Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 924e930

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and proposals for their

reduction at a university campus in Chile
squez a, Alfredo Iriarte b, *, María Almeida c, Pablo Villalobos d, **
Leonardo Va
a
School of Industrial Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universidad de Talca, Casilla 747, Talca, Chile
b
Department of Industrial Engineering (former Department of Industrial Management and Modeling), Faculty of Engineering,
Universidad de Talca, Casilla 747, Talca, Chile
c
Corporate Office for University Social Responsibility, Universidad de Talca, Casilla 747, Talca, Chile
d
Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Universidad de Talca, Casilla 747, Talca, Chile

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Progressively, higher education institutions have been incorporating sustainable development strategies
Received 6 November 2014 and actions into teaching, research, infrastructure and campus operations. Recent years have witnessed a
Received in revised form resurgence in environmental sustainability networks in universities in Latin America. A group of Chilean
12 June 2015
universities, including the Universidad de Talca, signed a Cleaner Production Agreement with the
Accepted 15 June 2015
Available online 23 June 2015
National Agency for Cleaner production in Chile. The measurement of corporate greenhouse gas emis-
sions is included among the objectives of this agreement. For developing countries there are few peer-
reviewed studies that analyze greenhouse gas emissions generated by universities. The scarcity is most
Keywords:
GHG Protocol
evident in Latin American universities. In this context, this study presents the evaluation of greenhouse
Chilean university gas emissions for the Curico campus of the Universidad de Talca. The emissions are classified according to
Corporate GHG emissions the Greenhouse Gas Protocol standard into scopes 1, 2 and 3. The total emissions for the campus in 2012
Reduction scenarios was 1.0 tCO2e/student, of which 68% correspond to scope 3, 16% correspond to scope 1 and 16% to scope
Green campus 2. The principal contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions are student commuting, staff commuting
Carbon footprint and electricity consumption. The comparison with other higher education institutions worldwide, mostly
situated in developed countries, indicates that for the Curico campus the greenhouse gas emissions value
is below average. Moreover, an analysis was carried out for four scenarios with emissions reduction
proposals. The most effective scenario is related to students using bicycles rather than motor vehicles.
This study may be a useful guide for the application of emission reduction options in other countries,
particularly in Latin America, where there are universities that have similar characteristics and lack
environmental information.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
As of the 1970s, there has been growing international interest in
the role of higher education in fostering a sustainable future (Calder
and Clugston, 2003). In this context, the International Association
of Universities (IAU) has made higher education for sustainable
development one of its work priorities (HESD, 2015). Under this
initiative, institutions of higher education have presented reports
showing their plans and objectives for sustainable development
(IARU, 2013). Some of the main areas covered in these reports are
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 93 581 29 74; fax: þ34 93 581 33 31.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: airiarte@utalca.cl (A. Iriarte), pvillal@utalca.cl (P. Villalobos).
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, use of water and energy, and
waste management. There are several examples of reports about
campus sustainability plans (McNeilly et al., 2013; UW, 2015; Yale
University, 2013) and articles about efforts to address sustainable
development in campus operations (Posner and Stuart, 2013;
Venetoulis, 2001) and other universities activities (Conway et al.,
2008; Kaplan, 2015; Lozano et al., 2013). According to the Amer-
ican College and University President's climate commitment, some
of main action options to reduce GHG emissions are to adopt an
energy-efficient appliance purchasing policy and encourage the use
of public transportation for all campus members (ACUPCC, 2015).
An increase has been seen in the number of universities seeking to
measure and mitigate GHG emissions and move toward a green
university (Geng et al., 2013). For example, Ozawa-Meida et al.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073
0959-6526/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 squez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 924e930
L. Va
(2011) measured carbon performance through a consumption-
based carbon footprint in De Montfort University in the United
Kingdom; Larsen et al. (2013) calculated the GHG emissions in the
Norwegian University of Science and Technology; Güereca et al.
(2013) presented an inventory of GHG emissions in the Engineer-
ing Institute of the Universidad Auto noma de Me xico during 2010;
while Klein-Banai and Theis (2013) analyzed the factors that affect
the GHG emissions in higher education institutions in the United
States. One of the principal methodologies for evaluating GHG
emissions used in these studies is the Greenhouse Gas Protocol
Corporate (WRI/WBCSD, 2004). There are few peer-reviewed
