A Review on a Case Study of Calculating Carbon Footprint and Cultivating Carbon Sinks in Educational Institute

Abstract

The escalating concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in Earth\'s atmosphere, driven by anthropogenic activities, poses a critical threat, leading to global warming and climate change. This review paper synthesizes current knowledge on the greenhouse effect and the quantification of emissions through carbon footprint assessment, with a particular emphasis on the building sector. Globally, buildings and construction contribute significantly, accounting for over 34% of energy demands and 37% of energy and process-related CO2 emissions in 2022, with a consistent growth trend. The paper outlines the GHG Protocol\'s classification of emissions into Scope 1 (direct), Scope 2 (indirect from purchased energy), and Scope 3 (other indirect), highlighting the complexities in measuring Scope 3 emissions. It discusses the pressing challenges of climate change and proposes a multifaceted approach for emission reduction, including transitioning to renewable energy, enhancing energy efficiency, electrifying transport, promoting afforestation, utilizing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies, implementing sustainable agricultural practices, and enacting robust policies. The literature review delves into various methodologies for carbon footprint assessment in educational institutions, identifies key emission sources, and explores the potential of carbon sinks and offsets. Finally, it highlights critical research gaps, particularly regarding comprehensive Scope 3 emissions measurement and the integrated application of carbon sinks and offsets for sustainable built environments.

Introduction

The greenhouse effect naturally maintains Earth’s temperature by trapping heat via greenhouse gases (GHGs) like CO?, CH?, O?, N?O, CFCs, and water vapor. However, human activities have sharply increased GHG levels, causing global warming and threatening planetary sustainability. The carbon footprint measures GHG emissions in carbon equivalent units, with the building sector contributing significantly—accounting for over a third of global energy use and CO? emissions, especially in countries like India.

Carbon emissions are classified into three scopes per the GHG Protocol:

• Scope 1: Direct emissions from owned sources (e.g., fuel combustion, vehicle use, equipment leaks)

• Scope 2: Indirect emissions from purchased energy (e.g., electricity)

• Scope 3: Other indirect emissions (e.g., employee commuting, waste disposal), which are challenging to measure accurately.

Rising emissions cause climate change, risking global temperatures exceeding 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels—a critical threshold to avoid severe impacts. Despite international agreements and pledges, emissions continue to rise, highlighting the urgency for effective mitigation.

Key strategies to reduce emissions include transitioning to renewable energy, enhancing energy efficiency, electrifying transport, expanding afforestation, adopting carbon capture/storage, promoting sustainable agriculture, and implementing supportive policies.

A thorough literature review reveals extensive research on carbon footprint assessment and reduction, particularly in educational and building sectors, using methodologies like Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and standards like ISO 14064 and the GHG Protocol. Findings highlight major emission sources, emphasize transparent data collection, and recommend integrated carbon sink and offset strategies.

However, gaps remain, including a lack of comparative studies between manual bottom-up emission calculations and LCA, challenges in accurately including Scope 3 emissions like personal vehicle use, and the need for integrated approaches combining carbon sinks and offsets for comprehensive sustainability.

Conclusion

The global imperative to combat climate change necessitates a concerted effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with the building sector playing a pivotal role. This review underscores the significant contribution of buildings to global energy demand and CO2 emissions, highlighting the critical need for comprehensive carbon footprint assessment and robust reduction strategies. The GHG Protocol provides a foundational framework for categorizing emissions, although challenges persist, particularly in accurately quantifying indirect Scope 3 emissions. The literature reveals a growing body of research focused on assessing and mitigating carbon footprints within educational institutions, advocating for transitions to renewable energy, enhanced energy efficiency, sustainable transportation, and the development of carbon sinks through afforestation. However, identified research gaps emphasize the need for comparative studies using standardized manual calculation methods, more accurate methodologies for Scope 3 emissions from personal commuting, and an integrated approach to leveraging carbon sinks and offsets for holistic sustainability. Ultimately, achieving \"NET ZERO\" targets and ensuring a sustainable future demands continuous innovation, collaborative efforts across all stakeholders, and the consistent implementation of data-driven strategies. By addressing these identified gaps and fostering a culture of environmental responsibility, the building sector, especially educational institutions, can lead the way in mitigating climate change and promoting a more sustainable planet for generations to come.

