Final report was completed and sent to Professor Mark Johnson for review. The final report included:

• Cover page
• Table of contents and table of figures
• Executive summary
• Introduction of problems addressed in the report
• Reporting of findings
• Summary of recommendations
• Conclusion
• References

A pdf version of the final report can be accessed using following link: ENG301_BrianWang_FinalReport

To: Andree Coschizza, ENGL301 Student
From: Brian Wang, ENGL 301 student
Date: December 8, 2019
Subject: Formal report draft peer-review of “Suggestions for an Improved Recycling/Waste Reduction Program at UBC’s University Village Food Court”

Dear Andree,

I have read your final report draft and am really impressed by the research you have conducted. I have included below my initial thought as well as specific comment related to each section of your proposal.

Overall Impression: Overall a very strong and extensive report on the current recycling situation in UVFC, the primary data is effectively presented in the form of a pie chart or a bar graph. Interpretation of findings is sound and easy to understand. Solution proposed is logical and need to be implemented in this time of change. Great execution! Several minor grammar and formatting corrections can be made, but overall a very strong proposal.

Below are specific comments for each section:

Title Page: Simple clean layout with title and reader information presented. It would be nice to include your name, student number and course code

Table of Contents: easy to understand layout with main headings, subheadings and page numbers correctly labelled

Introduction – background: 

• great range of background information to provide context as to why UVFC needs to implement recycling program.
• Consider adding “the University of British Columbia (UBC)” to the first sentence to start the abbreviation and are there citations available for UBC unveiling the Zero Waste Food Ware Strategy?
• A very convincing purpose paragraph to show the need and the outline for the rest of the report, great job.

Introduction – scope of report: clear scope with interesting the wide ranging guiding questions for the report.

Introduction – method of inquiry: method of investigation for the report is clear and properly chosen.

Introduction – description of findings and conclusion: interesting placement of this paragraph/section. It stays with the flow of the report but wouldn’t this information be conveyed in the abstract?

Collected data – recycling UVFA waste: 

• problem clearly presented with a picture evidence.
• Pie chart demonstrated the demographic and frequency of on-site consumption extremely effectively.
• Please fix the display as the x-axis variables are only partially displayed on the bar graph.
• Interpretations are detailed and explaining why 4-bin system is not needed is well described.
• Very interesting to read that the rest of the university village already have recycling program in place but the food court is not utilizing this infrastructure.

Collected data – reducing UVFA waste:

• Clear statement of problem but it would be nice to provide an in text definition of “degradation rate”.
• The investigation into alternative containers is great by presenting how other organizations approach to same problem.
• Great proposal for extra cost on the customer end to offset the higher cost of compostable container.
• Interpretation of findings is clear and easy to understand. Solution proposed is interesting and should be looked into.

Conclusion: conclusion of findings and summary of proposed solution is clear and easy to read. Great usage of list to break down and explain the two-part recommendation.

Citation and Appendix: year of publication might be necessary for the MLA/APA format citation.

Below are comments on the overall document

Content: Your report has a clearly stated problem and recommended a solution that is attainable. I find the the introduction and the body paragraphs extremely informative and laid out the problem precisely. However, I think the second recommendation in the conclusion could be elaborated upon. It will be hard to foresee the specifics but maybe a ball-park number of the loan required would give the reader a sense of the scale.

Organization: The report is well-organized with the essential components of a technical report. The flow of the report, presentation of finding leading to conclusion is smooth and well executed. However, indentation in the first sentence of a paragraph stopped and reoccur inconsistently after Collected data – recycling UVFA waste – interpretation of findings. I would recommend sticking to indenting first sentence of first paragraph in the section (as shown in the textbook) or indent all first sentences of all paragraphs. No gaps in information and the organization is clear and effective.

Style, Grammar, and Tone: Language is clear, concise, and easy to understand. Professional tone and minimal grammar mistakes spotted, please see below for specific corrections:

Intro, Paragraph 1: the University of British Columbia (UBC)

Intro, Paragraph 2: Word choice using effect instead of affect in “(which comes into affect in 2020).”

Intro, Paragraph 3: delete “then” in “The purpose of this report is to then make suggestions…”

Intro, brief descriptions: “acknowledges” instead “concludes by acknowledging”. “are” instead of “Included in the report are recommendations…”

Design: The graphics are well-designed and correctly labeled. As mentioned before, the choice of representation of data is appropriate and efficient.

