International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education

on
al
Jo
ur
Assessing the Ecological Footprints of University Campuses
na
in Developed and Developing Countries
lo
Journal: International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education

Manuscript ID IJSHE-06-2017-0088

Manuscript Type: Research Paper

fS

sustainable campus, ecological footprint, carbon footprint, human

Keywords:
development index, developing countries
us
ta
in
ab
ili
ty
in
Hi
gh
er
Ed
u
 Page 1 of 16 International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
on
1
2
3 Assessing the Ecological Footprints of University Campuses in Developed
al
4
5 and Developing Countries
6
7
Jo
8
9 Abstract
10 Purpose: The purpose of the first part is the calculation of CF and EF values sustainable campus
ur
11 policy development and for educational purposes to increase awareness for staff and students.
12
Secondly, EF and CF results of Gazi University (Turkey) - developing country -was
13
compared with other university campuses in developing and developed countries to assess the
na
14
15 effects of development levels of countries on sustainability of campuses.
16 Design/Methodology/Approach: LCA methodology based on the ISO 14040 and 14044
17
series used for calculating environmental impact. The study has been conducted using LCA
lo
18
19 software package SimaPro.
20 Findings: Results indicate that; calculated EF (15700 gha) is 408 times higher biocapacity
21
than of its physical capacity/area (38.5 ha). Transportation and electricity usage are the hot
fS
22
23 spots for most environmental impacts. In the second part; EFs are found higher in university
24 campuses in high development indexed and medium development indexed countries when
25 compared to very high developed indexed countries.
us

26
27
Research limitations/implications: EF and CF are site spesific analysis depending on several
28 factors. It is impossible to take into into account all factors during calculations. Additionally,
29 data availability for EF values for the university campuses in developing countries is very
ta

30 limited.
31
32 Practical Implications: The EF and CF values and components increasing these values will
in

33 be shared among other campuses.

34 Originality/Value: Although there are several campuses with available data of calculated CF
35
ab

and EF in the US, Europe and East Asia countries, no university has published a
36
37 comprehensive EF analysis in Turkey and none of the above mentioned studies evaluated the
38 EF of campuses with respect to development levels of countries.
ili

39
40
41 Keywords: sustainable campus, ecological footprint, carbon footprint, developing countries,
ty

42 human development index.

43
44
45
in

46
47
48
49
Hi

50
51
52
gh

53
54
55
56
er

57
58
59
60
Ed

1
u
 International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Page 2 of 16
on
1
2
3 Introduction
al
4
5
6 With increases in population and consumption in many parts of the world, humanity's
7
Jo
ecological burden on the planet has also extended, and natural resources have become
8
9
insufficient to serve all our demands. As a result, natures capacity to absorb the pollution
10 generated by human activity has diminished significantly. According to World Footprint
ur
11 report of Global Footprint Network accessed in November 2015, today humanity uses the
12 equivalent of 1.6 planets to provide the resources we use and to absorb our waste (World
13
Footprint Network). An ecological footprint (EF) allows measuring and analysing resource
na
14
15 consumption and waste output compared to the replenishment capacity of nature. The carbon
16 footprint (CF), on the other hand, is a very powerful tool to understand the impact of personal
17
behaviour on the greatest global environmental problem: global warming and climate change.
lo
18
19 CF commonly estimates total amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emitted by a product,
20 organisation, activity or individual and is expressed as CO2 (carbon dioxide) equivalents.
21 These methodologies have been applied to countries, towns, households, and more recently to
fS
22
23 university campuses. Universities have long been agents of change catalysts for social and
24 political action as well as centres of learning. Universities not only educate most of the
25 worlds leaders, decision-makers and teachers, and advance the boundaries of knowledge, but
us

26
also play a significant economic role nationally and globally as major employers and
27
28 consumers of goods and services (Filho, 2010; Foo, 2013).
29
ta

30 University campuses are areas of similar characteristics to urban areas and most
31
32
develop a combination of complementary uses that foster a lively sense of urban community
in

33 with commercial areas: markets, restaurants, cafes, bookshops, office supply stores;
34 residential areas: dormitories; parks, roads, sideways, concert halls, sports areas, sanctuaries,
35
ab

bus stops, parking lots, etc. These features of university campuses lead them to take initiative
36
37 to address the problems society faces, especially in relation to the sustainability of the planet
38 and survival of humankind. Thus they are increasingly becoming important agents of change
ili

39 for promoting sustainable behaviour in society. They also have tremendous capacity to
40
contribute to sustainable development through training, education and research. The unique
41
ty

