CARBON FOOTPRINT IN KABA COMMUNITY, BARNERSVILLE,

MONTSERRADO COUNTY, LIBERIA; JANUARY – APRIL, 2019

SUBMITTED BY:

SAM P. JALLAH

BSc (CHEMISTRY)

ID#:GP15968

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE CUTTINGTON UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE (MSc) IN

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

JUNE, 2019
 DECLARATION BY RESEARCHER

I, Sam P. Jallah, declare that this Master’s Thesis: “Carbon Footprint in Kaba

Community, Barnersville, Montserrado County, Liberia; January – April, 2019”, is my

original work and has not been submitted for the award of a degree in any other

university or college.

Signed: __________________________________ Date: ___________________

Sam P. Jallah

i
 DECLARATION BY ADVISOR

This Master’s Thesis: “Carbon Footprint in Kaba Community, Barnersville, Montserrado

County, Liberia; January – April, 2019”, was done under my supervision, and has been

submitted to the Cuttington University School of Graduate and Professional Studies for

examination with my approval as supervisor.

Signed: __________________________________________ Date: _____________

Sarwee J. Faeflen, BSc, MSc, PhD

ii
 DECLARATION BY THE DEAN

This is to certify that this Master’s Thesis: “Carbon Footprint in Kaba Community,

Barnersville, Montserrado County, Liberia; January – April, 2019”,was written and

defended by Sam P. Jallah, ID#:GP15968, and has met the requirements of the School of

Health Sciences of Cuttington University School of Graduate and Professional Studies.

Signed: _____________________________________ Date: __________________

Dedeh F. Jones, BSc, RN, BEd, MN, FWACN

iii
 DECLARATION BY THE VICE PRESIDENT, CUTTINGTON UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

This is to certify that this Master’s Thesis: “Carbon Footprint in Kaba Community,

Barnersville, MontserradoCounty, Liberia; January – April, 2019”,was written and

defended by Sam P. Jallah, ID#: GP15968, of the School of Health Sciences, and has met

the requirements of Cuttington University School of Graduate and Professional Studies.

Signed: _____________________________________ Date: _________________

Dennis (Dee) Nyamieh Walker, PhD

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research Thesis would not have been possible without the help of individuals. Thank

you firstly to Dr. Sarwee Joe-WieFaeflen for the extensive guidance throughout the

stages of the research process and to Dr. Charles Assumana for providing initial guidance

for the report and helpful feedback following my presentation on my research topic and

background during the “Introduction to research I” course.

Additionally, I would like to acknowledge B. Whlewhle Forh for connecting me to the

entire leadership of Kaba Community that led to my successful engagement with the

chairpersons of all Kaba Community sections. Again, thanks to all Kaba Community

residents who took their time to participate in the research through filling out the

questionnaires and answering particular questions through interviews. Again, I would like

to particularly thank the following chairpersons of the sections of Kaba Community for

their supports in seeing to it that I got the positive receptions I received from the residents

of Kaba Community – I literally could not have done it without you!

v
 DEDICATION

This Thesis is dedicated to my mother, Musu G. Anthony (though uneducated) for the

myriad of ways in which, throughout my life, you have actively supported me morally in

my determination to find and realize my potential and to make this contribution to our

word in the ways I have done.

To my children Calvin S. Jallah and James M. Jallah who have been affected in every

way possible by this quest, I want to say a big thank you. My love for you all can never

be quantified. God bless you.

vi
 ABSTRACT

The study is “Carbon Footprint in Kaba Community, Barnersville, Montserrado County,

Liberia; January – April, 2019”. This study is significant in that its findings will estimate

the Carbon Footprint (CO2-e) of Households and Businesses in the Kaba Community;

identify the opportunities for emission reduction at the community level that account for

carbon footprint and its climate change and global warming impact. The researcher used

a qualitative and quantitative descriptive research design. The study was conducted

through a cross-sectional design survey and targeted 2250 households and 37 businesses

with a sample size of 328 and 34 for households and businesses in the Kaba Community.

In response to activities in households and businesses that are producing the most Carbon

Footprint, it was indicated that the quantity of fuels burned to generate energy and

powered other equipment stands as the activity with the most carbon footprint production

of 3236.846 tons CO2e (98%) as oppose to the spending on electricity, fuels, etc with

80.815 tons CO2e (2%) and households having greater impact on the overall community

level footprint of Kaba than businesses with 3225.814 tons CO2e (97%) and 91.847 tons

CO2e (3%) respectively. The estimated average carbon footprint production of the Kaba

community is 3, 317.661 tons CO2e (3317661 kg CO2e) for the two month period. Lastly

for mitigating strategies, 253 constituting 70%, said provision of renewable energy. It can

be concluded that the consumption of electricity and fuel are activities producing the

most carbon footprint. Therefore, the researcher recommends that renewable energy be

provided, and that efficient energy be provided for businesses and households in the

community.

vii
 ACRONYMS

AMMA African Monsoon Multidisciplinary Analyses

CF Carbon Footprint

CH4 Methan Gas

CO2 Carbondioxide

CO2-e Carbondioxide Equivalent

FUNAAB The Federal University of Agriculture Abeokuta, Ogun State,

GHGs Green House Gases

HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IR Infrared radiation

LISGIS Liberia Institute of Statistic and Geo Information Services

N2O Nitrous Oxide

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide

PFCs Perfluorocarbons

SF6 Sulphur hexafluoride

UK United Kingdom

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

US United States

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION BY RESEARCHER i

DECLARATION BY ADVISOR ii

DECLARATION BY THE DEAN iii

DECLARATION BY THE VICE PRESIDENT, CUTTINGTON

UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE & PROFESSIONAL STUDIES iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v

DEDICATION vi

ABSTRACT vii

ACRONYMS viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem 6

1.3 Research Questions 7

1.4 Delimitation 7

1.5 Limitations 9

1.6 Significance of the Study 10

1.7 Definition of Key Terms 10

1.8 Organization of the Study 11

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Overview of Carbon Footprint 13

2.2 Kaba Community 17

2.3 Impact of Carbon Footprint 18

ix
2.4 Consumption of Transportation Carbon Footprint Production 24

2.5 Consumption of Energy Carbon Footprint Production 29

2.6 Consumption of Waste Carbon Footprint Production 35

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design 36

3.2 Population 36

3.3 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques 37

3.4 Data Collection Instruments 37

3.5 Data Collection Procedure 38

3.6 Data Analysis Procedure 38

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 Data Presentation and Analysis 40

4.2 Findings 51

4.3 Discussion of the Findings 53

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY/CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary 54

5.2 Conclusion 56

5.3 Recommendations 57

Bibliography 58

Appendices

x
11
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Despite the differing definitions, there is a general acceptance that a carbon footprint

(CF) incorporates the amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted from a specific source

(s), over a particular period and is measure in tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-e)

(Mathews et al, 2008).

