28 сент. 2019 г.
This course has been approached not just for academic purpose but also it is a moral oligation to carry forward what has been taught. I thank the authorities and faculties who have made presentations.
14 мар. 2019 г.
Really interesting course. I recommend it for all people who want to now how are cities need to act for sustainable development of our cities, how to prevent earth from fast increasing c02 footprint.
автор: Monja E•
30 янв. 2021 г.
A very basic course. I expected more, even if it is Introductory. Furthermore, it focuses too much content on the concepts of the Shared Economy and Smart Cities. Not sufficient focus on tying this in to Sustainability. Where are the concepts of Climate Change planning, green procurement, awareness raising, economic development & improving the quality of life of the poor whilst balancing environmental needs, climate risk management - direct economic & financial sustainability bearing, etc.?
автор: Sharlene N•
1 мар. 2018 г.
Little new information is presented. As a basic survey course, that would be find except for ---> The quiz questions are irrelevant. Nobody should memorize these useless facts designed to check if the videos were watched or reading completed. e.g. Does it matter what in order bicycle riders cite their reasons for choosing said mode of transport in Copenhagen?
автор: C G•
18 мар. 2021 г.
La seule activité réellement intéressante est l'exercice sur les solutions vertes dans les villes. On apprend peu de choses, les documents proposés sont des brochures publicitaires de WWF et des programmes européens vulgarisés à travers des notions marketing. Pas de techniques concrètes d'aménagement et de planification. C'est dommage
автор: Jay Z•
9 нояб. 2019 г.
Information was very high level, not very detailed. Quizzes were more about just memorizing statements that were opinions or frameworks or statements by specific people, rather than true facts.
автор: Andrew C•
14 мая 2021 г.
Many of the test questions were poorly worded and/or referenced obscure points from the videos. The course material seemed scattered and only superficially curated.
автор: Maximilian H•
17 авг. 2020 г.
Seems a bit like too much talk about irrelevant things. Let´s not beat around the bush
автор: daniel z•
31 янв. 2017 г.
broad overview on
автор: Manchot P•
4 июня 2016 г.
I'm sorry to say that this course wasn't really useful. I had the impression to see dozens of INTRODUCTION videos about sustainables cities. Because:
1. In 5 weeks you have time to cover in details all the aspects of sustainable cities: energy, transport, waste, building, sharing economy. The condition is to focus each week to a topic.
2. It is too much based on powerpoint presentation and not at all on example. Concepts stay concepts: we didn't visit one single town, a connected building, an innovative waste management system. You quote 300 living labs, let's go !
3. Pictures from the powerpoint are at least for half of them taken from pictures bank. Synthetic images, not concrete. Desapointing.
4.. Always the same example: Malmo, Copenhagen... What about the rest of the world ?
5. Videos from WWH and ICLEI are clearly revolting. Is it some publicity for them ??? This is not the place for that.
In contrast, congratulations to Yuliya Voytenko, for her speech about sharing economy: it was clear, precise, focused.
Please do your best to improve your courses: you have the knowledge, let's spread it.
автор: Steve P•
30 янв. 2017 г.
Mostly fluff with little substance. The videos seemed loosely tied around a common subject, but it might as well have been a YouTube playlist on overall concepts of cities needing to be aware of climate change. The week 4 videos were the same as the week 1 with very vague statements about cities needing to experiment with sustainability to approach the challenges of the 21st century. Only the week 2 video on Copenhagen was actually educational beyond the most superficial concepts.
10 сент. 2021 г.
All videos have poorly written scripts, lack concise data. Instead it obfuscated important facts with circumventive repetitions. I excpected an informative environmental primer instead of generalized marketing slogans promoting popular, often outdated, opinions. The course content should undergo rigerous research writing editing in order to improve reliable data quality and provide depth of important context.
автор: Munévar F W N•
18 авг. 2020 г.
The platform and the course may be very bad, but the platform fails a lot, they assign me very distant dates, I pay to study now, immediately, and I have to wait two months, they postpone me two months and the platform does not respond and Neither does the university, they blame each other and nobody answers, very bad investment, lack of seriousness, nobody answers, bad experience,
автор: Dr. D Z E•
12 июля 2022 г.
Interesting theme of the course but the course was very poor. Lessons was more with videos and comercials of WWF than of a qualititiv scientific explanation and methodologie. Also literature was not scientific and enough. The multiple choice tests was also rubish, only laerning by hard without any sense.