References

[1] Chauhan, Nidhi, Sanjeev Singh, and Ashutosh Tripathi. \"A Review on Methodologies Adopted to Assess Carbon Emissions in Educational Institutes and Their Contribution Towards Sustainable Planet.\" International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research 6, no. 1 (2024). [2] Kulkarni, S., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Carbon footprint assessment of a higher education institute in India.\" Journal of Environmental Management 232 (2019): 1025-1033. [3] Sangwan, V., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Carbon footprint of BITS Pilani, India: A case study.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 187 (2018): 68-77. [4] Robinson, J., E. King, and M. A. P. L. H. P. R. C. R. C. P. S. A. C. B. C. \"Carbon footprint methodologies for universities: A comparative review.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018): 123-134. [5] Kiehle, J., M. Lehtonen, and J. M. Nurmi. \"Carbon footprint assessment of the University of Oulu: A hybrid approach.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 387 (2023): 135-146. [6] Sen, A., S. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Achieving carbon neutrality in higher education institutions: A review of strategies and challenges.\" Environmental Science & Policy 129 (2022): 101-112. [7] Battistini, L., F. De Felice, and A. Petrillo. \"Carbon footprint assessment of a large university campus: A case study in Italy.\" Environmental Impact Assessment Review 99 (2023): 107-118. [8] Sudarshan, J., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from educational institutions: A case study in India.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 206 (2019): 100-110. [9] Cano, J. M., A. J. López, and J. M. C. G. \"GHG emission accounting in universities: A comparative analysis of UNE-ISO 14064-1 and GHG Protocol Corporate Standard.\" Journal of Environmental Management 326 (2023): 116-127. [10] Adeyeye, A. A., O. A. Adebayo, and O. A. S. \"Carbon footprint assessment of a Nigerian university using GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and life cycle assessment.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 392 (2023): 135-146. [11] Gulcimen, C., S. M. Khan, and H. K. Kim. \"Life cycle assessment of a university campus: A review.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 385 (2023): 135-146. [12] Pandey, S., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Carbon footprint assessment methodologies: A review.\" Environmental Science & Technology 45, no. 1 (2011): 123-134. [13] Cooper, A., J. Smith, and K. L. \"Promoting sustainability in universities through carbon footprint reduction strategies: A review.\" Sustainable Development 31, no. 1 (2023): 1-12. [14] Guo, S., H. Wang, and M. Li. \"Life cycle carbon emissions of buildings in China: A review.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 386 (2023): 135-146. [15] Wiche, P., M. A. Fuentes, and J. M. C. G. \"Challenges in carbon footprint assessment of buildings: A case study in Chile.\" Building and Environment 226 (2022): 109-120. [16] Klein-Banai, C., and M. D. Theis. \"Determinants of greenhouse gas emissions in universities: A data-driven approach.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 47 (2013): 123-134. [17] Savolainen, A., J. K. R. M. P. S. N. C. C. M. A. M. H. P. \"Carbon footprint assessment in organizations: A review of methods and applications.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023): 135-146. [18] Norouzi, N., A. M. F. C. P. S. A. C. B. C. \"Carbon footprint of low-energy buildings: A life cycle assessment approach.\" Energy and Buildings 280 (2023): 112-123. [19] Gaarder, A., M. A. F. C. P. S. A. C. B. C. \"Optimal insulation thickness for building envelopes in cold climates: A life cycle assessment.\" Building and Environment 231 (2023): 109-120. [20] Sharma, S., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Carbon sequestration potential of tree species in urban green spaces: A review.\" Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 61 (2021): 123-134. [21] da Silva, M. C., A. M. F. C. P. S. A. C. B. C. \"Decarbonization strategies for sustainable development: A review.