studies which deal with the GHG emissions generated by univer-
sities in developing countries. To our knowledge, there are
currently no peer review articles that analyze GHG emissions in
South American universities.
Various Chilean agencies such as the Ministry of the Environ-
ment and the Office for Climatic Change have formed part of the
challenge for setting mitigation policies and strategies for reducing
GHG emissions. To support this national commitment, several
universities, such as the Universidad de Chile (UChile, 2011), have
developed tools that permit the various production sectors to
quantify GHG emissions. In 2012, a group of Chilean universities,
including the Universidad de Talca, signed a Cleaner Production
Agreement (UTALCA, 2013). This agreement promotes sustainable
action on the part of universities and one of its objectives is to
incorporate the measurement and reduction of corporate GHG
emissions (CPL, 2012).
In the above context, the main objective of this study is to
quantify the GHG emissions1 at the Curico campus of the Uni-
versidad de Talca in Chile and to evaluate improvement scenarios
associated with those activities making the greatest contribution in
order to reduce campus emissions. The method to be followed for
quantifying GHG emissions is that established by the Greenhouse
Gas Protocol, Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (WRI/
WBCSD, 2004). It is hoped that the results of this study will be
useful to other universities in the world, especially in South
American countries where conditions and characteristics are
similar.
2. Methods
In Section 2.1 the main characteristics of the Curico campus of
the Universidad de Talca are described. Section 2.2 presents the
method used based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and Section 2.3
describes the categories included in this study classified according
to the three scopes indicated in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.
2.1. Conditions at the Curico campus of the Universidad de Talca
The University of Talca chose the Curico campus to evaluate its
GHG emissions and to apply emission reduction measures. This
study represents an opportunity to initiate a paradigm shift,
whereby the University of Talca (and campus Curico, in particular)
will integrate sustainable actions into curricula, campus operations,
research and student activities.
The Curico campus is the second largest campus in the Uni-
versidad de Talca. It began its activities in 1998 and houses the
Faculty of Engineering. It is located 1 km from the city of Curico in
the Maule Region, Chile. This region has a warm temperate climate
with winter rains and a yearly average temperature of 12.8  C
(Castillo and Moreno, 2002; Smith-Ramírez et al., 2005). During the
study period, the year 2012, according to the university
1
In metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e).
925
administration department data, the Curico campus has 5 engi-
neering programs, an enrollment of 1507 students (mainly un-
dergraduates), and an estimated staff of 152 people including
academics, administrative personnel and service personnel
(guards, janitorial, food and maintenance services). The Curico
campus has 11,210 square meters of construction in 10 buildings
and a total of 57,000 square meters of surface area including
classrooms, offices, laboratories, library, green spaces, roads, park-
ing, soccer fields and tennis courts.
2.2. GHG Protocol
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate, hereinafter GHG Pro-
tocol, of the World Resource Institute (WRI) and the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) was published in
2011 and gives the requirements for quantifying GHG emissions
within organizations under the Kyoto Protocol (WRI/WBCSD,
2004). Complementary to the GHG Protocol is the Project Ac-
counting Protocol and Guidelines, Corporate Value Chain (scope 3),
Accounting and Reporting Standard, and Product Life Cycle Ac-
counting and Reporting Standard. The GHG Protocol was developed
in order to standardize the methods for reporting GHG emission
and to limit double accounting. It is widely recognized and also
recommended and used by the American College and University
Presidents' Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) (Sinha et al., 2010).
The GHG Protocol establishes the separation of GHG emissions
into 3 groupings. Scope 1, direct emissions, includes those emis-
sions from sources owned or controlled by the organization. Scope
2, indirect emissions, covers emissions from the organization's
purchased electricity consumption, while scope 3, other indirect
emissions, corresponds to emissions that result from the activities
within the organization, but from sources that are not owned or
controlled by the business (WRI/WBCSD, 2004). The quantification
of scope 3 is voluntary, however, this scope is incorporated into this
study due to their high contribution to the total emissions in uni-
versities (Moerschbaecher and Day, 2010; Klein-Banai and Theis,
2013; WRI/WBCSD, 2004).
2.3. Categories evaluated by the study
This section presents the categories (activities) evaluated on the
Curico campus that are related to scopes 1 to 3 of the GHG Protocol
standard (WRI/WBCSD, 2004) and the data sources that were used.
The scopes of our study and their categories are based on the
guidance provided by the GHG Protocol (WRI/WBCSD, 2004), and
on the emission source and classifications used by GHG studies on

