IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v24y2022i4d10.1007_s10668-021-01686-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantitative assessment of environmental impacts at the urban scale: the ecological footprint of a university campus

Author

Listed:
  • C. Genta

    (Politecnico di Torino and Università di Torino)

  • S. Favaro

    (Politecnico di Torino)

  • G. Sonetti

    (Politecnico di Torino and Università di Torino)

  • G. V. Fracastoro

    (Politecnico di Torino)

  • P. Lombardi

    (Politecnico di Torino and Università di Torino)

Abstract

This paper explores the consumption-based ecological footprint method and its application aiming at a quantitative assessment of the sustainability of a university campus. The goal is to inform the planning decision-making process and evaluate the socio-technical solutions implemented in local urban settings for reducing energy consumption, decreasing environmental impacts and improving the quality of life of the campus' inhabitants. The case study taken for the analysis is the Politecnico di Torino, a Higher Education Institution (HEI) located in Northern Italy counting around 33,000 enrolled students in 2016. Data were collected from departments and administrative units of the Politecnico di Torino to identify the pressure exerted by the campus activities on the ecosystem during a reference year (2016). The study identified six main categories of consumption that were associated with their ecological footprint, i.e. the amount of land needed to produce the required resources and to absorb the generated waste, including CO2 emissions. Total footprint resulted in 6,200 gha: about half of the total city area, meaning that the campus would need a 310 times larger area to be self-sufficient. Normalizing this result with the number of students yields 0.19 gha/student. Transports had the highest share, with 49.4% out of the total campus impact, whereas energy covered 40.1%. Food, waste, land use and water counted, respectively, for 5.7%, 3.7%, 0.7% and 0.5%. This study presents the most comprehensive analysis to date of the environmental impact associated with an Italian HEI. This methodology and its implementation for the specific case of HEIs contribute to gain a better understanding of the overall impact of a university campus, as well as to create thresholds for comparative analysis, decision-making tools and policymaking to reduce the ecological footprint of the educational sector.

