- Email: [email protected]
Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and proposals for their reduction at a university campus in Chile
Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e7
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and proposals for their reduction at a university campus in Chile squez a, Alfredo Iriarte b, *, María Almeida c, Pablo Villalobos d, ** Leonardo Va a
School of Industrial Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universidad de Talca, Casilla 747, Talca, Chile Department of Industrial Engineering (former Department of Industrial Management and Modeling), Faculty of Engineering, Universidad de Talca, Casilla 747, Talca, Chile c Corporate Office for University Social Responsibility, Universidad de Talca, Casilla 747, Talca, Chile d Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Universidad de Talca, Casilla 747, Talca, Chile b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 6 November 2014 Received in revised form 12 June 2015 Accepted 15 June 2015 Available online xxx
Progressively, higher education institutions have been incorporating sustainable development strategies and actions into teaching, research, infrastructure and campus operations. Recent years have witnessed a resurgence in environmental sustainability networks in universities in Latin America. A group of Chilean universities, including the Universidad de Talca, signed a Cleaner Production Agreement with the National Agency for Cleaner production in Chile. The measurement of corporate greenhouse gas emissions is included among the objectives of this agreement. For developing countries there are few peerreviewed studies that analyze greenhouse gas emissions generated by universities. The scarcity is most evident in Latin American universities. In this context, this study presents the evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions for the Curico campus of the Universidad de Talca. The emissions are classified according to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol standard into scopes 1, 2 and 3. The total emissions for the campus in 2012 was 1.0 tCO2e/student, of which 68% correspond to scope 3, 16% correspond to scope 1 and 16% to scope 2. The principal contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions are student commuting, staff commuting and electricity consumption. The comparison with other higher education institutions worldwide, mostly situated in developed countries, indicates that for the Curico campus the greenhouse gas emissions value is below average. Moreover, an analysis was carried out for four scenarios with emissions reduction proposals. The most effective scenario is related to students using bicycles rather than motor vehicles. This study may be a useful guide for the application of emission reduction options in other countries, particularly in Latin America, where there are universities that have similar characteristics and lack environmental information. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: GHG Protocol Chilean university Corporate GHG emissions Reduction scenarios Green campus Carbon footprint
1. Introduction As of the 1970s, there has been growing international interest in the role of higher education in fostering a sustainable future (Calder and Clugston, 2003). In this context, the International Association of Universities (IAU) has made higher education for sustainable development one of its work priorities (HESD, 2015). Under this initiative, institutions of higher education have presented reports showing their plans and objectives for sustainable development (IARU, 2013). Some of the main areas covered in these reports are * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 93 581 29 74; fax: þ34 93 581 33 31. ** Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Iriarte), [email protected] (P. Villalobos).
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, use of water and energy, and waste management. There are several examples of reports about campus sustainability plans (McNeilly et al., 2013; UW, 2015; Yale University, 2013) and articles about efforts to address sustainable development in campus operations (Posner and Stuart, 2013; Venetoulis, 2001) and other universities activities (Conway et al., 2008; Kaplan, 2015; Lozano et al., 2013). According to the American College and University President's climate commitment, some of main action options to reduce GHG emissions are to adopt an energy-efficient appliance purchasing policy and encourage the use of public transportation for all campus members (ACUPCC, 2015). An increase has been seen in the number of universities seeking to measure and mitigate GHG emissions and move toward a green university (Geng et al., 2013). For example, Ozawa-Meida et al.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073 0959-6526/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
squez, L., et al., Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and proposals for their reduction at a university Please cite this article in press as: Va campus in Chile, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073
squez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e7 L. Va
2
(2011) measured carbon performance through a consumptionbased carbon footprint in De Montfort University in the United Kingdom; Larsen et al. (2013) calculated the GHG emissions in the Norwegian University of Science and Technology; Güereca et al. (2013) presented an inventory of GHG emissions in the Engineer noma de Me xico during 2010; ing Institute of the Universidad Auto while Klein-Banai and Theis (2013) analyzed the factors that affect the GHG emissions in higher education institutions in the United States. One of the principal methodologies for evaluating GHG emissions used in these studies is the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate (WRI/WBCSD, 2004). There are few peer-reviewed studies which deal with the GHG emissions generated by universities in developing countries. To our knowledge, there are currently no peer review articles that analyze GHG emissions in South American universities. Various Chilean agencies such as the Ministry of the Environment and the Office for Climatic Change have formed part of the challenge for setting mitigation policies and strategies for reducing GHG emissions. To support this national commitment, several universities, such as the Universidad de Chile (UChile, 2011), have developed tools that permit the various production sectors to quantify GHG emissions. In 2012, a group of Chilean universities, including the Universidad de Talca, signed a Cleaner Production Agreement (UTALCA, 2013). This agreement promotes sustainable action on the part of universities and one of its objectives is to incorporate the measurement and reduction of corporate GHG emissions (CPL, 2012). In the above context, the main objective of this study is to quantify the GHG emissions1 at the Curico campus of the Universidad de Talca in Chile and to evaluate improvement scenarios associated with those activities making the greatest contribution in order to reduce campus emissions. The method to be followed for quantifying GHG emissions is that established by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (WRI/ WBCSD, 2004). It is hoped that the results of this study will be useful to other universities in the world, especially in South American countries where conditions and characteristics are similar. 2. Methods In Section 2.1 the main characteristics of the Curico campus of the Universidad de Talca are described. Section 2.2 presents the method used based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and Section 2.3 describes the categories included in this study classified according to the three scopes indicated in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. 2.1. Conditions at the Curico campus of the Universidad de Talca The University of Talca chose the Curico campus to evaluate its GHG emissions and to apply emission reduction measures. This study represents an opportunity to initiate a paradigm shift, whereby the University of Talca (and campus Curico, in particular) will integrate sustainable actions into curricula, campus operations, research and student activities. The Curico campus is the second largest campus in the Universidad de Talca. It began its activities in 1998 and houses the Faculty of Engineering. It is located 1 km from the city of Curico in the Maule Region, Chile. This region has a warm temperate climate with winter rains and a yearly average temperature of 12.8 C (Castillo and Moreno, 2002; Smith-Ramírez et al., 2005). During the study period, the year 2012, according to the university
1
In metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e).
administration department data, the Curico campus has 5 engineering programs, an enrollment of 1507 students (mainly undergraduates), and an estimated staff of 152 people including academics, administrative personnel and service personnel (guards, janitorial, food and maintenance services). The Curico campus has 11,210 square meters of construction in 10 buildings and a total of 57,000 square meters of surface area including classrooms, offices, laboratories, library, green spaces, roads, parking, soccer fields and tennis courts. 2.2. GHG Protocol The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate, hereinafter GHG Protocol, of the World Resource Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) was published in 2011 and gives the requirements for quantifying GHG emissions within organizations under the Kyoto Protocol (WRI/WBCSD, 2004). Complementary to the GHG Protocol is the Project Accounting Protocol and Guidelines, Corporate Value Chain (scope 3), Accounting and Reporting Standard, and Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard. The GHG Protocol was developed in order to standardize the methods for reporting GHG emission and to limit double accounting. It is widely recognized and also recommended and used by the American College and University Presidents' Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) (Sinha et al., 2010). The GHG Protocol establishes the separation of GHG emissions into 3 groupings. Scope 1, direct emissions, includes those emissions from sources owned or controlled by the organization. Scope 2, indirect emissions, covers emissions from the organization's purchased electricity consumption, while scope 3, other indirect emissions, corresponds to emissions that result from the activities within the organization, but from sources that are not owned or controlled by the business (WRI/WBCSD, 2004). The quantification of scope 3 is voluntary, however, this scope is incorporated into this study due to their high contribution to the total emissions in universities (Moerschbaecher and Day, 2010; Klein-Banai and Theis, 2013; WRI/WBCSD, 2004). 2.3. Categories evaluated by the study This section presents the categories (activities) evaluated on the Curico campus that are related to scopes 1 to 3 of the GHG Protocol standard (WRI/WBCSD, 2004) and the data sources that were used. The scopes of our study and their categories are based on the guidance provided by the GHG Protocol (WRI/WBCSD, 2004), and on the emission source and classifications used by GHG studies on university campuses (Alvarez et al., 2014; Güereca et al., 2013; Moerschbaecher and Day, 2010). The following steps were used in order to determine the GHG emissions related to each category: Step 1 determines the consumption in each category such as amount of fuel, MWh, and km traveled. Step 2 determines the GHG emission factor associated with each category (kgCO2e/m3, tCO2e/ MWh and kgCO2e/km traveled). The main emission factor sources for this study are the Optional Emissions from Commuting, Business Travel and Product Transport Report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (U.S. EPA, 2008a) and GHG Emission Inventory from the Chilean Ministry of Energy (Minenergia, 2014) (see Table 1). Finally, in Step 3 the consumption in each category is multiplied by the emission factor in order to estimate the amount of CO2e. The categories evaluated in this study are the following2:
2 This study does not take into consideration the emissions coming from paper consumption or disposal of waste generated by campus activities because of the lack of information regarding the amount of these goods.