42 interaction of theory and practice in university campuses act as catalyst for the university
43 community and reduce the negative consequences of their activities. Campus life integrates
44 several functions such as education, extracurricular activities, communication and other
45
in

46 functions. Besides their mission of producing and disseminating knowledge, contributing to

47 innovation/technology universities play a significant economic role nationally and globally as
48 consumers of goods and services.
49
Hi

50
51 Campus management and operations; campus planning, design, construction and
52 renovation; purchasing; transport; and engagement with the wider community are also part of
gh

53 a universitys functions and responsibilities. In order to assess the environmental impact of a

54
55 university campus, ecological performance is to be monitored to raise awareness among staff
56 and students by actively involving them in the process of ecological and carbon footprint
er

57 calculation/analyses (Gottlieb et al., 2012). These analyses are also used for integrating
58
59
60
Ed

2
u
 Page 3 of 16 International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
on
1
2
3 sustainability within the campus. A campus can be essentially seen as a living laboratory for
al
4 the development of environment-friendly practices connected to the outside world.
5
6
7 However, assessing the environmental impact of universities is a trivial task due to the
Jo
8 complexity and diversity of their operations. Nevertheless, it is important in order to identify
9 more sustainable options and reduce their ecological footprints. Recently, life cycle approach
10
started to be widely used for the estimation; which is essential for obtaining the full/whole
ur
11
12 picture of environmental implications of a running university. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is
13 the preferred tool for EF and CF calculations, as it can help quantify the materials and energy
na
14
consumption, as well as the emissions and waste produced in the life cycle of university-
15
16 related activities (Lukman et al., 2009). In order to assess the environmental impact of a
17 university campus, ecological and carbon footprint analysis can be used in order to monitor
lo
18 ecological performance and raise awareness among staff and students by involving them in
19
20
the process of calculation (Gottlieb et al.,2012).
21
fS
22 Using EF, an assessment can be made of where the largest impact comes from Flint
23 (2001). EF specific to a university campus can also be used to compare various footprint
24
25 reduction scenarios using a common measure (Klein-Banai and Theis, 2011). Along this line,
us

26 a study was carried out at Gazi University, Turkey, aiming to calculate CF and EF values of
27 its main campus: Beevler. Gazi University is a public university located at the heart of the
28
capital city, Ankara. It was established in 1926. There are 11 different campuses with a
29
ta

30 population of 81052 students and 7336 academic and other staff. However the scope of this
31 study includes only the main campus at Beevler. Referring to the 2017 Performance Program
32
in

of the University, there are 816 academic staff, 1016 administrative staff and 18685 students
33
34 in the main campus. The total land area is 38.5 hectares. The historical administration
35 building, used as the Universitys Rectorate; associated educational departments/units, sports
ab

36 facilities and social facilities are all located here.

37
38
In an attempt to contribute to a better understanding of the environmental impact of
ili

39
40 university campuses, this paper presents the results of CF and EF of Gazi University in
41 Turkey based on LCA calculations. Due to scattered locations of different faculties,
ty

42
43
vocational schools, colleges and departments throughout Ankara city (area in total 167.2
44 hectares) and limited data access, the study has been carried out only for the main campus
45 which has largest land area and population.
in

46
47
48 The first part of the study focuses on the calculation of CF and EF for the sustainable and
49 climate friendly campus policy development and educational purposes to increase EF
Hi

50 awareness for staff (both academicians and administrative) and students. In the second part,
51
52
CF and EF results of Gazi University in Turkey - a developing country -was compared with
gh

53 the results of other university campuses located in developing and developed countries to
54 assess the effect of development levels of countries on sustainability of the campuses.
55 Although there are several campuses with available data of calculated CF and EF in the US,
56
er

57 Europe and East Asia countries, (Almaden et al., 2014), no university has published a
58 comprehensive ecological footprint analysis in Turkey and none of the above mentioned
59
60
Ed

3
u
 International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Page 4 of 16
on
1
2
3 studies evaluated the EF and CF values of campuses with respect to development levels of
al
4 countries.
5
6
7 1. Methodology
Jo
8 Because of its notional visualization, accessibility and applicability, the ecological
9 footprint approach is implemented by many researchers since its introduction in 1992 (Li et
10
al., 2008). Ecological footprint is an attractive and widely accepted analysis because its
ur
11
12 concept is clear, and its calculation straightforward. Moreover, it can be applied at different
13 scales: individual, school, community, local, regional, national or even at the world level.
na
14
15
16 Ecological Footprint calculations are based on two basic assumptions: First, most of the
17 consumption and waste can be accounted for; and second, the biologically productive areas
lo
18 appropriated for these consumption patterns and the assimilation of waste can be calculated
19
20
(Wackernagel et al., 1999). Consumption includes: Food, housing, transportation, consumer
21 goods, services, and waste. It is usually measured and expressed in global acre or global
fS
22 hectares (gha). Each global acre corresponds to one acre of biologically productive area based
23 on the earths average productivity.
24
25
us

26 The second one, LCA methodology used for calculating environmental impact is based on
27 the ISO 14040 and 14044 series is used in this study. The study has been conducted using
28
LCA software package SimaPro (http://www.simapro.co.uk/). In the first step of the analysis,
29
ta

30 carbon and ecological footprint models of Gazi University were established according to its
31 emission sources, categorized under 3 components.
32
in

Component 1 emission source:

33
34 Fuel consumption of immobile equipment (machines, etc.)
35 Fuel consumption of mobile equipment (vehicles, etc.)
ab

36 Component 2 emission source:

37
38 Electrical energy taken from the network or from the generator directly (emission
ili

39 factors are used according to the type of energy production system, e.g. wind farm)
40 Component 3 emission source:
41
Transportation means of staff/students
ty

42
43 Business travels of personnel
44 Waste disposal
45
in

46 Procurement of goods and services by subcontractors out of the plant.

47
48 Emissions from shuttles and vehicles were counted in Content 1 emissions, natural gas
49
Hi

and electric consumptions were counted in Content 2 emissions and emissions from transport
50
51 of students, waste and water consumption were evaluated in Content 3.
52 The primary data were provided by the University Accounting Office; utilities such as
gh

53 water, electricity, and heating were obtained in the form of monthly invoices for the year 2013
54
55
and calculated as yearly averages. These data have been used to calculate the consumption of
56 energy and materials in the system. The information on the amount of waste produced on the
er

57 campus has been provided by M.Sc. thesis of ztrk (2010). As regards to items for which
58
59
60
Ed

4
u
 Page 5 of 16 International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
on
1
2
3 data was not available, such as consumption of paper and personnel transportation, secondary
al
4 data obtained from the literature survey were used.
5
6
7 In the second step, footprint value of the University was calculated. Based on the
Jo
8 established model and calculations, main carbon emissions of the university were identified.
9 The calculations in the models were done with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
10
Change 2007 GWP method. Greenhouse gas emissions (expressed as CO2-equiv. units) were
ur
11
12 quantified using the method, assuming a 100-years time span.
13
na
14
The characterization factors of IPCC for the direct (except CH4) global warming potential
15
16 of air emissions are given below;
17
lo
18 do not include indirect formation of dinitrogen monoxide from nitrogen emissions.
19
20 do not account for radioactive forcing due to emissions of NOx, water, sulphate, etc. in
21 the lower stratosphere + upper troposphere.
fS
22 do not consider the range of indirect effects given by IPCC.
23
24 do not include CO2 formation from CO emissions.
25 if only a minimum or maximum value of a substance is reported, this minimum or
us

26 maximum value is used.

27
28 substances which do not have a common name but only formula, are not included in
29 the method.
ta

30 do not consider biogenic CO2 uptake and emission, but consider only the biogenic
31
32
methane release.
in

33 Normalization and weighting are not part of this method.

34
35
ab

In the last step, EF and CF were compared with different universities throughout the
36
37 world, selection made based on development indexes of the countries and data availability.
38 This comparison has been done to see whether the differences in the contributions of
ili

39 components are based on the development level of the countries.

40
41
ty

42 Human Development Index (HDI) is used to measure development levels and includes
43 Ecological Footprints to operationalize the similarities between university and its home
44 country. The Ecological Footprint and Human Development Index (HDI) represent strict, yet
45
in

46 widely accepted, metrics for ecological sustainability and human development (Moran et al.,
47 2008). However, data availability for EF values especially for the university campuses in
48 countries with medium and low human development (HD) score is very limited. No
49
Hi

research or related calculations were found to be conducted in most of the countries having a
50
51 HDI score of less than 50.
52 The data of 4 university campuses from countries with very high human
gh

53 development (top 1-49 country), 3 from high human development (top 50-105) and 2 from
54
55
medium human development (106-143) were accessed and evaluated to compare EF values
56 and its components (Table 2).
er

