Uwajeh feedback on formative

You don’t need a contents list in an assessment this short.

The first paragraph is very good in setting the scene – but take care as
you stat facts but there are no citations to verify them. For example, “EIA
has bee defined as a process…”. By whom? Whilst you then have some
very relevant background, you don’t set out a narrative very clearly – that
underpins the need for this evaluation. I am not sure why you introduce
water legislation, for example, as it is not all that relevant to your
evaluation of prediction in an EIS? Basically, you need to introduce the
importance of prediction in EIA (you do this well), and evidence it is done
poorly. So we then know prediction might be problematic. Then explain
why prediction is particularly important in your chosen environmental
component (what are the consequences of poor prediction), allied with
evidence it is done badly, this justifies the need to evaluate a system
and identify the issues with it. Then we would know where to focus effort.
That is the narrative!
For the method – you are definitely working along the right lines here.
You have found a useful framework, but you have to justify it. So what
literature have you looked at? What evaluation approaches have been
used to evaluate EISs previously across the literature? Are any of these
suitable for you? Why is Lee et al the best? Can you modify it to make
the criteria specific to water prediction only? The issue here is that Lee
et al is a method for determining the quality of an EIS in general, not of
impact prediction for one component specifically. So it needs modifying.
The criteria you have used seem to have no relevance to water
specifically – so what literature have you looked at to develop
appropriate criteria for water? And only in the methods section do you
divide impact prediction into four stages – but this should be part of the
introduction to impact prediction!
You do list three EISs that form your sample – but why these three? For
the case studies, given that you are evaluating an EIA system (England)
through a sample of EISs. You need to understand the population of
EISs and all the variables that might affect impact prediction practice.
Then you can choose the best sample accordingly – or at least
understand the limitations. At the moment there is no explanation of the
sample at all.
Where does Table 1 come from? When you adapt a scoring system from
elsewhere – you need to be clear where it is adapted from. Always show
your sources.
Table 2 sets out the scores nicely, but what is the purpose of
aggregating the scores and coming up with an overall score? That does
not help you find systemic issues (which should occur across all EISs –
as this hints at practice being always poor or good).
Your discussion needs to be based on different criteria that are specific
to water. And then need to focus on systemic issues and not be
descriptive.
In your references, you have a lot of authors which are not authors. E.g.
EU Environmental Law.
This is a very good start – well done. Make some changes along the
lines indicated above, and you can have a very good essay.