IB Environmental systems and societies (ESS) - Old SL Internal Assessment Example

The research question is precise, time-bounded and clearly identifies both variables and geographical focus, showing a coherent cause–effect intent.

Consider adding a brief rationale in the question itself for comparing Malaysia and Indonesia to strengthen the geographic justification.

The opening paragraph presents global warming data but does not yet link specifically to your research focus on deforestation in SE Asia; add a sentence making this connection explicit.

Table 1 lists variables clearly, but does not justify why the chosen controlled and uncontrolled variables are appropriate and exhaustive.

Using multiple sources (GFW, WRF, CCKP, DOSM, Statista) for cross-verification is a strong design choice that enhances data reliability.

Table 2 presents complete raw data from dual sources, with clear labels and units—an effective data presentation.

The worked example for averaging is clear, but include a parallel example calculating mean temperature to reinforce the process.

In Table 3, temperature values vary in decimal precision; round all values consistently to two decimal places for uniformity.

Table 4 lists sum terms but omits units (e.g., Σx in ha/year). Add units to each summation to prevent misinterpretation.

Calculation of PMCC for Malaysia is thorough and displays computational rigor, demonstrating correct use of the formula.

The interpretation of r = 0.0871 for Indonesia correctly notes weak positive correlation, framing the result appropriately.

The inclusion of error bars in Figures 2 and 3 is commendable, as it highlights uncertainty around each data point.

Your narrative compares slopes but could be strengthened by reporting the numerical slope values and confidence intervals for each trend line.

Ethical considerations mention bias mitigation but omit licensing constraints and indigenous consent; address these to strengthen your ethical assessment.

Clarify that a weak correlation does not imply causation and discuss possible confounding factors such as carbon emissions from other sources.

Link the conclusion back to policy implications—for example, discuss how a weak correlation affects deforestation control measures in practice.

The discussion rightly notes broader ecological impacts; consider evaluating how your findings align with studies on biodiversity loss and human health.

Evaluate the economic trade-offs of PES more deeply by estimating budget impacts or comparing with alternative interventions.

Your proposal of PES is reasonable, but the weak statistical correlation shown limits how strongly this method can be justified based on your data.

Several sentences contain grammatical errors and wordiness; revise for concision and correct verb forms (e.g., “Global warming is a process ... due to human activities and also natural phenomenon”).

Avoid repeating the research question verbatim later in the Identifying the Context section; instead focus here on deepening the contextual background.

Procedure numbering is inconsistent (I, Π, III). Use a uniform style (e.g., Arabic numerals) for clarity.

Introduce the PMCC formula with a brief verbal explanation of its components before presenting the equation to guide readers.

In the formula for Indonesia’s PMCC, ${\psi }_i$ appears instead of $y_i$. Correct the symbol to maintain consistency.

The box-plot IQR calculations are misformatted and the table is missing labels; reformat formulas and provide clear table headers.

The bibliography entries are inconsistently formatted (e.g., missing DOIs, varied italics); apply a single style (e.g., APA) throughout.