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.

Semi-Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' comments

Comments from Judge 1:
This proposal is an interesting and comprehensive review of developments in the 'green wall' field. But there does not seem to be a specific project proposal. Costs and benefits are discussed but in a fairly general way. Comparisons are not made – e.g. with the impact of Building Integrated PV, high performance heat reflecting coatings, etc. As the proposal points out, many groups are working on this area and implementing examples. So it is not clear what this proposal adds.

Comments from Judge 2:
The proposer highlights the nascent experience with green vertical surfaces, and describes in general terms why this approach holds merit. The text and pictures are well written. But, I don't see a proposal. But it’s for now a news article, not a proposal: there is no action proposed, no initiative and no team. I hope to see one in the future.

Share conversation: Share via:

Ben Towne

Oct 31, 2017


1 |
Share via:

Dear Judges,

Thank you for your comments.

I think this may have been miscategorized for judging. In "Is this proposal for a practice or a project?" I clearly indicated "Practice" but the judging comments indicated that it was judged as "Project" and failed primarily because it did not fit in that sub-category.

The proposal does discuss some specific planned project work which implements the practice, such as Stefano Boeri’s vertical forest in Nanjing, and specific things that consumers can do to implement the practice (such as “garden towers” or trellised vines).  OpenExp’s ZEB proposal also lacks identification of a team or specific project initiative, just stating some things that should happen in order to advance the overall shared goal. 

While I accept the result, I would recommend in the future clarifying that a particular **project** is necessary and that the factors cited as missing (e.g. team) may be required.  You may even want to remove the “practice” category, or at least clarify it in the rules and ensure that the judging category matches the one the author(s) thought they were submitting in!

(This was sent by reply message on the same day as results were announced; no response was made in the "2 weeks" since.  I include this note just to clarify that I did give an opportunity to look again at the categorization and/or add context to how that process worked).