Healthy Campus: A Contribution to the Environment, Sustainability, and Social Responsibility Practices at the IPBeja in Portugal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is the third time I have reviewed this paper and while I had major reservations in the first version and did not recommend publication, the authors have developed the paper considerably in response to feedback both on the first occasion and in response to other reviewers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your submission to the Sustainability journal.

It is an interesting paper, which somewhat aligns to the scope of the journal concerning several themes and topics.

However, please see feedback below with regards to aspects of the manuscript which require further attention, at this stage:

- I believe that the context (Portugal) should be mentioned within the title. This provides focus and clarifies to the reader.

- There are currently two sentences which attempt to describe the methodology, listing steps taken and the approach. Please revise this, and align to a known methodological approach. For example, where this methodology reflects an exploratory, qualitative, or case study approach etc.

- What are the policy and organisational implications of the results? Ensure that this is clear within the abstract and relevant sections of the paper.

- Opening statements, such as that at the start of the introduction, requires multiple sources to support it. Also, this would evidence wide reading of the subject to further inform the reader.

- Currently, there are paragraphs removed from this latest draft. This alludes to the structure of the paper, and the context of the study. I believe that these are important. please refer to these aspects in the closing paragraphs of your introduction.

- At present, the introduction is very short. Acknowledging the research background, research problem or gap, aim(s) of the paper, the paper's context, its value, and the structure of the paper should all be displayed in the introduction.

- Again, there is several paragraphs removed from this draft, concerning the literature. I suggest that literature reviews the role of academia and universities, as an institution which promotes sustainability in practice. This could be through multiple sections of discussion: the university, studies on theory to practice sustainability, and ongoing/evolved CSR considerations in relation to the UN sustainability agenda 2030. At present, much more discussion and a summary of the literature is required.

- I believe that the methodology should be more precisely defined, and be able to be explained against relevant methodological theory literature. For example, what other studies adopts this type of methodology? Are there any alternatives? Please highlight the current examples of research investigations in this area.

- Mind mapping literature, and introducing an opportunity to conduct a comparative study with secondary literature perhaps, would strengthen the discussion section(s). Therefore, please amend with the concept of mind mapping being introduced earlier in the manuscript.

- Please provide clear conclusion, implications, and future research sections to clarify the value and benefits of these findings and what the impact could be.

 

Kind Regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an interesting study on the implementation of the Healthy Campus (HC) program in a Portuguese Higher Education Institution (HEI). It effectively highlights the program's role in promoting sustainability, social responsibility, and environmental awareness. However, minor improvements are needed to enhance the clarity and overall presentation. 

- Strengthen the connection between the research findings and the broader theoretical context. Explicitly state how this work builds on or contrasts with previous studies in the field.

- While the results are well-presented, the discussion could delve deeper into the implications of the findings. For instance, how do the results align with or differ from existing literature? What challenges or limitations were encountered?

- The references are appropriate but could be expanded to include more recent studies, particularly those addressing innovative methodologies in sustainability programs. 

• Consider adding more visual aids or charts to summarize key findings, as this would make the data more accessible to readers.
• Address any potential limitations of the study more explicitly in the conclusion and suggest areas for future research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is adequate but could be improved in places to ensure clarity and readability. A professional language edit is recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The structure of the manuscript is generally reasonable, but there is an excessive amount of descriptive content, although some of it is valuable.

The literature review is not sufficiently comprehensive, especially in terms of commentary on similar or related studies, which is somewhat lacking.

Can the main findings of this study be generalized to other countries or regions? What issues arose during the implementation of the project? Unfortunately, these aspects do not seem to have been thoroughly analyzed or discussed.

The research conclusions are not clearly defined. While the arguments presented are somewhat rational, they seem to belong to the realm of common knowledge. In other words, one could arrive at similar conclusions through a systematic literature review without conducting this study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the work is understandable, there are numerous errors in English (wording, grammar, etc.) that need to be reviewed and edited by a professional. For example, in lines 211-212, the text says, "focusing on their methodology and how can HC program be an asset in promoting the environment," but should instead say "focusing on their methodology and how an HC program can be an asset ...". These types of errors appear throughout the text. While the errors are generally small, they do interrupt the flow of reading for a native speaker.

