To: Kaylee Jeong
From: Mahsa Ehtemam
Date: March 17, 2019
Subject: Peer Review of Formal Report Draft
It was a pleasure reading your formal report draft on “Improving Waste Reduction and Diversion System at UBC Robson Square: Meeting the mandates of UBC Sustainability Goals.” Reducing waste and being more environmental friendly is an important change we all have to make, and every facility and institution should be implementing changes for this initiative. I am excited to see the final outcome of your report. Please see below for my feedback on your paper.
First Impressions:
This may be due to formatting errors, but the headers and content has shifted on my document so that they are on the previous page. Consider submitting your report as a PDF to avoid these potential errors. I also believe that the report is meant to be double spaced, and aimed to be 12-15 pages in length. You may want to keep it more concise as to not go over the suggested limit.
Organization:
Table of contents and overall organization was neat and professional. I liked how you subdivided each section to make it easier to navigate.
Introduction:
Great, smooth and informative introduction. Using UBC’s own motto of sustainability makes your introduction strong. I suggest you reword or cut out certain sections in section 1.2 as it sounds repetitive and the term “zero-waste” is used several times in the same paragraph. In section 1.6, replace the word “staffs” with staff, as it is already plural.
Data Section:
Your usage of both open ended interview questions of people including like the head custodian, as well as a quantitative survey is effective as it both allows you to quantify and get qualitative insights of why the current approach is not very effective. I would suggest using bar graphs to represent responses received from your survey questions.
Description of the current recycling methods, locations, and use of pictures was very detailed. If it is possible to make the section a bit shorter, it would be helpful to make your highlights stand out as many may skim over the section and miss the important parts.
Solutions:
Prior to reading your report, I could not think of possible solutions to increase effectiveness of the recycling stations. I believed the current bins, using pictures and words, were effective and it was solely people not willing to put in extra time and effort to make it work; however, your suggestions are highly effective.
Conclusion:
Conclusion was clear and concise. The point form method of going over your possible solutions was also an effective way to show how simple yet effective they can be.
I believe that your feasibility report is very strong and well written. With only a few minor corrections and possible making it more concise, I think it is ready! I hope my peer review has been helpful for you. Please contact me at mahsa_09@hotmail.com with any questions or concerns.
Enclosure: Kaylee’s Formal Report
Leave a Reply