57
58
59
60
Ed

5
u
 International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Page 6 of 16
on
1
2
3 2. Results and Discussion
al
4 2.1. Ecological and Carbon Footprint of Gazi University
5
6
7 The CF and EF values of GU are presented in Table 1, with breakdown of components
Jo
8 and contribution of each component by percentage.
9
10
ur
11
12 Table 1 here about
13
na
14
15
16 The results of the analyses regarding EF including transportation, heating, electricity
17 and water consumption are given in Table 1 above. It is expressed in terms of global hectare
lo
18 (gha). The EF of Gazi University is computed as 15700 gha in total. Considering campus area
19
20
of 38.5 ha, staff and students exceed the production and emission absorption ability of the
21 campus area and use 408 times higher biocapacity than of its physical capacity/area. EF is
fS
22 calculated as 2.84 gha per capita. GU Beevler campus is located at the heart of the capital
23 city Ankara and as stated by (Klein-Banai, Theis, 2011) the ratio of ecological footprint to
24
25 land area is very high for a highly urban university as compared to a rural university.
us

26
27 The total CF of Gazi University is 58300 tons. This means 0.76 t of CO2 per capita
28
(staff + students) are emitted to the atmosphere per year.
29
ta

30
31
32 % of EF
in

33 0.25
34 0% Fuel consumption
35
ab

36
37 Heating (Natural gas)
38 27.8 % 28.90 %
ili

39 Electricity
40
41
ty

Transportation of the
42
12.90 % students
43
44 30.40 % Waste
45
in

46
Water consumption
47
48
49 Fig.1. Percentages of each emission source for EF in Gazi University
Hi

50
51 Figure 1 displays ecological footprint of each emission source of Gazi University.
52
gh

Transportation including fuel consumption for Universitys own vehicles as well as private
53
54 vehicles of the staff and students accounts for the highest EF standing at 56.70% and consists
55 of 8900 gha. The next largest component with considerable impact on EF is electricity
56
er

consumption with 30.40% and heating follows with 12.92% consisting of 4770 gha and 2030
57
58
59
60
Ed

6
u
 Page 7 of 16 International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
on
1
2
3 gha, respectively. Water use has a negligible impact on EF for Gazi University, amounting
al
4 only for 0.25% of total campus emission. More than half of the EF comes from transportation.
5
6
7 This might be explained by the existence of eleven different campuses settled all
Jo
8 around the city and hourly shuttles are provided between those campuses mostly for academic
9 staff and for students. Additionally, public transport system is not easily accessible from all
10
campuses. Although this study focused on the EF of main Beevler Campus, this calculation
ur
11
12 includes the fuel consumption used for these shuttles. Additionally, campus is located in the
13 city center and mobility in and out to campus is very high. That is; staff and students are
na
14
unlikely to stay in the campus for all day long. They travel to and from the city center during
15
16 the day to use gaps between the lectures, eat meals, and do various work. This can cause
17 multiple transportations in a day and increase consumption.
lo
18
19
20
21 % of CF
fS
22 0.10 %
0.25 %
23 Fuel consumption
24
25 28.4 % Heating (Natural gas)
us

26 26.60 %
27
28 Electricity
12.90 %
31.70 %
29
ta

30 Transportation of the
31 students
32
in

33 Figure 2. Percentage of components in Gazi Universitys CF

34
35
ab

36 Similarly, as can be seen in Figure 2, transportation has the highest CF with 32.100 ton
37 CO2 eq and accounts for 55.0% of total emission. The next largest component with
38 considerable impact on CF is electricity consumption with 31.70% and consisting of 18500
ili

39
40 ton CO2 eq. The third component is heating with a rate of 12.90%. Water use and waste do
41 not have a large impact on CF of Gazi University, only 0.25% and 0.10% respectively. The
ty

42 percentage distribution of each component in CF is comparable with the EF (except waste).

43
44
45 When the other universities in the scope of this study given in Table 2 are examined
in

46 in terms of components contributing to EF and CF; the share of transportation on EF was

47 found as high only at Leuven University (Belgium). Direct energy use has the highest impact
48
49 on EF in other university campuses examined. From Table 2, it is possible to say that the
Hi

50 contribution of the components of the EF does not vary much with respect to the level of
51 development of the countries.
52
gh

53
54 The initial purpose of this study was to analyze the current status of Gazi Universitys
55 environmental impact in terms of ecological and carbon footprints and contribution of their
56
er

components. These findings will form the basis for advancing sustainable campus practices at
57
58
Gazi University. Priorities will be set according to the current impact categories, including the
59
60
Ed