squez, L., et al., Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and proposals for their reduction at a university Please cite this article in press as: Va campus in Chile, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073
squez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e7 L. Va
3
Table 1 GHG emission factors used to estimate the GHG emissions related to transport, energy and refrigerant. Emission source
GHG emission factor
Source
Liquefied petroleum gas Fuel oil n 6 Grid electricity R-22 refrigerant Air travel (short haul, less than 785 km) Air travel (medium haul, 785e3700 km) Air travel (long haul, more than 3700 km) Light-duty truck (diesel) Average gasoline automobile Average automobilea Sport utility vehicle and pickup truckb Public diesel bus Institutional diesel bus Average motorcycle (gasoline) Walk Bicycle
1642 kg CO2e/m3 2955 kg CO2e/m3 0.391 kg CO2e/kWh 1810 kg CO2e/kg refrigerant 0.173 kg CO2e/passenger km 0.097 kg CO2e/passenger km 0.087 kg CO2e/passenger km 2676 kg CO2e/m3 2241 kg CO2e/m3 0.233 kg CO2e/km traveled 0.331 kg CO2e/km traveled 0.166 kg CO2e/km traveled 0.166 kg CO2e/km traveled 0.106 kg CO2e/km traveled 0 kg CO2e/km 0 kg CO2e/km
Minenergia, 2014 Minenergia, 2014 Minenergia, 2014 U.S. EPA, 2008b Carbon Neutral, 2012 Carbon Neutral, 2012 Carbon Neutral, 2012 Minenergia, 2014 Minenergia, 2014 U.S. EPA, 2008a U.S. EPA, 2008a U.S. EPA, 2008a U.S. EPA, 2008a U.S. EPA, 2008a
a b
The GHG emissions from average automobile are from gasoline or diesel. The GHG emissions from vehicles are from gasoline or diesel.
2.3.1. Scope 1 In this study, the scope 1 covers direct emissions from fuel consumption, student commuting by an institutional bus and fugitive emissions. 2.3.1.1. Fuel consumption. Includes 22,668 kg/year of liquefied petroleum gas and 5178 kg/year of fuel oil used on campus for heating. The data was collected from the invoices provided by the campus administration for fuel consumed in 2012. The emission factor was obtained from the GHG Emission Inventory from the Chilean Ministry of Energy (Minenergia, 2014). 2.3.1.2. Student commuting by institutional bus. The university provides transportation by bus to the campus for those students living in the city of Curico and who travel to the university. This category is included in scope 1 because the fuel is purchased by the institution. The total kilometers traveled by the institutional bus in the year were 2,244,375 according to the university administration department data. The emission factor was obtained from the EPA emissions report (U.S. EPA, 2008a). 2.3.1.3. Fugitive emissions. The campus has 42 offices with air conditioners that use the R-22 refrigerant. In the year 2012, 3 kg of refrigerant were replaced because of refrigerant leaks in the air conditioners; campus administration was asked for the data. The R22 emission calculation was carried out based on the EPA guide “Direct HFC and PFC Emissions from Use of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment” (U.S. EPA, 2008b). 2.3.2. Scope 2 The scope 2 covers indirect emissions from the organization's purchased electricity consumption. 2.3.2.1. Electricity consumption. This category includes 640,507 kWh/year consumed by the campus according to the information obtained from the electric company invoices given to the campus. The emission factor, in the year 2012, was obtained from the Emission Inventory for the Central Interconnected System (SIC) from the Chilean Ministry of Energy (Minenergia, 2014). 2.3.3. Scope 3 The categories included in this scope are the following: student travel for field trips, air trips and travel on land for academic staff
transport of supplies, staff commuting and student commuting (excluding institutional bus). 2.3.3.1. Student travel for field trips. This item includes student bus trips to industrial plants and/or production centers in the country. The total amount of fuel used for this purpose was 10,740 kg of diesel/year. The emission factor was obtained from the Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory from the Chilean Ministry of Energy (Minenergia, 2014). 2.3.3.2. Air travel for academic staff. This category includes trips by air carried out by academic personnel for attending conferences, workshops and such. In 2012, academic personnel traveled a total of 568,880 km. The distance covered by each round trip is, on average, 14,590 km. The majority of the trips were to European destinations (57%). The emission factor was obtained from the Carbon neutral Company database (Carbon Neutral, 2012). 2.3.3.3. Travel on land for academic staff. This item takes into account the trips that professors make to the other Universidad de Talca campuses (Talca, Santiago, Santa Cruz), as well as any other land trips within the country. The distances traveled were 56,105 km/year by car and 89,657 km/year by bus. The emission factors were taken from the EPA (U.S. EPA, 2008a). 2.3.3.4. Transport of supplies. This item contains the emissions related to courier shipments and transport of supplies (photocopy paper, toilet paper, and propane for the cafeteria). This category accounts for emissions from the consumption of 470 kg of diesel and 352 kg of gasoline. The emission factors were obtained from the GHG Emission Inventory from the Chilean Ministry of Energy (Minenergia, 2014). 2.3.3.5. Staff commuting. This category corresponds to the daily trip that the staff makes from their homes to their work on campus. The travel behavior was determined by an on-line staff survey that had about 90% response (Table 2). In 2012 a total of 725,178 km were traveled by personnel. Table 2 shows that only 16% of the personnel walk or use a bicycle, probably due to the distance between home and campus (12 km on average), which would explain the wide use of cars and the bus (81% of the total). The emission factor for each means of transport was obtained from the EPA report (U.S. EPA, 2008a).
squez, L., et al., Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and proposals for their reduction at a university Please cite this article in press as: Va campus in Chile, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073
squez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e7 L. Va
4
Table 2 Distribution of the means of transport used for staff and student commuting to the Curico campus. Means of transport
Staff (%)
Students (%)
Bicycle On foot Automobile Bus Motorcycle
11% 5% 66% 15% 3%
6% 8% 13% 71% 2%
2.3.3.6. Student commuting (excluding institutional bus). This category corresponds to the daily trips that students make to attend classes on campus excluding the use of the institutional bus. The common means of transport was determined by face to face interviews with 26% of the students (see Table 2). The survey results were scaled up for the entire students. Table 2 shows that only 14% of the students use a bicycle or walk while 71% prefer to use public buses or the institutional bus and 15% travel by car or motorcycle. This is partially explained by the generally lower economic cost of taking a bus compared to other means of transport (automobile or motorcycle) (Duque et al., 2014). The emission calculation was done based on the emission factor for each means of transport obtained from the EPA report (U.S. EPA, 2008a). 3. Results and discussion In Section 3.1 the results and the current GHG emissions at the Curico campus are presented along with the analysis of the activity categories for each scope. In Section 3.2 the GHG emission reduction scenarios related to the categories with the greatest contribution to emissions are evaluated. 3.1. Analysis of the current situation of GHG emissions at the Curico campus The total amount of GHG emissions at the Curico campus is given in section 3.1.1. Furthermore, this section evaluates the contribution of each category to these emissions. Sections 3.1.2, 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 analyze the scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions respectively. Finally, in Section 3.1.5, the GHG emission results from this study are compared with studies available in the literature. 3.1.1. Total GHG emissions and contribution of the categories The total amount of GHG emissions at the Curico campus is 1568.6 tCO2e. Sixty-eight percent corresponds to scope 3 emissions, 16% to scope 1 and 16% to scope 2. According to Alvarez et al. (2014),
in the Faculty of Forestry at the Universidad de Madrid, scope 3 represents 60% of the total emissions whereas scope 2 is at 32% and scope 1 is only 8%. These distributions are in contrast to those obtained by Larsen et al. (2013), in the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) where scope 3 represents 31% while scope 1 is at 49% of the total emissions. According to the GHG Protocol, organizations must account for at least scope 1 and 2. For the Curico campus, scopes 1 and 2 represent 32% of the total GHG emissions. The results can be compared to those obtained in UNAM by Güereca et al. (2013), where 47% of the emissions came from scopes 1 and 2, while according to Moerschbaecher and Day (2010), at Louisiana State University they represent 75% of the total emissions. Fig. 1 shows the contribution of each category to the total GHG emissions at the Curico campus. As can be seen, the categories student commuting by institutional bus and student commuting by others means of transport (excluding institutional bus) generate 62% of the total, followed by electricity consumption at 16% and staff commuting at 9%. On the other hand, fugitive emissions and supplies transport have the lowest impact. 3.1.2. Scope 1 Regarding scope 1, over which the institution has direct control of its emissions, Curico campus emits 256.2 tCO2e. In terms of its categories, student commuting by institutional bus represents 63% of scope 1 while fuel consumption is 35% and the fugitive emissions category accounts for only 2%. When the result is normalized over the total number of students, Curico campus presents 0.2 tCO2e/ student in scope 1, a number much lower than the 2.6 tCO2e/student shown by Duquesne University in the United States (Cox et al., 2012) representing 63% of the total emissions. Even though the Duquesne study did not report the fuel consumption for institutional vehicles, the high number of their GHG emissions in this scope could be explained by the low temperatures in the area and the consequently higher use of fuel for heating. A similar situation is produced at NTNU where the average winter temperature fluctuates around 0 C (Banks, 2012) and where fuel consumption is one of the main causes of the 2.3 tCO2e/student in scope 1 as recorded in 2009 (Larsen et al., 2013). 3.1.3. Scope 2 Scope 2 registers at total of 250.4 tCO2e. The normalized value is 0.2 tCO2e/student. Our results for this scope are lower than those reported by other universities, owing to there being few machines with high electricity consumption at the Curico Campus. The normalization of results for GHG emissions at Minnesota State
Fig. 1. Greenhouse gas emissions by category at the Curico campus.
