Carbon Footprint Assessment and Pathway to Carbon Neutrality in a Higher Educational Institute: A Case Study of the Alpine Institute of Management and Technology, Dehradun, India

Abstract

The building sector is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and higher education institutions, with their diverse operational activities, represent a significant but underexplored subsector for carbon accounting. This study quantifies the carbon footprint of the Alpine Institute of Management and Technology, Dehradun (Uttarakhand, India), over four calendar years (2022-2025) using a bottom-up Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach aligned with ISO 14064-1 and the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard. Emission sources were classified into Scope 1 (static and mobile combustion), Scope 2 (purchased electricity), and Scope 3 (employee commuting, waste disposal, water consumption, and paper/stationery use), with human respiration quantified separately as a supplementary source. Total institutional emissions under Scopes 1-3 were found to be 56,351.77 kg CO2-eq (2022), 60,131.82 kg CO2-eq (2023), 62,168.00 kg CO2-eq (2024) and 59,604.84 kg CO2-eq (2025), with purchased electricity (Scope 2) the dominant contributor at 41-44% of the total in every year studied, followed by Scope 1 combustion sources (38-40%) and Scope 3 activities (18-20%). Inclusion of human respiration more than doubled the reported footprint to a range of 126,536.77-134,468.84 kg CO2-eq, accounting for 55-58% of total emissions across the study period. A tree census conducted within the institutional boundary and evaluated using allometric biomass equations yielded an existing carbon sequestration potential of 73,332.00 kg CO2-eq, which exceeds the Scope 1-3 emissions for every year studied, indicating that the campus already functions as a carbon-neutral facility when respiration is excluded from the accounting boundary. When respiration is included, the sequestration deficit indicates a need for additional carbon sinks and offsets, for which rooftop solar photovoltaic potential (2,625 m2 of available roof area), rainwater harvesting, and afforestation initiatives are identified and quantitatively assessed. These results provide a replicable, data-driven template for carbon accounting and neutrality planning in resource-constrained educational institutions and contribute empirical evidence toward Sustainable Development Goal 13 (Climate Action).

Introduction

The text presents a multi-year carbon footprint assessment of the Alpine Institute of Management and Technology in Dehradun, Uttarakhand, with the aim of quantifying institutional greenhouse-gas emissions, existing carbon sequestration, and pathways toward carbon neutrality.

• Background: The building sector is a major contributor to global greenhouse-gas emissions and energy use. The study applies the GHG Protocol’s Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 framework, together with ISO 14064-1 and bottom-up Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods.

• Research context: Universities are suitable for carbon accounting because campuses combine residential, educational, transport, catering, laboratory, and administrative activities within a defined boundary. Previous research generally identifies electricity as the largest source of institutional emissions, followed by transportation and waste-related activities.

• Research gaps: The study identifies three major gaps in existing research:

  1. Personal-vehicle commuting is frequently omitted from Scope 3 because of data-collection difficulties.

  2. Carbon sinks and offsets are usually assessed separately rather than as part of an integrated carbon-neutrality balance.

  3. Human respiration, although producing measurable CO? on an occupied campus, is generally excluded from institutional carbon inventories and the GHG Protocol.

• Methodology: The study covers nine semesters from 2021–2025, with detailed reporting for 2022–2025. It accounts for:

  • Scope 1: LPG used for cooking and institute-owned vehicle fuel.

  • Scope 2: Purchased grid electricity.

  • Scope 3: Employee/student commuting, waste, water, and paper/stationery.

  • Supplementary source: Human respiration.

  Emissions were calculated by multiplying activity data by appropriate carbon-conversion factors.

• Carbon sequestration: A census of 46 trees representing 13 species was conducted. Tree diameter measurements and allometric equations were used to estimate biomass and associated CO? sequestration.

• Key emission results: Without respiration, annual Scope 1–3 emissions ranged from 56,351.77 kg CO?-eq in 2022 to 62,168.00 kg CO?-eq in 2024, declining to 59,604.84 kg CO?-eq in 2025. Purchased electricity (Scope 2) was consistently the largest contributor, accounting for roughly 41–44% of Scope 1–3 emissions.

• Human respiration: When included as a supplementary category, total calculated emissions increased to approximately 126,537–134,469 kg CO?-eq per year. The study estimates respiration at about 55–58% of the combined total, making it numerically larger than the conventional Scope 1–3 sources.

• Carbon sequestration: Existing campus vegetation was estimated to sequester approximately 73,332 kg CO?-eq. Among the species assessed, Toona ciliata (Toon/Red Cedar) and Mangifera indica (Mango) accounted for the largest estimated sequestration because of their biomass and stem dimensions.

Conclusion

This study developed and applied a bottom-up, ISO 14064-1-aligned carbon accounting framework, using the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard conversion factors, to quantify the multi-year carbon footprint of a Himalayan foothill higher education institute. Scope 1-3 emissions ranged from 56,351.77 to 62,168.00 kg CO2-eq over 2022-2025, with purchased electricity (Scope 2) consistently the dominant source (41-44%), followed by direct combustion (Scope 1, 38-40%) and indirect activities (Scope 3, 18-20%). The inclusion of human respiration, a source outside the formal GHG Protocol boundary but physiologically significant on an occupied campus, more than doubled reported emissions to 126,536.77-134,468.84 kg CO2-eq and accounted for 55-58% of the total, the single largest identified source in this study. A campus tree census combined with allometric biomass modelling quantified an existing sequestration potential of 73,332.00 kg CO2-eq, sufficient to offset Scope 1-3 emissions in every year studied and supporting a classification of the institute as carbon-neutral under the standard Protocol boundary when respiration is included, however, a substantial sequestration deficit remains, which the study addresses through quantified proposals for rooftop solar photovoltaics (2,625 m2 available area), rainwater harvesting, and an active afforestation and offset programme. These findings demonstrate that data-driven, semester-resolved carbon accounting is achievable in a resource-constrained institutional setting using routinely available utility, ledger, and administrative records, and that the resulting inventory can directly inform prioritised, quantified decarbonisation investment (led by electricity-demand reduction and on-site renewable generation) in support of Sustainable Development Goal 13.

