A Systematic Design Framework for Zero Carbon Campuses: Investigating the Shanghai Jiao Tong University Fahua Campus Case

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a timely piece of study that is clear and comprehensible, including its organization and message. Outstanding addition to the body of knowledge in the relevant discipline.

The research literature has stated the investigation of research history and explanations related to the zero carbon system design, incorporating human-oriented services and the cultural and historical significance of university campuses in the carbon neutralization process.  Therefore, according to the objectives of the journal, the content of the article seems appropriate to the journal.

 

the present reviewer considers that the authors should conduct “REVISION”:

 

1- Research background should be added to the article after the introduction. Check the research background comprehensively and present it in the form of a table.

2- Explain the hypothesis and questions of the research in a clear manner.

3- The research method must be added to the article before the research literature. What is the method of this study?

4- "Discussion" section should be added in a more highlighting, argumentative way. The author should analysis the reason why the tested results is achieved.

5- The readability and presentation of the study should be further improved. The paper suffers from language problems.

 

Good luck

Author Response

Thank you very much for your overall evaluation of our manuscript, and we were very encouraged. We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Recommendations 

 

The paper is well written and presented. The scope of study is well-established to contribute on the development of zero carbon campuses globally by adopting a representative campus buildings as case study approach. Therefore, the paper is required additional work in order to improve the credibility of this rigorous research work. I outlined my recommendations as follow:

 

 

1. Improve Abstract to give less context and more on the knowledge gap, research questions, methods and key findings.
2. A nomenclature, including list of abbreviations should be given.
3. In Introduction section, please outline the main aim, objectives and research questions clearly and articulate the research questions to implement evidence-based sustainability indicators development in higher education buildings. 
4. Novelty of the study should be explained.
5. The authors have been discussed the previous scholars’ work in the Introduction but this is not sufficient to support the research outcomes presented in the Results section. I recommend to the authors to open-up a new section and consider these literature types as follows; systematic literature review or comprehensive literature review to study worldwide literature on sustainability indicators by considering carbon emissions scenarios or another policies relevant to the scope of this article. 
6. I recommend to the authors to the use this open-source software to conduct the systematic literature review on sustainability indicators. Here is the link of the open-source software tool - https://www.vosviewer.com - The authors generated the selected keywords and import the data into this software which allows the researcher to generate the visual maps. I believe that this tool could increase the scientific credibility of their research work.
7. Methodology section should refer more similar pilot studies to demonstrate the significance of authors’ their own work. I recommend to the authors to read these articles - Ozarisoy, B. (2022). Energy effectiveness of passive cooling design strategies to reduce the impact of long-term heatwaves on occupants’ thermal comfort in Europe: Climate change and mitigation. Journal of Cleaner Production. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129675. and   Ozarisoy, B., & Altan, H. (2023). Limitations: Developing an Evidence-Based Energy Policy Framework to Asset Robust Energy Performance Evaluation and Certification Schemes. In: Handbook of Retrofitting High Density Residential Buildings. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11854-8_10 - To increase the credibility of the authors’ their own work, I recommend the authors to cite these articles while they are referring their own methodological framework in the development of novel sustainability indicators assessment. 
8. Please include representative floor plans and 3D visual renderings of a case study building to improve the credibility of this article. 
9. Please include the mapping of MVHR systems and window openings of the case study building in a flow diagram.
10. It is also good to see the relationship of the building with the context so that the location map is fundamental to be included into the manuscript. 
11. Discussions section should be added and the flow diagram should be designed to demonstrate the main research outputs.
12. Limitations and future recommendations should be mentioned. 
13. Relate your conclusions to your research questions

Author Response

Thank you for your nice comments on our article. According to your suggestions, we have supplemented several data here and corrected several mistakes in our previous draft. We have made extensive revisions to our previous draft. The detailed point-by-point responses are listed below.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Review of the paper

 

A Systematic Design Framework for Zero Carbon Campuses: Investigating the Shanghai Jiao Tong University Fahua Campus Case

 

The title properly reflects the subject of the paper, but in the keywords I ask the authors whether it is intentional to use zero carbon and carbon neutral since they are not the same thing. Also in the text perhaps attention should be paid to the use of terms such as zero carbon or zero GHG emissions or net-zero GHG emissions.

The abstract gives a good understanding of the aims, the case study and the conclusions of the manuscript. But I think that the key messages of this study could be made clearer, as I suggest in my comments below.