squez, L., et al., Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and proposals for their reduction at a university Please cite this article in press as: Va campus in Chile, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073
squez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e7 L. Va
University Mankato show one of the highest values (2.1 tCO2e/ student in scope 2 (Anthony, 2013)) compared to their peers. According to Anthony (2013), at Minnesota State University Mankato electricity consumption is typically the largest component of the carbon footprint because of the carbon-intensive inputs to electricity generation and the inefficient nature of electricity production and transportation. In the Engineering Institute at the noma de Me xico the emissions for scope 2 reach Universidad Auto 1.1 tCO2e/student and are principally due to the large number of specialized laboratories used in different areas, as well as the high density of servers and personal computers (Güereca et al., 2013) which is the same case at the NTNU, where Larsen et al. (2013), attributes the scope 2 emissions to their electrical equipment. Another key aspect that explains the difference in results is the emission factor used by each institution for reporting. For example, the American University in Cairo calculates its own electric emission factor (DDC, 2012), while other universities use emission factors from their own countries (Letete et al., 2011) and from relevant organisms (Güereca et al., 2013; Ozawa-Meida et al., 2011; Spirovski et al., 2012). 3.1.4. Scope 3 For the Curico campus the scope 3 emissions are 1061.9 tCO2e, of which staff commuting along with student commuting (excluding the use of institutional bus) contribute 88% of this total, while air travel for academic staff is 6%. The lowest percentage (3%) corresponds to student travel for field trips. Scope 3 is difficult to compare because as Güereca et al. (2013) state, each study includes different limits for this scope since the institutions are not responsible for the activities associated with this grouping but they are indirectly affected by them. In scope 3 our study includes only categories related to transportation for the Curico campus community which accounts for a total of 0.6 tCO2e/student, while Güereca et al. (2013) also include emissions from paper consumption and waste removal which have low contributions to the total emissions (1% y 2% respectively). According to these authors, the scope 3 emissions generated at the UNAM reach 1.5 tCO2e/student. One possible reason for the differences in the results is that at the UNAM the majority of the university population travels to the university by car (65%) and only 35% use public transportation. It is the same at De Montfort University where about 80% of the student and academic population use automobiles (Ozawa-Meida et al., 2011), whereas at the Curico campus only 18% of the total population use them. The study
5
from Louisiana State University (Moerschbaecher and Day, 2010), shows that scope 3 presents 1.2 tCO2e/student, largely due to two activities; staff and student transport and on-campus solid waste production. The difference in the categories recorded in scope 3 in the analyzed studies, as well as the level of uncertainty about information collected on travel behavior (Ozawa-Meida et al. (2011) report uncertainty levels of at least 50%), causing high variation in the results making comparisons with other universities difficult. 3.1.5. Total GHG emissions at the Curico campus compared with other studies Fig. 2 shows the normalized per student GHG emission totals for the Curico campus compared with other institutions. On average, those institutions have 3.1 tCO2e/student. The Curico campus is below this average with 1.0 tCO2e/student. If we consider the indicator based on buildings, the total emissions at the Curico campus is 0.2 tCO2e per square meter of construction. In spite of the low per capita results for the Curico campus compared to its peers, it must be considered that this indicator depends, among other factors, on the characteristics and types of faculties at the university with which the relationship is being established. In the case of the NTNU the GHG emissions for the Faculty of Social Sciences are 0.6 tCO2e/student while in the Faculty of Medicine they are nearly 10.8 tCO2e/student (Larsen et al., 2013). The lower per capita GHG emission values for the Curico campus compared to other university institutions can be explained by summarizing the main conditions of the categories associated with each scope. In scope 1, the low emission value for the Curico campus is related to low fuel consumption for heating due to the temperate climate in the region. Regarding scope 2 emissions, at the time of the study at the Curico campus, there was little equipment with high electricity consumption which would partly explain the low level of GHG emissions for this scope. On the contrary, Güereca et al. (2013) reported that at the UNAM the high contribution for scope 2 is based on the fact that the UNAM presents several energy-intensive facilities. Regarding scope 3, the main activity included here corresponds to transportation where approximately 76% of the Curico campus population uses public transportation, a means of transport that generates fewer emissions per passenger than an automobile does (Moore et al., 2010). On the other hand, at the De Montfort University according to Ozawa-Meida et al. (2011), about 80% of the population uses automobiles.
Fig. 2. Comparison of the greenhouse gas emission results for Curico campus from this study with studies from the literature. Results derived from: (1) Alvarez et al. (2014), (2) Güereca et al. (2013), (3) Anthony (2013), (4) Cox et al. (2012), (5) Larsen et al. (2013).
squez, L., et al., Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and proposals for their reduction at a university Please cite this article in press as: Va campus in Chile, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073
squez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e7 L. Va
6
3.2. Emission reduction scenarios As indicated in Fig. 1, the greatest GHG emissions come from the student commuting (by institutional bus and others means of transport), staff commuting and electricity consumption categories which is why reduction scenarios based on these categories are proposed according to the Pareto Principle (Hramis, 1994). Scenario 1. It considers student commuting. This scenario proposes that the students living near campus (less than 3 km away) replace motorized vehicles (bus, automobile and motorcycle) for bicycles during 2/3 of the academic year (the months from May to August are excluded because of lower temperatures in the region). Scenario 2. This scenario includes student and staff commuting. It also takes into consideration using the train as a means of transport for the 50% of the campus population that lives in cities with train stations. This population corresponds to 14% of the total number of people at the Curico campus. It is understood that the remaining distance from the train station to the campus would be covered by the institutional bus. Scenario 3. Just as in Scenario 2, this scenario includes both student and staff commuting. This scenario proposes that 50% of the car users would use public transportation (15% of the total campus population use cars). Scenario 4. This scenario considers the electricity consumption at the Curico campus. According to a Curico campus study, it is estimated that 30% of the electricity consumption corresponds to lighting (Rojas, 2007). This scenario takes into consideration energy efficient measures for lighting. It proposes a 40% reduction in the amount of electricity used for lighting (Carbon Trust, 2012). As shown in Fig. 3, it was observed that when evaluating the measures suggested in the scenarios, it is scenario 1 that achieves the greatest reduction (107.1 tCO2e representing 7% of the total campus GHG emissions). This is mainly due to replacing one means of transportation for another one that does not generate direct emissions (Duque et al., 2014). However, applying the measures in this scenario does require significant changes in the campus population's current travel behavior. Bringing scenario 2 into effect would achieve a 5% reduction in the total emissions (79.1 tCO2e), due to using the train, a more efficient means of transport (Moore et al., 2010) that is not currently used by the university community. Scenario 3 achieves an overall reduction of 3% (46.7 tCO2e) given the low contribution by automobiles to the current campus emissions. According to Lanfranco et al. (2003), the use of cars in Chile has tripled in the last three decades partly as a result of economic growth and the inefficiency of public transportation. This trend toward greater use of automobiles is also occurring at the Curico
campus which would produce a greater contribution to GHG emissions from the campus in coming years. Finally, scenario 4 shows a 5% reduction overall (74.1 tCO2e). 4. Conclusions There are few peer-reviewed studies on GHG emissions caused by universities in developing countries. The scarcity is most evident in South American countries. In this context, this study evaluates the GHG emissions at the Curico campus of the Universidad de Talca, Chile, based on the GHG Protocol method. The results show that scope 3 generates the largest contribution at 68%, followed by scope 1 and scope 2 at 16% each. When analyzing the categories, it is estimated that student commuting and electricity consumption together represent about 78% of the total emissions. The comparison with other higher education institutions, mostly situated in developed countries, indicates that for the Curico campus the GHG emissions value is below the average. The institutions analyzed in the study present, on average, 3.1 tCO2e/ student while the Curico campus is 1.0 tCO2e/student. It is mainly due to this campus having low heating fuel consumption because of the temperate climate in the region, as well as few energy-intensive facilities and high use of public transportation by students. It is estimated that the GHG emission values at the Curico campus will increase in the future due to the campus having grown and become more complex, and also to the move toward a higher economic level that is anticipated in developing countries and middle income countries such as Chile which affects, among other things, greater access to automobiles for the students. The best reduction scenario in this study considers that the students living near campus replace the use of motorized vehicles (bus, automobile and motorcycle) for bicycles, considering that student commuting is the category with the highest emission contribution and is, furthermore, an item on which future research could be based to seek emission reduction. It must be kept in mind that any application of the scenarios would be affected by resistance to behavior changes, as well as by the economic and legal factors in force. The increase in sustainable action plans brought about by the Universidad de Talca and other Chilean universities with similar characteristics would tend to neutralize this resistance and will help diminish the institutional GHG emissions. The results from this study could be an example for university campuses, particularly in the case of universities in developing countries, with similar characteristics to the current ones at the Curico Campus, such as high use of public transportation by students; high undergraduate population; low quantity of energyintensive equipment; and classroom and office facilities making a significant contribution to the total constructed area. Estimating the GHG emissions from Latin American universities is a step in achieving the goal of campus sustainability. The GHG emission information provides a baseline for the university against which mitigation actions will be measured. Future GHG emission studies on Latin American universities could further improve the knowledge about potential emission reductions. Moreover, new studies may be extended to other environmental indicators in order to contribute further criteria to campus sustainability plans. Acknowledgments
Fig. 3. Quantity of greenhouse gas emissions reduced by each scenario.
The present paper was supported by the Universidad de Talca's Office of Research Administration through the Competitive Fund Project for Student Entrepreneurship in Scientific Research and the Universidad de Talca's Office for University Social Responsibility. The authors would like to thank the Universidad de Talca's Department of Administration and especially the one at the Curico
squez, L., et al., Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and proposals for their reduction at a university Please cite this article in press as: Va campus in Chile, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073
squez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e7 L. Va
campus for their assistance with data collection. We thank Mrs. Sharon Goulart, who provided the English-language support. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073. References ACUPCC - American College and University President’s Climate Commitment, 2015. Online. Available: http://rs.acupcc.org/stats/tangible-actions/ (accessed 19.04.15.). Alvarez, S., Blanquer, M., Rubio, A., 2014. Carbon footprint using the compound method based on financial accounts. The case of the School of Forestry Engineering, Technical University of Madrid. J. Clean. Prod. 66, 224e232. Anthony, K., 2013. Carbon Footprint Report Minnesota State University Mankato. Minnesota State University, Minnesota, USA. Banks, D., 2012. An Introduction to Thermogeology: Ground Source Heating and Cooling. Wiley & Sons, USA. Calder, W., Clugston, R., 2003. International Efforts to Promote Higher Education for Sustainable Development. The Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF). Carbon Neutral - Carbon Neutral Company, 2012. Calculations and Emission Factors. United Kingdom. Online. Available: http://www.carbonneutralcalculator.com/ Carbon%20Offset%20Factors.pdf. Carbon Trust, 2012. Further and Higher Education: Training Colleges and Universities to Be Energy Efficient. Carbon Trust, London, United Kingdom. Castillo, J., Moreno, G., 2002. Forest seeds of Native Chilean Forest (Semillas forestales del bosque nativo chileno). Santiago, Chile. Conway, T., Dalton, C., Loo, J., Benakoun, L., 2008. Developing ecological footprint scenarios on university campuses: a case study of the University of Toronto at Mississauga. Int. J. Sustain. High Educ. 9 (1), 4e20. Cox, T., McKee, P., Snedden, J., Kabala, S., 2012. One Step at Time. Duquesne University’s Third Biennial Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, Pittsburgh,USA. CPL - Cleaner Production Council, 2012. Cleaner Production Agreement: Sustainable Campus. Ministry of Economy, Development and Work, Santiago, Chile n Limpia. Acuerdo de Produccio n Limpia: Campus ([Consejo de Produccio Sustentable. Ministerio de Economía, Fomento y Trabajo. Santiago, Chile]). DDC - Desert Development Center, Office of Sustainability, 2012. Our Carbon Footprint. The American University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt. Duque, R.B., Gray, D., Harrison, M., Davey, E., 2014. Invisible commuters: assessing a university's eco-friendly transportation policies and commuting behaviours. J. Transp. Geogr. 38, 122e136. Geng, Y., Liu, K., Xue, B., Fujita, T., 2013. Creating a ‘green university’ in China: a case of Shenyang University. J. Clean. Prod. 61, 13e19. Güereca, L.P., Torres, N., Noyola, A., 2013. Carbon footprint as a basis for a cleaner research institute in Mexico. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 396e403. HESD -, 2015. Higher Education for Sustainable Development. Online. Available. http://www.iau-hesd.net/en/contenu/189-what-sustainable-development-sd. html (accessed 30.03.15.). Hramis, J., 1994. Administrative Systems and Procedures: Methodology for Application in Private and Public Institutions (Sistemas y procedimientos adminn en instituciones privadas y públicas). istrativos: metodología para su aplicacio Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico, D.F. IARU- International Alliance of Research Universities, 2013. Individual Campus Sustainability Reports, 2013. Online. Available: http://www.iaruni.org/ sustainability/campus-sustainability. Kaplan, D., 2015. Transportation sustainability on a university campus. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 16, 173e186. Klein-Banai, C., Theis, T.L., 2013. Quantitative analysis of factors affecting greenhouse gas emissions at institutions of higher education. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 29e38.
7
Lanfranco, P., Quijada, R., Sagaris, L., Alvarez, R., Rivera, E., Quijada, C., Fuccaro, D., ndez, R., Garrido, C., Plazner, R., Montero, G., Basso, L., Donoso, P., Ferna Palma, C., 2003. Move Around Your City: a Citizen Proposal of Transport with vete por tu ciudad: una propuesta ciudadana de transporte con Equity (Mue equidad). Santiago, Chile. Larsen, H.N., Pettersen, J., Solli, C., Hertwich, E.G., 2013. Investigating the carbon footprint of a University e the case of NTNU. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 39e47. Letete, T., Mungwe, N., Mondli, G., Marquard, A., 2011. Carbon footprint of the University of Cape Town. J. Energy South. Afr. 22, 2e12. Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F.J., Huisingh, D., Lambrechts, W., 2013. Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 10e19. McNeilly, L., Stoll, K., Fenley, E., 2013. Campus Sustainability Report 2013. University of California, Berkeley, USA. Minenergia - Ministry of Energy, 2014. GHG Emission Inventory - Factor Emissions n). (Ministerio de Energía, Inventario de Emisiones GEI - Factores de emisio Online. Available. http://huelladecarbono.minenergia.cl/factores-de-emision (accessed 29.05.14.). Moerschbaecher, M., Day, J.W., 2010. The greenhouse gas inventory of Louisiana State University: a case study of the energy requirements of public higher education in the United States. Sustainability 2, 2117e2134. Moore, A.T., Staley, S.R., Poole, R.W., 2010. The role of VMT reduction in meeting climate change policy goals. Transp. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 44, 565e574. Ozawa-Meida, L., Brockway, P., Letten, K., Davies, J., Fleming, P., 2011. Measuring carbon performance in a UK University through a consumption-based carbon footprint: De Montfort University case study. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 185e198. Posner, S., Stuart, R., 2013. Understanding and advancing campus sustainability using a systems framework. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 14, 264e277. Rojas, R., 2007. Proposal for Energy Savings for the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Talca (Propuesta de un sistema de ahorro de energía para la . facultad de ingeniería de la Universidad de Talca). Universidad de Talca, Curico Chile. Sinha, P., Schew, W.A., Sawant, A., Kolwaite, K.J., Strode, S.A., 2010. Greenhouse Gas emissions from U.S. Institutions of Higher Education. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 60, 568e573. Smith-Ramírez, C., Armesto, J., Valdovinos, C., 2005. History, Biodiversity and Ecology of Coastal Forests of Chile (Historia, biodiversidad y ecología de los bosques costeros de Chile). Chile, Santiago. Spirovski, D., Abazi, A., Iljazi, I., Ismaili, M., Cassulo, G., Venturin, A., 2012. Realization of a low emission university campus trough the implementation of a climate action plan. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 46, 4695e4702. UChile - Universidad de Chile, Instituto de Asuntos Públicos, 2011. Determination of n de los factores de Emission Factors for Scope 1 and Scope 2 ([Determinacio n para los Alcances 1 y 2 de la estimacio n de la huella de carbono]). emisio Santiago, Chile. U.S. EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008a. Climate Leaders. Optional Emissions from Commuting, Business Travel and Product Transport. EPA, USA. U.S. EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008b. Direct HFC and PFC Emissions from Use of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment. EPA, USA. UTALCA - University of Talca, 2013. Press Room. Universidad de Talca, Sala de prensa. Online. Available: http://www.utalca.cl/link.cgi//SalaPrensa/ Institucional/6997 (accessed: 07.05.14.). UW e University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, 2015. UW Oshkosh Campus Sustainability Plan. Online. Available: http://www.uwosh.edu/assets/announcement/ sustainability/ (accessed 19.04.15.). Venetoulis, J., 2001. Assessing the ecological impact of a university. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2, 180e197. WRI/WBCSD - World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2004. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: a Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative, USA and Switzerland. Yale University, 2013. Sustainability Strategic Plan 2013e2016. Office of Sustainability. Yale University, New Haven, USA.
