Talk:Loss of biodiversity - caused and solved by globalisation?

OK, Svea, very good points! You are right, there should be personal dimension and viewpoint present in the article. Some of the authors have written more facts technical information etc. in their articles – supposing that thus they provide very neutral (“objective”) position. But we cannot use ONLY this optics as the decision based on hard sciences should be not only reasoned but also GOOD (from the viewpoint of different discourse – ethical one – that means sometimes not having most efficient or accountable reason/solution).

But on the other hand, in relation to biodiversity there are so many banal arguments already present everywhere that it if we try to argue this way or derive some very general conclusions, it should be very difficult to concentrate on something with analytic value in a short article.

--Jana Dlouha 15:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC) =Peer-Review - Svea Marie Wehling=

Paper title: Loss of Biodiversity- caused and solved by Globalization?

1. Basic criteria
1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme high - medium

1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis high

1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (see below)high - medium

1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) high

2. Summary Comments for Author(s)
2.1. Contribution to theory or practice medium

2.2. Originality of the paper high

2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors very high

2.4. Accurate information Yes

2.5. Current information Yes

2.6. Methodology Yes

2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor) Excellent

2.7.1. Paper is logically organised Yes (see below)

2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented Yes (see below)

2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes/No) Yes

3. Written Comments for Author(s)
Hey Jule, first of all I want to thank you for your feedback, I think some ideas are really helpful and I will try to improve the text. However, I will write you a personaI message, since I don't want this to look like I was trying to waste words... I like your essay, too, especially since this is a topic I am very interested in. There are a couple of annotations concerning content and structure, I hope they will serve you. Furthermore I would like to add, that I found it extremely interesting to read your essay, there are a lot of facts in there, which I didn't know before! Excellent selection of relevant and interesting facts therefore!


 * Although I really like reading your text, it sometimes becomes obvious, that you had some problems in regards to the definition terms as to the final goal, which the essay is supposed to aim for. Sometimes it seems that you are unsure about your own opinion. I think what you are writing in your essay is indubitably true. So you should be more confident about what you are saying, since it is very true. Also for me, a leitmotif is missing. I had or still have my problems with that, too. Since you've got everything figured out in your mind, everything seems to be so obvious for oneself. Try to read your essay once again from a strangers point of view. Maybe you could lead over the different subchapters, that would make it easier to read.
 * One minor edit: since the Copenhagen Conference is history by now, you might want to refer to it as an example of how hard international agreements are to achieve. It might be interesting for you to know (just as a additional information) that someone from the university of Lüneburg was there and she was so aghast not only by the organisation but of course also by the results. We should not underestimate the conflict potential with which the topic of biodiversity comes along. I do like your attempt to refer to the lastest news, though!
 * There are only some content ideas I want to share with you - all in all, you seem to have done a fabulous job in research! Since this is a topic of the utmost importance, I think you should stress the importance in your essay. So, why is it so important to maintain the biodiversity? What would in case of an extreme loss of biodiversity be the consequences for every single one of us? I personally think, that these essays we are developing during this course are supposed to make us think and revise our own actions. Maybe I am wrong, but for me these essays should fulfil this attribute...
 * Finally, I would like to add the fact, that I really love the idea of upgrading the reference list by further information. It makes you feel less lost when attempting to get more into the topic. You should definitely keep that!

4. General Recommendation for articles (highlight one option)
4.1. Publish as is

4.2. Acceptable with minor modifications

4.3. Might be accepted after major modifications

4.4. Unacceptable (select following option):

4.4.1. Not appropriate for the content/theme of the Course

4.4.2. Technically deficient

4.4.3. Quality of presentation is poor --Wehling 19:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment from January 4th - Jana Dlouhá
Remarks:

Dear Jule your article is well structured, logical, it is very extensive etc., and moreover you work with resources is very good – there is limited space to solve such a huge problem you have selected!

The relationship of biodiversity with globalisation is obviously expressed by the term “global public goods”. The globalisation is rooted in an economical field and so the value of biodiversity which is not tradable should be expressed this way. This would also enable you to operationalize the concept of biodiversity, find its most important functions, collisions with economical forces on global level, and identify the measures to be taken to protect it.

In this respect, you did not mention role of international organizations like UNEP or IUCN. I think the write about WEO is not possible without analysis of deficiencies of these institutions (and it is not necessary in this course)...

--Jana Dlouha 14:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment from December 8th
Try to avoid too much hesitation like: "globalization is an abstract, not perfectly defined phenomenon you cannot say every global environmental problem is inevitable directly caused by globalization without a sound argumentation" - there are at least 5 words or phrases expressing your uncertainty.

On the other hand critical discussion of the theme from different points of view is OK.

The logic is clear: global economy -> global market -> global consumption of remote goods -> extraction of resources including biological -> transport and infrastructure -> further depletion

Thus, you could mention that even if globalization is not direct reason for biodiverzity loss, the consequences of the loss do have real impact on global environment and also policy. In fact, you have not mentioned risks related to this issue so far!

If discussiong economic value of biodiverzity you cannot avoid Millennium Assessment Reports, http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx

--Jana Dlouha 17:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)