 |
| Do what we say, not what you think you should do. |
I have highlighted important parts.
ASSIGNMENT 1 - SHORT REPORT
Write a 500 word report on something to do with environmental decision making that interests you, that will make a contribution to your colleagues' knowledge - we will be sharing the fruits of this work on this Wiki.
You must choose a topic that no-one else has written on. To claim a topic as your own, go to the Assignment 1 Index page, and create a link from the index page to your new page, on which you are going to write.
When you create the page, include on the page
• a title,
• your name, and
• a brief description of what you are going to write about.
Your reports must be:
• concise,
• include links to high quality resources available online, including some peer reviewed journal articles (use links for these that you used to find them through the Macquarie University Library website, so that your fellow students can get to them easily),
• be written, as best you can, in the light of the Assessment Standards.
*** You might have noticed I highlighted report twice...***
Also, you don't have to read the assignment, but here it is:
Marine Protection Areas are scattered along the coast of Australia. They provide safe environments for marine ecosystems to recover and survive from exploitation and danger. I will define, describe, and list issues and solutions in the Australian context.
Definition
“...any area of intertidal or sub-tidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment” (Kelleher, 1999).
Australia is in the middle of a battle between scientific determinism and socio-economic influence. My report will focus on this predicament using Marine Protection Areas (MPA) as a case study.
Brief
According to Grafton et al (2011) and Voyer et al (2012) MPAs are the cornerstone of marine biodiversity conservation policies. They are a mixture of recreation and multi-use areas, and most controversially, no take areas – where marine creature harvesting is illegal.
During the 2010 Convention on Biological Diversity 193 countries, including Australia, signed on to implement 10% MPAs by 2020. Australia is not on track to meet this target (Voyer et al, 2012). There is no simple reason to why this is.
Science
Grafton et al (2011) provides studies that demonstrate MPAs located in fishery areas increase fish stock population and average size. Threatened, endangered and rare marine species are also conserved (Grafton et al, 2011).
Human and Davies (2010) list a number of knowledge gaps: Endangered/threatened habitats & species; biodiversity; ecological/oceanographic; fisheries/aquaculture.
Issues & Solutions
1. Failure to account for socio-economic factors in consultation stage
Fishery dependent communities often have high adaptive vulnerability; it’s recommended that planners and managers conduct Social Impact Assessments (SIA). There is a direct link between MPA failure and socio-economic status (Voyer et al, 2012). Establishing a middle ground between science and socio-economic values is one recommendation.
2. Location of MPA
All MPAs have site specific significance and different circumstances which can be dependent on climate, season, social and recreational activities. MPAs in high use areas are prone to failure (Voyer et al, 2012). Flexible policies, multiple MPA zones and the measurement of success should be reviewed on an individual basis.
3. Stakeholder input
Despite a large body of evidence arguing that a wide spread acceptance of MPAs exists, the catch cry of some stakeholders is there is a lack of consultation (Voyer et al, 2012). All MPAs in Australia have involved local communities and stakeholders extensively in the consultation stage. Research needs to be conducted into the process of stakeholder selection (Voyer et al, 2012 and Human & Davies, 2010).
Stakeholders have bias, vested interests, and often some political agenda during the consultation process, which creates barriers to, and division among, stakeholders during consultation (Human & Davies, 2010). Human & Davies (2010) argue this is due mainly to a lack of scientific knowledge among stakeholders.
4. Political intervention
While the previous state government established MPAs along the NSW coast, the current state government removed them and introduced a five year moratorium on MPAs (Voyer et al, 2012). Also, the management of MPAs has transferred from the Environmental to Primary Industry Portfolio (Voyer et al, 2012). The power of political will, despite representing the minority, cannot be ignored (Voyer et al, 2012).
References
Grafton, R, Akter, S, Kompas, T, 2011, ‘A Policy-enabling framework for the ex-ante evaluation of marine protected areas’, Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 54, pp. 478-487.
Human, B, Davies, A, 2010, ‘Stakeholder consultation during the planning phase of scientific programs’,Marine Policy, vol. 34, 645-654.
Kelleher, G, 1999, ‘Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas’, World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN Gland, Switzerland.
Voyer, M, Gladstone, W, Goodall, H, 2012, ‘Methods of social assessment in Marine Protected Area planning: Is public participation enough?’, Marine Policy, vol. 36, pp. 432-439.
