Please find below the
Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' comments
We would have liked you to address the comments.
An interesting idea, but in some ways could just be done through an existing platform. The need for a separate platform just for vulnerability assessments is not clear. couldn't this be done using an existing crowd-funded site?
Why do you think that people would be interested in funding studies (i.e., vulnerability assessments),instead of direct action? On what evidence do we think people would?
Finally the project seems too expensive and staff-heavy. -Part of this issue would be solved by utilizing an existing platform-.
Semi-Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' ratings
| • | Novelty: | |
| • | Feasibility: | |
| • | Impact: | |
| • | Presentation: |
Judges'' comments
Specific revisions requested:
1) Consider partnering with other crowd-sourced platform proposals in this contest.
2) Revise the cost estimate to be more realistic - reconcile the amount of money estimated with alternative possibilities to accomplish the same thing (kickstarter, indiegogo, etc.)
Judges comments:
"I like the rationale that it could be more cost-effective and that those with assets that are vulnerable may want to contribute, but I don't think the average person would provide funding, particularly because communicating climate risk as a means to spur action does not seem to be working. I think what is missing is the mechanism to compel people to contribute - a big part of this proposal would need to be a communications and marketing piece, but I think that is missing. This proposal could be stronger if the focus was more narrow -eg., just targeting businesses and providing some kind of incentive (eg., recognition program) for them to contribute. There is also a data quality Q /A Q/C challenge that is not addressed."
0comments
Share conversation:
Share via:
No comments have been posted.