squez, L., et al., Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and proposals for their reduction at a university Please cite this article in press as: Va campus in Chile, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and proposals for their reduction at a university campus in Chile squez a, Alfredo Iriarte b, *, María Almeida c, Pablo Villalobos d, ** Leonardo Va a
School of Industrial Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universidad de Talca, Casilla 747, Talca, Chile Department of Industrial Engineering (former Department of Industrial Management and Modeling), Faculty of Engineering, Universidad de Talca, Casilla 747, Talca, Chile c Corporate Office for University Social Responsibility, Universidad de Talca, Casilla 747, Talca, Chile d Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Universidad de Talca, Casilla 747, Talca, Chile b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 6 November 2014 Received in revised form 12 June 2015 Accepted 15 June 2015 Available online xxx
Progressively, higher education institutions have been incorporating sustainable development strategies and actions into teaching, research, infrastructure and campus operations. Recent years have witnessed a resurgence in environmental sustainability networks in universities in Latin America. A group of Chilean universities, including the Universidad de Talca, signed a Cleaner Production Agreement with the National Agency for Cleaner production in Chile. The measurement of corporate greenhouse gas emissions is included among the objectives of this agreement. For developing countries there are few peerreviewed studies that analyze greenhouse gas emissions generated by universities. The scarcity is most evident in Latin American universities. In this context, this study presents the evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions for the Curico campus of the Universidad de Talca. The emissions are classified according to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol standard into scopes 1, 2 and 3. The total emissions for the campus in 2012 was 1.0 tCO2e/student, of which 68% correspond to scope 3, 16% correspond to scope 1 and 16% to scope 2. The principal contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions are student commuting, staff commuting and electricity consumption. The comparison with other higher education institutions worldwide, mostly situated in developed countries, indicates that for the Curico campus the greenhouse gas emissions value is below average. Moreover, an analysis was carried out for four scenarios with emissions reduction proposals. The most effective scenario is related to students using bicycles rather than motor vehicles. This study may be a useful guide for the application of emission reduction options in other countries, particularly in Latin America, where there are universities that have similar characteristics and lack environmental information. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: GHG Protocol Chilean university Corporate GHG emissions Reduction scenarios Green campus Carbon footprint
1. Introduction As of the 1970s, there has been growing international interest in the role of higher education in fostering a sustainable future (Calder and Clugston, 2003). In this context, the International Association of Universities (IAU) has made higher education for sustainable development one of its work priorities (HESD, 2015). Under this initiative, institutions of higher education have presented reports showing their plans and objectives for sustainable development (IARU, 2013). Some of the main areas covered in these reports are * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 93 581 29 74; fax: þ34 93 581 33 31. ** Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Iriarte), [email protected] (P. Villalobos).
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, use of water and energy, and waste management. There are several examples of reports about campus sustainability plans (McNeilly et al., 2013; UW, 2015; Yale University, 2013) and articles about efforts to address sustainable development in campus operations (Posner and Stuart, 2013; Venetoulis, 2001) and other universities activities (Conway et al., 2008; Kaplan, 2015; Lozano et al., 2013). According to the American College and University President's climate commitment, some of main action options to reduce GHG emissions are to adopt an energy-efficient appliance purchasing policy and encourage the use of public transportation for all campus members (ACUPCC, 2015). An increase has been seen in the number of universities seeking to measure and mitigate GHG emissions and move toward a green university (Geng et al., 2013). For example, Ozawa-Meida et al.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073 0959-6526/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
squez, L., et al., Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and proposals for their reduction at a university Please cite this article in press as: Va campus in Chile, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073
squez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e7 L. Va
2
(2011) measured carbon performance through a consumptionbased carbon footprint in De Montfort University in the United Kingdom; Larsen et al. (2013) calculated the GHG emissions in the Norwegian University of Science and Technology; Güereca et al. (2013) presented an inventory of GHG emissions in the Engineer noma de Me xico during 2010; ing Institute of the Universidad Auto while Klein-Banai and Theis (2013) analyzed the factors that affect the GHG emissions in higher education institutions in the United States. One of the principal methodologies for evaluating GHG emissions used in these studies is the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate (WRI/WBCSD, 2004). There are few peer-reviewed studies which deal with the GHG emissions generated by universities in developing countries. To our knowledge, there are currently no peer review articles that analyze GHG emissions in South American universities. Various Chilean agencies such as the Ministry of the Environment and the Office for Climatic Change have formed part of the challenge for setting mitigation policies and strategies for reducing GHG emissions. To support this national commitment, several universities, such as the Universidad de Chile (UChile, 2011), have developed tools that permit the various production sectors to quantify GHG emissions. In 2012, a group of Chilean universities, including the Universidad de Talca, signed a Cleaner Production Agreement (UTALCA, 2013). This agreement promotes sustainable action on the part of universities and one of its objectives is to incorporate the measurement and reduction of corporate GHG emissions (CPL, 2012). In the above context, the main objective of this study is to quantify the GHG emissions1 at the Curico campus of the Universidad de Talca in Chile and to evaluate improvement scenarios associated with those activities making the greatest contribution in order to reduce campus emissions. The method to be followed for quantifying GHG emissions is that established by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (WRI/ WBCSD, 2004). It is hoped that the results of this study will be useful to other universities in the world, especially in South American countries where conditions and characteristics are similar. 2. Methods In Section 2.1 the main characteristics of the Curico campus of the Universidad de Talca are described. Section 2.2 presents the method used based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and Section 2.3 describes the categories included in this study classified according to the three scopes indicated in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. 2.1. Conditions at the Curico campus of the Universidad de Talca The University of Talca chose the Curico campus to evaluate its GHG emissions and to apply emission reduction measures. This study represents an opportunity to initiate a paradigm shift, whereby the University of Talca (and campus Curico, in particular) will integrate sustainable actions into curricula, campus operations, research and student activities. The Curico campus is the second largest campus in the Universidad de Talca. It began its activities in 1998 and houses the Faculty of Engineering. It is located 1 km from the city of Curico in the Maule Region, Chile. This region has a warm temperate climate with winter rains and a yearly average temperature of 12.8 C (Castillo and Moreno, 2002; Smith-Ramírez et al., 2005). During the study period, the year 2012, according to the university
1
In metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e).
administration department data, the Curico campus has 5 engineering programs, an enrollment of 1507 students (mainly undergraduates), and an estimated staff of 152 people including academics, administrative personnel and service personnel (guards, janitorial, food and maintenance services). The Curico campus has 11,210 square meters of construction in 10 buildings and a total of 57,000 square meters of surface area including classrooms, offices, laboratories, library, green spaces, roads, parking, soccer fields and tennis courts. 2.2. GHG Protocol The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate, hereinafter GHG Protocol, of the World Resource Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) was published in 2011 and gives the requirements for quantifying GHG emissions within organizations under the Kyoto Protocol (WRI/WBCSD, 2004). Complementary to the GHG Protocol is the Project Accounting Protocol and Guidelines, Corporate Value Chain (scope 3), Accounting and Reporting Standard, and Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard. The GHG Protocol was developed in order to standardize the methods for reporting GHG emission and to limit double accounting. It is widely recognized and also recommended and used by the American College and University Presidents' Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) (Sinha et al., 2010). The GHG Protocol establishes the separation of GHG emissions into 3 groupings. Scope 1, direct emissions, includes those emissions from sources owned or controlled by the organization. Scope 2, indirect emissions, covers emissions from the organization's purchased electricity consumption, while scope 3, other indirect emissions, corresponds to emissions that result from the activities within the organization, but from sources that are not owned or controlled by the business (WRI/WBCSD, 2004). The quantification of scope 3 is voluntary, however, this scope is incorporated into this study due to their high contribution to the total emissions in universities (Moerschbaecher and Day, 2010; Klein-Banai and Theis, 2013; WRI/WBCSD, 2004). 2.3. Categories evaluated by the study This section presents the categories (activities) evaluated on the Curico campus that are related to scopes 1 to 3 of the GHG Protocol standard (WRI/WBCSD, 2004) and the data sources that were used. The scopes of our study and their categories are based on the guidance provided by the GHG Protocol (WRI/WBCSD, 2004), and on the emission source and classifications used by GHG studies on university campuses (Alvarez et al., 2014; Güereca et al., 2013; Moerschbaecher and Day, 2010). The following steps were used in order to determine the GHG emissions related to each category: Step 1 determines the consumption in each category such as amount of fuel, MWh, and km traveled. Step 2 determines the GHG emission factor associated with each category (kgCO2e/m3, tCO2e/ MWh and kgCO2e/km traveled). The main emission factor sources for this study are the Optional Emissions from Commuting, Business Travel and Product Transport Report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (U.S. EPA, 2008a) and GHG Emission Inventory from the Chilean Ministry of Energy (Minenergia, 2014) (see Table 1). Finally, in Step 3 the consumption in each category is multiplied by the emission factor in order to estimate the amount of CO2e. The categories evaluated in this study are the following2:
2 This study does not take into consideration the emissions coming from paper consumption or disposal of waste generated by campus activities because of the lack of information regarding the amount of these goods.