While this is not an empirical study but is more of a program explanation paper, I do believe that it is worth publication for general reading. It is more of a description and "how to" type of paper of a practical nature with a discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of a coordinated system. Interesting and definitely deals with sustainability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the resubmission of your revised manuscript.

I believe that you have carefully read the previous comments, and implemented revisions and amendments which respond well to the previous feedback.

At this stage, I wish to recommend an accept decision on the manuscript.

Kind Regards

Author Response

Thank You very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well done.

The manuscript still needs to be carefully checked and proofread.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below.

Comments 1: Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Response 1: Thank you very much

We added “The activities presented as an example in this manuscript are in line with what was mentioned in [60], which states that academic work is not enough to achieve competences relating to Environmental, Social Responsibility and sustainability.” The change can be found – page number 15, line 556-558.

In the Table 2. Result of SWOT analysis, we added in Strengths (6) well-being promotion. The change can be found – page number 15, line 562

In Final considerations, we added: “Youth who are more involved and engaged in the community have higher levels of well-being [63]. The continuity of this program is important in boosting values of social responsibility and can thus have an impact on students' behavior. The change can be found – page number 16, line 590 -593

Comments 2: For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Response 2: Thank you very much.  Donne in the previously response.

Comments 3: Is the article adequately referenced?

Response 3: Thank you for pointing out this!  We have included two more references [62], [63]. The change can be found – page number 16, line 777 -779; 784-786

We have checked once again!  We believe that it complies with the journal's standards

Comment 4: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well done. The manuscript still needs to be carefully checked and proofread.

Response 4: Thank you very much! The manuscript was carefully revised and improved,

Best regards,

The authors

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Brief summary

This article addresses the role of HEIs in tackling the current environmental imbalances that exist. Following Portugal's recent progress towards the SDGs, the authors consider how the FISU's Healthy Campus programme supports this.

General concept comments

The introduction is lengthy occupying 6 pages - nearly half of the article, and at times this tends towards the descriptive. This is somewhat understandable because the reader needs to be aware of the context in Portugal and the programme more specifically, but it would be useful if the introduction was reduced before any publication.

The methodology is appropriate but while there is some meaningful data presented here, this is a small scale study which might be more suitable to an internal report than a wider international audience. Undoubtedly, this is an important issue but there is some lack of academic rigour here.

If the journal wanted to accept this article, my suggestion is that the more descriptive passages of the introduction would be removed, there would be less description in the results section, and more time would be taken to look at the ramifications of the results.

Specific comments

p.2 This sentence is not working at present and needs reworking. 'However, as pointed out by Coelho et al. [11] to achieve global social transformation, it is essential that citizens have access to an education that puts real-world experiences at the centre of learning, encourages reflection and critical thinking, and prepares people for diversity; only by developing participation and a sense of belonging to a shared humanity, which individual can move towards education for global citizenship as advocated in the national strategy for Development Education in Portugal 2018-2022 [12]'.

p.2 Below this there are two quotes strung together which might be better assimilated more fully into the authors' voice.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

With the exception of the sentence indicated above, the English prose was fluent and accurate.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in attachment and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks for your submission to the Sustainability journal.

Please see comments below, which I believe would help in strengthening the manuscript.

·       I believe that the abstract should indicate more clearly the types of problems faced by organisations and universities, concerning sustainability and social responsibility and in achieving these.

·       Please ensure that FISU acronym is explained in the abstract.

·       What are the contributions and value of this manuscript? Please include this within the abstract.

·       At present, I believe that the introduction is very long. Please split the introduction into clear introduction and literature sections. This would allow for deeper discussion of sustainability and the role of the university etc, to be highlighted.

·       The Portuguese context features frequently in this paper. Does this impact the focus, and should Portugal feature in the abstract and title? If not, ensure that other national examples and contexts are included in relevant section(s).

·       Please ensure that the introduction includes a closing paragraph, clearly stating the contents of following sections.

·       Please provide some further explanation of why the specific goals of this paper are important.

·       Please introduce and discuss other methodological approaches to understanding sustainability within university contexts. Where has quantitative, and also qualitative, studies been deemed appropriate?

·       I would suggest that sub-sections in section 5 refer to implications and recommendations of this study. Highlight what the impact of this study is, within the implications, and then please recommend future research and practice.

Kind Regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attachement and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents an interesting case study of practical work completed at an instituion in order to improve sustainability in education and operations according to the FISU healthy campus framework.  They did an admiral job of engaging stakeholders and getting input on how to meet the HC framework.  The paper provides a map for what they did on campus, but is not a research paper.  There are no research questions or empirical research methods, which reduce the value of this work for a peer-reviewed research journal.  

Specific comments:

1. There is too much background, needs to be more focused on the role of HEIs and approahes to meet SDGs and other sustainability frameworks. 

2. L72-73 - the info in the sentence that starts "This indicates that..." is not supported by the information provided by the preceeding sentence.

3. The statement of a research gap starting on L123 is not really supported by the preceeding paragraphs

4. L126-128 - not clear what networks referenced in this sentence. Are there such networks in other countries? If yes, an example would help

5. Background on Eco schools and HC includes more than needed. For example, don't really need maps and graphs for both of these. L167-168 - not clear what the #s in this sentence mean (years? programs? )

6. L210, should Aug 2023 really be Aug 2024?  Otherwise, not clear why the list is not sequential.

7. L23 - I think that these are really rankings (silver, gold) not ratings (list of highest scores with your position noted)

8. The #s associalted with the HC checklist (e.g., L310) are not known to the reader, not a useful way to identify what you are referring to.

9. Fig 6 - not in English. Can you prvide English translation as Supplemental infor? Or include some examples in the text?

10. L386 and elsewhere - what is plogging? The reported CO2 emissions are admirable, but likely very small relative to other campus activities.  CO2 benefits are really not the value here.  For example, A single regrigerator in Germany or a single TV in the US have similar annual emissions as cited here.

11. Figs 10-11. A single year of electricity or water consumption is not that valuable, it does not help in assessing change that might be influenced by the HC program.  These graphs would also be better served with absolute values of information rather than %s.  There might be a lot more consumption overall in the summer (Air conditioning), that cannot be interpretted from %s. The conclusion statted in L426 about high water consumption cannot be interpretted with the graph provided. Benchmarks to compare consumption to other relevant HEIs are necessary to declare that these values are "high". The % consumed by different schools depends on too many different factors (e.g., building area, # students, etc.).

The structure of many sentences was hard to interpret, with too many commas and phrases that are in an illogical order (at least to me) and very long. Some significant editting for English needed (examples, lines 54-56, 62-64, 78-80, 877-93, 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Sentence structure can be improved

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The suggestions have been effectively actioned or justified and it is my view that this has greatly improved the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for accepting the manuscript for publication.

Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks for this resubmission, of your manuscript, to the Sustainability journal.

Having read the resubmission, and author response, I am satisfied that it the revised version responds well to the suggestions and areas highlighted.

I am happy to approve, at this stage.

Kind Regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for accepting the manuscript for publication.

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a good job of responnding to the detailed comments in the original review.  Most of those changes are acceptable.  There is still a questiion of "research" content in this manuscript. I am an advocate of a broad definition of research and scholarship to include practical project, but I still believe that there should be a greater amount of assessment of the program - did t work?  The "assessment" of the program (Fig. 3), is really an evaluation, not really an assessment of desired outcomes.

Figure 8 is more informative with out the percentages, but the graphs need some more work.  Black should be used for all text and axes, I suggest that the electricity units be changed to MWh, that way the numbers on the Y axis and data labels will have fewer digits and therefore be more readable.  There needs to be more contrast beween the colors on the stacked bars and the data label #sIt is best to adjust the size of the graphs so the x axes and y-axis values are aligned between a and b. That makes it easier to compare visually between the two years. The caption needs to be changed to delete "in %"

Figure 9 - Many of the same graph improvement issues as above should be improved

Overall, this is well swritten and a reasonable presentation of what one campus did. The editors can decide if there is sufficient research content to warrent publication in Sustainability

Comments on the Quality of English Language

some sentence structures are still long and convoluted.  They did a good job fixing the handful that I pointed out, but my review was not thorough enough to identify every single sentence that could be improved,

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review this article. Please find in the attachment the improvement changes made / arguments that we considered are in line with what was suggested.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf