Sustainable Legacies of a Climate Positive Olympic Games: An Assessment of Carbon Offsets and Renewable Energy for Brisbane 2032

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author(s),

Topic of the manuscript is very interesting and innovative. However, manuscript is not written up to the mark. There is need to revise it and improve its quality. Major comments are given for revision.

Major Comments

Abstract

1. Objective/ aim of study is missing in the abstract.

2. Methodology in the abstract is not clear.

3. Keywords should be other than words used in the title of the paper.

Introduction

4. Problem statement should be given.

5. Contribution of the study does not focus on research gap.

6. Research questions is missing.

Methodology

7. Methodology is not clear and needs to be re-written showing all steps briefly.

8. Three scenarios given are games played in Olympics, Why??

9. Study parameters and data sources should be given.

10. Figure 2 shows carbon footprints of recent Olympic Games including emissions categories and associated 174 offsets. How were emissions estimated for these games?

11. Table 2 shows scorecard framework for sustainability dimensions. What is source of this scoring method?

Results

12. Line 388, e DISCUS scenario would have high levels of public support. Give possible reasons using relevant citation(s).

13. Draw one more figure showing comparison of sustainability scoring of all scenarios for all indicators.

14. Connection between objectives and methodology and results needs to be developed. 

15. Not a single citation has been added in entire discussion section (line 433-487). Has such research study not been conducted??

Conclusions

16. Conclusions and recommendations section is too long. It is better to reduce it and given specific findings and key recommendations.

General

17. Pronoun (“We”) has been used several time (e.g. line 236-248, 259, 267, 304, 409, 449). Avoid using pronouns in the manuscript.

18. In methodology (scoring, 343-350), present tense is used. In methodology, past tense should be used.

19. Lin 402, replace “higher that” with “higher than” in the sentence.

References

20. Only 22 references are scientific references in total references (58). More relevant scientific preferably journals’ citations should be added.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper discusses about assessment of minimizing carbon footprints using renewable energy for Olympic and Paralympic games 2032 via a sustainability assessment model. Here, mainly Ecological, Social and Economic aspects have been studied. Further, importance of private sectors International Olympic Committee and Olympic movement has been envisaged. It seems that the present manuscript is interesting, nevertheless, there are some scopes for further improvements as summarised below,

(1) Here, it should be clarified how much energy can be conserved using the proposed model. Further, a distinct comparison between summer and winter Olympics would have been useful. (2) The literature survey presented in the introduction section is somewhat weak and authors are encouraged to discuss papers related to various techniques towards acquiring nearly/net zero energy buildings as well as improved building cooling techniques based on the renewable energy. It will be better to discuss the following papers: Comparative assessment of different air‐conditioning systems for nearly/net zero‐energy buildings; A novel variable refrigerant flow system with solar regeneration-based desiccant-assisted ventilation; Experimental study of a combined biomass and solar energy-based fully grid-independent air-conditioning system. (3) There is no equation in the entire paper. This results in some limitation of the proposed model. (4) Various assumptions involved in the present model need to be specified. It would have been better if some sort of comparison was done with respect to other published literature. (5) Abstract should be revised. It should be expanded to clearly convey the background, research gap, methodology, and the importance of the research presented. (6) It is better to include quantified improvements in the abstract section. (7) Results should be explained in depth. For e.g., in Section 2.3, it should be clarified on which factors ecological and social dimensions are dependent. Further, emissions are highly dependent on climatic conditions. So, how the present approach may be tuned for other climates? (8) Objectives should be clearly defined. (9) Economic aspects need to be discussed in more detail. (10) This work would have been better if some sort of comparison of various other sports would have been done. This may offer a scope for future study. Some other possible scopes for extending the present work could be discussed in Conclusion section. (11) The paper should make a compelling case for why this study is useful along with a clear statement of its novelty or originality by providing relevant information and providing answers to basic questions such as: What is already known in the open literature? What is missing (i.e., research gaps)? What needs to be done, why and how?

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I am pleased to review an original version of the article "Sustainable legacies of a Climate Positive Olympic Games:  an assessment of carbon offsets and renewable energy for  Brisbane 2032 ". This is an informative paper dedicated to an exciting topic, however, the work can be improved. Please find a few of my suggestions below:

1. The paper is clear, transparent and relatively easy to "digest", however, I am missing an explanation of the structure, considering the fact that it is quite complex and deviates from a traditional academic paper structure.

Could you please explain and justify the current structure of the paper (preferably, in the introduction)? 

2. The methodology assesses the sustainability of three scenarios, representing different 214 combinations of emission reductions and offset actions. could you please specify a kind of approach/design/ perspective for the assessment? Tech determinism? Grounded theory? Criticism? Please refer to the literature. 

3. (192-199) I would recommend considering (Paris 2024 sustainability case)  

Glebova E, Gerke A, Book R (2022/23) The transformational role of technology in sports events. In Basu, Desbordes, Sarkar (eds.), Sports Management in an Uncertain Environment. Springer.

4. I also recommend: Pourpakdelfekr, T., & Oboudi, B. (2022). Overview of Sustainable Solutions to Improve the Environmental Impacts of Mega Sporting Events. Athens J. Sport, 9, 215-230.

5. It can be interesting to see study limitations and relatively propose future directions.

6. (503-504) "will be not easy" could be rephrased to sound more convincing.

7. The conclusion feels wast, but not always informative. Probably, it can be squeezed and rid of the water, when possible. All three recommendations sound impressive but can be divided into a separate subsection to facilitate reader navigation.  

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have revised manuscript thoroughly and quality has been improved. I am satisfied with the revision. Thanks 

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Revisions are satisfactorily done.

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the effective revisions, I am feeling glad to see the improved version of your manuscript. 

However, there are several points and flaws to elaborate on:

1. (30-31) From the position of a reader, I would need to know more about New Norm. This is one of the core concepts of your framework, and, it seems important to extend this sentence, involving more constructs, the attached file can be helpful as well. For sure, this little touch will make your introduction more engaging. 

(68-71) Later, the New Norm is not sufficiently disclosed as well

Also, a reader may be missing the explaining Net Zero Emissions, it would useful to add 2-3 sentences to introduce how authors understand the terms they operate, and preferably, accompany it with relevant literature

2. (45-49) Let's be coherent, please: the first question ends with "?", but the second does not. 

3. I am sharing with you the recently recommended chapter, retrieved from the Research Gate, please find it attached. It seems to fit the framework well and can help to strengthen the info given on event sustainability and Paris 2024.

Glebova E, Gerke A, Book R (2023) The transformational role of technology in sports events. In Basu, Desbordes, Sarkar (eds.), Sports Management in an Uncertain Environment. Springer.

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your review.  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf