4  comments

add a commentJump to comment form

2013urbanadaptationjudges 2013urbanadaptationjudges

Jun 30, 2013
05:38

Judge


1 |
The importance of population migration is extremely important in urban resilience considerations, therefore this proposal has a lot of potential. While city governments may have an idea of the daily and seasonal ‘floating’ (migratory) population in their city, they might not have clear ideas on the challenges that this poses to urban infrastructure and the actions to address them. However, it is not clear how having access to the Seasonal Migration Routes Identification System (SMRIS) would help the city governments? It would be useful to have this more clearly articulated in the next iteration. In general, the project scope and implementation can be sharpened for the next proposal. This software would have to track migrants outside the jurisdiction of the city as well, which would require multi-scale stakeholder dialogues, which is not reflected in the proposal. This could also be given some thought for the next version. It is an interesting and relevant concept if it is refocused on making projections for potential numbers of climate refugees and the cities being prepared for this potential influx. The proposal also does not take into account or acknowledge that most adaptation measures would need to be undertaken in the rural areas so that the need to migrate is stemmed. The SMRIS may also be probably over ambitious in trying to address almost all urban sectors; it should probably focus on the most impacted. Can this be more clearly defined? Is the improved management of migrant populations in cities more an issue of urban infrastructure or social engineering? The Asian Development Bank may be interested in such a project as they are now pushing urban resilience in the Mekong area. This proposal is also written in a highly academic tone – may be useful to make it more accessible to visitors to the proposal not familiar with the same background. Also, it needs to be clear who is taking action on using this tool and integrating it into their work, clearly defined set of stakeholders.

2013urbanadaptationjudges 2013urbanadaptationjudges

Jun 30, 2013
05:38

Judge


2 |
The importance of population migration is extremely important in urban resilience considerations, therefore this proposal has a lot of potential. While city government’s may have an idea of the daily and seasonal ‘floating’ (migratory) population in their city, they might not have clear ideas on the challenges that this poses to urban infrastructure and the actions to address them. However, it is not clear how having access to the Seasonal Migration Routes Identification System (SMRIS) would help the city governments? It would be useful to have this more clearly articulated in the next iteration. In general, the project scope and implementation can be sharpened for the next proposal. This software would have to track migrants outside the jurisdiction of the city as well, which would require multi-scale stakeholder dialogues, which is not reflected in the proposal. This could also be given some thought for the next version. It is an interesting and relevant concept if it is refocused on making projections for potential numbers of climate refugees and the cities being prepared for this potential influx. The proposal also does not take into account or acknowledge that most adaptation measures would need to be undertaken in the rural areas so that the need to migrate is stemmed. The SMRIS may also be probably over ambitious in trying to address almost all urban sectors; it should probably focus on the most impacted. Can this be more clearly defined? Is the improved management of migrant populations in cities more an issue of urban infrastructure or social engineering? The Asian Development Bank may be interested in such a project as they are now pushing urban resilience in the Mekong area. This proposal is also written in a highly academic tone – may be useful to make it more accessible to visitors to the proposal not familiar with the same background. Also, it needs to be clear who is taking action on using this tool and integrating it into their work, clearly defined set of stakeholders.

2013urbanadaptationjudges 2013urbanadaptationjudges

Jul 29, 2013
04:28

Judge


3 |
A significant effort has been made to rework the proposal and to build on existing research/work. In doing this, the focus seems to have been lost somewhat. The scope and ambitions could be trimmed to make the proposal more realistic.

Nishadh K.a.

Sep 7, 2013
03:08

Member


4 |
Congrats Michaël, best wishes.
ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.

Add Comment