Contribution of University to Environmental Energy Sustainability in the City
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article looks not very well organized in terms of demonstrating a certain hypothesis.
Starting from the title, the paper is not about the "Influence of Universities on the Sustainability of Environmental Energy in cities". Rather the content of the paper is how university can contribute to the energy sustainability of the city.
The paper however is based on a sort of comparison between the university case and the city case and this is the main objective (line 90 point (i)).
But this comparison seems not correct given the differences in the two and that the first is a part of the second (that in fact is defined as an "urban campus in line 151).
The problems with the comparison appears in Table 1 and Table 2: for the city Table 1 presents the value od "Buildings" and "Transport" and of course transport is featured by an high level of emissions; in Table 2 it is clear that the university is "only" a group of buildings and then the transport is not so relevant (see Table 3).
The suggestion is to focus the paper on the university case and then to test wether the application of the SEAP plan (as in the city) will improve the level of sustainability.
Moreover, pages 11 and 12 (from line 337 to line 369) needs to be re-written because the list provided is not clear.
Table 5 shows that University is not applying SEAP plan such as the city. But it is not clear if the reference is to 2015 (like the data). In this case the Authors should provide an updating to show the improvements in recent years.
The conclusions should be connected with the university case and the effects of the implementation the SEAP plan and eventually what else would be necessary to increase the sustainability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The subject of the manuscript is the analysis of the environmental impact of the Donostia-San Sebastian university campus against the background of the entire city. Modern tools (NEST) were used. The work is interesting. I have no comments regarding the methodology and analysis of the material used. However, I have a reservation on the assumptions. The analysis of energy efficiency completely ignores the problem of municipal sewage, which after all is created (2-4 m3 per month per person). It's a big plus or minus energy contribution. I do not deny that without this analysis they have value, however, it should be mentioned why the sewage problem was treated marginally.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion this version is suitable for publication
Reviewer 2 Report
I understand and accept the amendments.