Additionally, carbon footprint (CF) can be broadly defined as a measure of the

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are directly and indirectly caused by an activity or

are accumulated over the life stages of a product or service, expressed in carbon dioxide

equivalents (Wiedmann, 2008). Furthermore, carbon footprint is a measure of the

greenhouse gas emissions associated with an activity, group of activities or a product

(Turner, 2014). Manoj Kumar (2014), on the other hand, James Morton states that carbon

footprint is a measure of the impact of our activities on the environment, and in particular

climate change that relates to the amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) measure in tones

of carbon dioxide (CO2) produce in our day-to-day lives through burning fossil fuel for

electricity, heating and transportation, etc.

The concept of carbon footprint that will be used in this study will be derived from Manoj

Kumar (2014) and James Morton Turner (2014). That is, a carbon footprint is the

measure of the impact of our activities on the environment, and in particular climate

change that relates to the measure of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions measure in

tones of carbon dioxide (CO2) produce in our day-to-day lives through burning fossil fuel

for electricity, heating, transportation, and a product. In this study, carbon footprint will

1
be referred to as the measure of the amount of greenhouse gas (GHGs) emitted from a

specific source (s) over a particular period in the day-to-day lives of an individual as a

result of his/her activities on the environment through the consumption of transportation

(domestic-cars, buses, tricycles, bicycles), energy (fuels, electricity, etc), and waste

(rubbish, recycling and organic).

With the global share of greenhouse gases (GHGs) attributed to communities or high

development and high consumption areas, a focus on emissions reduction in these areas is

crucial in expanding sustainability to the global scale (Thompson et al, 2001). In

promoting positive climate action, it is important to utilize the concentration of

individuals in small areas for the generation of sustainable economic activity, knowledge,

social transformation and new technologies (Hoornweg et al., 2011). Furthermore, it is

important that responsibility for global warming is engaged on all societal levels, from

international to individual (Vandeweghe, 2007). It is becoming increasingly accepted that

targeting emissions at a community level is an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas

(GHG) production, and thus ease the load that individual lifestyles place on global

emissions (Swap et al, 2003). . All around the world, individuals, retailers, firms, and

nations are beginning to consider and implement the reduction of carbon emissions

(Mathews et al., 2008). The concept upon which this reduction is based is known as

carbon footprint; a means by which lifestyles may be given a quantifiable weighting of

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (Mathews et al., 2008).

Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of emissions from biomass burning

on the atmospheric composition in Africa going against the burning of fossil fuels that

result into the production of carbon footprint (Delmas et al, 1999) Again, recent studies

2
provide growing evidence that emissions from anthropogenic combustion are having an

increasing impact on the distribution of several chemical compounds. Nevertheless,

emission regulations are still weak (Liousse et al, 2010). Observations performed during

the AMMA (African Monsoon Multidisciplinary Analyses) campaign have shown that

anthropogenic combustion emissions, mainly linked to traffic and the use of biofuels in

western Africa, have a significant impact on urban air quality (Malavelle et al, 2011).

Emissions from two wheeled vehicles running on mixtures of smuggled gasoline from

Nigeria and motor oil are also a large source of carbon footprint in communities and

cities of sub Saharan Africa such as Bamako (Mali) or Cotonou, Benin (Malavelle et al,

2011).

Nelson (1948) defines a community as a group of people who inhabit a limited area and

have a sense of belonging together. Green and Mercer (2001), on the other hand, define

community as all individuals who will be affected by the research results. Moreover, a

study of the Toronto area undertaken by VandeWeghe & Kennedy (2007) used the

physical boundary of census area units to classify a neighborhood for community carbon

footprint reduction. The concept of community adopted in this study will be derived from

Vandeweghe& Kennedy (2007) and Green & Mercer (2001). Accordingly, the physical

boundary of census area units and all individuals who will be affected by the research

will be defined as the community of the study. As such, in this study, all individuals and

the physical boundary of census area units that will be affected by the research results

will be characterized as community.

By physical boundary, I mean a naturally occurring divide between two areas. That is,

Political boundaries that is the officially drawn dividing lines between nations, states,

3
cities and so on (Turner, 2014). Physical boundary is an important guideline in

determining the research outer limit since it must be specific. Accordingly, to account for

the carbon footprint of a community and knowing the community comprises of

households and individuals, the physical boundary of the research site should be defined

(Kennedy et al, 2007).Therefore, this research will be given sufficient attention to the

estimation of the carbon footprint in the Kaba Community, Barnersville, Montserrado

County, Liberia during the research.

By census area units, the study will refer to the geographic region defined for the purpose

of taking a census. Sometimes these coincide with the limits of cities, towns or other

administrative areas and several tracts commonly exist within a county or country

(Mithraratne, 2009).

Therefore, it will be necessary for this study to place a key focus on the physical

boundaries and National Census from LISGIS to measure the estimation of households

and major business centers of the Kaba Community, Barnersville, Montserrado County,

Liberia carbon footprint. Thereby accounting for the approximate carbon footprint, which

major activities and what types of mitigating activities can be put in place for Kaba

Community, Barnersville, Montserrado County, Liberia. That is, the carbon footprint in

the Kaba community, Barnersville, Montserrado County, Liberia will be base on the

National census from LISGIS and the estimation of the carbon footprint as per this

proposal will focus mainly on the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission emitted or

produce due to the residents of Kaba Community and business centers activities

mentioned earlier.

4
In view of the above, the study will use the bottom (community) approach to estimate the

carbon footprint (i.e, the Carbon dioxide-CO2) of the Kaba Community and recommend

mitigating strategies to contribute to national global warming efforts.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The term “carbon footprint” has become tremendously popular over the last few years.

Numerous approaches have been proposed to provide estimates, ranging from basic

online calculators to sophisticated life-cycle analysis or input-output-based methods and

tools (Kumar, 2014). Despite its popular use however, there is an apparent lack of

academic definitions of what exactly a ‘carbon footprint’ is meant to be (Kumar, 2014).

The scientific literature is surprisingly void of clarifications, despite the fact that

countless studies in energy and ecological economics that could have claimed to measure

a ‘carbon footprint’ have been published over decades (Brewer R. S., 2008). The

increasing interest in ‘carbon foot prints’ comes as a result of growing public awareness

of global warming. The global community now recognizes the need to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions to mitigate climate change. Countries, organizations, and individuals alike

are starting to take responsibility (Brewer R. S., 2008).Businesses and services that are

not currently regulated under the Kyoto protocol may wish to preempt future regulations,

and may find marketing advantages in being ‘green’ (Kumar, 2014). Calculating a carbon

footprint can be a valuable first step towards making quantifiable emissions reductions

(Kumar, 2014). In Liberia, there has not been a single study done in the Kaba Community

for carbon footprint. The introduction of the estimation of carbon footprint in the Kaba

5
Community in the opinion of this proposal should be undertaken since global warming is

a worldwide issue right now resulting from greenhouse gas (GHG) emission.

1.3 Research Questions

The researcher sought answers to the following research questions:

1. What activities in Kaba Community Households and of Business Centers that are

producing the most Carbon Footprint?

2. What is the approximate Carbon Footprint in the Kaba Community, Barnersville?

3. What types of mitigating strategies can be put in place to reduce this Carbon

Footprint?

