–    Title: Needs an explanatory second statement. Make sure that titles in the front cover
–    Abstract: The abstract should not be a declaration of principles. You need to tell the reader what is the question of research, how you want to deal with that question (methodology) and what have you found in extreme synthesis. What is currently in your abstract should find a better location in the intro.

–    Intro: The Intro s definitely too short. Because all the rest of your work is made of case studies, you need in the intro (AND possibly in subsequent chapters to be added before the case studies section) to drive the reader into the field of post-disaster reconstruction approaches. You should tell the reader why that is important, what are the approaches acknowledged in the literature and what distinguishes them from one another, and only THEN justify the selection of your cases against everything that you have stated that far.
–    Conclusions: Very good.
–    Other:
•    Cases should benefit a lot from a structured comparative study, made of tables and graphics. That would make it easier for you to support your conclusions and for the reader to get orientated into your work. Cases are very interesting but cannot be limited to “telling the story”: they must be analysed in a comparable manner.
•    All the different approaches to post-disaster regeneration would be much clearer if tabled according to a list of characteristics that constitute what you are looking at when exploring them. The development of such table would be of invaluable benefit for the reader and for your clarity of mind.

Place an order with similar or related instructions NOW