squez, L., et al., Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and proposals for their reduction at a university Please cite this article in press as: Va campus in Chile, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073
squez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e7 L. Va
3
Table 1 GHG emission factors used to estimate the GHG emissions related to transport, energy and refrigerant. Emission source
GHG emission factor
Source
Liquefied petroleum gas Fuel oil n 6 Grid electricity R-22 refrigerant Air travel (short haul, less than 785 km) Air travel (medium haul, 785e3700 km) Air travel (long haul, more than 3700 km) Light-duty truck (diesel) Average gasoline automobile Average automobilea Sport utility vehicle and pickup truckb Public diesel bus Institutional diesel bus Average motorcycle (gasoline) Walk Bicycle
1642 kg CO2e/m3 2955 kg CO2e/m3 0.391 kg CO2e/kWh 1810 kg CO2e/kg refrigerant 0.173 kg CO2e/passenger km 0.097 kg CO2e/passenger km 0.087 kg CO2e/passenger km 2676 kg CO2e/m3 2241 kg CO2e/m3 0.233 kg CO2e/km traveled 0.331 kg CO2e/km traveled 0.166 kg CO2e/km traveled 0.166 kg CO2e/km traveled 0.106 kg CO2e/km traveled 0 kg CO2e/km 0 kg CO2e/km
Minenergia, 2014 Minenergia, 2014 Minenergia, 2014 U.S. EPA, 2008b Carbon Neutral, 2012 Carbon Neutral, 2012 Carbon Neutral, 2012 Minenergia, 2014 Minenergia, 2014 U.S. EPA, 2008a U.S. EPA, 2008a U.S. EPA, 2008a U.S. EPA, 2008a U.S. EPA, 2008a
a b
The GHG emissions from average automobile are from gasoline or diesel. The GHG emissions from vehicles are from gasoline or diesel.
2.3.1. Scope 1 In this study, the scope 1 covers direct emissions from fuel consumption, student commuting by an institutional bus and fugitive emissions. 2.3.1.1. Fuel consumption. Includes 22,668 kg/year of liquefied petroleum gas and 5178 kg/year of fuel oil used on campus for heating. The data was collected from the invoices provided by the campus administration for fuel consumed in 2012. The emission factor was obtained from the GHG Emission Inventory from the Chilean Ministry of Energy (Minenergia, 2014). 2.3.1.2. Student commuting by institutional bus. The university provides transportation by bus to the campus for those students living in the city of Curico and who travel to the university. This category is included in scope 1 because the fuel is purchased by the institution. The total kilometers traveled by the institutional bus in the year were 2,244,375 according to the university administration department data. The emission factor was obtained from the EPA emissions report (U.S. EPA, 2008a). 2.3.1.3. Fugitive emissions. The campus has 42 offices with air conditioners that use the R-22 refrigerant. In the year 2012, 3 kg of refrigerant were replaced because of refrigerant leaks in the air conditioners; campus administration was asked for the data. The R22 emission calculation was carried out based on the EPA guide “Direct HFC and PFC Emissions from Use of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment” (U.S. EPA, 2008b). 2.3.2. Scope 2 The scope 2 covers indirect emissions from the organization's purchased electricity consumption. 2.3.2.1. Electricity consumption. This category includes 640,507 kWh/year consumed by the campus according to the information obtained from the electric company invoices given to the campus. The emission factor, in the year 2012, was obtained from the Emission Inventory for the Central Interconnected System (SIC) from the Chilean Ministry of Energy (Minenergia, 2014). 2.3.3. Scope 3 The categories included in this scope are the following: student travel for field trips, air trips and travel on land for academic staff
transport of supplies, staff commuting and student commuting (excluding institutional bus). 2.3.3.1. Student travel for field trips. This item includes student bus trips to industrial plants and/or production centers in the country. The total amount of fuel used for this purpose was 10,740 kg of diesel/year. The emission factor was obtained from the Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory from the Chilean Ministry of Energy (Minenergia, 2014). 2.3.3.2. Air travel for academic staff. This category includes trips by air carried out by academic personnel for attending conferences, workshops and such. In 2012, academic personnel traveled a total of 568,880 km. The distance covered by each round trip is, on average, 14,590 km. The majority of the trips were to European destinations (57%). The emission factor was obtained from the Carbon neutral Company database (Carbon Neutral, 2012). 2.3.3.3. Travel on land for academic staff. This item takes into account the trips that professors make to the other Universidad de Talca campuses (Talca, Santiago, Santa Cruz), as well as any other land trips within the country. The distances traveled were 56,105 km/year by car and 89,657 km/year by bus. The emission factors were taken from the EPA (U.S. EPA, 2008a). 2.3.3.4. Transport of supplies. This item contains the emissions related to courier shipments and transport of supplies (photocopy paper, toilet paper, and propane for the cafeteria). This category accounts for emissions from the consumption of 470 kg of diesel and 352 kg of gasoline. The emission factors were obtained from the GHG Emission Inventory from the Chilean Ministry of Energy (Minenergia, 2014). 2.3.3.5. Staff commuting. This category corresponds to the daily trip that the staff makes from their homes to their work on campus. The travel behavior was determined by an on-line staff survey that had about 90% response (Table 2). In 2012 a total of 725,178 km were traveled by personnel. Table 2 shows that only 16% of the personnel walk or use a bicycle, probably due to the distance between home and campus (12 km on average), which would explain the wide use of cars and the bus (81% of the total). The emission factor for each means of transport was obtained from the EPA report (U.S. EPA, 2008a).
squez, L., et al., Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and proposals for their reduction at a university Please cite this article in press as: Va campus in Chile, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073
squez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e7 L. Va
4
Table 2 Distribution of the means of transport used for staff and student commuting to the Curico campus. Means of transport
Staff (%)
Students (%)
Bicycle On foot Automobile Bus Motorcycle
11% 5% 66% 15% 3%
6% 8% 13% 71% 2%
2.3.3.6. Student commuting (excluding institutional bus). This category corresponds to the daily trips that students make to attend classes on campus excluding the use of the institutional bus. The common means of transport was determined by face to face interviews with 26% of the students (see Table 2). The survey results were scaled up for the entire students. Table 2 shows that only 14% of the students use a bicycle or walk while 71% prefer to use public buses or the institutional bus and 15% travel by car or motorcycle. This is partially explained by the generally lower economic cost of taking a bus compared to other means of transport (automobile or motorcycle) (Duque et al., 2014). The emission calculation was done based on the emission factor for each means of transport obtained from the EPA report (U.S. EPA, 2008a). 3. Results and discussion In Section 3.1 the results and the current GHG emissions at the Curico campus are presented along with the analysis of the activity categories for each scope. In Section 3.2 the GHG emission reduction scenarios related to the categories with the greatest contribution to emissions are evaluated. 3.1. Analysis of the current situation of GHG emissions at the Curico campus The total amount of GHG emissions at the Curico campus is given in section 3.1.1. Furthermore, this section evaluates the contribution of each category to these emissions. Sections 3.1.2, 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 analyze the scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions respectively. Finally, in Section 3.1.5, the GHG emission results from this study are compared with studies available in the literature. 3.1.1. Total GHG emissions and contribution of the categories The total amount of GHG emissions at the Curico campus is 1568.6 tCO2e. Sixty-eight percent corresponds to scope 3 emissions, 16% to scope 1 and 16% to scope 2. According to Alvarez et al. (2014),
in the Faculty of Forestry at the Universidad de Madrid, scope 3 represents 60% of the total emissions whereas scope 2 is at 32% and scope 1 is only 8%. These distributions are in contrast to those obtained by Larsen et al. (2013), in the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) where scope 3 represents 31% while scope 1 is at 49% of the total emissions. According to the GHG Protocol, organizations must account for at least scope 1 and 2. For the Curico campus, scopes 1 and 2 represent 32% of the total GHG emissions. The results can be compared to those obtained in UNAM by Güereca et al. (2013), where 47% of the emissions came from scopes 1 and 2, while according to Moerschbaecher and Day (2010), at Louisiana State University they represent 75% of the total emissions. Fig. 1 shows the contribution of each category to the total GHG emissions at the Curico campus. As can be seen, the categories student commuting by institutional bus and student commuting by others means of transport (excluding institutional bus) generate 62% of the total, followed by electricity consumption at 16% and staff commuting at 9%. On the other hand, fugitive emissions and supplies transport have the lowest impact. 3.1.2. Scope 1 Regarding scope 1, over which the institution has direct control of its emissions, Curico campus emits 256.2 tCO2e. In terms of its categories, student commuting by institutional bus represents 63% of scope 1 while fuel consumption is 35% and the fugitive emissions category accounts for only 2%. When the result is normalized over the total number of students, Curico campus presents 0.2 tCO2e/ student in scope 1, a number much lower than the 2.6 tCO2e/student shown by Duquesne University in the United States (Cox et al., 2012) representing 63% of the total emissions. Even though the Duquesne study did not report the fuel consumption for institutional vehicles, the high number of their GHG emissions in this scope could be explained by the low temperatures in the area and the consequently higher use of fuel for heating. A similar situation is produced at NTNU where the average winter temperature fluctuates around 0 C (Banks, 2012) and where fuel consumption is one of the main causes of the 2.3 tCO2e/student in scope 1 as recorded in 2009 (Larsen et al., 2013). 3.1.3. Scope 2 Scope 2 registers at total of 250.4 tCO2e. The normalized value is 0.2 tCO2e/student. Our results for this scope are lower than those reported by other universities, owing to there being few machines with high electricity consumption at the Curico Campus. The normalization of results for GHG emissions at Minnesota State
Fig. 1. Greenhouse gas emissions by category at the Curico campus.