I was given a mark of 10/20. The marker called it a generous pass minus because it had no clear and coherent argument. The marker made no comments on the hard copy, only stapling a marking sheet to it. They also couldn't find the link to my assignment on the wiki page, which had my name and the assignment title on it.
kurt.adams@students.mq.edu.au:
I picked up my assignment 1 today, I didn't go so well and would like to know more. Could I get some more comments about how my clarity was only worth 2 marks?
Also, you don't have to read the assignment, but here it is:
Marine Protection Areas are scattered along the coast of Australia. They provide safe environments for marine ecosystems to recover and survive from exploitation and danger. I will define, describe, and list issues and solutions in the Australian context.
Definition
“...any area of intertidal or sub-tidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment” (Kelleher, 1999).
Australia is in the middle of a battle between scientific determinism and socio-economic influence. My report will focus on this predicament using Marine Protection Areas (MPA) as a case study.
Brief
According to Grafton et al (2011) and Voyer et al (2012) MPAs are the cornerstone of marine biodiversity conservation policies. They are a mixture of recreation and multi-use areas, and most controversially, no take areas – where marine creature harvesting is illegal.
During the 2010 Convention on Biological Diversity 193 countries, including Australia, signed on to implement 10% MPAs by 2020. Australia is not on track to meet this target (Voyer et al, 2012). There is no simple reason to why this is.
Science
Grafton et al (2011) provides studies that demonstrate MPAs located in fishery areas increase fish stock population and average size. Threatened, endangered and rare marine species are also conserved (Grafton et al, 2011).
Human and Davies (2010) list a number of knowledge gaps: Endangered/threatened habitats & species; biodiversity; ecological/oceanographic; fisheries/aquaculture.
Issues & Solutions
1. Failure to account for socio-economic factors in consultation stage
Fishery dependent communities often have high adaptive vulnerability; it’s recommended that planners and managers conduct Social Impact Assessments (SIA). There is a direct link between MPA failure and socio-economic status (Voyer et al, 2012). Establishing a middle ground between science and socio-economic values is one recommendation.
2. Location of MPA
All MPAs have site specific significance and different circumstances which can be dependent on climate, season, social and recreational activities. MPAs in high use areas are prone to failure (Voyer et al, 2012). Flexible policies, multiple MPA zones and the measurement of success should be reviewed on an individual basis.
3. Stakeholder input
Despite a large body of evidence arguing that a wide spread acceptance of MPAs exists, the catch cry of some stakeholders is there is a lack of consultation (Voyer et al, 2012). All MPAs in Australia have involved local communities and stakeholders extensively in the consultation stage. Research needs to be conducted into the process of stakeholder selection (Voyer et al, 2012 and Human & Davies, 2010).
Stakeholders have bias, vested interests, and often some political agenda during the consultation process, which creates barriers to, and division among, stakeholders during consultation (Human & Davies, 2010). Human & Davies (2010) argue this is due mainly to a lack of scientific knowledge among stakeholders.
4. Political intervention
While the previous state government established MPAs along the NSW coast, the current state government removed them and introduced a five year moratorium on MPAs (Voyer et al, 2012). Also, the management of MPAs has transferred from the Environmental to Primary Industry Portfolio (Voyer et al, 2012). The power of political will, despite representing the minority, cannot be ignored (Voyer et al, 2012).
References
Grafton, R, Akter, S, Kompas, T, 2011, ‘A Policy-enabling framework for the ex-ante evaluation of marine protected areas’, Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 54, pp. 478-487.
Human, B, Davies, A, 2010, ‘Stakeholder consultation during the planning phase of scientific programs’,Marine Policy, vol. 34, 645-654.
Kelleher, G, 1999, ‘Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas’, World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN Gland, Switzerland.
Voyer, M, Gladstone, W, Goodall, H, 2012, ‘Methods of social assessment in Marine Protected Area planning: Is public participation enough?’, Marine Policy, vol. 36, pp. 432-439.
I was given a mark of 10/20. The marker called it a generous pass minus because it had no clear and coherent argument. The marker made no comments on the hard copy, only stapling a marking sheet to it. They also couldn't find the link to my assignment on the wiki page, which had my name and the assignment title on it.
kurt.adams@students.mq.edu.au:
I picked up my assignment 1 today, I didn't go so well and would like to know more. Could I get some more comments about how my clarity was only worth 2 marks?
Here is the link to my wiki you couldn't find <LINK TO WIKI>
Response:
Can you bring it to lecture today?
kurt.adams@students.mq.edu.au:
I can't attend Friday lectures. I sent you a link to the report in the previous email.