university campuses (Alvarez et al., 2014; Güereca et al., 2013;
Moerschbaecher and Day, 2010). The following steps were used in
order to determine the GHG emissions related to each category:
Step 1 determines the consumption in each category such as
amount of fuel, MWh, and km traveled. Step 2 determines the GHG
emission factor associated with each category (kgCO2e/m3, tCO2e/
MWh and kgCO2e/km traveled). The main emission factor sources
for this study are the Optional Emissions from Commuting, Busi-
ness Travel and Product Transport Report from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) (U.S. EPA, 2008a) and GHG Emission In-
ventory from the Chilean Ministry of Energy (Minenergia, 2014)
(see Table 1). Finally, in Step 3 the consumption in each category is
multiplied by the emission factor in order to estimate the amount
of CO2e. The categories evaluated in this study are the following2:
2
This study does not take into consideration the emissions coming from paper
consumption or disposal of waste generated by campus activities because of the
lack of information regarding the amount of these goods.
926 squez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 924e930
L. Va

Table 1
GHG emission factors used to estimate the GHG emissions related to transport, energy and refrigerant.

Emission source GHG emission factor Source

Liquefied petroleum gas 1642 kg CO2e/m3 Minenergia, 2014

Fuel oil n 6 2955 kg CO2e/m3 Minenergia, 2014
Grid electricity 0.391 kg CO2e/kWh Minenergia, 2014
R-22 refrigerant 1810 kg CO2e/kg refrigerant U.S. EPA, 2008b
Air travel (short haul, less than 785 km) 0.173 kg CO2e/passenger km Carbon Neutral, 2012
Air travel (medium haul, 785e3700 km) 0.097 kg CO2e/passenger km Carbon Neutral, 2012
Air travel (long haul, more than 3700 km) 0.087 kg CO2e/passenger km Carbon Neutral, 2012
Light-duty truck (diesel) 2676 kg CO2e/m3 Minenergia, 2014
Average gasoline automobile 2241 kg CO2e/m3 Minenergia, 2014
Average automobilea 0.233 kg CO2e/km traveled U.S. EPA, 2008a
Sport utility vehicle and pickup truckb 0.331 kg CO2e/km traveled U.S. EPA, 2008a
Public diesel bus 0.166 kg CO2e/km traveled U.S. EPA, 2008a
Institutional diesel bus 0.166 kg CO2e/km traveled U.S. EPA, 2008a
Average motorcycle (gasoline) 0.106 kg CO2e/km traveled U.S. EPA, 2008a
Walk 0 kg CO2e/km
Bicycle 0 kg CO2e/km
a
The GHG emissions from average automobile are from gasoline or diesel.
b
The GHG emissions from vehicles are from gasoline or diesel.

2.3.1. Scope 1 transport of supplies, staff commuting and student commuting

In this study, the scope 1 covers direct emissions from fuel
consumption, student commuting by an institutional bus and
fugitive emissions.
2.3.1.1. Fuel consumption. Includes 22,668 kg/year of liquefied pe-
troleum gas and 5178 kg/year of fuel oil used on campus for heating.
The data was collected from the invoices provided by the campus
administration for fuel consumed in 2012. The emission factor was
obtained from the GHG Emission Inventory from the Chilean
Ministry of Energy (Minenergia, 2014).
2.3.1.2. Student commuting by institutional bus. The university
provides transportation by bus to the campus for those students
living in the city of Curico and who travel to the university. This
category is included in scope 1 because the fuel is purchased by the
institution. The total kilometers traveled by the institutional bus in
the year were 2,244,375 according to the university administration
department data. The emission factor was obtained from the EPA
emissions report (U.S. EPA, 2008a).
2.3.1.3. Fugitive emissions. The campus has 42 offices with air
conditioners that use the R-22 refrigerant. In the year 2012, 3 kg of
refrigerant were replaced because of refrigerant leaks in the air
conditioners; campus administration was asked for the data. The R-
22 emission calculation was carried out based on the EPA guide
“Direct HFC and PFC Emissions from Use of Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning Equipment” (U.S. EPA, 2008b).
2.3.2. Scope 2
The scope 2 covers indirect emissions from the organization's
purchased electricity consumption.
(excluding institutional bus).
2.3.3.1. Student travel for field trips. This item includes student bus
trips to industrial plants and/or production centers in the country.
The total amount of fuel used for this purpose was 10,740 kg of
diesel/year. The emission factor was obtained from the Greenhouse
Gas Emission Inventory from the Chilean Ministry of Energy
(Minenergia, 2014).
2.3.3.2. Air travel for academic staff. This category includes trips by
air carried out by academic personnel for attending conferences,
workshops and such. In 2012, academic personnel traveled a total
of 568,880 km. The distance covered by each round trip is, on
average, 14,590 km. The majority of the trips were to European
destinations (57%). The emission factor was obtained from the
Carbon neutral Company database (Carbon Neutral, 2012).
2.3.3.3. Travel on land for academic staff. This item takes into ac-
count the trips that professors make to the other Universidad de
Talca campuses (Talca, Santiago, Santa Cruz), as well as any other
land trips within the country. The distances traveled were
56,105 km/year by car and 89,657 km/year by bus. The emission
factors were taken from the EPA (U.S. EPA, 2008a).
2.3.3.4. Transport of supplies. This item contains the emissions
related to courier shipments and transport of supplies (photocopy
paper, toilet paper, and propane for the cafeteria). This category
accounts for emissions from the consumption of 470 kg of diesel
and 352 kg of gasoline. The emission factors were obtained from
the GHG Emission Inventory from the Chilean Ministry of Energy
(Minenergia, 2014).

2.3.2.1. Electricity consumption. This category includes
640,507 kWh/year consumed by the campus according to the in-
formation obtained from the electric company invoices given to the
campus. The emission factor, in the year 2012, was obtained from
the Emission Inventory for the Central Interconnected System (SIC)
from the Chilean Ministry of Energy (Minenergia, 2014).
2.3.3. Scope 3
The categories included in this scope are the following: student
travel for field trips, air trips and travel on land for academic staff
2.3.3.5. Staff commuting. This category corresponds to the daily
trip that the staff makes from their homes to their work on campus.
The travel behavior was determined by an on-line staff survey that
had about 90% response (Table 2). In 2012 a total of 725,178 km
were traveled by personnel. Table 2 shows that only 16% of the
personnel walk or use a bicycle, probably due to the distance be-
tween home and campus (12 km on average), which would explain
the wide use of cars and the bus (81% of the total). The emission
factor for each means of transport was obtained from the EPA
report (U.S. EPA, 2008a).
 squez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 924e930
L. Va
Table 2
Distribution of the means of transport used for staff and student commuting to the
Curico campus.
Means of transport Staff (%) Students (%)
Bicycle 11% 6%
On foot 5% 8%
Automobile 66% 13%
Bus 15% 71%
Motorcycle 3% 2%
2.3.3.6. Student commuting (excluding institutional bus). This cate-
gory corresponds to the daily trips that students make to attend
classes on campus excluding the use of the institutional bus. The
common means of transport was determined by face to face in-
terviews with 26% of the students (see Table 2). The survey results
were scaled up for the entire students. Table 2 shows that only 14%
of the students use a bicycle or walk while 71% prefer to use public
buses or the institutional bus and 15% travel by car or motorcycle.
This is partially explained by the generally lower economic cost of
taking a bus compared to other means of transport (automobile or
motorcycle) (Duque et al., 2014). The emission calculation was done
based on the emission factor for each means of transport obtained
from the EPA report (U.S. EPA, 2008a).
3. Results and discussion
In Section 3.1 the results and the current GHG emissions at the
Curico campus are presented along with the analysis of the activity
categories for each scope. In Section 3.2 the GHG emission reduc-
tion scenarios related to the categories with the greatest contri-
bution to emissions are evaluated.
3.1. Analysis of the current situation of GHG emissions at the Curico
campus
The total amount of GHG emissions at the Curico campus is
given in section 3.1.1. Furthermore, this section evaluates the
contribution of each category to these emissions. Sections 3.1.2,
3.1.3 and 3.1.4 analyze the scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions respectively.
Finally, in Section 3.1.5, the GHG emission results from this study
are compared with studies available in the literature.
3.1.1. Total GHG emissions and contribution of the categories
The total amount of GHG emissions at the Curico campus is
1568.6 tCO2e. Sixty-eight percent corresponds to scope 3 emissions,