7
u
 International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Page 8 of 16
on
1
2
3 transportation plan, energy efficiency action plan; water and waste management plans.
al
4 Accordingly, steps to be taken to become a more sustainable campus will be determined by
5
taking into account the results of this study. Depending on the fact that; the importance of
6
7 knowledge and awareness is also supported by the fact that the participants that have studied
Jo
8 or worked in the Department of Environmental Studies or have an educational background in
9 natural sciences have more positive attitudes and are more willing to support and participate
10
in sustainability initiatives (Bellou et al., 2017); the results will be used to raise awareness of
ur
11
12 students and staff thorough short training seminars.
13
na
14
2.2. Impact of Development Levels on EF in Campuses
15
16
17 In the second part of the study; to differentiate the impact of development levels of
lo
18 countries on EF values, different universities throughout the world have been chosen
19
20
depending on the development score of their countries and data availability.
21 There is considerable difference between the ecological footprints of developed and
fS
22 developing countries (World Economic and Social Survey, 2013). Furthermore, the ecological
23 footprint in developed countries seems to be rising at a faster pace than in developing
24
25 countries. For example, the ecological footprint in developed countries increased from 3.8
us

26 global hectares in 1961 to 5.3 global hectares in 2007, representing an overall increase of 39
27 per cent. By contrast, the per capita ecological footprint in developing countries increased
28
from 1.4 global hectares in 1961 to 1.8 global hectares in 2007, representing an increase of 28
29
ta

30 per cent (Woodward and Simms, 2006).

31
32
in

Depending on that fact, it is aimed to review the EFs of some universities including
33
34 Gazi University (Turkey) with respect to development levels of their home countries. It is
35 hypothesized that, as the development index of countries increases, EFs of university
ab

36 campuses chosen in those countries increase as well. Thus, it will be seen that if the EF values
37
calculated on university campuses parallel to their countries EFs. Do university campuses
38
really be indicators of their country? Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar (2008) state that
ili

39
40 universities can nowadays be regarded as small cities due to their large size, population,
41 and the various complex activities taking place in campuses, which have some serious direct
ty

42
43
and indirect impacts on the environment. Klein-Banai and Theis (2011) on the other hand,
44 maintain the same theme colleges and universities are institutions that have large facilities
45 encompassing many functions of a small community such as housing, laboratories,
in

46 recreational facilities, transportation and grounds operations, agricultural activities, and office
47
48 and classroom buildings. Large universities operate like small towns with a significant
49 environmental impact can be at the local level.
Hi

50
51
52
In order to be able to interpret the results, Table 2 shows an overview of EF of
gh

53 different universities and their home countries.

54
55
56
er

57 Table 2 here about

58
59
60
Ed

8
u
 Page 9 of 16 International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
on
1
2
3 In the second part of the study, EFs of some universities, including Gazi University
al
4 (Turkey), with respect to development rankings of their home countries are reviewed and
5
summarized in Table 2. As can be seen; EFs of university campuses are of comparably small
6
7 value than that of their home countries, except for Phillippines and India; which have lowest
Jo
8 rankings in HDI index. Although universities are described as small-scale cities, considering
9 the impact factors on the components of ecological footprint, it is important to note that
10
university campuses are areas where no industrial and agricultural production, no tourism
ur
11
12 activities and no extensive settlement areas are present. Generally, campuses are highly
13 urbanized areas hosting a significant number of academic and support facilities and include
na
14
interlinked academic areas, dormitories and support services for dining, recreation, and
15
16 cultural purposes.
17
lo
18 Additionally, the university is an important site to implement sustainability practices,
19
20
because the autonomy of the governance structure allows for more flexibility compared to the
21 scale of a city and even a municipality. With a smaller scale and more structured
fS
22 administration, universities can better reduce the cumulative effect of local environmental
23 problems, an area where cities sometimes struggle (Finlay and Massey, 2012). Depending on
24
25 that fact, as sustainable development is being recognized worldwide, the notion of
us

26 constructing sustainable campuses is now easier, compared to local or national scale.

27 Therefore, university campuses are well suited to initiate necessary changes to improve
28
environment friendly practices. This would lead to a situation where all members of the
29
ta

30 University community become aware of the environmental impact of their activities and
31 develop a sustainable approach in their works and lifestyles.
32
in

33
34 Another finding is; as the ranking of the countries in the HDI index increases, their
35 ecological footprints also increase. However, the opposite is true for university campuses.
ab

36 That is, contrary to our hypothesis; ecological footprints are higher in university campuses in
37
high development indexed and medium development indexed countries compared to very
38
highly developed indexed countries.
ili

39
40
41 SRM University in India is the university that creates the highest impact with 3.1031
ty

42
43
EF / cap among other universities with the lowest development rate in Table 2. This might be
44 explained in terms of education systems; developed countries offer better educational
45 opportunities. As the development levels of the countries increase, priority given to education
in