1.4 Delimitation

The study on the “carbon footprint (CF) in Kaba Community, Barnersville, Montserrado

County, Liberia was conducted from January to April, 2019 in the geographical location

of Kaba Community, Liberia, West Africa. And its focus was based on anthropogenic

activities through energy and transportation consumption that contribute to the emission

of Green House Gases (GHG) which has an impact on global warming and climate

change. The areas of transportation that the research collected data for its analysis were

based on transportation by Tricycle (keke), Bike cycles (penpen), Taxi and buses while

for energy, the research areas were based on the cost (in Liberian dollars) of fuels

(gasoline and diesel) use for energy (electricity) generation and quantity of fuels usage in

gallons and weights (Kg/liters).

6
Kaba Community, as indicated in Appendix A, is in Barnersville, Montserrado County,

Liberia. It is bordering on the north by Samukai Town, Northwest by Dixville,

Barnersville Estate on its Southwest, Johnsonville Road on its south and Cassava Hill on

its east. As of the time of the research, Kaba community was still underdeveloped evident

by the absence of city electric power, paved feeder roads and the usage of charcoal to

heat homes, etc. Topographically, sixty five percent (65%) of the community areas are

covered by natural vegetation and the landscape is not flat with most part muddy or soft

soil.

Liberia is a country in West Africa, bordering Sierra Leone, Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire. It

was in Liberia that this study was conducted in the part of one of its 15 counties called

Montserrado. Montserrado County which is on the northwestern portion of Liberia has

many cities including Barnersville which is on the North-East of Monrovia the capital of

Liberia. The study was conducted in Kaba Community, one of the many communities in

Barnersville.

The selection of Kaba Community was predicated upon the fact that to determine the

carbon footprint of a community, the household serves as the bottom-top approach to

reflect the actual estimate of the community carbon footprint (CF) (Van Weghe &

Kennedy 2007). Additionally, another way household greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

are often reported to reflect the community carbon footprint (CF), is based on various

energy end users – such as appliances (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) systems,

lights, cars, etc. (Shammin, 2009). Accordingly, based on the aim of the study and the

situation and location of Kaba Community in term of its residence activities on the

environment and energy and transportation consumptions as relates to greenhouse gas

7
(GHG) emissions listed above, the study was able to get the necessary information for its

data collection.

1.5 Limitations

The main limitation of this study was based on the absence of secondary data sources due

to the lack of similar researches done in the research area. Additionally, the lack of

sophistication in identifying and recording all the 18 green house gases (GHG)

contributing to climate change with different global warming potentials, was also an

issue.

However, the study used the estimation of the emission of carbon dioxide (CO 2) as its

carbon footprint (CF) in the Kaba Community which is allowed by best standards (IPCC,

2014). That is, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),

there are 18 greenhouse gases with different global warming potentials. But under the

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto

Protocol, only Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O),

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)

are considered for the purposes of carbon accounting, with others being regulated

elsewhere (IPCC, 2000).

Furthermore, estimating emissions based on household expenditure is limited in several

ways (UNFCC, 2017) which this study encountered. For instance, the study needed to

know more precisely, along with secondary data, how much and what people consumed

and use during electricity generation and transportation rounds to estimate emissions. But

this was not the case as data were gotten from individual admission only due to the lack

8
of secondary and national data. With the mentioned issues above, the research used

partial international data on Liberia and the information given by individuals interviewed

along with technology such as www.carbonzero.com to make report on the carbon

footprint (CF) of Kaba Community

1.6 Significance of the Study

The significance of this study is to estimate the Carbon Footprint (CF) (CO 2-e

specifically) of Households and Major Businesses in the Kaba Community, Barnesville,

Montserrado County, Liberia and identify the opportunities for emission reduction at the

community level. And those focus areas were transportation (Taxi, buses, tricycles,

bicycles) and energy (fuels and or amount in dollar use to generate electricity) all of

which contribute different kinds of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. It is a worldwide

fact that the increase in Carbon Footprint is resulting to Climate Change and the

importance of taking a bottom (community) approach to reducing Carbon Footprint (CF)

is an effective means of contributing to the reduction of activities leading to Climate

Change (IPCC, 2011).This study has specifically gained information needed to estimate

the community level carbon footprint (CF) and determine related behaviors for mitigation

purposes that can be used by stakeholders in Liberia to join the world in curbing the

effects of global warming by reducing the production of carbon footprint by

communities’ activities on the environment.

9
1.7 Definition of Key Terms

Below are the key terms that were used in this study along with their definitions:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless, noncombustible greenhouse-gas that

contributes to global warming and is formed by complete combustion of fossil fuels and

carbon containing products; it is released also through respiration by living organisms

and by the gradual oxidation of organic matter in soil (BD-Dictionary).

Carbon dioxide Equivalent (CO2-e) is a standard unit for measuring carbon footprints.

The idea is to express the impact of each different greenhouse gas in terms of the amount

of CO2 that would create the same amount of warming (Google.com, April 27, 2011).

Carbon Footprint is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted due to your daily activities

(Grey Literature source, 2007) and it can also be defined as a measure of the greenhouse

gas emissions associated with an activity, group of activities or a product (Turner, J. M.,

2014).

Climate Change is a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change

apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased

levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels (Google.com).

Community is an interacting population of various kinds of individuals in a common

location (Merriam Webster).

Global Warming is a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's

atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of

carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants.

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) is a gas that absorbs infrared radiation (IR) and radiates heat in

all directions; carbon dioxide, fluorocarbons, methane, etc (whatis.com).

10
1.8 Organization of the Study

This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One introduces the study; it covers the

background of the study, statement of the problem, research questions, delimitation,

limitations, significance of the study, definition of key terms and the organization of the

study. Chapter Two covers the review of related literature on the topic. Chapter Three

covers the research methodology that was employed for the conduct of this study; it

contains the research design, population, sample size and sampling technique, data

collection instruments, data collection procedure, and the data analysis procedure.

Chapter Four covers the data presentation and interpretation; it contains the data analysis

and interpretation, findings, and discussion of the findings. Lastly, Chapter Five covers

the summary, conclusion and recommendations of the study.

11
 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Overview of Carbon Footprint

Carbon footprint has attained increasing attention as a tool for decision making at

national, regional and local scales; however, emissions must be reduced dramatically to

accomplish the internationally agreed upon goal of keeping global warming to a

maximum of 2oC (Umweltbundesamt, 2012) and this can be done only when activities

causing the emission are identified and analyzed.

Climate change is one of the most serious issues confronting humankind and the research

wanted to make a difference in this area. Specifically, the research will use data and

carbon footprint calculator to help people to better understand their environmental

footprint, based on real data from their daily activities, and help them to evaluate how

they can reduce that footprint.

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fourth assessment

report (Rajendra K. Pachauri, 2007). The conclusions of this long-running analysis of

studies on climate change and its effects are widely accepted as the consensus of the

world’s scientific community. They found that there is broad agreement that the climate

is warming: air and ocean temperatures are higher, snow and ice are melting, and sea

levels are rising. Further, natural systems are being affected: plant and animal ranges are

moving upward, and there are changes in fish and algae due to rising ocean

temperatures(Pachauri R. K., 2007).