Comments and Recommendations: I recommend including a mixture of method to present your figures. Mixing in text reference (ex. “For example as seen in figure 5”) with the current bracket citation but omit “see” (Figure 5) instead of (see fig. 5).

I enjoyed reading your proposal and can see the large amount of work you have put into this report. With some editing this will be a very helpful report for the UDL Community Advisory Council. I hope you find my feedback helpful and if you have any questions please let me know by email (brian.wang@alumni.ubc.ca).

Here is the commented word document: 301-Andree-Coschizza-Formal-Report-Draft-PeerReviewed

Link to Andree’s proposal: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99a-2019wa/2019/12/05/formal-report-draft-3/

MEMORANDUM

To: Team BEAD, English 301 Writing Group

From: Brian Wang, ENGL 301 Student

Date: December 12, 2019

Subject: Peer Reviewed Diane’s Job Application Package

Dear Diane,

Thank you for sharing your application package with me and below are some of my thoughts. My overall impression is that you have clearly demonstrated your strengths. As the application stated “personality counts more than your grade point average!”, I definitely felt your personality coming through the pages. I do feel however the cover letter can be further developed to showcase your takeaways from your past experience. Overall great job Diane and I wish you best of luck! I have included below specific comments for each section of your job application package and also overall comments regarding your language and organization.

Overall I am very impressed by your past achievements and academic aspiration. I hope the best for you and wishing you best of luck in any of your future endeavours. I hope you find my feedback helpful and if you have any questions please let me know by email (brian.wang@alumni.ubc.ca). Also please keep me updated, whenever you need a second opinion feel free to reach out!

URL to Diane’s Job application post: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99a-2019wa/2019/12/12/4-1-application-package-first-draft/

Letter #1 Complaint letter to Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC)

Brian Wang

2205 Lower Mall

Vancouver, BC V6T1Z4

November 26, 2019

Customer Service Department

Mountain Equipment Co-op

130 W Broadway

Vancouver, BC V5Y1P3

Attention: Exchange and Returns

First of all, I would like to acknowledge that I have always been satisfied with the quality of MEC merchandise. However, my recent MEC purchase did not live up to my expectation and I am sure it’s an outlier in terms of customer experience. I walked into the MEC’s Broadway store on Wednesday, October 9^th to acquire MEC men’s Boundary Lite Down Jacket in preparation for my weekend trip to Smith Rock State Park. Digital receipt of the purchase can be found under the name “Brian Wang” and phone number “(647)928-0618”.

The issue with this purchase is that the sleeve of the jacket got caught in flames while building the campfire. As my friend recounted, he saw a spark flying out of the firewood and landed on my sleeve that started the fire. Luckily, I was able to quickly blow out the flame and come away uninjured.

However, now I am left with an unusable down jacket that I acquired 2 days before the fire incident. I have two more trips this month that I would like to use the jacket for but am stuck in a tight financial budget for a college student. I was really happy with the quality of the product before it was set on fire, therefore I am wondering if I can receive a replacement. Thank you for your time reading this letter and I hope I can hear back from you soon. I am available via call or text to (647)928-0618 or via email to brian.wang@alumni.ubc.ca.

Regards,

Brian Wang

Letter #2 Bad news adjustment letter from Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC)

Customer Service Department

Mountain Equipment Co-op

130 W Broadway

Vancouver, BC V5Y1P3

Brian Wang

2205 Lower Mall

Vancouver, BC V6T1Z4

November 26, 2019

Dear Brian,

We appreciate your kind words and thank you for your continued support for the Mountain Equipment Co-op. We are sorry to hear about your negative experience with our MEC men’s Boundary Lite Down Jacket. Please note, regarding your purchased item, that due to the synthetic nature of the down used in the Boundary Lite jacket, it makes the insulation extremely flammable.

Unfortunately, due to the nature of the damage to the product, we are unable to offer you an exchange. However, we can offer you 10% off on your next MEC order online or in-store. Please see the physical coupon attached to this letter.

Thank you again for being in touch with us. We appreciate your support and will continue to serve Canadians with high quality gear for their adventures.