The introduction emphasises the importance of intervening on university campuses to reduce carbon emissions both as a direct impact on campus management and as an indirect impact on the awareness of those who frequent the campus and the urban communities in which it is situated. This importance is supported by references in the literature that explain the background to the study and justify the aim. The authors also refer to international experiences in universities of different countries. They underline two issues that are seldom considered and are instead the subject of their study: the inclusion in the carbon-neutral (or zero carbon or zero emissions or net-zero emissions?) design of a campus of carbon sinks (line 97); “the inclusion of zero carbon gradients in a more systematic way with  the cultural and historical heritage of the campus (lines 96-97).

They argue that not only is it important to design zero-carbon campuses but this also has a driving function in the ecological transition in China and cite several practical experiences of Chinese universities. However, the authors state that the issue needs to be addressed on a theoretical-methodological level as well as on a practical-experimental level. At the conclusion of the introduction, in lines 127 to 132, the approach and objectives of the study are clearly stated, but in order to make the introduction simpler and clearer, I suggest more synthesising the presentation of bibliographical references in the introduction (see lines 67 to 88).

In the Literature review (section 2), the authors cite many important published papers and comment on them extensively. The discussion of literature references addresses several topics: identification of the most relevant carbon emission factors, methods and instruments used for surveys, boundaries of impact analyses, partial or systematic view of impact factors etc. However, this paragraph is quite difficult to read and perhaps some improvement can be made in reorganising the topics into the three points: 2.1 Relevant concepts and carbon neutral goals of zero carbon campus; 2.2 Zero Carbon Campus Systematic Design Dimensions; 2.3 Practical development of zero carbon campus systematic design. The weaknesses and strengths of the literature on the subject are addressed in section 2.3, which is already part of the presentation of the method adopted in the research which, as the authors explain in section 3.1 is based on literature analysis and case studies.
The method adopted in the study is traditional: building the knowledge base through the literature on the subject and proposing a series of solutions that are framed in a framework. The latter represents the localised and replicable contribution in other experiences. No Computerised Bibliometrics Method was used, while an approach based on critical reflection was favoured, which is appreciable.

Section 3 lines 481 to 488 and Figs. 1-3 describe the design elements of a zero carbon campus system. Section 3.3 describes the framework combining these elements. I suggest putting more emphasis on the research question (lines 617-621) and the framework proposal (fig.4), avoiding repeating remarks already made elsewhere in the text as remark on the usefulness of the proposal.
Finally, section 4 illustrates the proposal applied to the case study following the elements of the framework. The application, a kind of master plan in diagrammatic form of the various proposed interventions, was carried out by setting up a research group that worked in March 2023. Perhaps it would be appropriate to better illustrate how this design-research group was conducted (line 667). Brainstorming and expert evaluation (see item 678)? Analysis of specific design strategies and boundary conditions (item 693)? The caption in fig. 7 also needs to be clarified as it summarises the set of interventions illustrated later in the paper.

The second element of the framework -Two Complementary Paths: Carbon emission reduction and carbon sink- is adequately illustrated, but it would be more convincing if some data on the current campus energy consumption in relation to the proposed interventions were reported (e.g. in correspondence with what is said in lines 731-734).

The third element -Triple Coupling Dimensions: Social, Technical, and Ecological dimensions- is the most innovative aspect of the proposal in my opinion, since it proposes a series of measures to involve the stakeholders in the knowledge and collaboration in the realisation of the Zero Carbon Campus objective and also includes in this objective the identity elements within the campus, represented by cultural heritage inheritance.

4.2.4 Carbon-neutral Smart Services Platform, deals perhaps a little too briefly with digital technologies for the operational management of the proposed system of solutions and its monitoring.

4.3 (lines 904-943i) is the summary presentation of the result of the study. However, I do not understand the significance of the two bibliographic references in this context. Perhaps the authors want to compare their results with previous published studies?

 

In the conclusions, the authors discuss and highlight the strengths of the proposed method and framework and state that it was not possible to include data on the individual carbon footprints of faculty and students on campus in the case study analysis. In order to explore these aspects in more detail, the authors argue that contributions from other disciplines are also needed. What disciplines can be suggested? However, one can agree with what the authors say, namely that the method followed is a dynamic method to be applied in a process of intervention and monitoring. The framework is therefore to be regarded as a guide in a continuous process of improvement towards the goal of achieving a zero carbon campus.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your precious comments and advice. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have revised the manuscript accordingly，and our point-by-point responses are presented above.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The amendment made by the respected authors; it is approved

 Accept in present form

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all changes very thoroughly. The paper has been conceptualised with exceptional quality. Very well done to the authors.