The Ecological Footprint of the National University of the Altiplano, Peru: A Tool for Sustainable Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article submitted to the journal Sustainability uses a simple survey research concept and is based on internal data from the records of the National University of the Altiplano in Peru. This is not an innovative or groundbreaking study, but it does make some contribution to understanding the issue of ecological footprint, which is an important element of the sustainable development goals. In the Introduction, the authors described at length the motivation for conducting the research and its importance. The materials and methods are unquestionable, although it cannot be denied that they are simple. It is also difficult to verify this data because internal university documentation was usually used. Google Forms is also an intuitive and simple tool, but of course this tool can be useful in scientific research, which is confirmed in this manuscript. In my opinion, the article deserves to be published in the journal Sustainability after minor corrections, however, as I emphasized, the study itself is simple and the materials and methods used are not groundbreaking. Below are comments on the submitted study.

 

- Abstract: should be "t CO₂" instead of "tCO2". Please check that superscripts and subscripts are used where they should be.

- Instead of semicolons, I would use periods to separate separate ideas in sentences.

- Line 74: I think the period is unnecessary.

- Line 132-140: Please determine the growth rate of the number of students and teachers at the institution described to prove your claims. This issue can be discussed in more detail in the description of the Results.

- While I understand the lack of sources regarding materials obtained from internal university documents, in some places these sources are necessary. For example, please refer to the sources for the information in Table 3.

- The results quoted are approximate, but I understand that this is the nature of the study.

- Table 4: please translate the caption into English.

- Table 8: please cite the sources for each item.

- Please add more visuals in Results. It's a bit lacking.

- Conclusions: please specify future research directions, practical application of the described results, methodological limitations of the described research and their universality. Please refer to sustainability and environmental policies in various regions of the world in determining the relevance of this research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please correct minor typos and superscripts and subscripts (details included above).

Author Response

- Abstract: should be "t CO2" instead of "tCO2". Check that superscripts and subscripts are used where they should be.
Response: What was suggested in the corrected version of the scientific article was considered.

- Instead of semicolons, I would use periods to separate ideas in sentences.
Answer: It is considered indicated.

- Line 74: I think the point is unnecessary.
Answer: It is considered indicated.

- Line 132-140: Please determine the growth rate of the number of students and teachers at the institution described to substantiate your claims. This topic can be discussed in more detail in the description of the Results.
Answer: I consider what is indicated in the article.

- While I understand the lack of sources regarding materials obtained from internal university documents, in some places these sources are necessary. For example, see the information sources in Table 3.
Answer: It is considered indicated.

- The results cited are approximate, but I understand that this is the nature of the study.
Answer: The citation of authors was considered necessary.

- Table 4: translate the title into English.
Answer: The translation was made into English.

- Table 8: cite the sources of each item.
Answer: It is considered indicated.

- Add more images in Results. It's a bit missing.
Answer: What is indicated in Figure 1 and Figure 2 is considered.

• Conclusions: specify the future directions of the research, the practical application of the described results, the methodological limitations of the described research and its universality. Please consult environmental and sustainability policies in various regions of the world to determine the relevance of this research.
  Answer: It is considered indicated.

I attach the corrected version of the scientific article, the same one that was subjected to a translation review by the group associated with MDPI, whose certificate is attached to this comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study employed a descriptive design and a non-experimental approach. Experimental studies or alternative methodologies could have provided more comprehensive and reliable results.

 

Data were collected via Google Forms surveys. However, uncertainties remain regarding response rates and the accuracy of information provided by participants. Supplementing surveys with additional methods or direct observations could have enhanced data reliability.

The study focused on specific areas such as infrastructure usage, electricity consumption, potable water consumption, mobility, and paper consumption. Other potential environmental impacts (e.g., waste management, use of renewable energy) may not have been adequately considered.

The study assessed environmental impact primarily through carbon footprint analysis. However, evaluating other environmental aspects (e.g., water use, impact on biodiversity) could have provided a more holistic understanding of overall environmental impact.

The study does not have the quality and potential to be published in this journal. There may be serious doubts and deficiencies in the scientific logic and content of the study. Therefore, the article is not suitable for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

must be improved

Author Response

Data was collected through Google Forms surveys. However, uncertainties remain regarding response rates and the accuracy of information provided by participants. Supplementing the surveys with additional methods or direct observations could have improved the reliability of the data.
Answer: What was suggested by you was incorporated.

The study focused on specific areas such as infrastructure use, electricity consumption, drinking water consumption, mobility and paper consumption. Other potential environmental impacts (e.g. waste management, use of renewable energy) may not have been adequately considered.
Answer: According to the absence of information, only the use of the main resources was considered.

The study evaluated the environmental impact mainly through carbon footprint analysis. However, assessment of other environmental aspects (e.g. water use, impact on biodiversity) could have provided a more holistic understanding of the overall environmental impact.
Answer: I considered what was suggested in some way.