squez, L., et al., Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and proposals for their reduction at a university Please cite this article in press as: Va campus in Chile, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073
squez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e7 L. Va
University Mankato show one of the highest values (2.1 tCO2e/ student in scope 2 (Anthony, 2013)) compared to their peers. According to Anthony (2013), at Minnesota State University Mankato electricity consumption is typically the largest component of the carbon footprint because of the carbon-intensive inputs to electricity generation and the inefficient nature of electricity production and transportation. In the Engineering Institute at the noma de Me xico the emissions for scope 2 reach Universidad Auto 1.1 tCO2e/student and are principally due to the large number of specialized laboratories used in different areas, as well as the high density of servers and personal computers (Güereca et al., 2013) which is the same case at the NTNU, where Larsen et al. (2013), attributes the scope 2 emissions to their electrical equipment. Another key aspect that explains the difference in results is the emission factor used by each institution for reporting. For example, the American University in Cairo calculates its own electric emission factor (DDC, 2012), while other universities use emission factors from their own countries (Letete et al., 2011) and from relevant organisms (Güereca et al., 2013; Ozawa-Meida et al., 2011; Spirovski et al., 2012). 3.1.4. Scope 3 For the Curico campus the scope 3 emissions are 1061.9 tCO2e, of which staff commuting along with student commuting (excluding the use of institutional bus) contribute 88% of this total, while air travel for academic staff is 6%. The lowest percentage (3%) corresponds to student travel for field trips. Scope 3 is difficult to compare because as Güereca et al. (2013) state, each study includes different limits for this scope since the institutions are not responsible for the activities associated with this grouping but they are indirectly affected by them. In scope 3 our study includes only categories related to transportation for the Curico campus community which accounts for a total of 0.6 tCO2e/student, while Güereca et al. (2013) also include emissions from paper consumption and waste removal which have low contributions to the total emissions (1% y 2% respectively). According to these authors, the scope 3 emissions generated at the UNAM reach 1.5 tCO2e/student. One possible reason for the differences in the results is that at the UNAM the majority of the university population travels to the university by car (65%) and only 35% use public transportation. It is the same at De Montfort University where about 80% of the student and academic population use automobiles (Ozawa-Meida et al., 2011), whereas at the Curico campus only 18% of the total population use them. The study
5
from Louisiana State University (Moerschbaecher and Day, 2010), shows that scope 3 presents 1.2 tCO2e/student, largely due to two activities; staff and student transport and on-campus solid waste production. The difference in the categories recorded in scope 3 in the analyzed studies, as well as the level of uncertainty about information collected on travel behavior (Ozawa-Meida et al. (2011) report uncertainty levels of at least 50%), causing high variation in the results making comparisons with other universities difficult. 3.1.5. Total GHG emissions at the Curico campus compared with other studies Fig. 2 shows the normalized per student GHG emission totals for the Curico campus compared with other institutions. On average, those institutions have 3.1 tCO2e/student. The Curico campus is below this average with 1.0 tCO2e/student. If we consider the indicator based on buildings, the total emissions at the Curico campus is 0.2 tCO2e per square meter of construction. In spite of the low per capita results for the Curico campus compared to its peers, it must be considered that this indicator depends, among other factors, on the characteristics and types of faculties at the university with which the relationship is being established. In the case of the NTNU the GHG emissions for the Faculty of Social Sciences are 0.6 tCO2e/student while in the Faculty of Medicine they are nearly 10.8 tCO2e/student (Larsen et al., 2013). The lower per capita GHG emission values for the Curico campus compared to other university institutions can be explained by summarizing the main conditions of the categories associated with each scope. In scope 1, the low emission value for the Curico campus is related to low fuel consumption for heating due to the temperate climate in the region. Regarding scope 2 emissions, at the time of the study at the Curico campus, there was little equipment with high electricity consumption which would partly explain the low level of GHG emissions for this scope. On the contrary, Güereca et al. (2013) reported that at the UNAM the high contribution for scope 2 is based on the fact that the UNAM presents several energy-intensive facilities. Regarding scope 3, the main activity included here corresponds to transportation where approximately 76% of the Curico campus population uses public transportation, a means of transport that generates fewer emissions per passenger than an automobile does (Moore et al., 2010). On the other hand, at the De Montfort University according to Ozawa-Meida et al. (2011), about 80% of the population uses automobiles.
Fig. 2. Comparison of the greenhouse gas emission results for Curico campus from this study with studies from the literature. Results derived from: (1) Alvarez et al. (2014), (2) Güereca et al. (2013), (3) Anthony (2013), (4) Cox et al. (2012), (5) Larsen et al. (2013).
squez, L., et al., Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and proposals for their reduction at a university Please cite this article in press as: Va campus in Chile, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073
squez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e7 L. Va
6
3.2. Emission reduction scenarios As indicated in Fig. 1, the greatest GHG emissions come from the student commuting (by institutional bus and others means of transport), staff commuting and electricity consumption categories which is why reduction scenarios based on these categories are proposed according to the Pareto Principle (Hramis, 1994). Scenario 1. It considers student commuting. This scenario proposes that the students living near campus (less than 3 km away) replace motorized vehicles (bus, automobile and motorcycle) for bicycles during 2/3 of the academic year (the months from May to August are excluded because of lower temperatures in the region). Scenario 2. This scenario includes student and staff commuting. It also takes into consideration using the train as a means of transport for the 50% of the campus population that lives in cities with train stations. This population corresponds to 14% of the total number of people at the Curico campus. It is understood that the remaining distance from the train station to the campus would be covered by the institutional bus. Scenario 3. Just as in Scenario 2, this scenario includes both student and staff commuting. This scenario proposes that 50% of the car users would use public transportation (15% of the total campus population use cars). Scenario 4. This scenario considers the electricity consumption at the Curico campus. According to a Curico campus study, it is estimated that 30% of the electricity consumption corresponds to lighting (Rojas, 2007). This scenario takes into consideration energy efficient measures for lighting. It proposes a 40% reduction in the amount of electricity used for lighting (Carbon Trust, 2012). As shown in Fig. 3, it was observed that when evaluating the measures suggested in the scenarios, it is scenario 1 that achieves the greatest reduction (107.1 tCO2e representing 7% of the total campus GHG emissions). This is mainly due to replacing one means of transportation for another one that does not generate direct emissions (Duque et al., 2014). However, applying the measures in this scenario does require significant changes in the campus population's current travel behavior. Bringing scenario 2 into effect would achieve a 5% reduction in the total emissions (79.1 tCO2e), due to using the train, a more efficient means of transport (Moore et al., 2010) that is not currently used by the university community. Scenario 3 achieves an overall reduction of 3% (46.7 tCO2e) given the low contribution by automobiles to the current campus emissions. According to Lanfranco et al. (2003), the use of cars in Chile has tripled in the last three decades partly as a result of economic growth and the inefficiency of public transportation. This trend toward greater use of automobiles is also occurring at the Curico
campus which would produce a greater contribution to GHG emissions from the campus in coming years. Finally, scenario 4 shows a 5% reduction overall (74.1 tCO2e). 4. Conclusions There are few peer-reviewed studies on GHG emissions caused by universities in developing countries. The scarcity is most evident in South American countries. In this context, this study evaluates the GHG emissions at the Curico campus of the Universidad de Talca, Chile, based on the GHG Protocol method. The results show that scope 3 generates the largest contribution at 68%, followed by scope 1 and scope 2 at 16% each. When analyzing the categories, it is estimated that student commuting and electricity consumption together represent about 78% of the total emissions. The comparison with other higher education institutions, mostly situated in developed countries, indicates that for the Curico campus the GHG emissions value is below the average. The institutions analyzed in the study present, on average, 3.1 tCO2e/ student while the Curico campus is 1.0 tCO2e/student. It is mainly due to this campus having low heating fuel consumption because of the temperate climate in the region, as well as few energy-intensive facilities and high use of public transportation by students. It is estimated that the GHG emission values at the Curico campus will increase in the future due to the campus having grown and become more complex, and also to the move toward a higher economic level that is anticipated in developing countries and middle income countries such as Chile which affects, among other things, greater access to automobiles for the students. The best reduction scenario in this study considers that the students living near campus replace the use of motorized vehicles (bus, automobile and motorcycle) for bicycles, considering that student commuting is the category with the highest emission contribution and is, furthermore, an item on which future research could be based to seek emission reduction. It must be kept in mind that any application of the scenarios would be affected by resistance to behavior changes, as well as by the economic and legal factors in force. The increase in sustainable action plans brought about by the Universidad de Talca and other Chilean universities with similar characteristics would tend to neutralize this resistance and will help diminish the institutional GHG emissions. The results from this study could be an example for university campuses, particularly in the case of universities in developing countries, with similar characteristics to the current ones at the Curico Campus, such as high use of public transportation by students; high undergraduate population; low quantity of energyintensive equipment; and classroom and office facilities making a significant contribution to the total constructed area. Estimating the GHG emissions from Latin American universities is a step in achieving the goal of campus sustainability. The GHG emission information provides a baseline for the university against which mitigation actions will be measured. Future GHG emission studies on Latin American universities could further improve the knowledge about potential emission reductions. Moreover, new studies may be extended to other environmental indicators in order to contribute further criteria to campus sustainability plans. Acknowledgments
Fig. 3. Quantity of greenhouse gas emissions reduced by each scenario.
