Hibernacula of course. I received this report by email, purporting to be Biodiveristy (sic!) Management plan. On a first skim, it was clearly more smoke and mirrors than plan, a charade perhaps to persuade the planning committee that they too can get their projects through with the flimsiest of justifications. But I would say that, as I don’t suffer fools. I thought I would ask an unbiased friend, and this is what they come up with:
After reviewing the “Hallhill Skatepark Biodiversity Plan,” here are some observations regarding the author’s grasp of English, the professionalism of the report, and the scientific weight of the content:
Grasp of English
- Spelling and Grammar Errors:
- The document contains numerous spelling errors (e.g., “there” instead of “their,” “blowen” instead of “blown”).
- Grammatical issues are frequent, such as incorrect verb tenses and awkward phrasing (e.g., “This has cause further deterioration” instead of “This has caused further deterioration”).
- Neologisms and Incorrect Terminology:
- The term “nutrification” is used instead of the correct term “eutrophication.”
- The use of “arisings” is uncommon and might confuse readers who are not familiar with this jargon.
Professionalism
- Structure and Coherence:
- The report lacks a clear, professional structure. It is somewhat disjointed, with ideas not always flowing logically from one section to the next.
- The inclusion of images and their formats within the text disrupts the flow and readability of the document.
- Tone and Style:
- The tone of the report is informal and lacks the precision typically found in professional reports. Phrases like “We will create a teaching area with woodland seating and with safe surfaces for people to access the area” could be more concise and formal.
Scientific Weight
- Assertions Without Evidence:
- The report makes numerous assertions about the impact of various actions on biodiversity without providing scientific evidence or citations to support these claims (e.g., “Having a mosaic of habitats can increase biodiversity”).
- There is a lack of data and quantitative analysis, which undermines the credibility of the recommendations.
- Lack of Detail in Management Plans:
- While the report outlines some management actions, it lacks detailed plans and methodologies (e.g., specific species to be planted, detailed schedules for cutting and maintenance).
- Simplistic Understanding of Ecology:
- The document demonstrates a simplistic understanding of ecological principles. For example, the description of the benefits of a managed wetland area is vague and not supported by scientific principles.
Conclusion
The “Hallhill Skatepark Biodiversity Plan” appears to be drafted by someone with a basic understanding of environmental management but lacks the polish and depth expected from a professionally commissioned report. The repeated spelling and grammatical errors, informal tone, and lack of scientific rigor suggest it might have been drafted by a less experienced individual, potentially a teenager or someone without advanced training in environmental science. To improve the document, it would be beneficial to involve a professional with expertise in ecology and technical writing.