Sincerely Yours,

Tom Hardley

Customer Service Representative

Enclosure: 10% off coupon

Word file of the two letters with proper formatting: ENG301_BrianWang_BusinessLetter

To: Dr. Erika Paterson

From: Brian Wang

Date: October 9, 2019

Subject: Proposal for Characterizing Water Use During Crop Processing at UBC Farm

Introduction 

According to the United Nations World Water Development Report in 2015, The agricultural sector accounts for 70% of all freshwater withdrawals globally. Sustainable and efficient water use strategies are becoming an increasingly demanding research topic, attempting to limit agriculture’s water footprint. In order to observe the effect of water use reduction strategies, a water innovations node for UBC’s Campus as a Living Laboratory initiative is set up at UBC Farm.

UBC Farm water innovation node is installed and has been running since June 2019. This node consists of a continuously expanding network of sensors measuring climate, canopy microclimate, soil water content, irrigation water use, and finally, water use at the Harvest Hut where all the crop processing happens. 2019 is the pilot year of the project, so there are many problems to be addressed. Resolving these problems will be essential in ensuring the node is providing accurate data that reflect the complex dynamics of water demand and supply at UBC Farm.

Statement of Problem 

The biggest problem thus far is the inability to characterize water use during the crop processing phase. Crop processing is a significant black box process for the sensors network as farm operation in washing crops is highly variable. A black box process is a term used to identify systems where its input and output are known, but the system’s internal structure is unknown. Crop processing is a black box process because water flow sensors can identify how much water is being used, but exactly what crop it is used for is unknown to the network. This problem is highly variable because the crop being washed at a station depends on the bi-weekly harvest.

Proposed Solution 

Multiple solutions are needed to address the two-part problem. The first part of the problem is understanding the usage of the water after leaving the tap. This help answer questions such as “what is the water used for?”. A possible solution for this is to understand the washing processes at the farm. To do this, I would investigate by volunteering to be a part of the washing team for two harvests to familiarize myself with their operation.

The second part of the problem is addressing the human variability in the washing process. This help answer questions such as “is there a pattern in how farmers wash their crops?”. I propose to solve this problem by having multiple meetings with the farm’s processing manager Matt Delumpa. By talking to Mr. Delumpa, I will look into a systematic approach in identifyingvwhere crops are normally washed. Then arrive at a possible solution (i.e. dividing washing area into zones) that works for both the researcher and the farmer.

 Scope 

The purpose of this study is to arrive at a sampling methodology that can accurately reflect the water used in the processing stage for each crop being harvested at UBC Farm. To arrive at this conclusion, I will follow the questions outlined below.

1. What is Mr. Delumpa’s workflow during each harvest from receiving the crop to finished processing? How is water being used in each stage?
2. How do washing procedure differ between crops? Can crops be grouped by their similarity in washing protocol?
3. Is the current data coverage sufficient to observe water being used in each of these stages or does it need to be expanded?

Methods 

This study will be carried out by interviewing UBC Farm processing manager Matt Delumpa and consulting with my project supervisor Professor Mark Johnson. Professor Johnson leads an Ecohydrology group that is part of the UBC Institute of Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, and he is also the lead principal investigator of this project. Further on-site observations will also be made through being a part of the washing process to observe washing methods employed by the farm. Based on the observations, adjustments to the current data collection system will be ongoing and continuously changing until both parties are satisfied with the new workflow. An example of an adjustment would be addition of sensors or cameras.

My Qualifications 

I have been involved in this project since the very beginning at the start of 2019. I have assisted in the building of the sensors and our lab-made circuit boards for data collection. I was also involved in the testing and the deployment of the nodes at UBC Farm, so I am familiar with the existing sensor framework and shortcomings of the system being used. I believe my technical skill to work with the sensors and my social skills to work with the farmers can assist in solving the problem of data characterization in a complex and variable human environment.

Conclusion 

Much work needs to be done for UBC Farm water innovation node to be fully functional. This is a critical step in the quality control of water use data from the node. Uncertainty needs to be limited before using the data for research purposes. It is after this step that a lifecycle analysis of the water footprint for each crop can be performed. This will inevitably lead to exciting research on water conservation strategies in an agricultural setting to ensure long-term water resource availability.

MEMORANDUM

To: Dr. Erika Paterson, Instructor of English 301

From: Brian Wang, ENGL 301 Student

Date: November 13th, 2019

Subject: Memo re: progress report for characterizing water use during crop processing at UBC Farm

Intended Audience:

The intended audience for this report is Dr. Mark Johnson whom is the principle investigator of the UBC Farm water innovation node project, a part of the overall UBC Campus as a Living Lab Initiative. He is in charge of overseeing the project challenges and approving implementations to be performed.

