Analysis of the Water Indicators in the UI GreenMetric Applied to Environmental Performance in a University in Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- Line 16: What is the full meaning of WR? The full meaning should be mentioned the first time in line 16, not in line 54.

- The abstract did not specifically mention the methodology used in this study.

- Kindly revise the sentence in lines 30-33 to ensure clarity.

- Line 60: What is the full meaning of AISHE? The full meaning should be mentioned in line 60, not in line 358.

- Lines 64-65: The full meaning of SDG was first mentioned in line 13, not line 64.

- The Introduction Section lacks (i) a problem statement/knowledge gap(s) and (ii) the significance of the study.

- The last paragraph of the Introduction section should provide a breakdown of the remaining sections of the manuscript.

- In its current state, the manuscript is missing a literature review section. The background information in the Introduction section is not comprehensive enough.

- Lines 88-104: Kindly present the measurement related to each WR in a Table.

- Line 107: You reported that the data were collected over approximately 13 months from 2023 to 2024. Kindly specify the commencement of the data collection and the completion date in months. Then, follow up with the beginning of data analysis and the results/findings.

- Line 74: Materials and Methods. What materials were utilized in this study? If no materials were utilized, kindly revise it to methods or methodology.

- The methodology section is weak in its current state. The authors should describe in detail the methods/techniques utilized in conducting this study, not just briefly describe the five evaluation criteria and the measurement related to each WR.

- Lines 127-128: The authors mentioned "evaluation". Kindly present the evaluation method in the methodology section.

- Line 144: The authors mentioned the "questionnaire's classification for the indicator." Please present the questionnaire design procedure and its administration in the method section.

- Lines 147-150: Comparison with other campuses. The interpretation and implications of the results should be presented in the discussion section, not in the results section.

- Lines 181-183: This should be presented in the methodology section.

- Lines 232-236: Comparison with other studies. Move to the discussion section.

- Lines 244-254 Should be moved to the methodology section. The results section should present significant results relevant to the study's aim and objectives.

- Lines 254-255: How did the study assign the relative weight? Please provide detailed information for clarity.

- The whole manuscript should be revised and edited to fix all abbreviation issues. Line 263: The full meaning of PE was already mentioned earlier.

- Kindly indicate the two plates in Figure 3.

- Lines 272-293 should be moved to the discussion section. The authors should also provide an interpretation for the comparison, not just compare the current study results with other case studies.

- Why two sections 3.4 (i.e., lines 202 and 299)? Why section 5 without section 4? Kindly revise these and the entire manuscript to ensure proper section arrangement. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

• Line 16: What is the full meaning of WR? The full meaning should be mentioned the first time in line 16, not in line 54 - The abbreviation "WR" is now defined in line 80
• The abstract did not specifically mention the methodology used in this study - A reference to the methodology has been added.
• Kindly revise the sentence in lines 30-33 to ensure clarity - The introduction has been extensively revised for clarity.
• Line 60: What is the full meaning of AISHE? The full meaning should be mentioned in line 60, not in line 358 - Full names of abbreviations are provided upon their first use.
• Lines 64-65: The full meaning of SDG was first mentioned in line 13, not line 64.  Correction have been implemented.
• The Introduction Section lacks (i) a problem statement/knowledge gap(s) and (ii) the significance of the study - The current status of USP and areas for improvement in the water category of the ranking are now discussed. The assessment of this category on one of its campuses contributes to diagnostics and improvement strategies.
• The last paragraph of the Introduction section should provide a breakdown of the remaining sections of the manuscript - A brief description of the subsequent sections has been added as the final paragraph of the introduction.
• In its current state, the manuscript is missing a literature review section. The background information in the Introduction section is not comprehensive enough - The introduction has been extensively revised for clarity. 
• Lines 88-104: Kindly present the measurement related to each WR in a Table. - A table outlining the questionnaire criteria and measurements has been included.
• Line 107: You reported that the data were collected over approximately 13 months from 2023 to 2024. Kindly specify the commencement of the data collection and the completion date in months. Then, follow up with the beginning of data analysis and the results/findings - The exact dates of measurements have been specified.
• Line 74: Materials and Methods. What materials were utilized in this study? If no materials were utilized, kindly revise it to methods or methodology - The section has been renamed “Methodology.”
• The methodology section is weak in its current state. The authors should describe in detail the methods/techniques utilized in conducting this study, not just briefly describe the five evaluation criteria and the measurement related to each WR - Directions for the questionnaire and evaluation options for the obtained evidence have been added.
• Lines 127-128: The authors mentioned "evaluation". Kindly present the evaluation method in the methodology section - The term “evaluation” was replaced where necessary in the context of measurements and interpretation.
• Line 144: The authors mentioned the "questionnaire's classification for the indicator." Please present the questionnaire design procedure and its administration in the method section - The questionnaire, including directions and classification options, is described in the methodology section.
• Lines 147-150: Comparison with other campuses. The interpretation and implications of the results should be presented in the discussion section, not in the results section. We request the possibility of combining the results and discussion sections.
• Lines 272-293 should be moved to the discussion section. The authors should also provide an interpretation for the comparison, not just compare the current study results with other case studies  - The paragraph has been restructured.
• Lines 232-236: Comparison with other studies. Move to the discussion section. - We request the possibility of combining the results and discussion sections.
• Lines 181-183: This should be presented in the methodology section. -­ Suggestion adopted.
• Lines 244-254 Should be moved to the methodology section. The results section should present significant results relevant to the study's aim and objectives - Suggestion adopted.
• Lines 254-255: How did the study assign the relative weight? Please provide detailed information for clarity.- The details regarding the weight calculation for the EP were removed from the text, with the focus now placed on referencing the use of the methodology.
• The whole manuscript should be revised and edited to fix all abbreviation issues. Line 263: The full meaning of PE was already mentioned earlier. - Abbreviations have been reviewed.
• Kindly indicate the two plates in Figure 3 - The full description for Figure 3 has been added to the caption.
• Why two sections 3.4 (i.e., lines 202 and 299)? Why section 5 without section 4? Kindly revise these and the entire manuscript to ensure proper section arrangement - Section numbers have been corrected.
• Moderate editing of English language required - The English was reviewed.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study's main objective is to apply the water indicators from the GreenMetric to evaluate the environmental performance of the campus of the University of São Paulo. The primary value of this paper is to present a case study. Overall the paper is well written and structured, and provides insight into the water sustainability performance at a single location. There are however several improvements needed to elevate this paper to publishable standard.

Materials and methods

I would prefer to see an introductory statement in this section that references the case study location presented in the results, and states who/how the research team collected the data (e.g., a combination of onsite measurements, data collected from facilities staff, desk based research etc.).

Results

P3 L122-125 – The description of the site built area, academic community is useful but would also like to a little more detail on what types of academic activities are conducted at EACH, and other water features of note. E.g., Is there a medical school, chemistry, biology, engineering departments? Is there a large research community conducting experimental work or is it primarily desk based and teaching. Are there swimming pools, water features/ponds/fountains etc., This can provide some indication of additional water demands from different departmental uses.

P3 L129 – “According to [29]” – please replace [29] with the author/date you are referring to. Also the sentence is a little confusing referring to collection area (m2) and then reservoir (m3). Please make the connection between surface collection area at required reservoir capacity clearer.

P3 L132-133 – Phrasing of  “constructed in re-inforced concrete and polyethylene water tanks” would be better as  “including both reinforced concrete structures and polyethylene water tanks,…”

P3 L134 state the number of storage reservoirs in the instructional laboratories.

P4 L143 add the word “capacity” after “674 m3 of rainwater.” Please also state what the uses of the stored water are (potable, non-potable, combination etc.).

P4 L144 – this is the first mention of the word “questionnaire”. It would be preferrable to refer to the Green Metric criteria or indicator set rather than “questionnaire” and to rephrase “falls into the … stage” since the reader does not know where “25-50%” stage fits in the overall ranking criteria. Is this at the upper or lower end of ranking criteria?

P4 L147 Not clear why Clemson University is referred to for comparison when there are over 1100 universities participating in the Green Metric program. Please make it clear why this comparison is relevant.

P4 L156 section on WR2 – please define “domestic” effluent (e.g., this is a combination of black water and grey water?). Is there any separation of black water (toilets) from grey water (kitchens, sinks, showers, etc)? Are there any considerations for chemical/biological contaminants from medical/laboratory water combined with “domestic” effluent.

P4 Table 2 label is incorrect. I believe this should read “Number of hydraulic devices”?

P5 “Tablea” 3  should be “Table” 3. Also, it is possible to comment on the number/percentage of hydraulic devices that incorporate a water saving feature? How long have these been in place, and are there any opportunities for further efficiency savings?

P5 L203 – rather than “At the moment” – better to state “At the time of writing”. Can you please clarify by “100% of the water used is potable water …” that you mean “100% of treated water consumed is potable water”? Otherwise this implies all water uses is potable, but there must be some uses of the rainwater currently harvested.

P7 L232, L245, L247, L251, L265 replace numbered references with Author name/year ([35] [26], [27] etc.] Also P8/9 references and Figures, too many to list

P8 L273 – missing word “presented “in” Table 5 and Table 6”

P8 – Tables 5 and 6 – Since the unit is the same for all entries, include the Unit under “Consumption” and remove the Unit column

P8 L285 refers to Table 5 and “10% lower than Federal Center for Technological Education of Minas Gerais [41]” however this datapoint is not included in Table 5.

P9 L297-8 Can you elaborate on what the “incentive” was?

P9 Table 7 – Replace “Leste” with “East” – Is the water tested for Pb?

Conclusions

To make this paper more effective, the conclusions could be an opportunity to comment on the use of the GreenMetric for driving water sustainability improvements. Would the university have been pursuing these improvements had they not been involved in this evaluation program and ranking? Based on the authors observations of applying this evaluation to this site, does the GreenMetric capture all relevant aspects of water sustainability evaluation, or are there areas that are being missed. For example, is there on campus educational awareness campaigns related to water savings? What other areas for consideration are needed – does the water sustainability metric include consideration of sustainable drainage, flood water management, drought management etc. Additional commentary reflecting on recent relevant comparable literature is needed. How do different campus populations, department types, geographical locations, socioeconomic contexts, affect the ability to implement improvements.

A bit more reflection is needed to elevate this paper.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

