Please find below the
Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' comments
Your proposal has improved a lot, adding much more detail and information. The proposal is thoughtful and well written.
Our biggest concern is the scope which is massive. It is a huge project — $55M -. The proposal does not make clear how a small award like this contest would help the project. Would a pilot project proposal had been the answer?
Semi-Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' ratings
| • | Novelty: | |
| • | Feasibility: | |
| • | Impact: | |
| • | Presentation: |
Judges'' comments
Specific revisions requested:
1) More money doesn't automatically translate into more climate actions. Need to be more specific about how this money will be used to fund adaptation actions.
Judges Comments:
"The proposal does not meet the criteria laid out in the contest, ie., does not describe how it will reduce vulnerability and build resilience to climate change. It does make the case that more money at the local scale can lead to more money available for "climate action" but I think this connection is tenuous if there is not mechanism to specifically direct the money towards climate resilience. I think this proposal could help communities be more economically stable, which is a component of resilience, but I don't think the climate connection here is clear enough."
0comments
Share conversation:
Share via:
No comments have been posted.
