IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i5p4043-d1077587.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decarbonization in Higher Education Institutions as a Way to Achieve a Green Campus: A Literature Review

Author

Listed:
  • Liziane Araújo da Silva

    (Center for Sustainable Development (Greens), University of Southern Santa Catarina (UNISUL), Palhoça 88137-270, SC, Brazil)

  • Ana Regina de Aguiar Dutra

    (Center for Sustainable Development (Greens), University of Southern Santa Catarina (UNISUL), Palhoça 88137-270, SC, Brazil)

  • José Baltazar Salgueirinho Osório de Andrade Guerra

    (Center for Sustainable Development (Greens), University of Southern Santa Catarina (UNISUL), Palhoça 88137-270, SC, Brazil)

Abstract

Reducing the carbon footprint (CF) helps to meet the targets of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), with emphasis on SDG 13, which seeks urgent measures to combat climate change and its impacts. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) or universities, as organizations engaged in education, research, and community service, play an important role in promoting sustainable development. Thus, HEIs are increasingly interested in practices to reduce their CF, in addition to training professionals for this worldwide need. CF reduction is a tool to assess the sustainability and decarbonization of a campus that aligns with Green Campus (GC) initiatives. The objective of this study is to carry out a literature review of the current situation of CF reduction practices in HEIs and the move toward a greener campus, identifying the main sources of emissions according to the GHG Protocol and classification by scope. This article sought to identify the HEIs/universities with already-implemented decarbonization initiatives through the elaboration of a table. This study was based on a portfolio of 33 articles published up to February 2022 that analyze the CFs of HEIs and the implementation of green initiatives. Differences were identified in the methodology and data used by each university. The results show that the main reason for this is the lack of standardization regarding the time metric (year, semester), functional unit (student, employee, area), limitation of data collection (scope 1, 2, 3), and sources of emission and emission factors, mainly about Scope 3 (sometimes not considered in the calculations). However, despite the differences, the search for standardization was observed in the studied articles, as well as the expectation of reduction in the CF of HEIs over time. It also identified the efforts of HEIs in implementing green initiatives aimed at decarbonizing their campuses. It can be concluded that the CF of HEIs requires improvements and solutions to a series of challenges, including the definition of emission sources representative of Scope 3, the creation of a robust database of emission factors, and the development of tools and methodologies—with greater standardization—that cover the needs of the type of institution globally, and that can be used comparatively as an effective model by other HEIs.

Suggested Citation

  • Liziane Araújo da Silva & Ana Regina de Aguiar Dutra & José Baltazar Salgueirinho Osório de Andrade Guerra, 2023. "Decarbonization in Higher Education Institutions as a Way to Achieve a Green Campus: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-17, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:5:p:4043-:d:1077587
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/5/4043/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/5/4043/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ebiyon Idundun & Andrew S. Hursthouse & Iain McLellan, 2021. "Carbon Management in UK Higher Education Institutions: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-16, September.
    2. Jose-Benito Perez-Lopez & Alfonso Orro & Margarita Novales, 2021. "Environmental Impact of Mobility in Higher-Education Institutions: The Case of the Ecological Footprint at the University of A Coruña (Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Gwendolyn Bailey & Thomas LaPoint, 2016. "Comparing Greenhouse Gas Emissions across Texas Universities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, January.
    4. Y. Anny Huang & Manfred Lenzen & Christopher Weber & Joy Murray & H. Scott Matthews, 2009. "The Role Of Input-Output Analysis For The Screening Of Corporate Carbon Footprints," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 217-242.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dlzar Al Kez & Christopher Lowans & Aoife Foley, 2024. "Sustainable Development in Third Level Programs: Distilling a Pathway to a True Net-Zero Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-34, February.