Suggested Citation

  • C. Genta & S. Favaro & G. Sonetti & G. V. Fracastoro & P. Lombardi, 2022. "Quantitative assessment of environmental impacts at the urban scale: the ecological footprint of a university campus," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 5826-5845, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:24:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10668-021-01686-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-021-01686-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-021-01686-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-021-01686-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Turner, David A. & Williams, Ian D. & Kemp, Simon, 2015. "Greenhouse gas emission factors for recycling of source-segregated waste materials," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 105(PA), pages 186-197.
    2. Turner, Karen & Lenzen, Manfred & Wiedmann, Thomas & Barrett, John, 2007. "Examining the global environmental impact of regional consumption activities -- Part 1: A technical note on combining input-output and ecological footprint analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 37-44, April.
    3. Aleksandra Romanowska & Romanika Okraszewska & Kazimierz Jamroz, 2019. "A Study of Transport Behaviour of Academic Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Giulia Sonetti & Martin Brown & Emanuele Naboni, 2019. "About the Triggering of UN Sustainable Development Goals and Regenerative Sustainability in Higher Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, January.
    5. Stefan Schaltegger & Marcus Wagner, 2006. "Integrative management of sustainability performance, measurement and reporting," International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(1), pages 1-19.
    6. Thomas O. Wiedmann & Manfred Lenzen & John R. Barrett, 2009. "Companies on the Scale: Comparing and Benchmarking the Sustainability Performance of Businesses," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 13(3), pages 361-383, June.
    7. Thomas Wiedmann & John Barrett, 2010. "A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(6), pages 1-49, June.
    8. Kitzes, Justin & Galli, Alessandro & Bagliani, Marco & Barrett, John & Dige, Gorm & Ede, Sharon & Erb, Karlheinz & Giljum, Stefan & Haberl, Helmut & Hails, Chris & Jolia-Ferrier, Laurent & Jungwirth, , 2009. "A research agenda for improving national Ecological Footprint accounts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 1991-2007, May.
    9. Dario Cottafava & Giulia Sonetti & Paolo Gambino & Andrea Tartaglino, 2018. "Explorative Multidimensional Analysis for Energy Efficiency: DataViz versus Clustering Algorithms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, May.
    10. Thorsten Schuetze & Lorenzo Chelleri, 2015. "Urban Sustainability Versus Green-Washing—Fallacy and Reality of Urban Regeneration in Downtown Seoul," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, December.
    11. Baabou, Wafaa & Grunewald, Nicole & Ouellet-Plamondon, Claudiane & Gressot, Michel & Galli, Alessandro, 2017. "The Ecological Footprint of Mediterranean cities: Awareness creation and policy implications," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 94-104.
    12. Giulia Sonetti & Caterina Barioglio & Daniele Campobenedetto, 2020. "Education for Sustainability in Practice: A Review of Current Strategies within Italian Universities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-24, June.
    13. Mark Deakin & Steve Curwell & Patrizia Lombardi, 2002. "Sustainable Urban Development: The Framework And Directory Of Assessment Methods," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(02), pages 171-197.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Henders, Sabine & Ostwald, Madelene, 2014. "Accounting methods for international land-related leakage and distant deforestation drivers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 21-28.
    2. Cottafava, Dario & Ascione, Grazia Sveva & Corazza, Laura & Dhir, Amandeep, 2022. "Sustainable development goals research in higher education institutions: An interdisciplinarity assessment through an entropy-based indicator," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 138-155.
    3. Sato, Misato, 2014. "Product level embodied carbon flows in bilateral trade," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 106-117.
    4. Jean-Marc Douguet & Martin O 'Connor & Jean-Pierre Doussoulin & Philippe Lanceleur & Karine Philippot, 2014. "L'Empreinte Écologique Du Parc Naturel De La Haute Vallée De Chevreuse : Du Concept À La Construction De L'Outil," Working Papers hal-01243385, HAL.
    5. Gassner, Andreas & Lederer, Jakob & Kanitschar, Georg & Ossberger, Markus & Fellner, Johann, 2018. "Extended ecological footprint for different modes of urban public transport: The case of Vienna, Austria," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 85-99.
    6. Thomas Wiedmann & John Barrett, 2010. "A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(6), pages 1-49, June.
    7. Jincheng Li & Xinyue Zhang & Xuexiu Chang & Wei Gao, 2018. "Revising Yield and Equivalence Factors of Ecological Footprints Based on Land-Use Conversion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, November.
    8. Tran, Thuc Han & Egermann, Markus, 2022. "Land-use implications of energy transition pathways towards decarbonisation – Comparing the footprints of Vietnam, New Zealand and Finland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    9. Decun Wu & Guangzhu Wu & He Yang, 2022. "Analysis of China’s Embodied Ecological Footprint and Its Flows among Economic Sectors per Unit of Currency Production," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-23, December.
    10. Małgorzata Świąder & Szymon Szewrański & Jan K. Kazak & Joost Van Hoof & David Lin & Mathis Wackernagel & Armando Alves, 2018. "Application of Ecological Footprint Accounting as a Part of an Integrated Assessment of Environmental Carrying Capacity: A Case Study of the Footprint of Food of a Large City," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-18, August.
    11. Sharareh Pourebrahim & Mehrdad Hadipour & Zahra Emlaei & Hamidreza Heidari & Choo Ta Goh & Khai Ern Lee, 2023. "Analysis of Environmental Carrying Capacity Based on the Ecological Footprint for the Sustainable Development of Alborz, Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-19, May.
    12. Kai Fang & Reinout Heijungs & Zheng Duan & Geert R. De Snoo, 2015. "The Environmental Sustainability of Nations: Benchmarking the Carbon, Water and Land Footprints against Allocated Planetary Boundaries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-21, August.
    13. Jóhannesson, S.E. & Davíðsdóttir, B. & Heinonen, J.T., 2018. "Standard Ecological Footprint Method for Small, Highly Specialized Economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 370-380.
    14. Yung-Jaan Lee, 2019. "Ecological Footprint and Water Footprint of Taipei," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-16, October.
    15. Cengiz Türe & Yiğit Türe, 2021. "A model for the sustainability assessment based on the human development index in districts of Megacity Istanbul (Turkey)," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 3623-3637, March.
    16. David Lin & Laurel Hanscom & Adeline Murthy & Alessandro Galli & Mikel Evans & Evan Neill & Maria Serena Mancini & Jon Martindill & Fatime-Zahra Medouar & Shiyu Huang & Mathis Wackernagel, 2018. "Ecological Footprint Accounting for Countries: Updates and Results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-22, September.
    17. Lawrence D. LaPlue & Christopher A. Erickson, 2020. "Outsourcing, trade, technology, and greenhouse gas emissions," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 22(2), pages 217-245, April.
    18. Mancini, Maria Serena & Galli, Alessandro & Coscieme, Luca & Niccolucci, Valentina & Lin, David & Pulselli, Federico Maria & Bastianoni, Simone & Marchettini, Nadia, 2018. "Exploring ecosystem services assessment through Ecological Footprint accounting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 228-235.
    19. Jeremi Assael & Thibaut Heurtebize & Laurent Carlier & François Soupé, 2023. "Greenhouse gases emissions: estimating corporate non-reported emissions using interpretable machine learning," Working Papers hal-03905325, HAL.
    20. Arik Levinson, 2009. "Technology, International Trade, and Pollution from US Manufacturing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 2177-2192, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:24:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10668-021-01686-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.