Carbon footprinting of universities worldwide: Part I—objective comparison by standardized metrics

Helmers, Eckard; Chang, Chia Chien; Dauwels, Justin

doi:10.1186/s12302-021-00454-6

Environmental Sciences Europe

Table 1 Specifications, data sources and structure, and performance of universities covered

From: Carbon footprinting of universities worldwide: Part I—objective comparison by standardized metrics

Overall carbon performance rank	University, country	No. of staff	No. of students	Constructed enclosure area^A [m²]	years of impacts recorded	Impacts missing (IM), Impacts removed (IR), impacts added^B (IA)	Mt CO₂e emitted/y^C	Overall normalized carbon footprint performance^D	Main data sources
1	ETH Zürich, CH	8,620	20,607	691,000	2017	IM: waste; IA: 4481 Mt CO₂ students commuting*	32,869	3.53	[41]
2	University of Talca, Chile	928	6,941	98,000	2016	–	5,920	4.14	[100]
3	Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany	1,100	9,239	83,300	2015	Water and paper not separated (50 t CO₂e). For the detailed calculation see Appendix	7,593	4.55	[16]
4	Universiti Teknologi Johor Bahru, Malaysia	4,894	19,433	813,352	2011	IM: business trips (flights), office material, water, waste missing. Result just for orientation	45,991	6.99	[78]
5	University College of Cork, Ireland	2,697	18,464	193,781	2016/17	–	31,425	7.23	[101]
6	Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana-Cuajimalpa (UAM), Mexico City, Mexico	549	2,202	44,350	2016	IR: 109 Mt CO₂e for food	2,848	7.29	[40]
7	Umwelt-Campus (UCB) Birkenfeld, Germany	281	2,450	24,268	2015–2017	see Appendix	2,696	7.51	data were collected for this study
8	King’s College London, GB	8,500	31,377	251,154	2018/19	IR: 83,218 Mt CO₂e supply chain (not specified or long-term investment into buildings and equipment); 2,461 Mt CO₂e for paper products kept. IA: 5,386 Mt CO₂e for student commuting*	50,556	7.53	[22]
9	University of Potsdam, Germany	2,753	20,878	120,772	2018	IR: 105 Mt CO₂e IT infrastructure, IA: 14.3 Mt CO₂e for freshwater (extrapolated from wastewater impact)	23,727	7.86	[102]
10	Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore	8,923	31,827	1,382,388	2017	–	138,402	9.27	[64]
11	Tongji University, Shanghai, China	6,000	47,000	1,600,000	2014?	All impacts related to students. Total impact: 47,000 students × 3.84 Mt CO₂e/student	180,480	10.87	[30] [year of data collection not specified]
12	De Montfort University, Leicester, GB	3,995	21,585	128,215	2008/09	IR: business services (consulting), construction, visitors travel, food	26,692	10.93	[26]
13	University of Maryland, College Park MD, USA	14,000	40,521	1,300,000	2018	–	232,000	13.56	[58]
14	Monash University, Melbourne, Australia	7,678	63,246	728,193	2015	IA: 7,190 Mt CO₂ for student commuting*	188,416	13.81	[59]
15	Minnesota State University Mankato MN, USA	855	14,712	157,930	2017	IM: business trips and waste; IA: 456 Profs × 1 flight with 4000 km each*	44,831	14.78	[63]
16	University of Leuven (KU), Belgium	13,457	39,383	1,000,000	2010	Waste and water not separated (2%); IR: 11,482 Mt CO₂e IT infrastructure; 7,734 t CO₂e unspecified “fixed assets”	153,436	15.81	[103]
17	University of Cape Town, RSA	5,041	26,000	668,165	2013	IR: 6,485 Mt CO₂e for food supply; IA: 7,797 Mt CO₂e for student commuting*	88,752	16.30	[27]
18	Yale University, New Haven CT, USA	16,184	12,458	1,342,297	2016	Very few numbers published only: total emissions, campus fleet emissions, purchased electricity. All students live on-campus	234,024	17.06	[104]
19	University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia	6,791	50,830	747,523	2014/15	–	214,249	17.80	[60]
20	Duquesne University Pittsburgh PA, USA	2,078	9,214	145,011	2018	–	51,883	21.44	[105]
not rated	KH Leuven, Belgium	704	6,914	N/K	2010	IR: 972 Mt CO₂e infrastructure	6,113	–	[6]
not rated	South East European University, Tetovo, Macedonia	370	6000	N/K	2009	–	5,100	–	[106]

N/K not known, Mt metric tons
*See the Appendix for details on the calculations
^AIn USA/Singapore/Malaysia/Australia: GFA (Gross floor area), in Great Britain: NIA Net internal area, in South Africa: total floor area, in Belgium: built surface area, in Chile: total constructed area, in Switzerland: energy-consuming area, in Germany: Netto-Raumfläche.
^BThese impacts were not reported but additionally estimated and considered here.
^CWithout carbon offsets. Note: CO₂ vs. CO₂e follows the specifications in the respective data sources. Unfortunately, the differentiation of both emissions are not precise in literature, often resulting in deviations. As an example, 77.7% to 81.7% of the total GHG emissions in the EU28 over the 1990–2015 period are from fossil CO₂ emissions [42].
^DThe best performing university is set to 1.0 in each of the three CFs according to Fig. 3a−c, see details in Appendix: Table 3 and Fig. 7.

Back to article page