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.
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.
By Digby D•
If you're looking for specific information about particular green technologies or methodologies, this class is not for you.
What you will get instead is largely a number of polished marketing videos of bureaucrats describing how great their future projects will be and how they're going to make such a difference in their local communities alongside a healthy dose of cheerleading for WWF and ICLEI without those organizations making any significant contributions to the educational video content. There was an ICLEI video in Week 1 that was 45 seconds of a man talking about how he'd partnered with ICLEI for an urban agriculture project. He did not describe the project any further than that, nor did he describe any of the following: budget, methodology, proposed time frame, or details of how it would mitigate the effects of climate change. You could imagine this would be frustrating for someone who had interest in urban agriculture and wanted to know more about it.
Many of the videos have varying degrees of overlap or redundancies in their content. For example, Week 3 is about Urban Living Labs. There are four videos in a row which describe what Urban Living Labs are, resulting in almost 40 minutes of borderline identical content that could have been covered solely by the third video "Urban Innovation and Living Labs". The video production quality is good on almost everything but the lengthier lecture videos, which ended up being the most useful in terms of transferring information to the viewer. I would be willing to bet that these lectures (and more) can be found on YouTube, thereby obviating the need for this course.
This class is functionally a pretty, but vapid hippie girl and therefore useless to anyone who doesn't need to be proselytized to and simply wants to have a greater understanding of these technologies and methodologies.
By Tulaci B•
The idea is great, but the whole course just scratches the surface of the theme. I expect more of this topic however in all the parts there a lot of kinds of advertisements (from many partners) instead of real debate or even some kind of classes. The instructors talk about their expertise just in the first video of each model, without any profound discussion or examples of their work. The question part is terrible, they expect that you decorated numbers that show on the presentations or the two pdf that they ask to you downloaded. In brief, the whole course no makes sense, it seems better to watch the WWF channel instead of them. I think this course is just to make advertising from the group behind the course.
By Monja E•
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.?
By Sharlene N•
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?
By C G•
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
By David N•
Rather than an organized, professional course, this course is a collection of repurposed content from many uneven sources that gets repetitive, academic and fuzzy. Not worth wasting your time on a topic deserving of serious study.
By Zee K•
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.
By Maximilian H•
Seems a bit like too much talk about irrelevant things. Let´s not beat around the bush
By Tiina R•
I hope you had stated earlier that this was just a one, long ad for WWF.
By Oleksandr Z•
Too much theory, I'd like more practical information
By daniel z•
broad overview on
By Manchot P•
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.
By Steve P•
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.
By Munévar F W N•
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,