Financing Green Infrastructure in Schools: A Case Study in Austria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to rate this article. Here are my considerations. The article's introduction effectively begins by identifying the importance and growth of schools' greening. The presented literature review seems well-founded and covers many relevant sources from the field of greening and funding projects. However, the review could benefit from some improvements and clarifications. Of the 59 sources used, 36 are very briefly mentioned in the first two paragraphs of the introduction. The article is indeed extremely practically oriented and offers a model for verifying the financial structure for the establishment of green practices in schools. However, we would expect a slightly more comprehensive presentation of the theoretical foundations. In addition, the listed literature is not uniformly arranged and it is necessary to unify its style. There are no comments on the methodological presentation, which is comprehensible and detailed. In the conclusion of the article, possible limitations and opportunities for further research and upgrades could be given.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is all fine written and constructed.

My only problem is that the manuscripts to this publication seem to be one-eyed ones. All phenomena have issues and bad sides. They were not discussed at all in this manuscript. 

Green infrastructure in schools refers to the incorporation of environmentally friendly and sustainable practices, technologies, and design principles into the school's infrastructure. While there are numerous benefits to implementing green infrastructure in schools, such as energy savings, improved air quality, and enhanced learning environments, there are also certain risks and challenges associated with these initiatives:

1. Initial Costs: One of the primary risks is the higher upfront costs associated with implementing green infrastructure. Schools may need to invest in energy-efficient technologies, renewable energy systems, or eco-friendly building materials, which can be more expensive than conventional alternatives.

2. Maintenance Costs: Green infrastructure often requires specialized maintenance, such as the upkeep of solar panels or green roofs. If schools do not budget for this maintenance, it can lead to increased long-term costs.

3. Complexity: Integrating green infrastructure can be complex, particularly in older school buildings. Retrofitting existing structures to meet modern sustainability standards can be challenging and costly.

4. Regulatory Compliance: Meeting green building codes and standards can be complicated and may require additional paperwork, inspections, and approvals. Non-compliance can result in fines or the need for costly modifications.

5. Performance Variability: The effectiveness of green infrastructure elements, such as renewable energy systems or rainwater harvesting, can vary based on local climate conditions and other factors. If these systems underperform, schools may not achieve the expected savings or environmental benefits.

6. Health and Safety Risks: Some green infrastructure features, like green roofs or rain gardens, can introduce new health and safety risks. For example, standing water in rain gardens could become breeding grounds for mosquitoes if not properly maintained.

7. Limited Funding: Schools often operate on tight budgets, and finding funds for green infrastructure projects can be challenging. The allocation of resources to green initiatives may compete with other essential educational needs.

8. Resistance to Change: Resistance from staff, students, or parents who are unfamiliar with or resistant to green practices can be a hurdle. It may take time to educate and gain acceptance within the school community.

9. Sustainability Education: Implementing green infrastructure requires an understanding of sustainability principles. Schools may need to invest in teacher training and educational resources to effectively integrate these principles into the curriculum.

10. Long Payback Periods: Some green infrastructure projects, like energy-efficient building upgrades, may have longer payback periods compared to traditional investments. This can be a financial risk for schools with limited resources.

To mitigate these risks, schools considering green infrastructure projects should conduct thorough feasibility studies, seek available grants and incentives, involve stakeholders in the decision-making process, and ensure proper planning and maintenance. Additionally, they should integrate sustainability education into the school's curriculum to promote awareness and understanding among students and staff.

___________

I have the starting point that scientific research should always be value-free and critical. As can be seen, and to which I wholly subscribe too, green infrastructure projects have risks that can materialize. Especially when costs are counted and finance sought, there should be preparation for the realization of risks and manifestation of the potential risks to the possible financiers.