16% to scope 1 and 16% to scope 2. According to Alvarez et al. (2014),
Fig. 1. Greenhouse gas emissions by category at the Curico campus.
927
in the Faculty of Forestry at the Universidad de Madrid, scope 3
represents 60% of the total emissions whereas scope 2 is at 32% and
scope 1 is only 8%. These distributions are in contrast to those ob-
tained by Larsen et al. (2013), in the Norwegian University of Sci-
ence and Technology (NTNU) where scope 3 represents 31% while
scope 1 is at 49% of the total emissions. According to the GHG
Protocol, organizations must account for at least scope 1 and 2. For
the Curico campus, scopes 1 and 2 represent 32% of the total GHG
emissions. The results can be compared to those obtained in UNAM
by Güereca et al. (2013), where 47% of the emissions came from
scopes 1 and 2, while according to Moerschbaecher and Day (2010),
at Louisiana State University they represent 75% of the total
emissions.
Fig. 1 shows the contribution of each category to the total GHG
emissions at the Curico campus. As can be seen, the categories
student commuting by institutional bus and student commuting by
others means of transport (excluding institutional bus) generate
62% of the total, followed by electricity consumption at 16% and
staff commuting at 9%. On the other hand, fugitive emissions and
supplies transport have the lowest impact.
3.1.2. Scope 1
Regarding scope 1, over which the institution has direct control
of its emissions, Curico campus emits 256.2 tCO2e. In terms of its
categories, student commuting by institutional bus represents 63%
of scope 1 while fuel consumption is 35% and the fugitive emissions
category accounts for only 2%. When the result is normalized over
the total number of students, Curico campus presents 0.2 tCO2e/
student in scope 1, a number much lower than the 2.6 tCO2e/stu-
dent shown by Duquesne University in the United States (Cox et al.,
2012) representing 63% of the total emissions. Even though the
Duquesne study did not report the fuel consumption for institu-
tional vehicles, the high number of their GHG emissions in this
scope could be explained by the low temperatures in the area and
the consequently higher use of fuel for heating. A similar situation
is produced at NTNU where the average winter temperature fluc-
tuates around 0  C (Banks, 2012) and where fuel consumption is
one of the main causes of the 2.3 tCO2e/student in scope 1 as
recorded in 2009 (Larsen et al., 2013).
3.1.3. Scope 2
Scope 2 registers at total of 250.4 tCO2e. The normalized value is
0.2 tCO2e/student. Our results for this scope are lower than those
reported by other universities, owing to there being few machines
with high electricity consumption at the Curico Campus. The
normalization of results for GHG emissions at Minnesota State
928 squez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 924e930
L. Va
University Mankato show one of the highest values (2.1 tCO2e/
student in scope 2 (Anthony, 2013)) compared to their peers.
According to Anthony (2013), at Minnesota State University Man-
kato electricity consumption is typically the largest component of
the carbon footprint because of the carbon-intensive inputs to
electricity generation and the inefficient nature of electricity pro-
duction and transportation. In the Engineering Institute at the
Universidad Auto noma de Mexico the emissions for scope 2 reach
1.1 tCO2e/student and are principally due to the large number of
specialized laboratories used in different areas, as well as the high
density of servers and personal computers (Güereca et al., 2013)
which is the same case at the NTNU, where Larsen et al. (2013),
attributes the scope 2 emissions to their electrical equipment.
Another key aspect that explains the difference in results is the
emission factor used by each institution for reporting. For example,
the American University in Cairo calculates its own electric emis-
sion factor (DDC, 2012), while other universities use emission
factors from their own countries (Letete et al., 2011) and from
relevant organisms (Güereca et al., 2013; Ozawa-Meida et al., 2011;
Spirovski et al., 2012).
3.1.4. Scope 3
For the Curico campus the scope 3 emissions are 1061.9 tCO2e,
of which staff commuting along with student commuting
(excluding the use of institutional bus) contribute 88% of this
total, while air travel for academic staff is 6%. The lowest per-
centage (3%) corresponds to student travel for field trips. Scope 3
is difficult to compare because as Güereca et al. (2013) state, each
study includes different limits for this scope since the institutions
are not responsible for the activities associated with this grouping
but they are indirectly affected by them. In scope 3 our study
includes only categories related to transportation for the Curico
campus community which accounts for a total of 0.6 tCO2e/stu-
dent, while Güereca et al. (2013) also include emissions from
paper consumption and waste removal which have low contri-
butions to the total emissions (1% y 2% respectively). According to
these authors, the scope 3 emissions generated at the UNAM
reach 1.5 tCO2e/student. One possible reason for the differences
in the results is that at the UNAM the majority of the university
population travels to the university by car (65%) and only 35% use
public transportation. It is the same at De Montfort University
where about 80% of the student and academic population use
automobiles (Ozawa-Meida et al., 2011), whereas at the Curico
campus only 18% of the total population use them. The study
Fig. 2. Comparison of the greenhouse gas emission results for Curico campus from this study with studies from the literature. Results derived from: (1) Alvarez et al. (2014), (2)
Güereca et al. (2013), (3) Anthony (2013), (4) Cox et al. (2012), (5) Larsen et al. (2013).
from Louisiana State University (Moerschbaecher and Day, 2010),
shows that scope 3 presents 1.2 tCO2e/student, largely due to two
activities; staff and student transport and on-campus solid waste
production. The difference in the categories recorded in scope 3
in the analyzed studies, as well as the level of uncertainty about
information collected on travel behavior (Ozawa-Meida et al.
(2011) report uncertainty levels of at least 50%), causing high
variation in the results making comparisons with other univer-
sities difficult.
3.1.5. Total GHG emissions at the Curico campus compared with
other studies
Fig. 2 shows the normalized per student GHG emission totals
for the Curico campus compared with other institutions. On
average, those institutions have 3.1 tCO2e/student. The Curico
campus is below this average with 1.0 tCO2e/student. If we
consider the indicator based on buildings, the total emissions at
the Curico campus is 0.2 tCO2e per square meter of construction.
In spite of the low per capita results for the Curico campus
compared to its peers, it must be considered that this indicator
depends, among other factors, on the characteristics and types of
faculties at the university with which the relationship is being
established. In the case of the NTNU the GHG emissions for the
Faculty of Social Sciences are 0.6 tCO2e/student while in the
Faculty of Medicine they are nearly 10.8 tCO2e/student (Larsen
et al., 2013). The lower per capita GHG emission values for the
Curico campus compared to other university institutions can be
explained by summarizing the main conditions of the categories
associated with each scope. In scope 1, the low emission value for
the Curico campus is related to low fuel consumption for heating
due to the temperate climate in the region. Regarding scope 2
emissions, at the time of the study at the Curico campus, there
was little equipment with high electricity consumption which
would partly explain the low level of GHG emissions for this
scope. On the contrary, Güereca et al. (2013) reported that at the
UNAM the high contribution for scope 2 is based on the fact that
the UNAM presents several energy-intensive facilities. Regarding
scope 3, the main activity included here corresponds to trans-
portation where approximately 76% of the Curico campus popu-
lation uses public transportation, a means of transport that
generates fewer emissions per passenger than an automobile
does (Moore et al., 2010). On the other hand, at the De Montfort
University according to Ozawa-Meida et al. (2011), about 80% of
the population uses automobiles.