46 is increasing and the standards of educational environments are also rising including
47
48 improvement of the university campuses. Additionally, in developed countries, various actors
49 including environmental protection agencies, sustainability movements, university
Hi

50 stakeholders as well as student activism and NGOs push universities for greener campuses
51
52
(Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008). For example, in 2000 the US Environmental Protection
gh

53 Agency issued an enforcement alert, which explained that the agency was then holding
54 colleges and universities to the same standards as industry with regards to the issues of human
55 health and environment (Savely et al., 2007). An increasing number of universities are
56
er

57 increasingly highlighting their commitment to sustainability on their websites and in

58 specialized reports (Dade and Hassenzahl, 2013).
59
60
Ed

9
u
 International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Page 10 of 16
on
1
2
3 Furthermore, universities are particular and unique in societal responsibility, more
al
4 specifically in terms of sustainable development and efficient use of resources. For societies
5
aspiring towards sustainability, university campuses can play a leading role to support and
6
7 increase the effectiveness of environment friendly actions, as such actions will provide a
Jo
8 model for the neighboring societies. Universities are identified as key hubs within cities for
9 innovation and environmental education, representing a precious opportunity for enabling the
10
necessary behavioral change toward adopting more sustainable attitudes in daily lives (Sonetti
ur
11
12 and others; 2016).
13
na
14
3. Conclusion
15
16 In the first part of this study, impacts of university campus on environment based on
17 EF and CF values using life cycle assessment approach is discussed. The results suggest that
lo
18 the main contributor to both EF and CF is transportation (56.70% and 55% respectively) and
19
20
next largest component with considerable impact on EF and CF is electricity consumption
21 with 30.40% and 31.70%. Waste and water do not have a big impact on the EF value of GU.
fS
22 In order to reduce the environmental impacts, new transportation plans and vehicles usage
23 strategy of the university have been considered. Replacement of conventional lighting
24
25 systems with solar panel system beginning with the parking garage is estimated to reduce
us

26 energy consumption by 20% at the first stage. Solid waste management model have also been
27 cosidered to increase the rate of recycling in collaboration with local authorities. Finally,
28
Environmental Management Committee is established working directly under the Rectorate
29
ta

30 for sustainable campus. elikdemir et. al (2017) investigated the major characteristics of a
31 sustainable university which plays a vital role in creating sustainability of nations, starting
32
in

from their own community and region in Turkey and concluded that; it is important for
33
34 universities to enlighten their students with the concept of sustainability to provide
35 sustainability in their own institutions and regional sustainability as well. Both the academic
ab

36 and administrative staff should also be trained in this manner for the university to be able to
37
educate its own students. Accordingly, the concrete numbers, EF and CF found in this study,
38
will demonstraate the impacts of daily campus life on environment and be beneficial to raise
ili

39
40 environmental awareness of students and staff in the first sense, then decison makers,
41 academia and society in a wider sense can take this opportunity and promote green campus
ty

42
43
concept as models for public awareness in sustainable development.
44
In the second part of the study, EFs of some universities including Gazi University
45
in

46 (Turkey) in respect to development rates of their home countries are reviewed and evaluated.
47 Through comparative analysis it could be concluded that the EFs of university campuses are
48 comparably small than that of their home countries except lowest HDI indexed countries;
49
Hi

50 Phillippines and India. University campuses naturally have low environmental impacts and
51 ecological footprints as there are no industries, no agricultural production, no tourism pressure
52 on campus area. Additionally, environmental awareness is high in the university community
gh

53
and autonomous management and decision making mechanisms are other factors that affect
54
55 the ecological footprint of campuses to be lower than that of countries.
56
er

57 Another finding is; as the ranking of the countries in the HDI index increases, their
58 ecological footprints also increase. However, the opposite is true for university campuses.
59
60
Ed

10
u
 Page 11 of 16 International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
on
1
2
3 That is; ecological footprints are higher in university campuses in high development indexed
al
4 and medium development indexed countries compared to very highly developed indexed
5
countries.
6
7
Jo
However it should be kept in mind that, as stated by Klein-Banai and Theis (2011), an
8
9 ecological footprint is site spesific analysis that depends on factors related to the type of
10 location (rural, suburban, urban), the scope (university, city, region, nation), and the
ur
11 normative behavior of the specific population. Therefore, the comparative sustainability of an
12
13
institution must be evaluated in the larger context of the location and its influence on the
surrounding environment.
na
14
15
16
17
lo
18
19
20
21
fS
22
23
24
25
us

