First step: In projct plannig file.( The background information is clear enough in the core content (flooding) but you are working on risk management too so you can emphasise it a little more so as to connect it more to your research questions. The later are quite clear but try to also introduce Jeddah city a little more in your introduction. The research methods are sensible although more critique will be needed in more advanced stages of the study where you will also need to consider your research philosophy. Be slightly careful with the terminology between surveys and interviews. the former generally imply quantitative methods. The latter are qualitative.In the ethics section try to specify the forms that you will need to use as per the academic regulations. The timescales look reasonable but please don′t rush the research. in Literature Chapter file .( some key papers. Whilst this still needs some expansion, I think it is important to think the positioning of your literature and the research questions. It might be a good idea to identify the risk management theories that you are dealing with first and present the academic debate on them first- MCDA van be part of that. Currently (with the exception of MCDA) there isn′t much on this theoretical aspect.Then, you can go and explain the specifics of Jeddah- you have most of what you need on that end. in referencing style You don′t need the page, unless it is a direct quote. should be harvard style. in Data Collection file:(Broadly: have a look inside the document for some specific comments Highlighted You need to describe more clearly your sample selection process including where you will look for your participants and what are the criteria for them. You also need to explain and evaluate more the reasons of certain interview/survey selections – why are you using them? What are the pros and cons. Critique is generally very limited in your draft and that can be a serious issue in a dissertation at master level. Try also to address more clearly the three key questions that where described initially as an aim for the draft: Research instrument/s Data collection schedule, Plans for piloting your instrument if you have not already done so. some feedback that you may wish to consider so as to further improve your work – for the final submission: In Data Analysis file: (On the content: It would be useful to explain what you did with your data- how you analyse(d) them. Avoid too much of a general discussion of what data analysis should be about. Explain what you will do and keep the necessary references so as to connect and explain your evaluation. Whilst your submission has very valuable information around data analysis (and great evidence from the literature), it doesn′t quite give a clear indication of what your choices are/will be. Try to be specific on what your data analysis is all about and utilise the significant evidence of wider reading that you have here.Aside the content of your work, make sure you study carefully all the details of the Harvard Referencing System. At the moment your work is not quite consistent with that and this will be a major issue in a dissertation project. Having said that, it is great to see that you have quite significant engagement with the literature. In Developing Finding and Recommendations: ( Make sure that your ″answers″ are even clearer. i have links with the theory – keep it that way and even enhance that Make sure you summarise the limitations of your work too. In Conclusions: Reflection and Recommendations 🙁 The reflection part is fair – you can personalise it a little further .In the conclusion part, try to outline the research questions again and the key points of your answer(s). However, please make it succinct. Make sure that the recommendations are clearly linked with your findings. It is nearly happening but it needs to become clearer. this is not the area to discuss the research design and methods. Some of the details of the MCDA analysis are also not for this part of your work. (Please make sure that your referencing is consistent with the Harvard referencing style)