12
The IPCC found that the warming of the climate was very likely due to anthropogenic

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. GHG emissions from humans have increased by 70%

between 1970 and 2004. While there are a variety of GHG that impact climate change,

CO2 is the most important of the human-caused GHGs. Sea level rise in the second half

of the 20th century was also very likely caused by humans, and rising sea levels have a

potentially enormous impact on island communities like Hawaii (Hoornweg et al. 2011).

With current climate change policies, GHG emissions are projected to continue to

increase this century. Further, there is no single technology that will mitigate the problem

of climate change; a range of policies and innovations is required. The report lists both

energy efficiency and individual behavior modification as suggested GHG mitigation

strategies (Edenhofer, et al, 2011)

This section discusses the literature related to Carbon Footprint in Kaba Community,

Barnersville, Montserrado County, Liberia placing specific emphasis on the estimation of

carbon footprint (CO2-e) of households and major business centers base on their

consumption activities from transportation (domestic-cars, buses, tricycles, bicycles) and

energy (fuels, electricity, etc).

Despite the existence of differing definitions, there is general acceptance that a carbon

footprint incorporates the amount of GHGs emitted from a specified source(s), over a

particular period, and is measured in tones of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-e) (IPCC,

2011).

13
With the greatest share of global greenhouse gases (GHGs) attributed to communities,

cities or high development and consumption areas, a focus on emissions reduction in

these areas is crucial in expanding sustainability to the global scale and that is why the

aim of this study will be to produce such a carbon footprint for the Kaba community of

Barnersville, Montserrado County, Liberia from January to June, 2019 and identify the

opportunities for emissions reduction at community level.

In promoting positive climate action, it is important to utilize the concentration of

individuals in small areas for the generation of sustainable economic activity, knowledge,

social transformation and new technologies (Hoornweg et al. 2011). Furthermore, it is

important that responsibility for global warming is engaged on all societal levels, from

international to individual (VandeWeghe& Kennedy 2007). It is becoming increasingly

accepted that targeting emissions at a community level is an effective way to reduce

GHG production, and thus ease the load that individual lifestyles place on global

emissions.

All around the world, individuals, retailers, firms, and nations are beginning to consider

and implement the reduction of carbon emissions (Mathews et al. 2008). The concept

around whichthis reduction is based is known as a carbon footprint; a means by which

lifestyles may be given a quantifiable weighting of CO 2 emissions which is one of the

main focus of this proposed study.

14
That is, many studies have quantified the greenhouse gas emissions of products and

organizations and supply chains from a production-based view (Finkbeiner et al., 2006).

Consumption-based analysis, however, is currently subject to increased attention

(Finkbeiner, 2009). Consumption-based emission accounting will not be able to replace

production-based techniques, but may offer complementary information in order to

introduce effective policies that would not have been adopted from a production view

(Barrett et al., 2013).

Additionally, early studies aiming to identify the climate impact of households and

communities have rarely identified examples of locally applicable green policies due to

the limitations of focusing on national-level information. Indirect household-related

energy requirements and emissions are currently absent from the scope of policy makers

(Lenzen et al., 2004). Thus, Barret et al. identify a broad need for policy options adapted

from consumption based GHG accounting (Barrett et al., 2013). Programs helping to

improve human consumption habits, e.g., improving diets or reducing material

consumption, may represent a comparatively cost-effective way to reduce household

emissions significantly (Barrett et al. 2013). Various studies have specified psychological

and political as well as economic aspects of behavior change, e.g., via social marketing

approaches (McKenzie-Mohr 2011). For the USA, Dietz et al. (2009) have pictured a

path to reduce national emissions by more than 7% with the help of behavioral change

programs for households and communities. Other studies come to similar results (Laitner

et al. 2009).

15
2.2 Kaba Community

Kaba Community is in Barnersville, Montserrado County, Liberia and as of the date of

this proposal, there hasn’t been a study of the kind being proposed done. Liberia is a

country in West Africa, bordering Sierra Leone, Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire. On the

Atlantic coast, the capital city of Monrovia is home to the Liberia National Museum, with

its exhibits on national culture and history. Around Monrovia are palm-lined beaches like

Silver and CeCe. Along the coast, beach towns include the port of Buchanan, as well as

laid-back Robertsport, known for its strong surf. It is in Liberia that this proposed study

will be conducted in the part of one of its 15 counties called Montserrado. Montserrado

County which is on the northwestern portion of Liberia has many cities including

Barnersville which is on the North-East of Monrovia the capital of Liberia. This proposed

study will be conducted in Kaba Community, one of the many communities in

Barnersville.

The selection of Kaba Community is predicated upon the fact that to determine the

carbon footprint of a community, the household serves as the bottom-top approach to

reflect the actual estimate of the community carbon footprint. Additionally, another way

household greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are often reported to reflect the community

carbon footprint is based on various energy end users – such as appliance (heating,

ventilation, and air conditioning) systems, lights, cars, etc. (Shammin, 2009).

Accordingly, based on the aim of the study and the situation and location of Kaba

Community in term of its consumption as relates to the areas of greenhouse gas (GHG)

16
emissions listed above, the study hopes to get the necessary information for its data

collection.

Finally, the definitions of a community are found to be overlapping and contradictory.

For example, while Nelson (1948) states that a community is a group of people who

inhabit a limited area and have a sense belonging together; Green and Mercer (2001)

believe that community should be interpreted more broadly as all individuals who will be

affected by the research results. Notwithstanding, a study of the Toronto area undertaken

by VandeWeghe & Kennedy (2007) used the physical boundary of census area units to

classify a neighborhood for community carbon footprint reduction as will be done with

this propose study since information is expected to be gathered from LISGIS.

2.3 Impact of Carbon Footprint

When discussing gasses in the atmosphere that are linked to climate change, there are a

several terms. Greenhouse gas (GHG) is the most general term, referring to any gas in the

atmosphere that leads to a greenhouse effect, trapping thermal radiation from the sun in

the Earth’s atmosphere. There are several GHGs in Earth’s atmosphere: water vapor

(H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), and

others. Each gas has different greenhouse effects on a molecule-by-molecule basis; for

example, methane has a much greater greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. However,

carbon dioxide (henceforth referred to as CO2) is found in much greater quantities in the

atmosphere than methane. Water vapor is the largest component of the greenhouse effect,

17
but its contribution is not growing rapidly as CO 2 is and humans don’t have as much

control over water vapor as they do over CO2 emissions.

For these reasons, most climate change mitigation focuses on CO 2 emissions. In this

context, sometimes CO2 is referred to as simply carbon, as in carbon footprint. For my

purposes here, the terms GHG, CO2, and carbon can largely be considered

interchangeable except when distinctions between CO2 and other GHGs are being

discussed.

In this study, carbon footprint will be referred to as the measure of the amount of

greenhouse gas (GHGs) emitted from a specific source (s) over a particular period in the

day-to-day lives of an individual as a result of his/her activities on the environment

through the consumption of transportation (domestic-cars, buses, tricycles, bicycles),

energy (fuels, electricity, etc), waste (rubbish, recycling and organic), food (animal

products, organic food and imported food) and goods and services (fashion, packaging,

furniture and electrical and recreation ) that will be measure in tones of carbon dioxide

equivalents.