26
27
28
29
ta

30
31
32
in

33
34
35
ab

36
37
38
ili

39
40
41
ty

42
43
44
45
in

46
47
48
49
Hi

50
51
52
gh

53 Acknowledment: This work was supported by the Gazi University Scientific Research
54 Projects Funds (Project no: 18/2012-02). Funds are used to buy SimaPro software.
55
56
er

57
58
59
60
Ed

11
u
 International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Page 12 of 16
on
1
2
3
al
4
5
6
7 REFERENCES
Jo
8
Almaden, C. R. C., Navarro, K. D. and Obedencio, M. M. (2014), A sustainability analysis
9
10 on campus ecology, International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 9, pp.
571-588.
ur
11
12
13 Alshuwaikhat, H.M., Abubakar I. (2008), An integrated approach to achieving campus
sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental management practices,
na
14
15 Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.16, pp. 1777-1785.
16
17 Bellou, C., Petrenit V. and Skanavis, C. (2017), "Greening the campus intentions: a study of
lo
18
the University of the Aegean non-academic staff", International Journal of Sustainability in
19
20
Higher Education, Vol. 18 Issue 4, pp.520-532.
21
fS
22 elikdemir Zaptolu, D., Gnay, G., Katrinli, A. And Alpbaz S.P., (2017) "Defining
23 sustainable universities following public opinion formation process", International Journal of
24 Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 18, Issue 3, pp.294-306.
25
us

26
27 Dade, A. and Hassenzahl, D.M. (2013), Communicating sustainability: a content analysis of
28 website communications in the United States, International Journal of Sustainability in
29 Higher Education, Vol. 14, Issue 3, pp. 254-263.
ta

30
31
32
in

33 Finlay, J. and Massey, J. (2012),"Eco-campus: applying the ecocity model to develop green
34 university and college campuses", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
35 Education, Vol. 13, Issue 2, pp.150-165.
ab

36
37 Filho, W.L. (2014), Universities and Climate Change, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
38
ili

39
40 Flint, K. (2001), Institutional ecological footprint analysis A case study of the University of
41 Newcastle, Australia, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol.
ty

42 2, Issue. 1, pp. 46-62.

43
44
Foo, K. (2013), A vision on the role of environmental higher education, Journal of Cleaner
45
in

46
Production, Vol. 61, pp. 46-53.
47
48 Global Footprint Network, available at
49 http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/ (accessed 18 June
Hi

50 2017).
51
52 Gottlieb, D., Kissinger, M., Vigoda-Gadota E., Haim, A., (2012), Analyzing the ecological
gh

53 footprint at the institutional scale - The case of an Israeli high-school, Ecological Indicators,
54
Vol. 18, pp. 91-97.
55
56
er

57 Klein-Banai, C., Theis, T. L. (2011), An urban university's ecological footprint and the effect
58 of climate change, Ecological Indicators, Vol.1, No.3, pp. 857-860.
59
60
Ed

12
u
 Page 13 of 16 International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
on
1
2
3
al
4 Li, G.J., Wang, Q., Gu, X.W., Liu, J.X., Ding, Y. and Liang G.Y. (2008), Application of the
5 componential method for ecological footprint calculation of a Chinese university campus,
6 Ecological Indicators, Vol.8, No.1, pp. 75-78.
7
Jo
8
Lukman, R., Abhishek T., Azapagic, A. (2009), Towards greening a university campus: The
9
10 case of the University of Maribor, Slovenia, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol.53,
No. 11, pp. 639-644.
ur
11
12
13 Moran, D.D., Wackernagel, M., Kitzes, J.A., Goldfinger, S.H. and Boutaud, A. (2008),
Measuring sustainable development -Nation by nation, Ecological Economics, Vol. 65
na
14
15 No:3, pp. 15 470478.
16
17
lo
18 Savely, S.M., Carson, A.I. and Delclos, G.L. (2007), An environmental management system
19 implementation model for U.S. colleges and universities, Journal of Cleaner Production,
20 Vol. 15, No.7, pp. 660-670.
21
fS
22
Sonetti, G., Lombardi, P. and Chelleri, L. (2016), True green and sustainable university
23
24 campuses? toward a clusters approach, Sustainability, Vol.8, No.83, pp. 1-23.
25
us

26 Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Bello, P., Linares, C., Falfn, I. S. L., Garca, J. M., Guerrero,
27 A. I. S. and Guerrero, G.S. (1999), National natural capital accounting with the ecological
28 footprint concept, Ecological Economics, Vol. 29, pp.375-390.
29
ta

30 Woodward, D. and Simms, A. (2013), Growth is failing the poor: the unbalanced distribution
31 of the benefits and costs of global economic growth DESA Working Paper No. 20.
32
in

