ESL Essay, Writing World

Re: Please all comments on title and thesis are welcome

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:23:19 GMT

After my thesis readjustment I have now begun to write my 1st chapter. given my title and thesis is this a good academic beginning?

Background to the study

Cape Town's unique environment is arguably also its greatest asset, making it one of the most sought after urban areas in the world. In recognition of the need to effectively manage and protect this valuable and diverse environment, the City of Cape Town is geared at implementing integrated policies that will ensure that the principles of environmental sustainability are adhered to. However, given this daunting task, the City of Cape Town has not succeeded at implementing all of its policies effectively. Often, the inefficiency of implementing policies effectively is due to a lack of reliable funding. The area at the confluence of the black and Liesbeek River is a testimony to this notion.[e1]

In 2003, a Spatial Development Framework and phase 1 Environmental Management Plan for the area at the confluence of the Black and Liesbeek River was promulgated by the City of Cape Town in collaboration with various key stakeholders e.g. the Friends of the Liesbeek, the River Club, e.t.c. The framework was developed after extensive studies showed that there was a need for a management plan for the area in order to put in place a comprehensive and realistic means to govern the area.

[e2]

These studies include Crowtherâs report in which the authors pointed out that âa management plan would be needed in order to set in place a process for improving partnerships between the City and NGOâs with the aim of providing an effective upgrading of the Liesbeek River valley system and a base against which to assess any future development which could significantly affect the systemâ (Crowther et al, 1996). In response to this, the City of Cape Town failed to particularly achieve the former. However, presented with the desperate call of management the City of Cape Town declared the area and its broader locale as a metropolitan park known at present as the Two Rivers Urban Park (TRUP) on 18 August 1998 and five years later subsequently produced the broader management framework.

Additionally, a case study undertaken by Luger despondently concluded that unless the scope of rehabilitation was expanded to include the floodplain and entire catchment and, real need to control the quality and quantity of storm water runoff, instead of merely focussing primarily on the River Channel and amenity, the system will continue to degrade and its full potential will not be recognised (Luger, 1996).

It has been approximately four years since the endorsement of the document but very little has been done to realize the parks maximum potential. Thus this study suggests that to achieve a sustainably working park, there is a need to strategically manage the TRUP in a holistic and integrated manner while maintaining the broader frameworks outlined in the Spatial Development Framework & Phase One Environmental Management Plan. To achieve this goal, this study suggests that TRUP be managed in divisions and management plans be drawn up for each sectional division. It should be noted that each minor EMP should be aligned to the same goals and guidelines of the broader Spatial Development Framework and phase 1 Environmental Management Plan. However, this study only focuses on describing the proposed comprehensive management plan of the Lower Liesbeek as a sub-division in the TRUP.

Re: Please all comments on title and thesis are welcome

Grammar Geek — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:19:26 GMT

Hi again,

My free editing is done in this forum, I'm afraid. If you have brief excerpts, you can post them here.

Is your degree in environmental science, or something like that? Why don't you google around and see what other environmental plans have been published, either by water quality boards or foundations that are looking for grant money. You might find some models to help you. Or perhaps your dissertation advisor could point you toward ones that he or she thought were well done for you to model on.

Good luck!

Re: Please all comments on title and thesis are welcome

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:57:06 GMT

No dear. This is for my honors dissertation. I've sort of written-up stuff but they're not working for my supervisor so now I'm trying to understand how I could reconstruct the thesis to produce a more clearer and rigorous paper. All this writing like this is new to me and I don't know how others have managed. Its such a challenge with me!

Nonetheless, I appreciate your kind assisstance very much. By the way, could I hand in some excerpts of my work for editting and grammar checks?

Re: Please all comments on title and thesis are welcome

Grammar Geek — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:49:13 GMT

A pilot is when you test a theory or technique to see how it goes. If it goes well, it becomes the model that others use.

Why don't you go back and write it fresh, rather than my trying to say what would work. Are you trying to submit this for funding or what?

Re: Please all comments on title and thesis are welcome

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:24:28 GMT

Hi GG,

I'm not quite sure I understand what a pilot test is...sorry. Could you pls elaborate? Would I need to write the section after the introduction or as a subsection of the intro? and what could I name the section?