The present paper was supported by the Universidad de Talca's Office of Research Administration through the Competitive Fund Project for Student Entrepreneurship in Scientific Research and the Universidad de Talca's Office for University Social Responsibility. The authors would like to thank the Universidad de Talca's Department of Administration and especially the one at the Curico
squez, L., et al., Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and proposals for their reduction at a university Please cite this article in press as: Va campus in Chile, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073
squez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e7 L. Va
campus for their assistance with data collection. We thank Mrs. Sharon Goulart, who provided the English-language support. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073. References ACUPCC - American College and University President’s Climate Commitment, 2015. Online. Available: http://rs.acupcc.org/stats/tangible-actions/ (accessed 19.04.15.). Alvarez, S., Blanquer, M., Rubio, A., 2014. Carbon footprint using the compound method based on financial accounts. The case of the School of Forestry Engineering, Technical University of Madrid. J. Clean. Prod. 66, 224e232. Anthony, K., 2013. Carbon Footprint Report Minnesota State University Mankato. Minnesota State University, Minnesota, USA. Banks, D., 2012. An Introduction to Thermogeology: Ground Source Heating and Cooling. Wiley & Sons, USA. Calder, W., Clugston, R., 2003. International Efforts to Promote Higher Education for Sustainable Development. The Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF). Carbon Neutral - Carbon Neutral Company, 2012. Calculations and Emission Factors. United Kingdom. Online. Available: http://www.carbonneutralcalculator.com/ Carbon%20Offset%20Factors.pdf. Carbon Trust, 2012. Further and Higher Education: Training Colleges and Universities to Be Energy Efficient. Carbon Trust, London, United Kingdom. Castillo, J., Moreno, G., 2002. Forest seeds of Native Chilean Forest (Semillas forestales del bosque nativo chileno). Santiago, Chile. Conway, T., Dalton, C., Loo, J., Benakoun, L., 2008. Developing ecological footprint scenarios on university campuses: a case study of the University of Toronto at Mississauga. Int. J. Sustain. High Educ. 9 (1), 4e20. Cox, T., McKee, P., Snedden, J., Kabala, S., 2012. One Step at Time. Duquesne University’s Third Biennial Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, Pittsburgh,USA. CPL - Cleaner Production Council, 2012. Cleaner Production Agreement: Sustainable Campus. Ministry of Economy, Development and Work, Santiago, Chile n Limpia. Acuerdo de Produccio n Limpia: Campus ([Consejo de Produccio Sustentable. Ministerio de Economía, Fomento y Trabajo. Santiago, Chile]). DDC - Desert Development Center, Office of Sustainability, 2012. Our Carbon Footprint. The American University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt. Duque, R.B., Gray, D., Harrison, M., Davey, E., 2014. Invisible commuters: assessing a university's eco-friendly transportation policies and commuting behaviours. J. Transp. Geogr. 38, 122e136. Geng, Y., Liu, K., Xue, B., Fujita, T., 2013. Creating a ‘green university’ in China: a case of Shenyang University. J. Clean. Prod. 61, 13e19. Güereca, L.P., Torres, N., Noyola, A., 2013. Carbon footprint as a basis for a cleaner research institute in Mexico. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 396e403. HESD -, 2015. Higher Education for Sustainable Development. Online. Available. http://www.iau-hesd.net/en/contenu/189-what-sustainable-development-sd. html (accessed 30.03.15.). Hramis, J., 1994. Administrative Systems and Procedures: Methodology for Application in Private and Public Institutions (Sistemas y procedimientos adminn en instituciones privadas y públicas). istrativos: metodología para su aplicacio Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico, D.F. IARU- International Alliance of Research Universities, 2013. Individual Campus Sustainability Reports, 2013. Online. Available: http://www.iaruni.org/ sustainability/campus-sustainability. Kaplan, D., 2015. Transportation sustainability on a university campus. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 16, 173e186. Klein-Banai, C., Theis, T.L., 2013. Quantitative analysis of factors affecting greenhouse gas emissions at institutions of higher education. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 29e38.
7
Lanfranco, P., Quijada, R., Sagaris, L., Alvarez, R., Rivera, E., Quijada, C., Fuccaro, D., ndez, R., Garrido, C., Plazner, R., Montero, G., Basso, L., Donoso, P., Ferna Palma, C., 2003. Move Around Your City: a Citizen Proposal of Transport with vete por tu ciudad: una propuesta ciudadana de transporte con Equity (Mue equidad). Santiago, Chile. Larsen, H.N., Pettersen, J., Solli, C., Hertwich, E.G., 2013. Investigating the carbon footprint of a University e the case of NTNU. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 39e47. Letete, T., Mungwe, N., Mondli, G., Marquard, A., 2011. Carbon footprint of the University of Cape Town. J. Energy South. Afr. 22, 2e12. Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F.J., Huisingh, D., Lambrechts, W., 2013. Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 10e19. McNeilly, L., Stoll, K., Fenley, E., 2013. Campus Sustainability Report 2013. University of California, Berkeley, USA. Minenergia - Ministry of Energy, 2014. GHG Emission Inventory - Factor Emissions n). (Ministerio de Energía, Inventario de Emisiones GEI - Factores de emisio Online. Available. http://huelladecarbono.minenergia.cl/factores-de-emision (accessed 29.05.14.). Moerschbaecher, M., Day, J.W., 2010. The greenhouse gas inventory of Louisiana State University: a case study of the energy requirements of public higher education in the United States. Sustainability 2, 2117e2134. Moore, A.T., Staley, S.R., Poole, R.W., 2010. The role of VMT reduction in meeting climate change policy goals. Transp. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 44, 565e574. Ozawa-Meida, L., Brockway, P., Letten, K., Davies, J., Fleming, P., 2011. Measuring carbon performance in a UK University through a consumption-based carbon footprint: De Montfort University case study. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 185e198. Posner, S., Stuart, R., 2013. Understanding and advancing campus sustainability using a systems framework. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 14, 264e277. Rojas, R., 2007. Proposal for Energy Savings for the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Talca (Propuesta de un sistema de ahorro de energía para la . facultad de ingeniería de la Universidad de Talca). Universidad de Talca, Curico Chile. Sinha, P., Schew, W.A., Sawant, A., Kolwaite, K.J., Strode, S.A., 2010. Greenhouse Gas emissions from U.S. Institutions of Higher Education. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 60, 568e573. Smith-Ramírez, C., Armesto, J., Valdovinos, C., 2005. History, Biodiversity and Ecology of Coastal Forests of Chile (Historia, biodiversidad y ecología de los bosques costeros de Chile). Chile, Santiago. Spirovski, D., Abazi, A., Iljazi, I., Ismaili, M., Cassulo, G., Venturin, A., 2012. Realization of a low emission university campus trough the implementation of a climate action plan. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 46, 4695e4702. UChile - Universidad de Chile, Instituto de Asuntos Públicos, 2011. Determination of n de los factores de Emission Factors for Scope 1 and Scope 2 ([Determinacio n para los Alcances 1 y 2 de la estimacio n de la huella de carbono]). emisio Santiago, Chile. U.S. EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008a. Climate Leaders. Optional Emissions from Commuting, Business Travel and Product Transport. EPA, USA. U.S. EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008b. Direct HFC and PFC Emissions from Use of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment. EPA, USA. UTALCA - University of Talca, 2013. Press Room. Universidad de Talca, Sala de prensa. Online. Available: http://www.utalca.cl/link.cgi//SalaPrensa/ Institucional/6997 (accessed: 07.05.14.). UW e University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, 2015. UW Oshkosh Campus Sustainability Plan. Online. Available: http://www.uwosh.edu/assets/announcement/ sustainability/ (accessed 19.04.15.). Venetoulis, J., 2001. Assessing the ecological impact of a university. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2, 180e197. WRI/WBCSD - World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2004. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: a Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative, USA and Switzerland. Yale University, 2013. Sustainability Strategic Plan 2013e2016. Office of Sustainability. Yale University, New Haven, USA.
squez, L., et al., Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and proposals for their reduction at a university Please cite this article in press as: Va campus in Chile, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073