Skip navigation

Please find below the judging results for your proposal.

Semi-Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' comments


Judge 1: This is an interesting idea, but I am having a hard time linking the idea to multiple SDGs. The authors are proposing a program to reduce weeds on train lines more safely. While obviously useful to the railways and to the environment near railways, it is difficult to see how this project would impact multiple SDGs at a system level. Because the geographic area of interest is so large, it seems difficult to make the argument that this is feasible. Could the authors start with a smaller pilot area?

Judge 2: The proposal is extremely poorly written and presented with many sections missing. It makes no attempt to collate other proposals and should not have been accepted for this contest. As such it is ambiguous in many areas at best, and incomprehensible in many places, including confusion as to scope between just railway lines or wider agricultural application, and between just plant biocide and/or soil sterilizations in either case (all are mentioned). No evidence or references is given that the methodology has been tested and/or proven to work. Whilst the intent (of reducing/minimizing poisonous chemicals use) is important, the links to climate change mitigation/and/or adaptation are tenuous and minimal at best. The authors have not put much effort into reality e.g. that the growing season is only April -July i.e. northern hemisphere when they list implementation globally and so on.

0comments
Share conversation: Share via:
No comments have been posted.