Re: Please all comments on title and thesis are welcome

Grammar Geek — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:35:55 GMT

I think it's fine to say that the entire policy hasn't been effectively implemented because of a lack of reliable funding, but make sure it doesn't come across as though the overriding policy wasn't sound. I think it's also okay to identify a holistic approach as the ideal, but funding contraints and lack of both paid and volunteer resources make it diffiicult, but there are enough identified resources to properly manage the section you are working from. And that it can serve as a model or a proof of concept to implement similar mico-plans.

What if you presented this little section as a pilot test of how the entire area could work, and identify specifically community involvment and integrating the local stakeholders as a base for implementing the plan? And also talk about a vision for integrating stakeholders at the higher level for the entire area, based on lessons learned in implementing the micro-plan for the LL area?

Re: Please all comments on title and thesis are welcome

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:45:18 GMT

The main reason why TRUP's EMP has not been a success is because of the lack of sufficient funds to manage the area (Study area is/should be managed by government but often urban river systems are neglected/not prioritized financially). Also with the few resources available, there seem to be too much fragmentation within government as well as a lack of cohesive relationships with stakeholders. So whats happening is that the government has neglected the area due to their apparent limitations, NGO's do most of the work for no charge and this also puts a strain on them and finally the community is not invovled- they have a potential to bring-in money that can contribute to the area's maintenance and build social networks which is beneficial for the broader city.

This is why I would also like to suggest the idea of managing the area holistically (considering the biophysical and socio-economic aspects in the planning and management) through collaborative public-private partnerships with regard to managing my study area (this can be done for the other sections too, but my focus is only on the LL), as I think given its setting, this type of approach could work. So where do you think I can incorporate this aspect? And perhaps in what order could I put it?

Re: Please all comments on title and thesis are welcome

Grammar Geek — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:44:15 GMT

Just write it more simply.

Start by giving the background. Just like you did here - Define the TRUP (without the abbreviation first, just as you did in the original.) State that is has a broad EMP (also spelled out). Do you know why the EMP for TRUP has failed? State that you suggest the TRUP be divided into smaller areas, and that each will be managed to the same goals and guidelines of the overall EMP. Then say that you will be describing the plan for LL, a subdivision of TRUP.

Re: Please all comments on title and thesis are welcome

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:20:34 GMT

I'm sorry about the capital letters and thak you for the advice.

You're right about everything. My aim is to produce an EMP for just the LL which is within the TRUP. There is currently a broad EMP for TRUP but it has not been successful, so now I'm proposing that the park be managed in smaller parts whose management strategies should be linked to the bigger plan so that the park can become fully functional and sustainable. I am also proposing that all stakeholders and interested parties become invovled in the management in order to properly institutionalize the management as well as potentially create a self sustaining financial resource base. hence, in this way soem weight is carried off of the government and the community can also take ownership in managing public resources. This has various opportunities and constraints....

So how can I put this in a way that its not too condensed and almost sound like a joke?

Re: Please all comments on title and thesis are welcome

Grammar Geek — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:01:12 GMT

Anon, first of all, please never post in all capital letters. It's hard to read and feels like you're shouting at us.

Secondly, I hope this doesn't sound "mean," but you are heavy with buzzwords, to the point where it almost reads like a joke.

Don't use an abbreviation in your title. Wait until you are in the body to do that.

However, there are two big problems. The first is easily solved, and that is to provide conext for the Lower Liesbeek in the entire thing. Is it part fo the TRUP? How does the TRUP fit into "a sustainably working park"? It sounds like TRUP is a subset of the big idea of a park, and the LL is a subset of TRUP, but it's not clear.

Your bigger problem is this. You want a holistic and integrated plan, but then you want to divide everything up into divisions with a management plan for each division. That's a complete contradiction, unless you can show how each piece is part of the greater whole.

Please all comments on title and thesis are welcome

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:04:53 GMT

PROJECT TITLE:
AN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE LOWER LIESBEEK (LL)

THESIS:
IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A SUSTAINABLY WORKING PARK THERE IS A NEED TO STRATEGICALLY MANAGE THE TWO RIVERS URBAN PARK (TRUP) IN A HOLISTIC AND INTEGRATED MANNER, WHILST MAINTAINING THE BROADER FRAMEWORKS OUTLINED IN THE SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK & PHASE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (SDF &EMP1). TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL, THIS STUDY SUGGESTS THAT TRUP BE MANAGED IN DIVISIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLANS BE DRAWN UP FOR EACH SECTIONAL DIVISION. HOWEVER, THIS STUDY ONLY FOCUSSES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE LL AS A DIVISION IN THE TRUP.