The study does not have the quality and potential to be published in this journal. There may be serious doubts and deficiencies in the scientific logic and content of the study. Therefore, the article is not suitable for publication.
Their recommendations were valued and a translation of the document was requested by the specialists associated with MDPI for further reference, whose certification is attached to this comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article was devoted to a very interesting issue: "The ecological footprint of the National University of the Altiplano - Peru, a tool for sustainable management". This article explores the critical topic of sustainable development by focusing on the systematic management and analysis of environmental indicators. Specifically, it delves into the study of the ecological footprint, a comprehensive metric that integrates various types of environmental indicators to quantify the total environmental impact caused by everyday human activities. The research specifically aims to calculate the ecological footprint associated with the activities of the National University of the Altiplano during the year 2023. Employing a quantitative, non-experimental approach with a descriptive design, the study gathers primary data directly from the university concerning infrastructure, electrical energy use, drinking water consumption, mobility, and paper usage. Additional data on paper consumption and mobility were collected via Google Forms surveys from faculty, students, and administrative staff. The study meticulously calculates direct and indirect consumptions and then translates these into carbon dioxide emissions for each category. These emissions are subsequently converted into ecological footprints—measured in hectares of forest required to assimilate these emissions and then standardized to global hectares. With results indicating significant ecological impacts—totaling 915.67 ha/year and 1,172.06 hag/year respectively—the findings underscore the urgent need for refining environmental policies at the university. The study identifies the consumption of building resources and electrical energy as the primary contributors to carbon dioxide emissions within the university's facilities. These insights are pivotal for the university's strategic planning towards reducing its ecological footprint and advancing sustainable development goals.

In my opinion, the article is a new and interesting study. However, to further enhance and systematize the topic, I recommend making several significant changes and additions.

ABSTRACT

I recommend specific revisions to enhance the clarity and informativeness of the abstract:

1. Objective Specificity: The objective of the research should be articulated more precisely. Instead of a general statement about assessing the ecological footprint, it would benefit from specifying that the focus is on "quantifying the total ecological footprint of the National University of the Altiplano in 2023, highlighting the impact of daily operational activities such as energy consumption, water usage, and waste management."

2. Methodological Details: The abstract currently lacks a clear mention of the methodology used. For greater clarity and to inform the reader of the research design, it should explicitly state, "The study employs a descriptive, non-experimental design using primary data from university operations and survey responses to calculate and analyze the ecological footprint."

3. Significant Findings: The abstract should detail key quantitative results to emphasize the study's findings. It could be enhanced by including specific figures or a concise summary, such as "The findings indicate that the university's operations require approximately 915.67 hectares of forest annually to offset its carbon emissions, suggesting significant sustainability challenges."

4. Implications: While the abstract mentions the integration of environmental policies, it should clearly connect these results to broader sustainability goals and potential policy implications. For instance, "These results underscore the need for enhanced sustainability practices and inform policy revisions at the university level to align with global sustainable development goals."

MAIN TEXT

1. Literature Review: Although the current literature review includes important publications, it is presented in a collective manner (e.g., referring to literature by numbers [1 to 10]). A more detailed review is recommended, specifically addressing the analyzed works, particularly in the context of mobility and sustainable development challenges. Examples might include works such as "Visual Communication in Shared Mobility Systems" or "Environmental impacts of shared mobility: a systematic literature review of life-cycle assessments focusing on car sharing, carpooling, bikesharing, scooters, and moped sharing." It is crucial to clearly indicate which actions have been taken and what strategies are effective in improving the current state.

2. Article Structure: The end of the introduction lacks a clear presentation of the article's structure, which would facilitate navigation for the reader. I suggest adding a brief description of what will be presented in each section of the article.

3. Discussion: In the discussion section, it is advisable to refer more specifically to similar studies conducted by other researchers in the same field. Emphasizing similarities and differences in approaches, methods, or results will enrich the analysis and the conclusions derived from the study. Integration more current studies specifically related to the environmental impacts of educational institutions to provide a broader and more detailed context for the ecological footprint analysis. This inclusion could enrich the discussion by comparing your findings with those from similar educational settings, potentially highlighting unique challenges or effective strategies that have been overlooked.

4. Conclusion and Transferability of Results: In the conclusion, it would be beneficial to add a section on the transferability of results to other institutions or contexts. Additionally, it is recommended to expand the discussion to include further research plans and limitations of the research methodology.

From an editorial standpoint:

• Mathematical formulas should be numbered to facilitate referencing them in the text.
• The notation for carbon dioxide should be standardized; it currently appears both with and without a subscript.
• Margins and paragraph alignment need to be checked to maintain consistency in formatting throughout the document.
• Please also correct editorial errors, such as an unnecessary period in the title of Table 6.

