Carbon Analysis of a Multistory Commercial Building in Rajasthan

Abstract

Carbon footprint assessment is an effective tool for quantifying greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated directly and indirectly by an organization in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO?). Measuring these emissions helps identify major emission sources, evaluate carbon reduction opportunities, and support sustainable development through effective mitigation strategies. Educational institutions, owing to their energy consumption, transportation activities, and resource utilization, have significant potential for reducing their carbon footprint and promoting low-carbon campus operations. This study evaluates the carbon footprint of a hostel building using the principles of ISO 14064-1:2018 and the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard. A bottom-up life cycle assessment (LCA) approach was adopted to quantify Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions based on activity data and appropriate emission factors. Carbon sequestration potential of the existing tree cover was estimated using allometric equations, and suitable carbon reduction and offset measures were proposed. The total organizational carbon footprint was estimated at 51.55 tCO?e, while inclusion of human respiration for comparative analysis increased the total to 88.99 tCO?e. Scope 3 emissions contributed the largest share (47%), followed by Scope 1 (27%) and Scope 2 (26%). The existing tree cover provided a carbon sequestration potential of approximately 0.60 tCO?e per year, indicating the need for additional carbon sinks. The study further evaluated mitigation strategies including a 5kW rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) system, biogas generation from organic waste, rainwater harvesting, rooftop vegetation, composting, energy-efficient appliances, and sustainable transportation practices. Among these, the rooftop solar PV system exhibited the highest emission reduction potential of approximately 10.9 tCO?e per year, while the combined implementation of all proposed measures can substantially reduce the hostel\'s carbon footprint. The findings demonstrate that integrating renewable energy, efficient resource utilization, sustainable waste and water management, and enhanced green infrastructure can support the transition of institutional buildings toward carbon neutrality and contribute to achieving national and global sustainability goals.

Introduction

The text examines the carbon emissions of buildings, focusing on how construction, operation, and environmental conditions contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It highlights that the construction sector is a major global emitter due to energy-intensive materials and processes, making it essential to evaluate building emissions across their entire life cycle under real climatic conditions such as temperature, humidity, solar radiation, and wind. These factors significantly influence energy demand and overall carbon output.

The study emphasizes that global emissions have historically been dominated by Europe and the United States, but in recent decades, Asia—especially China—has become a major contributor. The need to identify and quantify emission sources is critical for achieving net-zero goals, using the GHG Protocol, which divides emissions into Scope 1 (direct emissions), Scope 2 (indirect electricity-based emissions), and Scope 3 (other indirect emissions such as commuting, waste, and material use).

A detailed comparison of global and Indian emissions shows that the energy sector is the largest contributor in both cases, but India has a higher dependence on electricity and building-related emissions due to coal-based power and rapid urbanization. Globally, agriculture and transportation also contribute significantly, while India shows relatively higher shares in industrial processes and buildings. Overall, India contributes about 5.6% of global emissions, with total global emissions estimated at 53.2 GtCO?e and India at 2.96 GtCO?e.

The study also categorizes emissions in a hostel/institutional setting using the three GHG scopes: Scope 1 (direct fuel use and vehicle emissions), Scope 2 (purchased electricity), and Scope 3 (indirect emissions from commuting, waste, water use, and material consumption).

Methodologically, the research applies a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach following ISO 14064-1 standards and GHG Protocol conversion factors. It also considers carbon sinks and offsets to estimate net emissions. The case study is conducted at a hostel campus in Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, across multiple semesters to capture seasonal variations that influence energy use and emissions due to changing climatic conditions.

