Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The idea of this paper "Open-source Carbon Footprint Estimator: Development and University Declination" is very interesting. 
In order to improve the article References, in some instances, the relation from the text to the indicated reference is not clear. Extending the conclusions and practical suggestions for the implementation of "Nos Gestes Climat".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “Open-source Carbon Footprint Estimator: Development and University Declination” presents a research aimed at the estimation of individual carbon footprint within the university. The authors stated that the most important advantages of performed model is its transparency, the accurate explanations and variety of actions that can be performed. The presented research is up to date and necessary to facilitate reaching carbon neutrality. The research is even much more interesting as it presents also the results of individual carbon footprint estimation and associated advices to reduce individual carbon footprint.

In the abstract section there are two abbreviations without any explanations (line 20). Please define what “ABC” and “ADME” mean. These are explained only in lines 54-55, but it should be explained in the place where they were used for the first time.

The authors highlighted the need of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation and adaptation to climate change. It was also mentioned that initiatives are starting to be developed to monitor universities’ sustainability building on carbon footprint calculation.

There are also some technical errors. For example in line 87, there should be a space between “calculation” and “[20-24]”.

The website https://nosgestesclimat.fr (line 104) should be cited as a number in […]. The same concerns the websites cited in lines 148, 149, 160, 161, 187.

The information presented in lines 108-117 are redundant. It is not necessary to summarize the content of the individual chapters. It would be better instead to focus on the hypothesis and the objectives of performed study.

The presentation of the results should be amended. For example, all description in figures should be in English even if you present the visualization from the model performed for the French region. It concerns the Figures 3, 7, 9, 10, 11. It is hard to follow the authors intention and steps performed in the model especially for those readers that are not familiarized with the French language.  Undoubtedly, the English language overlay would be an added value to the presentation of the results from the model.

I also suggest to write CO₂ instead of CO2 throughout the text.

In Figure 5 please add the unit in which the average carbon footprint was set. Please also check whether there should be “.” instead of “,” in numbers presented? For example “2,25” or “2.25” ?

The Conclusions section should be more concise. Please present only the most important findings and the rest of the text try to incorporate to the Discussion. There is no need to cite scientific references in conclusions as they are more required in discussion. The conclusions should summarize briefly the most important findings of performed research. Please focus also on the novelty and limitations of the performed study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents the initiative of the University of Centrale Nantes to take action and start the transition towards low carbon emissions. The paper is based on the calculations of the 2018 carbon footprint of the university and uses a national simulator called „Nos Gestes Climate”. Methods Chapter discusses in detail the characteristics of the national carbon footprint simulator, technical particularities of the model,  design of the university declination, and test strategy. The Results and Discussions part is well written and based on a high amount of data. The results are presented in a concise and clear way with appropriate diagrams. Conclusions are original and valuable for scientists studying the impact of GHG emissions and offer at the same time a concrete framework for understanding the possibility for low carbon transition at a larger scale.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors took into account the recommendations resulting from the reviews. Minor editing corrections may be made. Despite this, I recommed to accept it for publication in present form.