References

[1] 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, 2019. [2] K. S. Sangwan, V. Bhakar, V. Arora, and P. Solanki, \"Measuring carbon footprint of an Indian university using life cycle assessment,\" Procedia CIRP, pp. 475-480, 2018. [3] O. J. Robinson, A. Tewkesbury, S. Kemp, and I. D. Williams, \"Towards a universal carbon footprint standard: a case study of carbon management at universities,\" J. Clean. Prod., vol. 172, pp. 4435-4455, 2018. [4] J. Kiehle, M. Kopsakangas-Savolainen, M. Hilli, and E. Pongracz, \"Carbon footprint at institutions of higher education: the case of the University of Oulu,\" J. Environ. Manage., vol. 329, 2023. [5] G. Sen, H. W. Chau, M. A. U. R. Tariq, N. Muttil, and A. W. M. Ng, \"Achieving sustainability and carbon neutrality in higher education institutions: a review,\" Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 1, 2022. [6] R. Battistini, F. Passarini, R. Marrollo, C. Lantieri, A. Simone, and V. Vignali, \"How to assess the carbon footprint of a large university? The case study of University of Bologna\'s multicampus organization,\" Energies, vol. 16, no. 1, 2023. [7] S. Sudarsan J., \"Carbon footprint estimation of education building a drive towards sustainable development,\" Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol., vol. 9, no. 1S4, pp. 611-614, 2019. [8] N. Cano, L. Berrio, E. Carvajal, and S. Arango, \"Assessing the carbon footprint of a Colombian university campus using the UNE-ISO 14064-1 and WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol Corporate Standard,\" Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 3980-3996, 2023. [9] D. Adeyeye, A. Olusola, I. R. Orimoloye, S. K. Singh, and S. Adelabu, \"Carbon footprint assessment and mitigation scenarios: a benchmark model for GHG indicator in a Nigerian university,\" Environ. Dev. Sustain., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1361-1382, 2023. [10] S. Gulcimen, S. Qadri, R. O. Donmez, and N. Uzal, \"A holistic sustainability assessment of a university campus using life cycle approach,\" Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 3309-3322, 2023. [11] D. Pandey, M. Agrawal, and J. S. Pandey, \"Carbon footprint: current methods of estimation,\" Environ. Monit. Assess., vol. 178, no. 1-4, pp. 135-160, 2011. [12] J. Cooper et al., \"The carbon footprint of a UK chemical engineering department - the case of Imperial College London,\" Procedia CIRP, vol. 116, pp. 444-449, 2023. [13] Z. Guo, Q. Wang, N. Zhao, and R. Dai, \"Carbon emissions from buildings based on a life cycle analysis: carbon reduction measures and effects of green building standards in China,\" Low-carbon Mater. Green Constr., vol. 1, no. 1, 2023. [14] M. Ropo, H. Mustonen, M. Knuutila, M. Luoranen, and A. Kosonen, \"Considering embodied CO2 emissions and carbon compensation cost in life cycle cost optimization of carbon-neutral building energy systems,\" Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., vol. 101, 2023. [15] C. Klein-Banai and T. L. Theis, \"Quantitative analysis of factors affecting greenhouse gas emissions at institutions of higher education,\" J. Clean. Prod., pp. 29-38, 2013. [16] R. Sharma, L. Pradhan, M. Kumari, and P. Bhattacharya, \"Assessment of carbon sequestration potential of tree species in Amity University campus Noida,\" MDPI, 2021. [17] A. Mehta, G. Doctor, A. Kane, and D. Sawant, \"Study for achieving carbon-neutral campus in India,\" in Proc. ISC2 2022, IEEE, 2022. [18] T. Wilberforce, A. G. Olabi, E. T. Sayed, K. Elsaid, H. M. Maghrabie, and M. A. Abdelkareem, \"A review on zero energy buildings - pros and cons,\" Energy Built Environ., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 25-38, 2023. [19] J. E. Gaarder, N. K. Friis, I. S. Larsen, B. Time, E. B. Moller, and T. Kvande, \"Optimization of thermal insulation thickness pertaining to embodied and operational GHG emissions in cold climates,\" Build. Environ., vol. 234, 2023. [20] C. Sirin, J. Goggins, and M. Hajdukiewicz, \"A review on building-integrated photovoltaic/thermal systems for green buildings,\" Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 229, 2023. [21] Tank, I., & Sharma, S. (2025). Pollution Prevention Strategies for Air and Water in Construction. In: Bajaj, D. (eds) Handbook of Construction Project Management. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-7631-6_51. [22] Rupal, A., & Tank, I. (2025). Materials efficiency in construction: Development, selection, and life cycle assessment. In D. Bajaj (Ed.), Handbook of Construction Project Management, Chapter 48. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978981-96-7631-6_48.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Madhubala ., Amit Goyal, Sanjay K. 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.