 squez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 924e930
L. Va
3.2. Emission reduction scenarios
As indicated in Fig. 1, the greatest GHG emissions come from the
student commuting (by institutional bus and others means of
transport), staff commuting and electricity consumption categories
which is why reduction scenarios based on these categories are
proposed according to the Pareto Principle (Hramis, 1994).
Scenario 1. It considers student commuting. This scenario pro-
poses that the students living near campus (less than 3 km away)
replace motorized vehicles (bus, automobile and motorcycle) for
bicycles during 2/3 of the academic year (the months from May to
August are excluded because of lower temperatures in the region).
Scenario 2. This scenario includes student and staff commuting. It
also takes into consideration using the train as a means of transport
for the 50% of the campus population that lives in cities with train
stations. This population corresponds to 14% of the total number of
people at the Curico campus. It is understood that the remaining
distance from the train station to the campus would be covered by
the institutional bus.
Scenario 3. Just as in Scenario 2, this scenario includes both
student and staff commuting. This scenario proposes that 50% of
the car users would use public transportation (15% of the total
campus population use cars).
Scenario 4. This scenario considers the electricity consumption at
the Curico campus. According to a Curico campus study, it is esti-
mated that 30% of the electricity consumption corresponds to
lighting (Rojas, 2007). This scenario takes into consideration energy
efficient measures for lighting. It proposes a 40% reduction in the
amount of electricity used for lighting (Carbon Trust, 2012).
As shown in Fig. 3, it was observed that when evaluating the
measures suggested in the scenarios, it is scenario 1 that achieves
the greatest reduction (107.1 tCO2e representing 7% of the total
campus GHG emissions). This is mainly due to replacing one means
of transportation for another one that does not generate direct
emissions (Duque et al., 2014). However, applying the measures in
this scenario does require significant changes in the campus pop-
ulation's current travel behavior. Bringing scenario 2 into effect
would achieve a 5% reduction in the total emissions (79.1 tCO2e),
due to using the train, a more efficient means of transport (Moore
et al., 2010) that is not currently used by the university community.
Scenario 3 achieves an overall reduction of 3% (46.7 tCO2e) given the
low contribution by automobiles to the current campus emissions.
According to Lanfranco et al. (2003), the use of cars in Chile has
tripled in the last three decades partly as a result of economic
growth and the inefficiency of public transportation. This trend
toward greater use of automobiles is also occurring at the Curico
Fig. 3. Quantity of greenhouse gas emissions reduced by each scenario.
929
campus which would produce a greater contribution to GHG
emissions from the campus in coming years. Finally, scenario 4
shows a 5% reduction overall (74.1 tCO2e).
4. Conclusions
There are few peer-reviewed studies on GHG emissions caused
by universities in developing countries. The scarcity is most evident
in South American countries. In this context, this study evaluates
the GHG emissions at the Curico campus of the Universidad de
Talca, Chile, based on the GHG Protocol method. The results show
that scope 3 generates the largest contribution at 68%, followed by
scope 1 and scope 2 at 16% each. When analyzing the categories, it
is estimated that student commuting and electricity consumption
together represent about 78% of the total emissions.
The comparison with other higher education institutions,
mostly situated in developed countries, indicates that for the Curico
campus the GHG emissions value is below the average. The in-
stitutions analyzed in the study present, on average, 3.1 tCO2e/
student while the Curico campus is 1.0 tCO2e/student. It is mainly
due to this campus having low heating fuel consumption because of
the temperate climate in the region, as well as few energy-intensive
facilities and high use of public transportation by students. It is
estimated that the GHG emission values at the Curico campus will
increase in the future due to the campus having grown and become
more complex, and also to the move toward a higher economic
level that is anticipated in developing countries and middle income
countries such as Chile which affects, among other things, greater
access to automobiles for the students.
The best reduction scenario in this study considers that the
students living near campus replace the use of motorized vehicles
(bus, automobile and motorcycle) for bicycles, considering that
student commuting is the category with the highest emission
contribution and is, furthermore, an item on which future research
could be based to seek emission reduction. It must be kept in mind
that any application of the scenarios would be affected by resis-
tance to behavior changes, as well as by the economic and legal
factors in force. The increase in sustainable action plans brought
about by the Universidad de Talca and other Chilean universities
with similar characteristics would tend to neutralize this resistance
and will help diminish the institutional GHG emissions.
The results from this study could be an example for university
campuses, particularly in the case of universities in developing
countries, with similar characteristics to the current ones at the
Curico Campus, such as high use of public transportation by stu-
dents; high undergraduate population; low quantity of energy-
intensive equipment; and classroom and office facilities making a
significant contribution to the total constructed area. Estimating
the GHG emissions from Latin American universities is a step in
achieving the goal of campus sustainability. The GHG emission
information provides a baseline for the university against which
mitigation actions will be measured. Future GHG emission studies
on Latin American universities could further improve the knowl-
edge about potential emission reductions. Moreover, new studies
may be extended to other environmental indicators in order to
contribute further criteria to campus sustainability plans.
Acknowledgments
The present paper was supported by the Universidad de Talca's
Office of Research Administration through the Competitive Fund
Project for Student Entrepreneurship in Scientific Research and the
Universidad de Talca's Office for University Social Responsibility.
The authors would like to thank the Universidad de Talca's
Department of Administration and especially the one at the Curico
930 squez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 924e930
L. Va
campus for their assistance with data collection. We thank Mrs.
Sharon Goulart, who provided the English-language support.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.073.
References
ACUPCC - American College and University President’s Climate Commitment, 2015.
Online. Available: http://rs.acupcc.org/stats/tangible-actions/ (accessed
19.04.15.).