• I would prefer to see an introductory statement in this section that references the case study location presented in the results, and states who/how the research team collected the data (e.g., a combination of onsite measurements, data collected from facilities staff, desk based research etc.). - Additional paragraphs introducing the location and measurements have been added to the end of the introduction and the beginning of the methodology.
• P3 L122-125 – The description of the site built area, academic community is useful but would also like to a little more detail on what types of academic activities are conducted at EACH, and other water features of note. E.g., Is there a medical school, chemistry, biology, engineering departments? Is there a large research community conducting experimental work or is it primarily desk based and teaching. Are there swimming pools, water features/ponds/fountains etc., This can provide some indication of additional water demands from different departmental uses - More details about the campus have been provided.
• P3 L129 – “According to [29]” – please replace [29] with the author/date you are referring to. Also the sentence is a little confusing referring to collection area (m2) and then reservoir (m3). Please make the connection between surface collection area at required reservoir capacity clearer - Citation format was corrected, and the phrase regarding the collection area was rephrased.
• P3 L132-133 – Phrasing of  “constructed in re-inforced concrete and polyethylene water tanks” would be better as  “including both reinforced concrete structures and polyethylene water tanks,…” - The suggestion was adopted.
• P3 L134 state the number of storage reservoirs in the instructional laboratories  - Information was added.
• P4 L143 add the word “capacity” after “674 m3 of rainwater.” Please also state what the uses of the stored water are (potable, non-potable, combination etc.). - Correction made.
• P4 L144 – this is the first mention of the word “questionnaire”. It would be preferrable to refer to the Green Metric criteria or indicator set rather than “questionnaire” and to rephrase “falls into the … stage” since the reader does not know where “25-50%” stage fits in the overall ranking criteria. Is this at the upper or lower end of ranking criteria?- Further details on the questionnaire were added, indicating whether a classification is at the upper or lower end of the ranking.
• P4 L147 Not clear why Clemson University is referred to for comparison when there are over 1100 universities participating in the Green Metric program. Please make it clear why this comparison is relevant- The ranking does not require information about per capita water storage; however, this data was included for a broader understanding of the campus's water storage capacity. Both sites are classified in the same population category (under 24,000) according to Xu et al. [32]. These details were added to enhance the comparison.
• P4 L156 section on WR2 – please define “domestic” effluent (e.g., this is a combination of black water and grey water?). Is there any separation of black water (toilets) from grey water (kitchens, sinks, showers, etc)? Are there any considerations for chemical/biological contaminants from medical/laboratory water combined with “domestic” effluent.  - Information on effluents, including laboratory and medical effluents, was added.
• P4 Table 2 label is incorrect. I believe this should read “Number of hydraulic devices”?  - Correction made.
• P5 “Tablea” 3  should be “Table” 3. Also, it is possible to comment on the number/percentage of hydraulic devices that incorporate a water saving feature? How long have these been in place, and are there any opportunities for further efficiency savings? - Data on the percentage and year of installation of devices was included.
• P5 L203 – rather than “At the moment” – better to state “At the time of writing”. Can you please clarify by “100% of the water used is potable water …” that you mean “100% of treated water consumed is potable water”? Otherwise this implies all water uses is potable, but there must be some uses of the rainwater currently harvested - Correction made, including details on rainwater usage.
• P7 L232, L245, L247, L251, L265 replace numbered references with Author name/year ([35] [26], [27] etc.] Also P8/9 references and Figures, too many to list. - Citations were corrected according to journal guidelines.
• P8 L273 – missing word “presented “in” Table 5 and Table 6”.  - Correction implemented.
• P8 – Tables 5 and 6 – Since the unit is the same for all entries, include the Unit under “Consumption” and remove the Unit column  - Correction implemented.
• P8 L285 refers to Table 5 and “10% lower than Federal Center for Technological Education of Minas Gerais [41]” however this datapoint is not included in Table 5. - Phrase removed.
• P9 L297-8 Can you elaborate on what the “incentive” was?  - Phrase removed.
• P9 Table 7 – Replace “Leste” with “East” – Is the water tested for Pb?  - Correction implemented. Pb is not included in the standard tests contracted for drinking water analysis

• To make this paper more effective, the conclusions could be an opportunity to comment on the use of the GreenMetric for driving water sustainability improvements. Would the university have been pursuing these improvements had they not been involved in this evaluation program and ranking? Based on the authors observations of applying this evaluation to this site, does the GreenMetric capture all relevant aspects of water sustainability evaluation, or are there areas that are being missed. For example, is there on campus educational awareness campaigns related to water savings? What other areas for consideration are needed – does the water sustainability metric include consideration of sustainable drainage, flood water management, drought management etc. Additional commentary reflecting on recent relevant comparable literature is needed. How do different campus populations, department types, geographical locations, socioeconomic contexts, affect the ability to implement improvements. A bit more reflection is needed to elevate this paper. Two additional paragraphs were added to the conclusion for deeper reflection.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- The last paragraph of the Introduction section should provide a breakdown of the remaining sections of the manuscript.

- The manuscript is still missing a comprehensive literature review section.

- The manuscript is still missing a discussion section.

Author Response

•    The last paragraph of the Introduction section should provide a breakdown of the remaining sections of the manuscript.- The sections of the manuscript have been described in the last paragraph of the Introduction section.
•    The manuscript is still missing a comprehensive literature review section. - A paragraph containing a comprehensive literature review has been added to the Introduction section
•    The manuscript is still missing a discussion section. - A Discussion section has been added to the manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed most of the comments.