Personal Blogs

The research question

Your research question is intriguing and an appropriate expansion of the previous mini-project.

Treezilla is a very useful, popular tool, it’ll provide sufficient and relevant quantitative data for your project as long as you’re aware of its limitations. 

Method/Analysis

‘measurements come from a variety of areas across South Gloucestershire’ - I don’t think location matters that much if you rely on Treezilla (which is one of its major weaknesses).

I understand, you’ll consider all 5 benefits of ecosystem services (+ the monetary values) and will survey ~20 native and ~20 non-native trees, ~4 species in both groups. Your sample seems large enough to allow you to make calculations (MW U test) and draw some conclusions in your report. Of course, there are many other ecosystem services, outside the scope of Treezilla, which, I believe, you aim to address by your follow-up qualitative research. 

‘the importance of native flora to people that have grown up in South Gloucestershire’ - how confident are you that you’ll find some knowledgeable country folks to interview? You may set the bar too high for exploring the minor, qualitative aspect of your project with reference to ‘the UK’s natural heritage’; ‘sense of national identity’ and even mixing in ‘monetary terms’. Of course, you can always search for region specific, historic literature if your interviews don’t produce the desired result.  

Scope

The quantitative aspect is perfectly doable, albeit quite time-consuming, unless you know where to look for the right species. The qualitative aspect, again, depends on whether you know where to look for the right people to interview. As for ‘responding to change’, possibly you could find out what The Woodland Trust or other similar organizations currently do in South Glos and link it to your own research. Furthermore, this page more or less answers the gist of your research question by emphasizing the wide range of benefits of planting more native trees.  

www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/british-trees/how-trees-fight-climate-change/

I’m no expert, but I hope that my notes are helpful to you. 

As a fellow Bristolian, naturally, the title of your news item caught my eye straight away. However, I believe, it could be a bit more catchy or provocative in some ways (think of the Bristol Post: ‘Hundreds of homes in Bristol are at risk of flooding’). 

UKwide flooding is very topical and highly newsworthy, some other group members addressed it as well. You, rightly so, ring some health & safety alarm bells in your introduction.

Good quality photos, with well-written captions. Have you taken these?

(Not too sure about the third one though.) 

Your article nicely emphasizes the significance and the changing conditions of the River Avon/Floating Harbour that affect both city-dwellers and wildlife. It also comes with a current warning, regarding the poor water quality, with a link to the Council’s website. You also clearly explain the reasons for the excessive water pollution: the heavy rainfalls, the surface run-offs, and their consequences. 

You state ‘over the past 30 years’, maybe you could reference the source of this information.

The Nature article is a good choice and fairly recent (2019), informative, even though I’m only able to access the Abstract. It gives us the ‘bigger picture’ from the whole of Europe and directly links it to climate change. 

The visual data from the Environment Agency is also very relevant and impressive about the 2020's ‘unprecedented’ events.

Your conclusion is well-balanced, not too sensationalist, and takes us back from Europe and the UK to the Bristol Harbourside. As you say, ‘bringing the message home’ - you directly talk to  your local readers. 

(Remote working - very convenient but how sustainable? )

Home vs office working - more convenient, but how sustainable?

Most people would probably agree that in light of the current environmental challenges and climate emergency, a radical rethink of our work practices is required. Besides maintaining a better work/life balance, working from home can come with many environmental benefits. However, according to a recent UK survey (2019) published by the BBC, the overall environmental impact of the choice of workplace will significantly vary depending on the season (winter/summer). 

Many of the potential individual benefits are obvious, including saving time and money on commuting, food and clothing. No surprise, that 80% of millennial women would be more than happy to work from home (2018). Moreover, in terms of sustainability and saving the planet, remote workers' overall energy usage and carbon emissions can be much lower than office workers’, but this is not guaranteed. The recently released WPS report contains information obtained from their employees, over a 12 months period, as well as average figures from national statistics (from DfT & Defra). The report’s ultimate conclusion is that working from home in the summer and from the office in winter are the best options, if we are to achieve a zero-carbon economy. In fact, during summer, remote working saves the typical British commuter around 400kg of carbon emissions, which equates to approx. 5% of their annual carbon footprint. The reason being is that the CO2 emissions produced by commuting and office-based work well exceed those generated by using energy at home.    

Garden office (Photo by AB)

In general, large office buildings and private transport consume a vast amount of non-renewable energy (fossil fuels). Travel, heating, cooling, lighting and operating electrical appliances - all add up and contribute to global climate change. Of course, the source of energy may vary in case of each company and each household. It can also be green, clean and renewable. The truth is that the UK’s climate requires workplace heating for many months, which can outweigh the environmental benefits of remote working. The WPS study (WPS data sheet, 2019) compared three scenarios:

A. 200 staff working from the office all year-round; 

B. 200 staff working from home, heating their whole house (80 m2 average flat size); 

C. 200 staff working from home, heating only their ‘home office’ (25m2 space). 

The results are as follows (tonnes CO2 per year per employee): A. 1.4, B. 2.5, C. 0.6. 

Option C seems much more favourable to the environment than A, and B indicates nearly 80% more CO2 than option A.