A very nice and comprehensive introductory course. Interesting readings and film material. The testing could be more challenging though.

Le contenu est généralement bon.

Par contre, la matière est redondante et on ne parle pas assez de solutions amenés.

Could be even more details and demanding in terms of content, overall it is a good introduction to the topic

Nice but I completed 2nd week before last date...but then also it gave as overdue.. Which is not correct

Its an okey course, I think it doesnt go deep enough in topics and its more like a pinch of everything.

The videos are a bit chaotic, taken from different sources, within different context.

i think that it was more an advertisement rather than teaching and analyzing.

a good introduction. the compendium was a good document.

interesting, not all but yes the part about mobility

Really good course. A bit general

Interesting but too theoretic.

Good class! Learned a lot

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.?

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?

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

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.

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.

Seems a bit like too much talk about irrelevant things. Let´s not beat around the bush

broad overview on

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.

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.

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,

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.