Strategic Options for Campus Sustainability: Cluster Analysis on Higher Education Institutions in Japan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study that is presented is very well structured. It has clear objectives. The methodology and results are consistent with the research question. The conclusions are clear. As indicated in the study, it would be interesting to know which specific strategies best help the development of sustainability in the university.

Author Response

“The study that is presented is very well structured. It has clear objectives. The methodology and results are consistent with the research question. The conclusions are clear. As indicated in the study, it would be interesting to know which specific strategies best help the development of sustainability in the university.”

Response:

Thank you very much for your comments. The best specific strategies are the final goal of our research work, which requires investigations of social or institutional contexts of universities. To achieve this goal, as a future work, on-site investigations of institutions representing each cluster identified in this study must be conducted.  This future work is emphasized in the last paragraph of this paper (Line 400 in p.12).

Reviewer 2 Report

Referee report is attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

(Each comment is quoted, and each response follows.)

“1. It would be better if authors can add paper structure at the end of Introduction part.”

Response:

Thank you very much for your comment. Some sentences explaining the structure of the following sections are inserted in the end of subsection 1.1. (Line 94 in p.3).

“2. Nowadays, cluster centers and F statistics of disaster prevention (4.4) and role of university after disaster occurrence (4.5) must be described more detail in Tables 1 and 4. Accordingly, what is the interpretation about “Only one ANOVA test was non-significant: Role of university after disaster occurrence.””

Response:

Thank you for your valuable comments and the overview regarding the role of university after disaster occurrence. The non-significance of the ANOVA test for cluster formation does not mean that disaster prevention in itself is not important for campus sustainability. The test merely indicates that the factor of disaster prevention variables does not significantly affect cluster formation (i.e. other factors are more distinguishable between university groups). We have included some clarification to the ANOVA tests of Table 4 (Line 258 in p.7)

Furthermore, while we acknowledge the relevance of disaster prevention (particularly in light of the COVID-19 outbreak), in this paper the cluster formation took a broader, collective approach, not focusing on singular elements of sustainability. In terms of disaster relief and prevention, the topic would warrant a dedicated survey and interpretation which goes beyond the scope of this paper. We have included this view in the discussion section of our paper (Line 391 in p.12).

“3. This paper does not update citations of the recent campus sustainability articles i.e. many references are old. Be careful your references aren't too old for publications in a good journal. The recent literatures can shed light on your contribution to implement campus sustainability initiatives issue.”

Response:

Thank you very much for your helpful comments. The reference survey has been completed in November 2019. It is essential to refer to the old publications since 1970s to observe the relation between the evolution of the campus sustainability in a global context and its following trend in Japan. The latest reference is from 2019, which means that references in a good range of years are covered.  However, the previous academic works of Japanese cases are not many and not continuous since its trend has not consecutively grown. This might make references look collected only in a certain period although we have covered recent ones. 

“4. No conclusion section be mentioned. As well, the study limitations should acknowledge.”

Response:

Thank you very much for your helpful suggestions.  According to the template of manuscript, discussion section is mandatory, and conclusion is optional.  The template says “conclusion section can be added if the discussion is unusually long and complex”, which is not our article’s case. 

Regarding the limitations, we have added more careful explanations in the last paragraph of discussion section (Line 383 in p.11).  This part clarifies better that the guidance of campus sustainability provided in our study is limited to recommend two fields, physical campus management or collaborations, since the further investigations on social or institutional contexts of universities are missing.  This will be our future work.

Reviewer 3 Report

I don't know that I've ever said "publish as-is" in a journal review, but this paper is complete in my opinion.  The venue is also ideal.  I found no place to suggest improvement.

The authors do an excellent job of presenting the methodology, and discussing future work.  I believe institutions in Japan will take interest and will move forward on that recommended path.

Author Response

“I don't know that I've ever said "publish as-is" in a journal review, but this paper is complete in my opinion.  The venue is also ideal.  I found no place to suggest improvement. The authors do an excellent job of presenting the methodology, and discussing future work.  I believe institutions in Japan will take interest and will move forward on that recommended path.”

Response:

Thank you very much! The best comments ever we’ve received.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No comments and suggests in present form.