Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.
Learn more at
Skip navigation

Please find below the judging results for your proposal.

Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' ratings


Judges'' comments

SUBJECT: Your proposal has been selected as a Finalist!

Congratulations! Your proposal, Midwest Rural Climate Dialogues in the Rural Resilience contest, has been selected to advance to the Finalists round.

Be proud of your accomplishment – more than 350 proposals were submitted and only a very small number have been advanced through these two rounds of judging.

As a Finalist, your proposal is eligible for the contest’s Judges Choice award, as well as the contest’s Popular Choice award, which is determined by public voting.

If you haven’t already, you will soon receive an email from the Climate CoLab staff with details about the voting period. If you don’t receive that email within the next day, or have other questions, please contact the Climate CoLab staff at

All winners will be announced the week after the voting period ends, on September 12, 2015 at midnight Eastern Time.

Both Judges Choice and Popular Choice will receive a special invitation to attend selected sessions at MIT’s SOLVE conference and present their proposals before key constituents in a workshop the next day, where a $10,000 Grand Prize will be awarded. A few select Climate CoLab winners will join distinguished SOLVE attendees in a highly collaborative problem-solving session. Some contests have additional prizes given by the contest sponsor.

Thank you for your work on this very important issue. We’re proud of your proposal, and we hope that you are too. Again, congratulations!

2015 Climate CoLab Judges

Comment 1:

This project, using citizen juries to develop climate action plans, has great merit, and could have a significant impact. It isn't novel or unusual, but a grassroots effort at education is too often overlooked. Aid organizations have begun to realize that participatory decision-making is a more profoundly productive process than can be generated by top-down or expert driven programs. It is primarily a comment on the poor state of democracy in the U.S. that this must be kick-started with foundation funding. And it is this aspect that reveals the proposal's primary weakness. It has not seemed to anticipate a regenerative process for extension. Could Climate Dialogue communities become ambassadors to others? I understand the necessity to remove economic and financial barriers to participation, but if communities cannot generate the resources to think proactively, they may be unable to implement solutions. The greatest strength of such a program is the inculcation of attitudes of leadership. With all due respect to the example communities, the proposed solutions, while wide-ranging in effect, do not delve much beneath the personal and incremental approach to change. I think this could be expected to change over time if the citizen-jury process can be sustained. Individuals must begin to recognize a broader range of resources, including educational, political, and economic, and to extend local control over these.

Strengths: A well presented proposal with appropriate detail about the approach, with a commendable focus on engaging and empowering rural communities themselves. Good value for money, with a potentially significant impact from a relatively modest financial outlay. Could form a model that could be replicated elsewhere.

Relatively small geographical focus limits direct impact as does emphasis on capacity building rather than direct interventions.

Semi-Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' ratings


Judges'' comments

Semi-Finalist - Advance

SUBJECT: Your proposal has been selected as a Semi-Finalist!

Congratulations! Your proposal, Midwest Rural Climate Dialogues in the Rural resilience contest, has been selected to advance to the Semi-Finalists round.

You will be able to revise your proposal and add new collaborators if you wish, from July 1st until July 14, 2015 at 23:59pm Eastern Time.

Judges' feedback are posted under the "Evaluation" tab of your proposal. Please incorporate this feedback in your revisions, or your proposal may not be advanced to the Finalists round. We ask you to also summarize the changes that you made in the comment section of the Evaluation tab.

At the revision deadline listed below, your proposal will be locked and considered in final form. The Judges will undergo another round of evaluation to ensure that Semi-Finalist proposals have addressed the feedback given, and select which proposals will continue to the Finalists round. Finalists are eligible for the contest’s Judges Choice award, as well as for public voting to select the contest’s Popular Choice award.

Thank you for your great work and again, congratulations!

2015 Climate CoLab Judges

This is an excellent proposal that is clearly presented by applicants who have the expertise and experience to ensure that it is feasible and effective. For a relatively small financial outlay, this project could have a significant impact in promoting awareness of climate change in rural communities that maybe have not seriously considered the challenge that it poses and in starting to develop strategies for resilience. I have rated its impact only as 'partial/moderate' only because the dialogues would in themselves be a starting point, and subsequent follow-up actions would need to secure further funding.

Well done proposal, not overly ambitious, but recognizing the political and multi-dimensional difficulties and barriers of such an undertaking. Well balanced approach between objectives and actual expected outcomes. Reasonable methodology of lining up constituencies for information exchanges, and comparison of models and solutions. Clear indication of benefits produced by the implementation of the proposed dialogues.

Share conversation: Share via:

Andrew Rockway

Jul 14, 2015


1 |
Share via:
Proposal modified to include references on public participation in responding to climate change and impact of deliberative forms of engagement and a brief discussion on the novelty of empowering non-activist community members through deliberation and grassroots as actors leading local responses to climate change, rather than climate action being driven by "experts" or activists.