Assignment 2:1 Peer Review for incentivizing the use of electric vehicles on UBC Vancouver

To: Daniel Tsui, Student ENGL 301 Technical Writing UBC
From: Coco Chen, Student ENGL 301 Technical Writing UBC
Date: October 18, 2021
Subject: Review of Your Proposal Assignment 2:1 – Formal Report Proposal

 

Peer Review / Formal Report Proposal: Proposal for reducing carbon emissions by incentivizing the use of electric vehicles on UBC Vancouver Campus

Thank you for submitting a well-written proposal detailing the use of non-electric vehicles on the UBC Vancouver campus and its problems, and proposing ideas to reduce carbon emissions by incentivizing the use of electric vehicles. Please refer to the following reviewed suggestions for further improvements.

 

First Impression:

This is a logical and implementable proposal that is based on an important global consensus: global warming. It clearly identifies the current deficiencies in parking management and hardware facilities on the UBC campus. The proposal is complete, well organized, and written in the required format.

 

Organization/Format

1. The format follows the research proposal layout.
2. The proposal contains an introduction, problem statement, a proposed solution, scope of the research question, methodology, qualifications, and a conclusion.
3. It did an excellent job of presenting all the material required for review.

 

Content

1. The proposal is complete, which covers basic information about what the problem is related to, why it arose, when it arose, and where it occurred.
2. The proposal is accompanied by an email memo.
3. It is better to specify the number of interviews planned in each parking lot in the methodology section.

 

Highlights/Weaknesses

1. This peer review gives attachments to the proposals uploaded in the memo. Although the author said he uploaded the proposal in the team blog in the memo, I did not find it.
2. This proposed problem is not a big issue, but it is a topic that is worthy of studying because it can increase public participation in global environmental protection.
3. The proposal does not specify who is the target of the proposal, and why do they have the right to make laws based on the proposal, if approved.
4. The primary data comes from a sampling of UBC car owners, but the target number of surveys and the method of survey (e.g. questionnaires, interviews) are not specified.
5. In terms of qualifications, the author only indicates his willingness to participate in the survey as a UBC owner, while he does not provide an explanation as to why he is competent to conduct the survey.

 

Suggestions

1. It is recommended to add a question: What kind of car do you currently use？ (whether owners use electric or gas vehicles).
2. Please specify the type of audience this proposal will reach.
3. For qualifications, please emphasize your expertise in making the proposal, why you were able to bring the project to completion, and what kind of academic and professional background can contribute to the investigation.

 

Concluding Comments:

In summary, the proposal has sound logic and is an important investigation that will enhance UBC’s environmental sustainability. However, the description of the target people, the refinement of the survey approach, and the explanation of the individual qualifications in the proposal need some revision. I hope I can provide some useful suggestions to help you make a stronger final proposal. Please contact me if you have any questions.

 

Blog link: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99a-2021wa/2021/10/15/memorandum-3/