Response:
I scored you low points under clarity, argument and originality because you're not providing some of the basic elements of a written assignment. There is no clear introduction that defines the topic and places it in the context of the issues discussed in the unit, no clear argument, and no clear conclusion. What's missing is a clear and coherent argument that reflects your own independent thought on the topic, rather than just listing a set of statements. What is the significance of the different statements you presented? Why is it relevant or important in the context of environmental decision making?
***Yellow highlighting reflects my answer to markers statement.***
kurt.adams@students.mq.edu.au:
I appreciate your time, thanks!
I don't mind the mark, so much as my interpretation of the assignment. I followed this:
A report differs from an essay in that a report:
Response:
Can you bring it to lecture today?
kurt.adams@students.mq.edu.au:
I can't attend Friday lectures. I sent you a link to the report in the previous email.
Response:
I scored you low points under clarity, argument and originality because you're not providing some of the basic elements of a written assignment. There is no clear introduction that defines the topic and places it in the context of the issues discussed in the unit, no clear argument, and no clear conclusion. What's missing is a clear and coherent argument that reflects your own independent thought on the topic, rather than just listing a set of statements. What is the significance of the different statements you presented? Why is it relevant or important in the context of environmental decision making?
***Yellow highlighting reflects my answer to markers statement.***
kurt.adams@students.mq.edu.au:
I appreciate your time, thanks!
I don't mind the mark, so much as my interpretation of the assignment. I followed this:
A report differs from an essay in that a report:
*presents information, not an argument <---**
*is meant to be scanned quickly by the reader
*uses numbered headings and sub-headings <---**
*uses short, concise paragraphs and dot-points where applicable <---**
*uses graphics wherever possible (tables, graphs, illustrations)
*may need an abstract (sometimes called an executive summary) <---**
*does not always need references and bibliography
*is often followed by recommendations and/or appendices
*is meant to be scanned quickly by the reader
*uses numbered headings and sub-headings <---**
*uses short, concise paragraphs and dot-points where applicable <---**
*uses graphics wherever possible (tables, graphs, illustrations)
*may need an abstract (sometimes called an executive summary) <---**
*does not always need references and bibliography
*is often followed by recommendations and/or appendices
because it was a 500 word short report, and not an essay. Did I miss something or interpret it wrongly?
Response:
The assessment standards are documented in the unit guide. We also provided the marking sheet prior to the assignment due date. Please make sure to refer to these, rather than assessment standards or definitions used elsewhere.
***Let me break it down for the people playing at home:***
I asked for a 500 word report, but wanted you to write an essay. Fucking students... can't they read assessment standards...
ASSESSMENT STANDARDS
For a grade of High Distinction (>= 85%)
• use and synthesis of a variety of high quality sources not mentioned in class or on reading
lists;
• considered use of dictionary and technical terms, diagrams and/or other sources to define
and set the topic in context;
• incisive and decisive specification of the key issues;
• prioritisation and exposition of the key issues in a clear and logical sequence;
• relevant contrary arguments are identified and effectively dealt with;
• discussion forms a sound basis for clear, justified and comprehensive recommendations and
conclusions;
• independence of thought and obvious originality;
• demonstrated ability to weigh arguments and form clear, considered personal viewpoints;
• proficient use of the English language;
• references presented at ‘publishable’ standard.
For a grade of Pass (50-64%)
• limited use and synthesis of good quality sources;
• use of dictionary or vernacular definitions in an attempt to identify and set the topic in
context;
• some awareness of the key issues;
• some attempt to order the argument, but flaws in logical discipline;
• few contrary arguments raised and little appreciation of their significance or resolution;
• a generally clear statement of conclusions and recommendations;
• little independent thought and minimal originality;
• little weighing of argument and lack of clarity in personal viewpoints;
• passable use of the English language;
• some errors of omission or detail in presentation of references.
***My key issues weren't clear or logical in order.***
***My recommendations were just statements.***
***My report had no argument.***
***My report did not weigh opposing arguments.***
***My report did not display proficient use of the English language.***
I was gonna write an essay saying how much I hate uni. But, then I had a shower and now I'm not mad.
When will I learn to stop fighting the system, and just play the game?
When will u learn that ur opinions will only backfire and cause u to die
ReplyDeleteWhen I die, I want it to be in an explosion, and I want to do a crazy laugh like the predator
ReplyDeleteThat really sucks Kurt! I had the same thing happen to me, but with a positive outcome. Don't want to rub your nose in it, just wanted to say that I share your pain. Maybe I'm just a good brown-noser... which is not actually a good thing. Take it higher!!
ReplyDelete