Conclusion

A detailed survey of the campus and its operational activities led to the identification of the numerous emission sources and thus helped in preparing the inventory list under the guidelines of ISO 14064-1 in bottom-up approach used in Life Cycle Analysis. The total emission under various direct and indirect sources is found to be 88995.02 kg out of which electricity consumption under scope 2 contributed nearly 47%. However, if human respiration is also to be included, the emission will go upto 37449 Kg which is more than twice of the emission identified under the categories specified by GHG Protocol Corporate Standards and is the biggest source of carbon emission identified in the institution. Existing carbon sink in the form of tree cover is first identified through tree census and their sequestration potential is then calculated using allometric equations. Total carbon sink provided by the tress is found to be 604.2 Kg. Thus, considering only scope 1,2 and 3 categories, the institute is operating as a carbon neutral canpus. But since human respiration is also considered, further sinks need to be identified or suggests suggested in the form of solar rooftop panels, operational rainwater harvesting system and by adopting various green products and activities like making use of star rated appliances, efficient water and energy fittings, making use of daylight hours etc. Additionally, in order to make institute more sustainable, Carbon offset is also identified.

References

[1] Zheng, L., Luo, K., & Zhao, L. (2024). An operational carbon emission prediction model based on machine learning methods for urban residential buildings in Guangzhou. Buildings, 14(11), 3699. [2] Xiaocun Zhang, Hailiang Chen, Jiayue Sun, Xueqi Zhang,(2024). Predictive models of embodied carbon emissions in building design phases: Machine learning approaches based on residential buildings in China, Building and Environment,Volume 258, 111595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111595. [3] Zhang, T., Li, Z., Zhang, Z., Chen, Y., & Sun, X. (2025). Machine learning-based energy consumption models for rural housing envelope retrofits incorporating uncertainty: A case study in Jiaxian, China. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, 72, 106253. [4] Lyu, Y., Fomin, N. I., Li, S., Hu, W., Xiao, S., Huang, Y., & Liu, C. (2025). Life Cycle Carbon Emission Analysis of Buildings with Different Exterior Wall Types Based on BIM Technology. Buildings, 15(1), 138. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15010138 [5] Gao, H., Wang, D., Du, X., & Zhao, Z. (2024). An LCA-BIM integrated model for carbon-emission calculation of prefabricated buildings. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 203, 114775. [6] Huang, Z., Zhou, H., Miao, Z., Tang, H., Lin, B., & Zhuang, W. (2024). Life-cycle carbon emissions (LCCE) of buildings: implications, calculations, and reductions. Engineering, 35, 115-139. [7] Yin, J., Lu, G., Pang, J., Yang, Y., & Mo, L. (2025). Study on Carbon Emission Accounting and Influencing Factors of Chinese Buildings in Materialization Stage. Buildings, 15(18), 3414. [8] Chastas, Panagiotis & Theodosiou, Theodoros & Bikas, Dimitrios & Kontoleon, Karolos. (2017). Embodied Energy and Nearly Zero Energy Buildings: A Review in Residential Buildings. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 38. 554-561. 10.1016/j.proenv.2017.03.123. [9] Li, D. H., Yang, L., & Lam, J. C. (2012). Impact of climate change on energy use in the built environment in different climate zones–a review. Energy, 42(1), 103-112. [10] Anand, Chirjiv & Amor, Ben. (2017). Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: A critical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 67. 408-416. 10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.058. [11] Odoi-Yorke, F., Frimpong, T. A., Bamfo-Agyei, E., Zebilila, M. D. H., Abbey, A. N. A., Oppon, J. A., ... & Atepor, L. (2025). Embodied energy in buildings: Two decades of research trends, evolution, and implications for climate change mitigation. Scientific African, e03122. [12] Pomponi, Francesco & De Wolf, Catherine & Moncaster, Alice. (2018). Embodied Carbon in Buildings: Measurement, Management, and Mitigation. 10.1007/978-3-319-72796-7. [13] Ahmad, A., & Memon, S. A. (2024). A novel method to evaluate phase change materials\' impact on buildings\' energy, economic, and environmental performance via controlled natural ventilation. Applied Energy, 353, 122033. [14] Sharma, A. N., Jha, B., & ²Professor, S. P. A. (2023). Impact of Building Envelope Materials on Residential Energy Consumption in the Indian Composite Climate: Insights from Gurugram. ISVS e-journal, 10(11), 125-137. [15] S. D. Kulkarni, “A bottom up approach to evaluate the carbon footprints of a higher educational institute in India for sustainable existence,” J Clean Prod, vol. 231, pp. 633–641, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.194

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Prashasti Maharshi, 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.