Offsetting the Impact of CO₂ Emissions Resulting from the Transport of Maiêutica’s Academic Campus Community

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is very interesting. It´s well drafted and it well referenced. The methodology is correct and the results are the same related with other similar studies. In my opinion although, this is not a typical research paper.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for this positive feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The study is focused on the analysis of several solutions related to the reduction of CO2 emissions in Maiêutica Academic Campus. I find your manuscript relevant. But I find your paper needs just some slight reviews that you may find further on.

It is important for the readers to find the information regarding the targets related to ther eduction of CO2 emissions for the period 2020-2030 stipulated in the EU Regulations, as additional and more accurate information (Lines 37-38).

-The subtitle: The The capture of CO2 from the atmosphere (Line 39): preposition the is written twice.- Information between Lines 51-54 should rather be passed on to the methodology section.

Subsection 1.5 Goals:

You should first of all refer to the goals of the study, making a general reference to the idea that few previous studies have been carried out on the subject of carbon footprint having as case studies the campuses of some universities. A reformulation would be necessary: ​​this is one of the few studies carried out on the topic ..... The quotations from the first sentence (lines 97-99) can be moved to the previous subsection. You can add an idea about the importance of the study at the end of this subsection.

Methodology Section

The sentence between lines 112-118 is too long: "The questionnaire had thirteen questions, twelve of which were closed: number of  112 trips done to Campus per week, use of car, distance done by car (round trip in km), mean  113 number of car occupants, fuel type, car age, usage of metro, distance done by metro (round  114 trip in km), use of train, distance done by train (round trip in km), use of bus, distance done  115 by bus (round trip in km), and use of other ways of transport (open answer)". You can reformulate it. You can refer in one phrase to the closed questions and in the second sentence to the open question.

You can mention if for the elaboration of the questionnaire structure you used a model (models) from the specialized literature or you created your own structure.

-Results

You mention that you used IBM SPSS Statistics software version 25, but in the results section there is no more in-depth statistical analysis. You provided only examples of percentages calculated for each category of respondents regarding the means of transport used, etc.

Based on the superior processing of statistical data using the indicated software, it is possible to result a series of correlations that it can better explain the analyzed situation.

You mentioned that Maiêutica campus has a current surface of 7 ha. In the subsection 3.3. Number of trees needed to capture CO2,  after computing the data, you conclude that: "Thus, close to 138 hectares would be necessary to plant the three tree species so as to compensate for the campus community travels’ emissions" (Line 234-235).

Even if it were chosen as a solution to plant Eucalyptus on a much smaller area of ​​77 ha, it is much larger than the campus area. Should you better explain how would you see the planting trees that requires such a large area? Could planting trees also can be done in the vicinity of the Maiêutica university campus?

You should provide some details on how to achieve this measure to reduce CO2 concentrations: who should do it? with what funds? Only at the conclusions you mention that it is not viable solution in several ways. Can you explain this issue in results sections?

Discussions

The analysis of the importance of the Carpooling system could be completed with quotes from the specialized literature. There is only one reference to a site.

In my opinion, this section should be completed with the importance of the results of this study. The authors may also mention the limitations of study as well as future research directions.

Author Response

The authors appreciate all the feedback given.

-  The information regarding the CO2 emissions reduction targets for the 2020-2030 decade as is stipulated in EU Regulations was included.

- The double “The” in the subtitle (line 39) was removed.

- The methodology described in lines 51 - 54 is the one which is used by the authors of the [14] and [15] referenced studies

Subsection 1.5 Goals:

- All the suggestions were taken.

Methodology Section:

- The rephrasing proposal was accepted.

- As is mentioned in line 111 the survey was specifically developed for this investigation. Actually line 120.

Results:

There are no correlations that justify it being presented. However, the results obtained and presented seem interesting enough to be disclosed.

 

The acquisition of such extensive plots of land and the planting of such a high number of trees makes this an inviable solution, from a practical point of view. This issue was explained in results section.

 

Discussion:

- Regarding the carpooling system two new references were added to substantiate its importance.

- At the end of the discussion section the limitations of the study were added as well as prospects for future work.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper investigates the " Offsetting the Impact of CO₂ Emissions Resulting from Transports of the Maiêutica’s Academic Campus Community" However, some critical points should be addressed as well.

1. This study is a kind of case study. What is the main contribution of this paper? What is the novelty shown in this study?
2. The uncertainties of this study should be determined and reported. I don’t think the sample size is sufficient to present this work.
3. As you mention in line 203. The teachers’ group exhibits the highest average of CO₂ It seems something wrong. The car "AGES" less than 5 years or 10 years by teachers’ group are more than students or Adm. Staff which means that the new model cars by teachers’ group should contribute less CO₂ than others. By the way, how are there specific vehicle mileages? It is also a critical reason to understand the CO₂ contribution of each groups.
4. In addition, this study discusses mobility practices from house-campus travelling. I am wondering do you consider the people who commute by the scooters?
5. I don’t agree there is only one value shown in Table 1. It is likely to be large uncertainty of CO₂.
6. Line 39, Two “The” in subtitle 1.2.
7. Line 208-209, Please provide the reference if this result is adopted by other report.
8. Line 257-259, it can’t find teacher emits five times higher than students in Table 5.

Author Response

At the outset we would like to thank the reviewer for his comments and useful suggestions.

1. This study shows it is not possible to solve the academic community carbon footprint problem only by reforesting the academic campus. If the whole institution’s carbon emissions were to be calculated the tree area necessary to compensate for it would be much bigger. This stresses the fact that reforestation alone is not an adequate solution to mitigate GHG emissions.
2. The academic community is made up of 4378 individuals, from which a sample of 490 was taken, with a confidence level of 0.95 (95%), implying less than a 5% Margin of Error (E).
3. Despite the teachers’ parking being newer than the students’, the percentage of teachers using their car as a mean of transportation is 1,8 times higher. Students lean towards collective transportation and carpooling more frequently. Plus the teachers’ average car consumption is higher than the students as the former tend to drive more powerful cars.
4. The number of motorcycles in the institution is under 5, not holding statistical significance.
5. The values displayed in Table 1 are taken from the Bibliography showing only average values.
6. The double “The” was removed.
7. 2,937 t CO₂ per year is the estimated value for the whole Maieutica Campus academic community, as can be seen in Table 6.
8. There is a mistake in the Table description, saying 5 instead of 6. This has been corrected.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript can now be considered for acceptance, particularly that the authors have addressed the comments in their revision. If the other reviews are satisfied with the current revision, then the paper can be considered for publication.