Based on its ubiquitous nature, there are differing meanings of carbon footprint outlined

by many researchers. Jessica Abbott (2008) defines ‘carbon footprint’ as a measure of the

greenhouse gas emissions associated with an activity, group of activities, or a product.

And she goes on to state that nearly everything that we do produces greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions either directly or indirectly; whether it is getting to work, watching TV

18
or buying our lunch. The most important greenhouse gas produced by human activities is

carbon dioxide. Direct GHG emissions sources are often easy to identify – for example

burning fossil fuels for electricity generation, heating and transport. It is sometimes less

obvious that products and services also cause indirect emissions throughout their life-

cycles. Energy is required for production and transport of products, and greenhouse gases

are also released when products are disposed of at the end of their useful lives.

Kumar (2014) states that a carbon footprint is a measure of the impact of our activities on

the environment, and in particular climate change. It relates to the amount of greenhouse

gases produced in our day-to-day lives through burning fossil fuels for electricity, heating

and transportation etc. The carbon footprint is a measurement of all greenhouse gases we

individually produce and has units of tones (or kg) of carbon dioxide equivalent.

With these and many more literatures on the definition of carbon footprint and its

implications on the existence of mankind and the environment, this propose study has

chosen the operational definition set forth in the opening paragraph of this section in to

achieving its aims and objectives.

Consequently, this can be backed by Jessica Abbott (2008) who states that there is

currently no universal definition of a carbon footprint. Definitions vary in terms of which

activities and greenhouse gases should be included within the scope of a carbon footprint

assessment, and the level of detail. Carbon footprint methodologies range from simple

online calculators to complex life-cycle analysis.

19
Automated web-based calculators (for example the BP and BSkyB household calculators)

tend to only cover carbon dioxide emissions. Some carbon footprint definitions recently

researched byISA (2007) also only mention carbon dioxide (Energetics, 2007; Global

Footprint Network, 2007).

Other definitions and methods include all Kyoto greenhouse gases and measure

emissions in terms of ‘carbon dioxide equivalents’ , for example Carbon Trust (2007).

Carbon footprint studies are widespread, encompassing a variety of nations and lifestyles.

Displayed across such studies is a trend for communities, cities, etc in developing

countries to have a greater carbon footprint than the nation average. In contrast, it has

been found that in developed countries average carbon footprint per capital tends to

decrease with increase population density (Hoornweg et al, 2011). For instance, China’s

per capital emissions are 3.9t/CO2-e while Beijing’s are 101t/CO 2-e, whereas the USA’S

and New York’s are 23.59t/CO2-e and 10.5t/CO2-e, respectively (Hoornweg et al, 2011).

Studies of previous research on carbon footprint estimation consider the carbon footprints

of communities and assess emissions mitigation strategies including changes in energy

consumption and production, home efficiency and behavior (Kammen , 2011). Beyond

the household, there is ongoing discussion of possible mitigation strategies at personal,

community and policy levels. The development of improved infrastructure, including

cycle lanes and public transport systems, is frequently considered an effective means by

20
which to reduce transport based carbon emissions with the involvement of local

government (Wegener, 1996; Dill &Carr, 2003).

The offsetting of emissions, particularly in relation to air travel, is a common theme in

relation to emissions reduction (Dernbach, 2008). Furthermore, offsetting is becoming

increasingly considered for other emitting activities. On a local level, community

mitigation initiatives are seen as a means by which to change attitudes as well as reducing

carbon emissions through strategies such as community gardening and carpooling

(Builung et al., 2009; Turner, 2008). Renewable energy initiatives such as solar and wind

energy are frequently considered as alternatives to traditional power generation in the

reduction of community and urban emissions (Mithraratne, 2009).

Discussion about the implementation of top down versus bottom up approaches in

tackling carbon emissions is prevalent. Top down approaches may include policy

implementation or large scale initiatives requiring council involvement such as wind

farms or law changes. Alternatively, bottom up approaches focus on individual and

community based change such as community gardening, cooperatives, and behavioral

change (Turner, 2008). While top down models have been found to lack intimate detail,

bottom up approaches are considered by some to be too specific to implement on a

suitable scale (Mendelsohn, 2001). Both approaches are considered in studies with some

communities relying on policy and infrastructure change and others focusing on changing

behavior relating to emissions (Barthelmie et al., 2009).

21
Carbon footprint has been deemed partly responsible for climate change in recent times.

The global community now recognizes human induced climate change as the greatest

environmental threat of the 21st century. Countries, organizations, and individuals alike

are starting to take responsibility for making the emission reductions necessary to

stabilize global warming gases in the atmosphere. These changes in climate and ozone

layer depletion by the activities of man have been predicted to be at exponential rate. It

then becomes apparent to analyze a model to serve as a standard to cub damages caused

to the environment.

When calculating a carbon footprint, many questions arise. Organizations can have many

activities that cause CO2 emissions. Examples of possible emission sources are transport,

electricity, paper, manufactured products, clothing, food, drink, health, hygiene and many

more (www.ghgprotocol.org, 2012). It can be hard for an organization to decide which

emission sources to account for in their carbon footprint. According to Ologun O.O. and

Wara S. T. (2014), there are so many possible sources of emissions in companies that it

seems impossible to exactly calculate the carbon footprint of a company and therefore

raises many questions such as: what rules should be used to calculate a carbon footprint?

What information systems should be available for this? Which emission sources should

be included in calculating the carbon footprint? How are boundaries set to cater for the

size of carbon footprint to be calculated? How can the emissions of an organization be

allocated to certain divisions of the organization? These are all relevant questions to

Institutions that want to report about their carbon footprint as was the case of the carbon

footprint study done in Federal University of Agriculture Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria.

22
Literature search in June 2007 for the term "carbon footprint" in all scientific journals and

all search fields covered by Scopus1 and ScienceDirect2 for the year is currently the

largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed 2007 elided 42 hits; 3 from the

year 2005, 8 from 2006 and 31 from 2007 (2014). Some articles, however, discuss the

implications of precise wording. Geoffrey Hammond (2007) writes "the property that is

often referred to as a carbon footprint is actually a 'carbon weight' of kilograms or tones

per person or activity." Hammond argues "that those who favor precision in such matters

should perhaps campaign for it to be called 'carbon weight', or some similar term.

Accordingly, Eckel (2007) points out that the "Assessment of a business' carbon footprint

is not just calculating energy consumption but also with increasing every scrap of data

from every aspect of the business practices." Again, no clear scope of analysis is

provided. While academia has largely neglected the definition issue, consultancies,

businesses, NGOs and government have moved forward themselves and provided their

own definitions.

2.4 Consumption of Transportation Carbon Footprint Production

In terms of the various sources of carbon footprint mentioned in this proposal as per its

operational definition that data will be collected from, the study will seek to prove that by

allocating emissions to functional use categories it will aim to shed more light on the

drivers of carbon emissions, by looking at the relative amounts of carbon that various

activities give rise to. The rationale for this choice of categories is in part to reflect the

range of material, social, and psychological needs that are associated with modern

lifestyles (Jackson and Marks 1999).