    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. Mikel Perales Jarillo & Luis Pedraza & Pablo Moreno Ger & Elvira Bocos, 2019. "Challenges of Online Higher Education in the Face of the Sustainability Objectives of the United Nations: Carbon Footprint, Accessibility and Social Inclusion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-15, October.
    2. Giorgio Mion & Angela Broglia & Angelo Bonfanti, 2019. "Do Codes of Ethics Reveal a University’s Commitment to Sustainable Development? Evidence from Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    3. Dwi Prasetyanto & Muhamad Rizki & Yos Sunitiyoso, 2022. "Online Learning Participation Intention after COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia: Do Students Still Make Trips for Online Class?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, February.
    4. Jukka Heinonen & Seppo Junnila, 2011. "A Carbon Consumption Comparison of Rural and Urban Lifestyles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(8), pages 1-16, August.
    5. Meng, Xiaoge & Yao, Zhong & Nie, Jiajia & Zhao, Yingxue & Li, Zenglu, 2018. "Low-carbon product selection with carbon tax and competition: Effects of the power structure," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 224-230.
    6. Dong, Huijuan & Geng, Yong & Xi, Fengming & Fujita, Tsuyoshi, 2013. "Carbon footprint evaluation at industrial park level: A hybrid life cycle assessment approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 298-307.
    7. Louise Laumann Kjaer & Niels Karim Høst-Madsen & Jannick H. Schmidt & Tim C. McAloone, 2015. "Application of Environmental Input-Output Analysis for Corporate and Product Environmental Footprints—Learnings from Three Cases," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-24, August.
    8. Popescu, Ioana-Stefania & Gibon, Thomas & Hitaj, Claudia & Rubin, Mirco & Benetto, Enrico, 2023. "Are SRI funds financing carbon emissions? An input-output life cycle assessment of investment funds," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    9. Timo Busch & Matthew Johnson & Thomas Pioch, 2022. "Corporate carbon performance data: Quo vadis?," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(1), pages 350-363, February.
    10. Acquaye, Adolf A. & Yamoah, Fred A. & Feng, Kuishuang, 2015. "An integrated environmental and fairtrade labelling scheme for product supply chains," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 472-483.
    11. Llop, Maria & Ponce-Alifonso, Xavier, 2015. "Identifying the role of final consumption in structural path analysis: An application to water uses," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 203-210.
    12. Ju, Yiyi & Fujikawa, Kiyoshi, 2019. "Modeling the cost transmission mechanism of the emission trading scheme in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 172-182.
    13. Cisneros-Pineda, Alfredo & Hertel, Thomas W. & Baldos, Uris Lantz C. & Chaudhary, Abhishek, 2023. "Can Productivity Growth Contribute to Biodiversity Preservation? The Role of International Trade," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335902, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Wang, Saige & Chen, Bin, 2018. "Three-Tier carbon accounting model for cities," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 229(C), pages 163-175.
    15. Zhen, Wei & Qin, Quande & Zhong, Zhangqi & Li, Li & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2018. "Uncovering household indirect energy-saving responsibility from a sectoral perspective: An empirical analysis of Guangdong, China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 451-461.
    16. Talbot, David & Boiral, Olivier, 2013. "Can we trust corporates GHG inventories? An investigation among Canada's large final emitters," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1075-1085.
    17. Salah Vaisi & Hooshmand Alizadeh & Werya Lotfi & Saleh Mohammadi, 2021. "Developing the Ecological Footprint Assessment for a University Campus, the Component-Based Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-18, September.
    18. Antonio Guerrero-Lucendo & Fuensanta García-Orenes & Jose Navarro-Pedreño & David Alba-Hidalgo, 2022. "General Mapping of the Environmental Performance in Climate Change Mitigation of Spanish Universities through a Standardized Carbon Footprint Calculation Tool," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-24, September.
    19. Wang, Xi & Cai, Hua & Florig, H. Keith, 2016. "Energy-saving implications from supply chain improvement: An exploratory study on China's consumer goods retail system," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 411-420.
    20. Su, Bin & Ang, B.W. & Li, Yingzhu, 2019. "Structural path and decomposition analysis of aggregate embodied energy and emission intensities," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 345-360.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:5:p:4043-:d:1077587. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.