A Methodology to Evaluate GHG Emissions for Large Sports Events
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review report
The manuscript title: A methodology to evaluate GHG emissions for large sports events.
In this manuscript, the authors review the state-of-the-art in the field of evaluating greenhouse gas emissions in large sporting events. This includes presenting different case studies and projects, and proposing an innovative methodology based on the “Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions” published by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. The authors followed a methodology that relied on several factors: analyzing goods and services purchased, fuel and energy consumption, waste generation, business travel, and the impact of accommodation. From the authors' point of view, this research helps industry professionals define a comprehensive methodology for measuring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for a major sporting event.
​ The authors used a suitable number of references, including an appropriate number of recent references The manuscript is appropriately prepared, the conclusions presented are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, and address the main question raised.
Some ideas must be reconsidered before this article is approved for publication:
1. The abstract did not include any direct results of the research, as the authors merely presented the research objectives.
2. Although the authors use a significant number of references, an important part of them is concerned with sustainability as an important factor in organizing sporting events without addressing the environmental impact resulting from organizing these events.
3. In response to the idea presented in line 85. I believe that emissions resulting from fans attending, regardless of travel mode, have no connection to the sporting event because these emissions are present anyway and are associated with normal daily activity.
4. In response to the activities included in Table 2. The average values of energy normally consumed before a sporting event, which actually exist, must be taken into account.
5. The chemical formula CO2 must be corrected wherever it appears in the text so that 2 becomes subscript.
6- I think it is better to support the results with numerical data.
7. The study lacks a notable finding, yet it is important as a preliminary step for future research addressing the same phenomenon.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper focuses on a methodology to evaluate GHG emissions for large sports events, presenting different case studies and projects, and to propose an innovative methodology based on the "Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions" published by the Greenhouse gas Protocol. The topic is very important for the literature. However, due to the following problems, my decision is – a major revision, with some amendments. Please see my comments and suggestions below.
Comment 1. The abstract should go further to highlight the findings.
Comment 2. The introduction should be further refined to emphasize the topic. This study should bring up a number of findings from different areas and linking them together to present the research gap.
Comment 3. Also, in the introduction, please state the research questions and literature contributions to fill the research gaps.
Comment 4. I suggest that the section discussion uses several representative studies (2 or 3) in this area to interpret and enrich the results.
Comment 5. In the section discussion, please add the theoretical contributions and practical insights.
Good luck for your work!
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attached report.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
A few minor changes are required. See the attached report.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere is no question that this paper addresses an important and timely topic. The point is made (and repeated throughout the manuscript) that sports organisations are taking environmental sustainability and particularly emissions more and more seriously. In fact while this is the case, many leading sports organisations are also treating climate change in ways that protect their corporate interests, and cases of greenwashing are rife. I was exciting to read this manuscript and hoped that it would provide really cutting-edge insights into methodologies for measuring and responding to the emissions of large sport events.
However, I consider this manuscript to be lacking in terms of offering comprehensive contributions to new knowledge. It offers a long review of existing studies. From the outset I found the paper to be lacking in high quality and critical writing. Instead the sections tend to be long and descriptive. The paper would benefit enormously from a much shorter and succinct introduction that frames the scope and outlines the structure of the paper. The introduction launches straight into a broad ranging discussion of specific aspects of sports events (such as classification of the scale of events), without any real reference to why this is important within the context of the contribution that the paper seeks to make. This was not helped by very short paragraphs in parts of the paper, which compromised both the depth of the writing and the flow of the paper. I would also suggest dedicated sections that frame the paper in terms of existing knowledge (literature) and gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed.
I did feel that the paper might have been drawn together from a thesis (or other wider piece of writing). Indeed the introduction also refers to ‘upcoming chapters’ which suggest that this paper has been drawn from a thesis. I may be wrong, but the lack of a really clear focus in the writing is my general impression.
Overall my impression is that this paper that is too long, too descriptive and lacking in a clear focus. I did also feel that the paper is rather repetitive (several points are made repeatedly through the manuscript) and lacks a critical edge. The limitations seem to discredit the methodology, given that without the full and transparent engagement of sports organisations (that generally want to present a positive image and avoid critique) the data requirements of the methodology are unlikely to be achieved. I would also suggest that a revised version of the paper should include a re-written conclusion. The current conclusion tends to repeat statements made throughout the paper, rather than clearly outline what the paper contributes to new knowledge.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The quality of written English is fine.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Quality of the English language is good but a minor editing is recommended.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is devoted to an urgent topic - reducing the carbon footprint during mass sports events. The research methodology is based on generally accepted principles for calculating carbon emissions, nevertheless, the author's view of the problem has some interest. The authors approached this issue from different perspectives, focusing on various aspects such as the promotion of guidelines and best practices, environmental analysis and models, transport and behavioral analyses. Graphic materials could be made larger. It can be accepted in its present form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn light of the fundamental modifications made by the authors, as well as the arguments they have presented, I see no objection to accepting this article for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the authors' effort to improve the paper. After a carefully reviewing your revised manuscript, I am highly satisfied with the changes that you have made and I have no more comments to offer. I can recommend the publication of this research. I wish you well in taking your research forward.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNone.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I have reviewed this manuscript and identified fundamental issues that lead me to recommend rejection.
The required revisions could not possibly be addressed in the scope of a few days.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of written English is fine.