Additionally, it appears that the article could benefit from further refinement in its English language usage to ensure clarity and professionalism in presentation. There are minor language inconsistencies that could potentially distract from the research's significant findings. Ensuring linguistic accuracy and coherence will undoubtedly improve the manuscript's overall impact and readability.

These recommendations aim not only to improve the quality of the article but also to enhance its scientific value and readability. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please analyze the article for errors in English, e.g. repeated words, e.g. lines 209-215 and the word consumption.

Author Response

ABSTRACT

I recommend specific revisions to improve the clarity and informativeness of the summary:
Answer: What was suggested was improved.

Specificity of the objective: The objective of the research should be articulated more precisely. Instead of a general statement on ecological footprint assessment, it would be beneficial to specify that the focus is on "quantifying the total ecological footprint of the Universidad Nacional del Altiplano in 2023, highlighting the impact of daily operational activities such as energy consumption , water use and waste management."
Response: The corresponding specification of what was indicated was made.

Methodological details: The summary currently lacks a clear mention of the methodology used. For clarity and to inform the reader about the research design, you should explicitly state: "The study employs a descriptive, non-experimental design that uses primary data from university operations and survey responses to calculate and analyze the ecological footprint." .
Answer: The improvement was made, for greater clarity.

Important Findings: The summary should detail key quantitative results to emphasize the study's findings. It could be improved by including specific figures or a concise summary, such as "The findings indicate that the university's operations require approximately 915.67 hectares of forest annually to offset its carbon emissions, suggesting significant sustainability challenges."
Answer. The writing of the abstrac of the scientific article was improved

Implications: While the summary mentions the integration of environmental policies, it should clearly connect these results to broader sustainability goals and potential policy implications. For example, “These results underscore the need to improve sustainability practices and inform policy reviews at the university level to align with global sustainable development goals.”
Answer. The writing of the abstract of the scientific article was improved

MAIN TEXT

Literature Review: Although the current literature review includes major publications, it is presented collectively (for example, referring to the literature by numbers [1-10]). A more detailed review is recommended, specifically addressing the works analyzed, particularly in the context of the challenges of mobility and sustainable development. Examples might include works such as “Visual Communication in Shared Mobility Systems” or “Environmental Impacts of Shared Mobility: A Systematic Literature Review on Life Cycle Assessments Focusing on Car Sharing, Car Sharing, shared bicycles, shared scooters and mopeds. It is crucial to clearly indicate what actions have been taken and what strategies are effective in improving the current state.
Response: The necessary bibliography was included, what was suggested was taken into account.

Structure of the article: The end of the introduction lacks a clear presentation of the structure of the article, which would make navigation easier for the reader. I suggest adding a brief description of what will be presented in each section of the article.
Response: What was suggested was incorporated.

Discussion: In the discussion section it is advisable to refer more specifically to similar studies carried out by other researchers in the same field. Emphasizing similarities and differences in approaches, methods or results will enrich the analysis and conclusions derived from the study. Integration of more current studies specifically related to the environmental impacts of educational institutions to provide a broader and more detailed context for ecological footprint analysis. This inclusion could enrich the discussion by comparing their findings to those from similar educational settings, which could highlight unique challenges or effective strategies that have been overlooked.
Answer: It is considered indicated.

Conclusion and transferability of results: In the conclusion, it would be beneficial to add a section on the transferability of results to other institutions or contexts. Additionally, it is recommended to expand the discussion to include more research plans and limitations of the research methodology.
Answer: The discussion was expanded and at the same time the conclusions were improved.

From an editorial point of view:

Mathematical formulas should be numbered for easy reference in the text.
The notation for carbon dioxide should be standardized; currently appears with and without subscript.
Margins and paragraph alignment need to be checked to maintain consistent formatting throughout the document.
Also correct editorial errors, such as an unnecessary period in the title of Table 6.
Additionally, it appears that the article could benefit from further refinement in its use of the English language to ensure clarity and professionalism in presentation. There are small inconsistencies in the language that could distract from the important findings of the research. Ensuring linguistic accuracy and consistency will undoubtedly improve the overall impact and readability of the manuscript.

These recommendations aim not only to improve the quality of the article but also to improve its scientific value and its readability.

Answer: For the aforementioned suggestions, the revision of the edition of the scientific article in English was processed, which already has the corresponding certification to guarantee the quality of the scientific work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Yes, it is suitable

Author Response

Good morning, according to the information provided by you, all the observations were taken, including the improvement in the English edition, therefore, I attach herewith the final version of the Scientific Article.

Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made changes to the article and it looks much better, but they still did not respond to supplementing the literature review with the aspects I asked for. A more thorough review of the literature should be carried out.

Author Response

Good morning.

The complementary bibliography has already been incorporated; in addition, improvements in the wording and complementary information were considered, in order to make the scientific article more bearable. Therefore, as evidence, the final version of the scientific article is attached.

Greetings.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf