Carbon Footprint Estimation in a University Campus: Evaluation and Insights
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The objective of the study is good and publishing it is interesting. However, the manuscript is missing some relevant information that I'm sure you address when carrying the study.
Major changes
1) The introduction is weak and the state of the art is incomplete. Assessing Carbon Footprint and/or Ecological Footprint (that includes a CF) at universities is not a novelty. This does not mean that your study is not interesting but you need to highlight why and, overall, complete the state of the art and link it with the result analysis. The definition of CF and its relationship with Higher Education Institutes (universities) has a long relationship in the bibliography, too.
Some examples you should review and cite:
https://0-scholar-google-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/scholar_lookup?title=An%20integrated%20approach%20to%20achieving%20campus%20sustainability%3A%20assessment%20of%20the%20current%20campus%20environmental%20management%20practices&publication_year=2008&author=H.M.%20Alshuwaikhat&author=I.%20Abubakar
https://0-scholar-google-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/scholar_lookup?title=The%20ecological%20footprint%20of%20the%20Colorado%20College%3A%20an%20examination%20of%20sustainability&publication_year=2002&author=E.P.%20Wright&author=H.%20Drossman
https://scholar.google.es/scholar?oi=bibs&cluster=6901714003842057213&btnI=1&hl=en
https://0-www-sciencedirect-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S0959652611003593
https://0-www-sciencedirect-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S0959652611003787
https://0-scholar-google-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/scholar_lookup?title=The%20Ecological%20Footprint%20of%20UEA&publication_year=2009&author=E.%20Wright&author=B.%20Gill&author=P.%20Wallin&author=K.%20Hutchison&author=M.%20Prebble
https://0-scholar-google-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/scholar_lookup?title=An%20environmental%20management%20model%20for%20universities%3A%20from%20environmental%20guidelines%20to%20staff%20involvement&publication_year=2002&author=P.%20Viebahn
https://0-scholar-google-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/scholar_lookup?title=Assessing%20the%20ecological%20impact%20of%20a%20University.%20The%20ecological%20footprint%20for%20the%20University%20of%20Redlands&publication_year=2001&author=J.%20Venetoulis
https://0-scholar-google-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/scholar_lookup?title=The%20strengths%20of%20EMAS%20as%20an%20environmental%20management%20system%20for%20European%20university%20campuses&publication_year=2016&author=J.I.%20Torregrosa-L%C3%B3pez&author=V.G.%20Lo%20Iacono-Ferreira&author=C.%20Barranco-Mart%C3%AD&author=C.G.%20Bellver-Navarro
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20Transport%20Footprint%20of%20Oxford%20Brookes%20University&publication_year=1997&author=K.%20Paulson
https://0-scholar-google-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/scholar_lookup?title=Framework%20for%20the%20inter-comparison%20of%20ecological%20footprint%20of%20universities&publication_year=2013&author=L.%20Nunes&author=A.%20Catarino&author=M.R.%20Teixeira&author=E.%20Cuesta
https://0-scholar-google-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/scholar_lookup?title=A%C2%A0review%20of%20commitment%20and%20implementation%20of%20sustainable%20development%20in%20higher%20education%3A%20results%20from%20a%20worldwide%20survey&publication_year=2015&author=R.%20Lozano&author=K.%20Ceulemans&author=M.%20Alonso-Almeida&author=D.%20Huisingh&author=F.J.%20Lozano&author=T.%20Waas&author=W.%20Lambrechts&author=R.%20Lukman&author=J.%20Hug%C3%A9
https://0-scholar-google-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/scholar_lookup?title=Application%20of%20the%20componential%20method%20for%20ecological%20footprint%20calculation%20of%20a%20Chinese%20university%20campus&publication_year=2008&author=G.%20Li&author=Q.%20Wang&author=X.%20Gu&author=J.%20Liu&author=Y.%20Ding&author=G.%20Liang
https://0-scholar-google-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/scholar_lookup?title=Carbon%20footprint%20of%20the%20University%20of%20Cape%20Town&publication_year=2011&author=T.C.%20Letete&author=N.W.%20Mungwe&author=M.%20Guma&author=A.%20Marquard
https://0-scholar-google-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/scholar_lookup?title=Using%20ecological%20footprint%20analysis%20in%20higher%20education%3A%20campus%20operations%2C%20policy%20development%20and%20educational%20purposes&publication_year=2014&author=W.%20Lambrechts&author=L.%20Van%20Liedekerke
https://0-scholar-google-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/scholar_lookup?title=Quantifying%20the%20Ecological%20Footprint%20of%20the%20Ohio%20State%20University&publication_year=2007&author=J.%20Janis
https://0-scholar-google-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/scholar_lookup?title=Institutional%20ecological%20footprint%20analysis.%20A%20case%20study%20of%20the%20University%20of%20Newcastle%2C%20Australia&publication_year=2001&author=K.%20Flint
https://0-scholar-google-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/scholar_lookup?title=Carbon%20footprinting.%20Opportunities%20and%20threats&publication_year=2009&author=M.%20Finkbeiner
https://0-scholar-google-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/scholar_lookup?title=Emisiones%20de%20CO2%20en%20la%20EUP&publication_year=2012&author=J.J.%20de%20Miguel
https://0-scholar-google-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/scholar_lookup?title=An%20overview%20of%20ecological%20footprint%20and%20other%20tools%20and%20their%20application%20to%20the%20development%20of%20sustainability%20process%3A%20audit%20and%20methodology%20at%20Holme%20Lacy%20College%2C%20UK&publication_year=2004&author=G.F.M.%20Dawe&author=A.%20Vetter&author=S.%20Martin
https://0-scholar-google-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/scholar_lookup?title=Ecological%20footprint%20of%20the%20campus%20de%20Vegazana%2C%20Le%C3%B3n%20university%3B%20a%20calculation%20approach.%20Implications%20for%20the%20sustainability%20of%20the%20university%20community&publication_year=2009&author=P.%20Arroyo
2) Consider building a table to compare methodology, results, and particularities of other studies. Use it in the result analysis section.
