
3.1.1.1.2. "Reducing flying does not equate to scholarly disengagement, and I am motivated to explore the extent to which new technologies may facilitate my international engagement in academic discourse and networking in alternative ways"
3.1.1.2. sustainable
3.1.1.2.1. "It thus seems that “the tool (confere nce) adopted to share knowledge for improving human wellbeing is actually jeopardizing human wellbeing due to the environmental impact it causes” (Orsi, 2012, 462)."
3.1.1.2.2. "The huge environmental impact of academic conferences has been addressed before (see for example Høyer and Naess, 2001; Hischier and Hilty, 2002; Hall, 2007; Lester, 2007; Burke, 2010; Lassen , 2010; Spinellis and Louridas, 2013; Hopkins et al., 2015). Travel to and from these meetings accounts for the largest share of conference-related carbon emis sions (Hischier and Hilty, 2002; Bossdorf et al., 2010; Orsi, 2012; Achten et al., 2013)."
3.1.1.2.3. "Aircraft emissions are disproportionately problematic for climate change, with around 2.7 times the warming impact of other emissions, because they are emitted at altitude (ICAO 2014a ). According to many leading climate scientists, flying therefore needs to be urgently reduced if global warming is to remain within two degrees Celsius of pre-industrial levels (Becken & Mackey 2017; ICAO 2010; Rogelj et al. 2016). That, in turn, is essential if cat- astrophic climate change is to be avoided (UNFCCC 2016)."
3.1.1.3. ethical
3.1.1.3.1. "On the other hand, they also criticise the fact that a high carbon footprint from flying to conferences significantly reduces climate researchers per - ceived credibility among the general audience (Attari et al. 2016 ). Some studies esti- mated the carbon footprint of scientific conferences in total (Desiere 2016 ; Kuone 2015 ), per attendee, or the average emissions for presenting a single scientific paper (Spinellis and Louridas 2013 ). "
3.1.1.3.2. "We believe this negation of the environmental ‘curse’ of our hypermobility obstructs immediate and cle ar- cut actions to reduce our carbon footprint, and ham pers a shift towards more sustainable academic meet ing practices in the long run"
3.1.2. "We conclude with the contention that in particular spatial planning and research organisations dealing with sustainability issues could translate these concerns more explicitly through their decisions on conference format and location."
3.1.2.1. " we believe that conference committees could aim for emission minimis ing and spatially balanced conference locations in the long term by pursuing a more active strategy."
4. Assess Problem as Difficulties
4.1. Ascertain Consequences
4.2. Ascertain Causes
4.2.1. Lack of a conceptual framework
4.2.1.1. Supporting Evidences?
4.2.2. Lack of penalty
4.2.2.1. Supporting Evidences?
4.2.3. Lack of awareness
4.2.3.1. Supporting Evidences?
4.2.3.1.1. Monitor and reduce. I will keep track of the carbon emissions of my professional activities, and set personal objectives to reduce them in line with or larger than my country’s carbon emissions commitments (see ’Set your targets below).
4.2.3.1.2. change.org. Petition that calls for universities and professional academic bodies globally to take specific action to reduce academic flying; Wilde 2015)."
4.2.3.1.3. conclude:. measuring and reporting on the carbon emissions generated by conference travel and other flying, developing guidelines for academic travel that take into account its environmental impact, and that actively discourage inveterate, immoderate flying, establishing benchmarks for reducing"
4.2.4. Distant venues
4.2.4.1. Supporting Evidences?
4.2.5. Unattractive topic
4.2.5.1. Supporting Evidences?
4.2.5.1.1. "lf-reflexivity and responsibili zation are not very attractive research topics (see also Lassen, 2006) and adequate data sources on (bu siness) air travel are very scarce. But obviously, there's more to it; the mere thought of having to r educe our trips makes us uncomfortable already."
5. Assess Problem as Solutions
5.1. Alleviate Consequences
5.2. Lessen Causes
5.2.1. No longer Lack of a conceptual framework
5.2.1.1. Who else addresses it?
5.2.1.1.1. "A rotatinPT mNl- tivenue format with centralised secondary ven Nes seems most promisinPT in deliverinPT the most sNstainable oNLcomes."
5.2.2. No longer Lack of penalty
5.2.2.1. Who else addresses it?
5.2.2.1.1. personal level
5.2.2.1.2. community level
5.2.3. No longer Lack of awareness
5.2.3.1. Who else addresses it?
5.2.3.1.1. When done wrong, an awareness campaign carries four specific risks: it might lead to no action; It might reach the wrong audience; it might create harm; and it could generate a backlash. We will examine each of these risks in turn.
5.2.4. No longer Distant venues
5.2.4.1. Who else addresses it?
5.2.4.1.1. "It nonetheless gives an idea of the likely scale of environmëntal (and arguably economic) benefits that could be expected from choosing conference locations based on a distanceminimising rationale."