23
Some of these are basic functional needs for material subsistence, protection, and health.

Others are associated more with social needs such as communication and education.

Buchs & Schnepf (2013) write that, however, household characteristics other than

income might well contribute to higher or lower emissions independently from income. If

this is the case, these characteristics would also matter for the distributional implications

of mitigation policies independently from household income and size which affect the

community. To examine whether household characteristics other than income and

household size matter for emissions, we need to examine the effects of household

characteristics conditional on all other factors by applying regression analysis.

In recent years, several studies have been published on the distribution of household

emissions and the role of socio-economic factors for the UK and for other countries

(Buchs & Schnepf, 2013). Of these studies for the non-UK context, Kerkhof (2009) and

Weber and Matthews (2008) compare unconditional associations for different types of

emissions and only Weber and Matthew’s study (ibid.) examines conditional associations

between household characteristics and emissions. However, they only do that for total

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and do not compare differences between emission

domains.

The studies by Brand and Boardman (2008) and Brand and Preston (2010) focus on the

role of household characteristics for transport carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, based on

their own survey from a sample in Oxford shire. Studies by DEFRA (2008) and Fahmyet

al.(2011) focus on the role of household characteristics for the total of home energy and

24
motor fuel/transport carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and Dresner and Ekins (2006) cover

home energy only. Druckman and Jackson analyze home energy (2008) and total

emissions at the small area level and for seven household types based on output area

classification super groups and do not examine conditional associations. Gough et al.

(2011) do apply OLS regression to compare different areas of emissions, but the study

focuses on greenhouse gases rather than carbon dioxide (CO 2). It also does not include

factors such as education, rural and urban location, or gender.

Based on their research, Buchs&Schnepf paper contributes to the literature by comparing

the role of household characteristics for different areas of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions

in the UK. They analyzed and compare the association of household size, age, socio-

economic background and housing characteristics with home energy (gas, electricity, oil,

coal and other heating fuels), transport (motor fuels, public transport and flights) and

indirect (food and other goods and services) household carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Emissions in these three areas were also being compared to households’ total emissions

summarizing emissions of the three areas.

To categorize these three carbon dioxide emissions areas, than it can be stated that there

are two fundamental parts to the carbon footprint of a household that affect the

community. The first is ‘direct’ emissions: these emissions arise from fuel used directly

by households such for space heating and fuelling private motor vehicles. The second

part is ‘embedded’ or ‘indirect’ emissions. These are the emissions that arise along

25
supply chains in the production and distribution of goods and services purchased by

households (Druckman et al., 2010).

Direct household greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are recorded in the UK

Environmental Accounts. Emissions due to direct energy use in the home (‘Consumer

expenditure - not travel’), and those due to personal transportation (‘Consumer

expenditure – travel’) are presented separately. We look at direct energy use in the home

first (Druckman & Jackson, 2010).

Druckman & Jackson (2010) write that ‘Consumer expenditure - not travel’ covers

emissions from all types of fuel used directly within households, for example, space

heating and water heating. To this we add emissions due to electricity use within

households, even though electricity is not, in reality, a fuel that is burnt directly by

households. Electricity is, in fact, an energy carrier, and emissions from its production

arise upstream at, for example, power plants where coal, gas, or nuclear fuel is burnt.

Emissions from electricity used by households are therefore, technically, embedded

emissions. However, it is separated from the category of embedded emissions and

included here as a direct household fuel because this is how it is commonly perceived by

consumers, and it is subject to direct household decisions concerning use and savings.

Still on the key sources for data collection to estimate the carbon footprint of Kebbah

Community based on this propose study; let’s look at some literature on another data

collection source in terms of transportation. Druckman & Jackson (2010) writes that

26
direct emissions due to personal transportation is obtained from ‘Consumer expenditure –

travel’ emissions as reported in the UK Environmental Accounts. This includes emissions

from transportation fuels, such as petrol and diesel, purchased by households for use in

personal transportation. Direct carbon emissions due to travel are allocated. In the

absence of further data, emissions due to Personal business, which includes visits to

hairdressers, dry-cleaners, libraries, churches, medical appointments and so on, are

allocated 10% to Household; 10% Clothing and Footwear; 77% Health and Hygiene and

3% Recreation and Leisure.

As stated by Druckman& Jackson (2010), the primary data of a community, city, etc in

which a study on carbon footprint is to be carried on is vital to the research.

Consequently, in this proposal as stated in the limitation section, this not the case for the

Kaba Community where this study will be taken place. Therefore, this study will treat

transportation, which is one of the data sources, to mean all emissions from vehicles

commuting to and from the Kaba Community and emission from vehicles owned by

various individual, household, and business center. The emissions from public/private-

owned bicycles, tricycles, taxi, and buses fleet, which provides commuting services for

Kaba Community residents and staff of business centers between Kaba Community and

within areas close to the main community and town will also included.

Buchs & Schnepf (2013) write that for transport carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions they

estimated liters of motor fuel (petrol and diesel) consumed using AA statistics (AA,

2006-2009) of monthly motor fuel prices for each government region. For public

27
transport they estimated kilometers travelled employing information on average annual

passenger miles for train, tube, bus and coach journeys from the National Travel Survey

for Great Britain (DfT, 2011: tableNTS0305)and the Northern Ireland Travel Survey for

Northern Ireland (DRDNI, 2011: table 3.1). Flight emissions are estimated by

approximating flight kilometers merging information from the LCF/EFS survey on the

number of person flights per household within the UK, Europe and outside Europe with

average distance for flights to these destinations calculated using the NTS and the

International Passenger Survey. DECC carbon dioxide (CO2) conversion factors (DECC

and DEFRA, 2011) provided for different fuels and modes of transport were then applied

to units of consumption of home energy, liters of motor fuels and kilometers travelled by

mode of transport to estimate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Base on this concept, the study will model its data collection on such key factors. That is,

since transportation is a data source for the estimation of the carbon footprint in Kaba

Community, data on fuel consumption (diesel/gasoline) quantity of the private/public

tricycles, bicycles, taxi, and buses fleet commuting in and out of Kaba Community will

be obtained for January 2018 – June 2018. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission factor, that is

carbon dioxide, will then be used to determine the resulting carbon emissions.

2.5 Consumption of Energy Carbon Footprint Production

Many governmental plans to reduce GHG emissions involve improving energy efficiency

in the home, in industry, and in transportation. While intuitively it would seem that

increased energy efficiency would lead to decreased energy usage and thereby reduced

28
GHG emissions, surprisingly there is some evidence both theoretical and empirical that

energy efficiency actually increases energy usage! Saunders dubbed this unintuitive

notion the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate based on conclusions reached independently by

those two researchers (Saunders, Harry D. 1992). Using neoclassical growth theory,

Saunders finds that increased energy efficiency makes energy seem cheaper, thus

allowing it to 4 be substituted for labor in production. Increased energy efficiency also

increases overall economic growth, which leads to increased overall energy usage.