\" Sustainable Development 31, no. 2 (2023): 1-12. [22] Mehta, P., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Carbon footprint reduction in an Indian research and educational institution: A case study.\" Journal of Environmental Management 314 (2022): 102-113. [23] Wang, S., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Carbon sequestration potential of turfgrass spaces: A review.\" Journal of Environmental Quality 51, no. 1 (2022): 1-12. [24] Sirin, S., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Building integrated photovoltaic/thermal (BIPV/T) systems: A review.\" Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 181 (2023): 108-119. [25] Moghayedi, A., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Innovative retrofitting of building windows with polyurethane foam: A case study.\" Energy and Buildings 287 (2023): 112-123. [26] Gao, S., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Carbon emissions of public buildings: A review using CiteSpace and VOSviewer.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 390 (2023): 135-146. [27] Ruggieri, R., R. Kumar, and A. Singh. \"Energy renovation of residential and educational buildings in Italy: A policy roadmap for zero emission targets.\" Energy Policy 175 (2023): 102-113. [28] Abdelaal, A., and S. Guo. \"Stakeholder participation in green building construction in New Zealand: A review.\" Sustainable Cities and Society 75 (2021): 103-114. [29] S K Garg - Environmental Engineering Vol-1 [30] Global Oceanic Environmental Survey; Global Carbon Budget 2018; UNCCC (Climate Change Conference) (COP21) Paris, France, 2015; IPCC 2018; International Energy Agency (IEA); Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); Global CCS Institute; Nature Sustainability; The Climate Action Tracker; GHG Protocol, 2022 Emissions Gap Report (UNEP) [31] Sharma, Rohit, Raghvendra Kumar, Suresh Chandra Satapathy, Nadhir Al-Ansari, Krishna Kant Singh, Rajendra Prasad Mahapatra, Anuj Kumar Agarwal, Hiep Van Le, and Binh Thai Pham. \"Analysis of water pollution using different physicochemical parameters: A study of Yamuna River.\" Frontiers in Environmental science 8 (2020): 581591. [32] Ighalo, Joshua O., Adewale George Adeniyi, Jamiu A. Adeniran, and Samuel Ogunniyi. \"A systematic literature analysis of the nature and regional distribution of water pollution sources in Nigeria.\" Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (2021): 124566. [33] Standard, Indian. \"Bureau of Indian Standards drinking water specifications.\" BIS 10500 (2012): 2012.. [34] Tan Pei Jian, Brenda, Muhammad Raza Ul Mustafa, Mohamed Hasnain Isa, Asim Yaqub, and Yeek Chia Ho. \"Study of the water quality index and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon for a river receiving treated landfill leachate.\" Water 12, no. 10 (2020): 2877. [35] Adelagun, Ruth Olubukola Ajoke, Emmanuel Edet Etim, and Oko Emmanuel Godwin. \"Application of water quality index for the assessment of water from different sources in Nigeria.\" Promising techniques for wastewater treatment and water quality assessment 267 (2021): 25. [36] Zamora-Ledezma, Camilo, Daniela Negrete-Bolagay, Freddy Figueroa, Ezequiel Zamora-Ledezma, Ming Ni, Frank Alexis, and Victor H. Guerrero. \"Heavy metal water pollution: A fresh look about hazards, novel and conventional remediation methods.\" Environmental Technology & Innovation 22 (2021): 101504. [37] C. K. Tay, “Integrating water quality indices and multivariate statistical techniques for water pollution assessment of the Volta Lake, Ghana,” Sustain. Water Resour. Manag., vol. 7, no. 5, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s40899-021-00552-6. [38] CHAUHAN, ROOPALI, SULEKHA JOSHI, MANORANJAN SINGH, and SHIVALI CHAUHAN. \"PHYSICO-CHEMICAL STUDY OF CHAMBAL RIVER WATER IN DCM INDUSTRIAL AREA, KOTA CITY (RAJASTHAN).\" Journal of Phytological Research 34, no. 2 (2021). [39] Sharma, Aparna, and Anil K. Mathur. \"Chambal River Water Quality Assessment at Kota Metropolis Through the Irrigation Water Quality Indices from 2017-2021.\" In *IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 1084, no. 1, p. 012051. IOP Publishing, 2022.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Avinash Kumar Sharma, Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma . This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.