5.2.5. No longer Unattractive topic
5.2.5.1. Click icon to address it
6. Design Problem Template
6.1. Improve
6.1.1. Lack of awareness of conference-based footprint footprint ...
6.2. By
6.3. That satisfies
6.4. In order to help
7. Describe Practice
7.1. Conference Organization
7.1.1. "Over the last decades, academic con ferences have unsurprisingly grown strongly in number and size (Lester 2007), a trend that has been supported by the expansion of universities and diffrentiation of disciplines, but also by the relative reduction of the costs and effort to participate.
7.1.1.1. "When it comes to location decisions, several options are available. For example, there may be a deliberate focus on geographical proxim ity between the conference venue and (pote Lial) participants, resNltinPT in more "central" conference locations. Alternatively, in some cases, a secluded location or additional touris perlp erally" locaLed areas may be expliciLly desired. Another, arPTNably prevailinPT, loPTic is ad-h based on candidacy and thus involves a fair dose of coincidence."
7.1.1.2. "From a social sustaina bility perspective, international conference or ganisers ideally pay attention to the spatial dis tribution of conferences, since they allow local parLicipanLs to tap into PTlobal knowledPTe net works (Bathelt, Cohendet 2014; Maskell et al. 2006). At the same time, they may PTenerate other positive externalities such as local added value in the hospitality industry (Mistills, Dwyer 1999; Randall, Warf 1996). A concentration of conferences in a few locations would monopo lise these benefits."
7.1.1.3. "From an environmental sustainability point of view, however, the climate impact of intional conference mobility is increasingly recognised as problematic and has recently ewceived much scholarly attention (Høyer, Næss 2001; Hischier, Hilty 2002; PonetteGonzález Byrnes 2011; Stroud, Feeley 2015; Glover et al. 2017; Caset et al. 2018)."
7.1.1.3.1. Flying is the single most climate-polluting activity an ordinary person can do: even a single flight can dramatically increase your carbon footprint. Unless we see some major technological breakthroughs, people will ultimately have to fly less to reduce carbon emissions.
8. Describe Problematic Phenomena
8.1. Descriptive Questions
8.1.1. What is "Lack of awareness of conference-based footprint footprint ..." like?
8.1.2. What are its properties?
8.1.3. How can it be categorized?
8.1.4. How can we measure it?
8.1.5. What is its purpose?
8.1.6. What are its components?
8.1.7. How do the components relate to one another?
8.1.8. What are all the types of "Lack of awareness of conference-based footprint footprint ..."?
8.1.9. How does "Lack of awareness of conference-based footprint footprint ..." differ from similar problems?
8.2. Occurrence Questions
8.2.1. How often does "Lack of awareness of conference-based footprint footprint ..." occur?
8.2.2. What is an average amount of "Lack of awareness of conference-based footprint footprint ..."?
8.2.3. How does "Lack of awareness of conference-based footprint footprint ..." normally work?
8.2.4. What is the process by which "Lack of awareness of conference-based footprint footprint ..." happens?
8.2.5. In what sequence do the events of "Lack of awareness of conference-based footprint footprint ..." occur?
8.2.6. What are the steps "Lack of awareness of conference-based footprint footprint ..." goes through as it evolves?
9. Requirements
9.1. Functional Requirements
9.1.1. No longer Lack of a conceptual framework
9.1.1.1. How shall you attain it?
9.1.2. No longer Lack of penalty
9.1.2.1. How shall you attain it?
9.1.3. No longer Lack of awareness
9.1.3.1. How shall you attain it?
9.1.4. No longer Distant venues
9.1.4.1. How shall you attain it?
9.2. Non-functional Requirements
9.2.1. Structural
9.2.1.1. Coherence
9.2.1.2. Consistency
9.2.1.3. Modularity
9.2.1.4. Conciseness
9.2.2. Usage
9.2.2.1. Usability
9.2.2.2. Comprehensibility
9.2.2.3. Learnability
9.2.2.4. Customisability
9.2.2.5. Suitability
9.2.2.6. Accessibility
9.2.2.7. Elegance
9.2.2.8. Fun
9.2.2.9. Traceability
9.2.3. Management
9.2.3.1. Maintainability
9.2.3.2. Flexibility
9.2.3.3. Accountability
9.2.4. Environmental
9.2.4.1. Expresiveness
9.2.4.2. Correctness
9.2.4.3. Generality
9.2.4.4. Interoperability
9.2.4.5. Autonomy
9.2.4.6. Proximity
9.2.4.7. Completeness
9.2.4.8. Effectiveness
9.2.4.9. Efficiency
9.2.4.10. Robustness
9.2.4.11. Resilience