Alvarez, S., Blanquer, M., Rubio, A., 2014. Carbon footprint using the compound
method based on financial accounts. The case of the School of Forestry Engi-
neering, Technical University of Madrid. J. Clean. Prod. 66, 224e232.
Anthony, K., 2013. Carbon Footprint Report Minnesota State University Mankato.
Minnesota State University, Minnesota, USA.
Banks, D., 2012. An Introduction to Thermogeology: Ground Source Heating and
Cooling. Wiley & Sons, USA.
Calder, W., Clugston, R., 2003. International Efforts to Promote Higher Education for
Sustainable Development. The Association of University Leaders for a Sustain-
able Future (ULSF).
Carbon Neutral - Carbon Neutral Company, 2012. Calculations and Emission Factors.
United Kingdom. Online. Available: http://www.carbonneutralcalculator.com/
Carbon%20Offset%20Factors.pdf.
Carbon Trust, 2012. Further and Higher Education: Training Colleges and Univer-
sities to Be Energy Efficient. Carbon Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Castillo, J., Moreno, G., 2002. Forest seeds of Native Chilean Forest (Semillas fore-
stales del bosque nativo chileno). Santiago, Chile.
Conway, T., Dalton, C., Loo, J., Benakoun, L., 2008. Developing ecological footprint
scenarios on university campuses: a case study of the University of Toronto at
Mississauga. Int. J. Sustain. High Educ. 9 (1), 4e20.
Cox, T., McKee, P., Snedden, J., Kabala, S., 2012. One Step at Time. Duquesne Uni-
versity’s Third Biennial Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, Pittsburgh,USA.
CPL - Cleaner Production Council, 2012. Cleaner Production Agreement: Sustainable
Campus. Ministry of Economy, Development and Work, Santiago, Chile
([Consejo de Produccio  n Limpia. Acuerdo de Produccio n Limpia: Campus
Sustentable. Ministerio de Economía, Fomento y Trabajo. Santiago, Chile]).
DDC - Desert Development Center, Office of Sustainability, 2012. Our Carbon
Footprint. The American University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt.
Duque, R.B., Gray, D., Harrison, M., Davey, E., 2014. Invisible commuters: assessing a
university's eco-friendly transportation policies and commuting behaviours.
J. Transp. Geogr. 38, 122e136.
Geng, Y., Liu, K., Xue, B., Fujita, T., 2013. Creating a ‘green university’ in China: a case
of Shenyang University. J. Clean. Prod. 61, 13e19.
Güereca, L.P., Torres, N., Noyola, A., 2013. Carbon footprint as a basis for a cleaner
research institute in Mexico. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 396e403.
HESD -, 2015. Higher Education for Sustainable Development. Online. Available.
http://www.iau-hesd.net/en/contenu/189-what-sustainable-development-sd.
html (accessed 30.03.15.).
Hramis, J., 1994. Administrative Systems and Procedures: Methodology for Appli-
cation in Private and Public Institutions (Sistemas y procedimientos admin-
istrativos: metodología para su aplicacio n en instituciones privadas y públicas).
Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico, D.F.
IARU- International Alliance of Research Universities, 2013. Individual Campus
Sustainability Reports, 2013. Online. Available: http://www.iaruni.org/
sustainability/campus-sustainability.
Kaplan, D., 2015. Transportation sustainability on a university campus. Int. J. Sus-
tain. High. Educ. 16, 173e186.
Klein-Banai, C., Theis, T.L., 2013. Quantitative analysis of factors affecting green-
house gas emissions at institutions of higher education. J. Clean. Prod. 48,
29e38.