3) University of Talca published in 2018 news about the imminent implementation of an energy management system (https://www.utalca.cl/noticias/universidad-de-talca-implementara-sistema-de-gestion-energetica/). Your paper would benefit from an analysis of the influence of implementing the EMS within the performance of their campuses on the energy level and CF results, at least.
4) Why GHG Protocol? There are other well-recognized methodologies to assess Carbon Footprint, including an ISO standard. It is OK if you want to use GHG but you cannot ignore the others and, overall, you have to justify your choice.
5) You talk about results per person and per student; the functional unit is not clear. It needs to be well defined.
6) What are the Data Quality Requirements defined for the study?
7) You start talking about a study carried for several years, since 2012, but you are only showing some of them: Fig 2, 2014 to 2016, Fig 3, 2013, to 2016. The results are incomplete. Where are the others? You also need an analysis of the evolution of the results. What about the comparability of the studies carried from 2012 to 2016, are you sure they are comparable? What about the differences between campuses?
8) Conclusions also need improvements.
Minor changes
9) Review the citation guidance. You are correctly using numbering but in some places, you need to add authors or institutions names to make a comprehensive sentence.
10) Line 56. Consider including a summary of the results as they are key for your study.
11) Line 60. The definition of CF should come up at the beginning of the manuscript. You are writing to a wide audience.
12) Line 73 to 78. Re-consider the location of this argument. If you are analyzing the state of the art, you need to show the first data. Who is making this statement? based on what? Authors? If so, maybe this should be part of the result analysis.
I suggest you make an effort to raise the quality of the manuscript and/or study as its publication is worth it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have developed an intense work but in my opinion it should go deeper into it.
The set of source data is scarce and not homogeneous, and in order to draw conclusions in my opinion it should be. This fact can be seen clearly in Figures 2 and 3.
Regarding the methodology, it should be explained more clearly, the source data set, factors used, etc. are not very clear.
Results, although they are included, I do not consider them sufficiently representative because of the comments previously mentioned in the data set.
As an example, on page 7 line 273 it indicates that the factors change in the data set and the effects of mitigation cannot be observed.
Another example, on page 8 line 285, indicates that the ratios increase due to the obstruction of new buildings and it is not clear whether this consumption is due to its implementation or the construction process itself, which in which case should have been justifiably eliminated.
Figures and tables should be reviewed. In the text they refer to tables 3 and 4 that do not appear.
Bibliography, this section should be improved. in many cases the mentioned sources cannot be accessed with the information provided (eg references 2, 5, 6, etc.) in others the access date (15, 16, 17, etc.) is not indicated and in general no it is updated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1) The manuscript presents general and vague data and information. The objective of the study is not clear beyond estimation of GHG emission sources. In addition, the uncertain nature of emission factors is not defined or acknowledged in this study. The manuscript would benefit from shortening the text and defining the sources of error in the estimations.
2) The main problem with the study is that the primary methodology employed is not referenced properly. The GHG protocol is comprised of numerous calculation tools and other features. The tools used and methods selected are not identified. The reference cited is:
[17] W. a. WBCSD. "Greenhouse gas protocol." World Resources Institute. www.ghgprotocol.org
3) Tables 1 and 2 do not define time periods.
4) Figures 2 and 3 do not provide error bars.
5) Given the uncertain nature of the estimation, the data are merely presented but do not support insightful discussion regarding the significance of the data. For example, emissions due to transportation are commonly acknowledged as primary sources for all cities. What is the significance of this finding for Talca?
6) Emission factors are claimed to have been "updated" but no references to updates are provided.
7) The manuscript requires extensive editing for clarity in English.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been considerably improved. It is good to publish now.
Author Response
Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing this manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Certain parts have been improved, but in my opinion a more in-depth review is still necessary.
Tables have been introduced and it is not explained, in my opinion, correctly that they contribute and even in the case of Table 1 the origin of the disparate values of the indicator even if the same method is used.
Author Response
Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing this manuscript. The tables have now been introduced and discussed in the text of the manuscript.
The authors did conduct in-depth review and have selected a subset of studies to be listed in Table 1. The studies were selected on the basis of importance and relevance to the current manuscript and they were organized in an ascending order of CF reported. Moreover, a concious effort was made to include studies from all major continents. This selection of the studies was done to keep the extent of the table reasonable and the length of the manuscript reasonable.
Reviewer 3 Report
The basis for GHG protocol emission data cannot be improved, a limitation of the protocol itself now acknowledged in the manuscript. The use of the GHG protocol in the present study has been improved and is instructive for a broad audience. I believe that despite the limitations this study is worthy of publication and is acceptable in its present form.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. The authors realize that GHG protocol has some limitation and as mentioned, they were discussed. Thank you for considering this manuscript worthy of publication.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
After reviewing the article, my opinion is that the suggestions of previous corrections have been answered.
Author Response
Thank you from all of us!
