Environmental Degradation in Coastal Areas: A NbS Presentation

This presentation analyzes coastal environmental degradation, focusing on the Chakaria Sub-district in Bangladesh. It critiques the initial presentation slides, offering detailed feedback on content organization, clarity, and the use of Nature-based Solutions (NbS). The feedback emphasizes the need for slide numbers, visual aids (maps, photos), a clear structure outlining background, research problem, aims, literature review, methodology, and conclusion. The reviewer stresses the importance of references, a well-defined conceptual framework, and a robust methodology section including philosophical worldview, research design, and subject matter expert definition. The presentation should avoid overly complex language and ensure all terms are defined, with a strong emphasis on presenting a clear argument and supporting claims with evidence. The review also includes specific feedback on individual slides, addressing issues of organization, clarity, and the need for supporting literature and data analysis. The presentation should provide a clear model for solving the problem, and align research objectives with the model development to help stakeholders to solve the problem.

Here’s some overall comments on the whole presentation slides:
 There have to be “SLIDE NO” in each slide.
 There should be a small photo of coastal area (inset) to show that this work has been
conducting on the coastal area.
 There should be a MAP on the study area location (for example, map can be showing
the WORLD -- BANGLADESH -- The study area (The Chakaria Sub-district,
south-eastern coastal region of Bangladesh).
 Before initial slide, there should be a slide showing the content of the presentation
graphically, for example, it can be divided into three parts, in the first part, there have
to be background, Research Problem, Aims, objectives, Research Question etc.
In the second part there have to be literature review and conceptual framework and in
the last (Third) part, there will be Method, conclusion, references.
- All this information will come within text box/photos within one slide only as
content.
 Please delete the slide of “Key terminologies”, it seems confusing;
 The slides seem like we’re jumping from ED to ES to NbS then come back again to
ED to ES; things should not be like that, we have to be more organised.
 We have to present strong argument, clear and specific;
 We should not say NbS as the best approach or solution to treat Environmental
Degradation (ED) before conducting our research; we should use NbS in a different
way;
 All the Aims, objectives, question, methodology needs to be changed on last file sent
on 04 March 2020;
 All the slides need to include references; same applies for literature review slides. A
table can be created for Nature-based solutions (NbS) and other terms. Example
given:
Term/issue Author Year Findings
NbS Cohen-Shacham et
al., (these
references must be
added in the last
slide)
2019 …..
NbS Emerton et al., 2017 ……
 In the methodology section, we have to explain more on PHYLOSOPHICAL
WORLDVIEW, for RESEARCH DESIGN – Need more explanation for choosing
this;
- We have define “Subject Matter Expert” for Research Population;
- What is the difference between questionnaire and Interview, why both are needed?
Please explain.
- In Slide no 25, Bullet point no. 3; Please DELETE this; if you have explanation,
please share.
- As per the last updated file, there have to be the slides on Conceptual Framework,
Time frame of the study (both may be in the photo format);
- There have to be slides on “Research Gap” and “Significance of the Study”;
Here’s is Slide to Slide comments:

Slide 1: Initial slides: What is ED?
Slide 2: References? Briefly present the problem. This slide did not provide information or
introduction first 4 points got nothing to do with coastal problem. Ecosystem Services (ES)
was not well explained. Dot points are not well organised for slide 2 and 3.
Slide 3: What is the RESEARCH problem? panacea??? NbS?? avoid acronym on first use.
“Use nature to minimize the impacts” … question is what nature/what system services?
Slide 4: Is this previous work? Where are the references? Up till now there is no references to
support the research problem
Slide 5: Why is a possible solution given in the aim? This slide is not well organised.
Slide 6: Does this match what is in the document??? There are lots of information, too much
text on NbS not well explained. Why bring in policy but did not discuss beforehand. What
model/framework you are going to develop
Slide 7:. Put research question first. Why talk about engineering projects at this stage? Why
did the engineering projects get approval??? RQ is way to complicated, too many factors
included. Why hypothesis come here. Too soon, should be later. All the projects mentioned
verbally, should be input in a table form so evidences can be followed.
Slide 8: These terms need to be explained earlier. You need to put references here (in-text
citations). What is the current state of art in the literature? This is what the panel are looking
for. Literature does not have any references.
Slide 9 & 10: stop to think for a moment, 3 slides to 'define' all the elements here. All the
terms used are not explained/defined. Looks very confusing.
Slide 11: Fair too many acronyms, the panel will not be familiar with them, so makes it very
hard to follow the slides. Looks very confusing.
Slide 12: How is this literature? These dot points are pointless/ did not show the audience that
you have read.
Slide 13: How is this relevant? Are coral reefs and sand dunes relevant to case study area?
The term services is not well explained
Slide 14: did not tell where/how it arrived
Slide 15: Is this still literature? Jump to ED again
Slide 16: I am a bit lost at this point. What are you presenting now? Literature? When do we
get to research method? Jump to ED again
Slide 17: This reads like a marketing talk for NbS, where are the references and research
supporting this?. What is NbS? Who come up with this term did not show how this worked,
based on pervious research, how do you know that this will work?

Slide 18: more of the above. You pre-suppose that NbS will work but you disagreed with all
other factors.
Slide 19: Where is this research from? Not ratiesde ?.
Slide 20: How is this the conceptual framework?
Slide 21: Why have you chosen these approaches? Survey?? Method will be very trouble to
yourself. No enough detail
Slide 22: Too vague and not clear use of research method language. Justification is not
justified.
Slide 23: What is an expert? Why these people? How many? How will you find them? Mixed
method, qualitative and quantitative all are not well explained. Participants are not well-
explained
Slide 24: WHY? How? Too vague. “all kind of stakeholders”.. ??
Slide 25: Survey will include semi-structured interviews???? Slide 25 to 27, all data analysis
is not well-explained; hypothesis is not well-explained. Not of all link with slide 27
Slide 26: same as above
Slide 27: same as above
Slide 28: Model?? Does this align with your research objectives? “model development will
help the stakeholder to solve the problem”. How?
Slide 29: Confusing
Slide 30: Too small to read. References
Overall comments: Where is plan and where is steps?