Lanfranco, P., Quijada, R., Sagaris, L., Alvarez, R., Rivera, E., Quijada, C., Fuccaro, D.,
Plazner, R., Montero, G., Basso, L., Donoso, P., Ferna ndez, R., Garrido, C.,
Palma, C., 2003. Move Around Your City: a Citizen Proposal of Transport with
Equity (Mue vete por tu ciudad: una propuesta ciudadana de transporte con
equidad). Santiago, Chile.
Larsen, H.N., Pettersen, J., Solli, C., Hertwich, E.G., 2013. Investigating the carbon
footprint of a University e the case of NTNU. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 39e47.
Letete, T., Mungwe, N., Mondli, G., Marquard, A., 2011. Carbon footprint of the
University of Cape Town. J. Energy South. Afr. 22, 2e12.
Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F.J., Huisingh, D., Lambrechts, W., 2013. Declarations
for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through
addressing the university system. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 10e19.
McNeilly, L., Stoll, K., Fenley, E., 2013. Campus Sustainability Report 2013. University
of California, Berkeley, USA.
Minenergia - Ministry of Energy, 2014. GHG Emission Inventory - Factor Emissions
(Ministerio de Energía, Inventario de Emisiones GEI - Factores de emisio n).
Online. Available. http://huelladecarbono.minenergia.cl/factores-de-emision
(accessed 29.05.14.).
Moerschbaecher, M., Day, J.W., 2010. The greenhouse gas inventory of Louisiana
State University: a case study of the energy requirements of public higher
education in the United States. Sustainability 2, 2117e2134.
Moore, A.T., Staley, S.R., Poole, R.W., 2010. The role of VMT reduction in meeting
climate change policy goals. Transp. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 44,
565e574.
Ozawa-Meida, L., Brockway, P., Letten, K., Davies, J., Fleming, P., 2011. Measuring
carbon performance in a UK University through a consumption-based carbon
footprint: De Montfort University case study. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 185e198.
Posner, S., Stuart, R., 2013. Understanding and advancing campus sustainability
using a systems framework. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 14, 264e277.
Rojas, R., 2007. Proposal for Energy Savings for the Faculty of Engineering of the
University of Talca (Propuesta de un sistema de ahorro de energía para la
facultad de ingeniería de la Universidad de Talca). Universidad de Talca, Curico .
Chile.
Sinha, P., Schew, W.A., Sawant, A., Kolwaite, K.J., Strode, S.A., 2010. Greenhouse Gas
emissions from U.S. Institutions of Higher Education. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc.
60, 568e573.
Smith-Ramírez, C., Armesto, J., Valdovinos, C., 2005. History, Biodiversity and
Ecology of Coastal Forests of Chile (Historia, biodiversidad y ecología de los
bosques costeros de Chile). Chile, Santiago.
Spirovski, D., Abazi, A., Iljazi, I., Ismaili, M., Cassulo, G., Venturin, A., 2012. Realiza-
tion of a low emission university campus trough the implementation of a
climate action plan. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 46, 4695e4702.
UChile - Universidad de Chile, Instituto de Asuntos Públicos, 2011. Determination of
Emission Factors for Scope 1 and Scope 2 ([Determinacio  n de los factores de
emisio  n para los Alcances 1 y 2 de la estimacio n de la huella de carbono]).
Santiago, Chile.
U.S. EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008a. Climate Leaders.
Optional Emissions from Commuting, Business Travel and Product Transport.
EPA, USA.
U.S. EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008b. Direct HFC and PFC
Emissions from Use of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment. EPA, USA.
UTALCA - University of Talca, 2013. Press Room. Universidad de Talca, Sala de
prensa. Online. Available: http://www.utalca.cl/link.cgi//SalaPrensa/
Institucional/6997 (accessed: 07.05.14.).
UW e University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, 2015. UW Oshkosh Campus Sustainability
Plan. Online. Available: http://www.uwosh.edu/assets/announcement/
sustainability/ (accessed 19.04.15.).
Venetoulis, J., 2001. Assessing the ecological impact of a university. Int. J. Sustain.
High. Educ. 2, 180e197.
WRI/WBCSD - World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustain-
able Development, 2004. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: a Corporate Accounting
and Reporting Standard. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative, USA and
Switzerland.
Yale University, 2013. Sustainability Strategic Plan 2013e2016. Office of Sustain-
ability. Yale University, New Haven, USA.