In discussing this effect, rebound is defined as the difference between the expected

amount of energy savings from an improvement in energy efficiency, and the actual

observed effect. For example, if an improvement in metal smelting technology reduces

the energy required tosmeltby20%, but the energy consumed by the metal smelting

industry only goes down by 10% then the rebound is 50%. If the rebound is greater than

100%, then backfire is taking place (the efficiency measure has backfired) (Nick Hanley,

Peter G. McGregor, et al). There is some debate over whether the predicted increases will

actually take place in the real world. Laitner suggests via a simple analysis that the

rebound effect is small (2.4%) (John A. “Skip” Laitner, 2000). His equation relates future

carbon emissions to current carbon emissions, increases in GDP and energy costs, and

elasticities of income and energy prices to arrive at this conclusion. He goes on to a

further analysis done by the Environmental Protection Agency and Lawrence Berkeley

National Labs using the National Energy Modeling System showing that an “energy-

efficient/low carbon technology path” would suffer from a rebound effect of only 2.2%.

However, he acknowledges that consumer choices about energy usage could erode gains

29
from efficiency, such as turning up the furnace thermostat because the cost of doing so

has been effectively reduced.

The issue of consumer choices is a real one. Over the last 25 years, automobiles have

been made more efficient through “increasing the efficiency of the engine and

transmission, decreasing weight, improving tires and reducing drag” (John B. Heywood,

2008). However, these improvements have been traded for vehicles that are larger,

heavier, and faster, which has led to only modest improvements in overall fuel efficiency.

This is an example of how energy efficiency may not always lead to reduced GHG

emissions without motivating automobile users (and manufacturers) to buy and make fuel

efficient vehicles.

Other authors find that rebound and even backfire are the likely results of economy-wide

improvements in energy efficiency. The analysis of Hanley et al finds that backfire

occurs when economy-wide improvements in energy efficiency are made (John B.

Heywood, 2008). Their theoretical analysis finds that if energy demand is relatively

price-elastic (demand increases when prices are low and reduces when prices are high),

then backfire will occur. Empirical evidence of rebound and backfire are 5 hard to come

by because there are indirect system-wide effects due to the increased efficiency, and

these indirect effects are difficult to measure. The authors created a Computable General

Equilibrium (CGE) model of Scotland that simulates the economy and environmental

impacts based on the inputs and outputs of the system. Using this model, almost all

scenarios eventually end up in backfire. They note that since non-renewable energy

30
sources use more energy in their production than renewable sources, increased energy

efficiency actually reduces the percentage contribution of energy from renewable

sources. They also urge caution when reviewing sustainability measures such as the ratio

of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to energy usage or carbon emissions, because even if

the ratio increases (less carbon per unit GDP), if the GDP as a whole increases faster than

the absolute carbon emitted will increase. They suggest that backfire could be prevented

by combining energy efficiency improvements with taxes on energy use or a carbon tax.

Since energy efficiency effectively reduces the cost of energy, the savings could offset

the cost of additional taxes, thereby blunting any impact on economic activity.

It would appear that any energy efficiency improvements will have some degree of

rebound effect, thus a naive pursuit of energy efficiency without taking into account the

context around the improvements could risk reducing their effectiveness or even making

them counterproductive! While many of the analyses deal at the macroeconomic level, it

is not hard to think of individual scenarios where efficiency could actually increase

personal usage, such buying two energy efficient refrigerators to replace one older

energy-hogging refrigerator. Fortunately, the research plan I am pursuing is quite

different: users learn about their GHG emissions (including energy usage) and based on

that they decide on what actions to take, which could include increasing energy

efficiency. The key to ensuring that energy efficiency improvements on the micro level

lead to less GHG emissions is to combine efficiencies with changes in behavior. With the

public’s increased awareness of climate change, this should be a viable proposition.

31
Still on key data collection sources, there are several literatures that have discussed the

energy components of estimating carbon footprint. For this proposal, the energy

component will focus mainly on the consumption of fuels (gasoline, diesel and kerosene)

and electricity.

Based on a preliminary search made on the Kaba Community, the community and

business centers get electricity from two major sources: the electricity from private run

power generator and electricity from public run generators located at strategic places in

the community for residents and business centers. Electricity data for Kaba Community

bills in KWh from January 2019 to June 2019 will be obtained from households and

business centers. And as with the electricity, the same information and places for fuel

consumption will also be gathered to aid in the process.

According to studies, electricity usage is one of the major sources of GHG emissions for

individuals, so being able to track its usage is a high priority. Electricity metering systems

can be broken down into two types: plug load meters that measure the electrical load

directly plugged into them, and whole home energy meters that measure the electrical

usage of an entire home. Both typically provide a real-time display of electricity usage,

and some sort of historical total (usually in kilowatt hours, kWh).

When it comes to energy generation in Liberia as a hold, be electricity, etc, the

dominance fuel source is petroleum. About 85 percent of the energy consumed in the

modern society comes from fuels. Vast sums have been invested in the existing energy

32
landscape – the petroleum refineries, petro stations, natural gas fields and pipelines, coal

mines, and electric grids that power modern societies. Solving the climate challenge will

require major changes in this supply infrastructure and the built environment that it feeds

(Climatecommunication.org).

Today power plants produce about 30 percent of all carbon emissions. To meet the

growing needs for electricity in developing countries while simultaneously reducing

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the amount of carbon released per unit of electricity

production must fall 75 percent by 2050. This will require facing out older. Inefficient

coal plants and replacing them with a mixture of combined- cycle natural gas, nuclear,

wind, geothermal, biomass, and solar power, steps that would lead to dramatic air quality

improvements in many maga cities of the developing world (Thomas, 2012).

Additionally, residential and commercial buildings consume the bulk of the world

electricity and much of its natural gas. Improving the design of new buildings and

retrofitting old one can dramatically improve their energy performance. It takes energy to

get energy, and the gathering, processing, and delivery of fossil fuels account for 8

percent of carbon emissions. In the same vein, production of steel, cement, automobile,

and other manufactured products is responsible for about 20 percent of global carbon

emissions (Thomas, 2012. Improvements in the carbon density of these activities are

possible, profitable, and necessary with the periodic estimation of carbon footprint for

mitigation purposes.

33
As a result of these and many more, the study propose to gather and use the energy

consumption factor of the Kaba Community to estimate the carbon footprint production

by its households and business centers giving the impact the source of energy

consumption has on a community, cities, etc carbon footprint that extends nationwide.

34
 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

The study was conducted through a cross-sectional design survey in Kaba Community,

Barnersville, Montserrado County, Liberia from January to April, 2019. Survey is been

selected or is suitable for this study because it is a rapid data collection design and has the

ability to understand a population from a part of the population; moreover suitable for

extensive research. The study therefore randomly selected a part of the entire population

in Kaba to participate in this study.

3.2 Population

The study targeted 2250 selected households and 37 selected businesses in the Kaba

Community, Barnersville, Montserrado County, Liberia. The 2250 households and 37

businesses was chosen because the census report gotten from LISGIS during a search at

the institution showed these numbers of households and businesses that are important to

this research for data information collection. Kaba Community is one of the remotest

industrial communities with no or less efficient energy (city power) accessibility causing

the community to burn fuels (that contribute to the carbon footprint of the earth) to

generate energy, etc. It is therefore considered an appropriate focal point for providing

data to estimate the carbon footprint.