 

I personally would be worried for example of following cases: Who takes care of the infrastructure during school summer and other longer holidays? Who is responsible if the infrastructure causes health problems (allergic reactions, moist, etc), who is responsible if the infrastructure harms the building (water problems etc.). How about the possible extra energy use these green infrastructures demand from the facilities. Green infrastructure takes place in limited room available, from which this room is then away, which are the alternative costs?

Even when you are financed by a body that wants to see development in green infrastructure, I think as scientists you should take up possible risks and issues, and especially in financing considerations discuss how it should be prepared to the potential realizing risks.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript.

As requested, we have added a paragraph about the risks of green infrastructure to the introduction section, stating also how schools could mitigate those risks.

Furthermore, we did add a section about the Austrian education system in the introduction, as well as a separate methods section to give more detailed information about the theoretical background.

In the discussion section we did include a list of critical success factors as well as the main challenges of the proposed financing scenarios.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The reviewed manuscript aims to present some funding models for green infrastructure proposed for Austrian schools. As stated above, the paper’s theme is interesting from theoretical and potential implementation perspectives. Some significant improvements regarding the paper are proposed and needed to be considered:

C1:  Concerning the Introductory part, it should be extended with the originality elements and the structure of the paper.

C2: One of the two main shortcomings of the reviewed manuscript concerns the theoretical background of it (entitled “2. Life Cycle Costing for Green Infrastructure”), which should be extended and correlated the extant literature. Thus, a detailed review on studies regarding different funding models and funding models for green infrastructure should be included. Also, the Authors should discuss already extant or applied funding models studied within the literature, how they can be particularised for schools.

C3: The Methodological part of the article is missing; therefore, it should be added.

C4: The other main shortcoming of the reviewed manuscript concerns the empirical part, which is mainly lacking. The applicability of the proposed funding model should be presented as a qualitative study, especially how it was/can be applied in the case of a selected Austrian school.

C5: The Conclusions part should be extended, by adding managerial and policy implications, research limitations and future research directions should be added.

C6: Some references from the bibliography should be formatted consequently with the indications from the template.

I hope the above observations will contribute to the improvement of the reviewed manuscript.

Best regards,

  The Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Many thanks for the interesting paper. I enjoyed reading it. Although the study has significant practical implications, the following are my suggestions and comments to improve its academic level:

- Please add a paragraph about the Austrian context (laws, regulations, culture, education sector)

- Please add more justifications about your study to present the originality of your work

- Please clarify the aim and methodology of your work

- What about the validity and reliability of your model

 - Please add a list of critical success factors as well as the main challenges of your model 

 - What about the generalizability of your model (i.e., in other regions)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has improved since the first round.  The risks of green infrastructure have now been discussed to some extend.

I still see that the article is written with a bias, and this is supported by my sadly late understanding that the six interviewees were all current or potential implementers of green infrastructure. The article should absolutely have interviewed the school owners, also the national real estate company.

While I still see that the article is biased and written based on insufficient and biased data, I do not want to be in the way or its publication, and recommend publication as it is.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and your approve for publication.

We did some minor corrections and hope to have further improved the background.

Best regards, Florian Teichmann.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The reviewed manuscript aims to present some funding models for green infrastructure proposed for Austrian schools. Within the second round of review, a further improvement regarding the paper is proposed and needed to be considered:

C1: The theoretical background of the considered manuscript should be further extended. Even if the Authors consider that there is no literature about funding models for green infrastructure specific to schools, however there are several research papers on green infrastructure, green infrastructure models/planning, green infrastructure financing/funding, etc. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110603; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.015; . https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010994; https://doi.org/10.3390/land9120525; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.09.018; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113182; https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.1893202; https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1250875; etc.)

Hope the above observation will contribute to the improvement of the reviewed manuscript.

Best regards,

  The Reviewer

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for the literature recommendations.

We did strengthen the background using most of the recommended literature and some others as well. We hope this finds you well.

Best regards from TU Wien.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors

Many thanks for the revised version.

Author Response

Thank you for your approve.