Purpose of report:

This report will propose solutions to address the measurement variability problem being faced by the project. The measurement variability exists in the crop processing phase where it is unknown what the water is being used for. This is resulted in two forms, first is the spatial variability of where the crop is being washed. The second is in the form of human variability where crop are being washed inconsistently in order to adapt to maximize processing efficiency.

Significance of report:

This quality control and quality assurance (QA/QC) report will address measurement variability issues that needs to be addressed in order for the UBC Farm water innovation node to be fully functional. The purpose for the water use data is for a lifecycle analysis of the water footprint for each crop being farmed in UBC Farm. Hence this report will help limit the current uncertainties in the data being collected yielding accurate and trustworthy data for the lifecycle analysis. This report will aim to improve the measurement workflow in preparation for a full year of continuous measurement in the upcoming year.

Research plan:

• Determine the workflow for how the crop are washed in the washing facility.
• Collect and show the crop washing workflow as a flowchart.
• Analyze the flowchart and question the sufficiency of the current monitoring system.
• Determine the human variability in the crop washing process
• Interview with UBC Farm processing manager Matt Delumpa
• Based on the meeting, brainstorm possible solutions.

Writing Schedule:

November 16, 2019: Progress report due

November 22, 2019: Summarize volunteering result and present the workflow in a flowchart

November 30, 2019: Summarize interviewing result and present proposed solutions based on meeting findings.

December 4, 2019: Formal report draft due

December 10, 2019: Peer review of formal report draft due

December 19, 2019: Formal report due

Enclosure

Interview questions: ENG301_BrianWang_InterviewQuestions

Formal report outline:ENG301_BrianWang_ReportOutline

The objective for assignment 1:3 is to identify the importance of definitions and tailoring it to the intended audience with the right level of detail.

Term and situation

The term I will be defining is photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). In this recent scenario, I am trying to convey to an engineering physic student with interest in biology the theory behind measuring PAR. The student have high school biology and physics background that can understand how plants perform photosynthesis and knowledge in the electromagnetic spectrum.

Parenthetical definition

Parenthetical definition is used in situation where a quick definition can be provided. For example: Photosynthetically active radiation (sunlight that can be harvested by plants) can vary in intensity throughout the day.

Sentence definition

Photosynthetically active radiation is a fraction of the total incident solar radiation that has a wavelength between 400 nanometer and 700 nanometer, measured in irradiance (W/m^2). Radiation in this range is characterized by its ability to be captured by plants to perform photosynthesis.

Expanded definition

The term photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) can be broken into two physically meaningful parts. Photosynthetically active indicates that the radiation is able to be captured by chlorophyll (cells that can absorb the sunlight) in the plant (Session, 1998). This captured energy will be used by the plant to perform photosynthesis. Radiation in this context is a form of energy that only travels as an electromagnetic wave.

PAR works by providing the energy to be used by the plant to drive the photosynthetic reaction involving water (uptake through the plant’s roots) and carbon dioxide (uptake through the plant’s stomata) to create sugar for the plant.

PAR is not the same as sunlight in the visible spectrum. PAR occupies in a narrower electromagnetic range in the visible spectrum as absorbing radiation above 700nm in wavelength might damage the plant’s biomass, similar to human getting sun burned. Therefore not the entire visible spectrum 300nm to 800nm will need to be measured by the spectral sensor and we can only focus on 400nm to 700nm range.

Figure 1. Image of the PAR range occupancy in the visible section of the electromagnetic spectrum. Courtesy of Jill Whitehead.

Data collected from measuring PAR can be used to calculate varies different metrics such as the theoretical productivity of the ecosystem assuming the plants are not water or nutrition limited (Session, 1998). PAR can also show photosynthetic efficiency when compared with field based photosynthetic measurement (Frouin, 1995).

References

Frouin, Robert, and Rachel T. Pinker. “Estimating photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) at the earth’s surface from satellite observations.” Remote Sensing of Environment 51.1 (1995): 98-107.

Session, V. “Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) Measurements and Their Use in Forest Health Monitoring.” on Air Pollution and Climate Change Effects on Forest Ecosystems (1998): 321.

Whitehead, J. (2019, June 6). Plant morphology and spectrum: How plants respond to light quality. Retrieved from http://pllight.com/plant-morphology-and-spectrum-how-plants-respond-to-light-quality/