33
34 World Economic and Social Survey, (2013), Sustainable development challenges available at
35 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2843WESS2013.pdf (accessed 18
ab

36 June 2017).
37
38
ili

39
40
41
ty

42
43
44
45
in

46
47
48
49
Hi

50
51
52
gh

53
54
55
56
er

57
58
59
60
Ed

13
u
 International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Page 14 of 16
on
1
2
3 Table 1:
al
4 Breakdown of EF components and contributions by percentage
5
6
7 Emission Ecological Percent Carbon Percent
Jo
8 Sources Footprint of Footprint of CF
9 (gha) EF (ton CO2 (%)
10
(%) eq.)
ur
11
12 Transportation 8900.00 56.70 32100.00 55.0
13 (Fuel
na
14
15
consumption* +
16 Student
17 transportation**)
lo
18 Heating 2030.00 12.92 7500.00 12.90
19
20 (Natural gas)
21 Electricity 4770.00 30.40 18500.00 31.70
fS
22 Waste*** - - 109.00 0.10
23
24 Water 38.7 0.25 148.00 0.25
25 consumption
us

26 Total 15700.00 100.0 58300.00 100.0

27
28
EF per ha 408.00
29 EF per person 2.84
ta

30 (staff+students)
31
CF per person 0.76
32
in

33 (staff+students)
34 *The model was established based on the data gathered from the university that 10 shuttles travel approximately
35 750000 km per year. Calculations were based on the assumption that each shuttle carries 20 persons.
ab

36 ** According to the data gathered from the university, there are 18685 students. The assumptions for the
37 calculations are given below;
38 - 10% of the students accommodate in the dormitories or houses in the neighbourhood.
ili

39 - 40% of students travel by shuttles.

40 - 50% of students travel by public transportation.
41 *** The model was established based on the universitys waste generation and recyclable waste data obtained
ty

42
from the university.
43
44
45
in

46
47
48
Table 2
49 Overview of EF results of different univeristies in different countries
Hi

50 University Country Human Year Components of EF (as EF/cap. EF for

51 Development of %) (Univer Country
52
gh

Index (HDI) study sity) (2013-Global

53 Footprint
54 Rank Network)
55 University Canada 9 2005 Transportation 16.1 1.07 8.76
56
er

57
of Toronto
Energy 69.4
58 at
59
60
Ed
u
 Page 15 of 16 International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
on
1
2
3 Mississauga Materials and 4.0
al
4 waste
5
6 Water 0.2
7
Jo
8 Total 8744.0
9
ton CO2
10
eq.
ur
11
12
13 Leuven Belgium 21 2010 Transportation 44.22 0.35 6.89
University
na
14
15 Energy 17.83
College
16
17 Materials and 0.05
lo
18 waste
19
20 Water 0.01
21
fS
22 Total 2663.7
23 ton CO2
24 eq.
25
us

26 Leon Spain 26 2006 Total 6646.04 0.45 4.03

27
28 University, ton CO2
29 Campuz de eq.
ta

30 Vegazana
31
32 University Portugal 43 2013 Total 5049- 1.02- 3.87
in

33 Algarve 9999 ton 2.02

34
35 CO2 eq.
ab

36
37 Central Cuba 67 2008 Energy 49.77 0.215 1.86
38 University
Transportation 7.59
ili

39 Marta
40
Abreuof Water 0.05
41
ty

42 Las Villas
43
Waste 4.29
44
Total 1850.19
45
in

46
Gazi Turkey 72 2013 Energy 43.22 2.84 3.19
47
48 University
Transportation 56.70
49
Hi

50 Water 0.25
51
52
gh

Waste -
53
54 Total 15700
55
56 ton CO2
er

57 eq
58
59
60
Ed
u
 International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Page 16 of 16
on
1
2
3 North China 90 2003 Transportation 0.08 1.06 3.59
al
4 Eastern
5 Energy 67.97
6
University
7 Materials and 5.74
Jo
8 waste
9
10 Water 2.0
ur
11
12 Total 24787
13
na
14 Central Phillippines 115 2014 1.21 1.01
15
16 Mindanao
17 University
lo
18
19 SRM India 130 2007 Energy 83.0 3.1031 1.06
20
University
21 Transportation 11.79
fS
22
23 Water 0.66
24
25 Total 636.2
us

26
27
28
29
ta

30
31
32
in

33
34
35
ab

36
37
38
ili

39
40
41
ty

42
43
44
45
in

46
47
48
49
Hi

50
51
52
gh

53
54
55
56
er

57
58
59
60
Ed
u