35
3.3 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

The sample size consisted of 328 out of 2250 households and 34 out of 37 businesses.

The 328 households and 34 businesses were selected statistically using the formula:

S = X2NP(1-P) / d2 (N-1) + X2P(1-P) (Krejcie al et., 1970) where S is the sample size, X

is the confidence level, N is the population size, P is the population proportion and d is

the degree of accuracy. Additionally, the researcher intends to use 95% confidence level,

50% population proportion and 5% degree of accuracy.

As relates to techniques, the study used Simple Random Sampling to select the sample.

Simple Random Sampling was used to select a sample without bias from the target

population. Simple Random Sampling was suitable for the research because it ensured

that each households and businesses of the targeted households and businesses had an

equal and independent chance of being included in the sample. To achieve this, the

research separated the community into four zones (west, east, north and south) from

which 82 households and 8 businesses were drawn for the purpose of data collection and

analysis.

3.4 Data Collection Instruments

The study used questionnaires and interviews as the main tools for collecting data. The

selection of these two tools was guided by the nature of data to be collected, the time

available as well as by the objectives of the study. The overall aim of this study was to

estimate the carbon footprint of Kaba Community produce by households and businesses

through transportation, energy consumption (burning of fuels) and waste.Such

information can be best collected through the use of questionnaire and interview

36
techniques. It also used semi-structured instruments because these enabled the research to

balance between the quantity and quality of the data collected and provide more

information. Additionally, this delicate balance between the quality and quantity of

information is useful for a fuller explanation of the carbon footprint of Kaba Community.

Questionnaires were used since the study is concerned with variables that cannot be

directly observed such as views, feelings, etc of the households and businesses.

Questionnaire is a collection of items to which a respondent is expected to react and it

collects a lot of information over a short period of time. Additionally, because this study

wants a lot of information from February to April, 2019, which is a short period of time

for a sample size of the ones mentioned above, such information are best collected

through questionnaires (Touliatos& Compton, 1988). Likewise, interviews were used

since it is a person to person verbal communication in which one person asks the other

questions intended to gather information. Additionally, it is the collection of information

that cannot be directly observed or are difficult to put down in writing.

3.5 Data Collection Procedures

For the data collection procedure, following the approval of the thesis proposal, the

researcher obtained a letter of authorization from the Dean of the School of Health

Sciences, and was taken to the relevant authority in the community for permission to

conduct study. When permission was granted through series of agreed meeting and

consultations with different sections of the community, the researcher distributed the

questionnaires amongst the respondents, and collect them immediately after they have

been completed. And as stated, this was done after meetings had been held with

37
executives of the four sections (west, east, north and south) and parts of the community.

In these meetings, the researcher was able to come in touch with and ask the executives

to allow the community’s sections created by the researcher to participate in the research

base on the nature and scope of the study. Upon the success of these engagements, the

researcher carried on the interviews and questionnaires semi-structured techniques from

house-to-house in the four divided sections of the community on the basis of the sample

size determination.

3.6 Data Analysis Procedure

Census data from LISGIS (Liberia Institute of Statistics and Geo-Information Services)

was used to determine the representativeness of this study to the Kaba Community, and

calculate a comparative carbon footprint for the average Kaba Community resident.

Analysis of data was done through the use of Microsoft Excel and SPSS Statistics after

Carbon footprints was calculated for a two month period and a number of values was re-

converted into units used by the two online calculators (http://www.carbonzero.co.nz, the

‘secondary’ section of the household calculator from Carbon Footprint Ltd’s website,

www.carbonfootprint.com as well as the business calculator from Carbon Footprint Ltd).

Some re-converted values were: Liberian dollar to United State dollar, Gallon to Litter,

amount spent on energy in cent to kilo watt hour, time spent on public transport to dollar,

etc.

38
 CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION

4.1Data Presentation and Analysis

Below is the analysis of the data obtained from the three hundred sixty-two (362)

questionnaires distributed and collected in full from the respondents in this study using

tables and figures.

Gender of Respondents
Table 1: Gender Frequency Percentage

Male 254 70

Female 108 30

Total 362 100

Table 1 shows that out of the total of 362 respondents, 254 constituting 70% were males,

while 108 constituting 30% were females.

Figure 1: Gender of Respondents

30%
Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019
Male
Female
70%

Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019

Sectors Frequency Percentage

39
 Male Female Total

Business 25 9 34 9

Household 230 98 328 91

Total 10 90 362 100

Table 2: Sectors of Respondents

Table 2 shows that out of the total of 362 respondents, 34 respondents constituting 9%,

are from the business sector, while 328 respondents constituting 91%, are from

households.

Figure 2: Sectors of Respondents

Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019

9%

Business
Household
91%

Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019

Number of Persons Frequency Percentage

Business Household Total

40
 1-5 persons 5 203 208 57

5-10 persons 9 103 112 31

11-15 persons 20 22 42 12

Total 34 328 362 100

Table 3: Number of Persons in Businesses/Households

Table 3 shows that out of the total of 362 respondents interviewed about the number of

persons in their businesses and households, 208 constituting 57%, have 1-5 persons, 112

constituting 31%, have 6-10 persons, while 42 constituting 12%, have 11-15 persons.

Figure 3: Number of Persons in Businesses/Households

12%

Source: Researcher’s
31% Field Data, 2019
1-5 persons
5-10 persons
57%
11-15 persons

Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019

Usage of Electricity Frequency Percentage

Business Household Total

41
 Yes 34 328 362 100

No 0 0 0 0

Total 34 328 362 100

Table 4: Usage of Electricity

Table 4 shows that out of the total of 362 respondents interviewed as to whether they are

using electricity in their businesses and households, all of them, said yes, they are aware.

Figure4: Usage of Electricity

Source: Researcher’s Field Data,

100%2019 Yes

Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019

Sources of Electricity Frequency Percentage

Business Household Total

Commercial (community) 0 55 55 15

42
 Personal generator 34 273 307 85

Total 34 328 362 100

Table 5: Sources of Electricity

Table 5 shows that out of the total of 362 respondents interviewed about their sources of

electricity, 55 constituting 15%, said commercial source, while 307 constituting 85%,

said personal generator.

Figure 5: Sources of Electricity

Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019

15%

Commercial (community)
85% Personal generator

Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019

Average Weekly Quantity Frequency Percentage

of Electricity and Fuel

Business Household Total

7 – 21 gallons 0 275 275 76

43
 21 – 35 gallons 34 53 87 24

Total 34 328 362 100

Table 6: Average Weekly Quantity of fuel for Electricity being consumed

Table 6 shows that out of the total of 362 respondents interviewed about their average

weekly quantity of electricity and fuel, 275 constituting 76%, said they consume 7 – 21

gallons, while 87 constituting 24%, said they consume 21 – 35 gallons.

Table 6: Average Weekly Quantity of fuel for Electricity being consumed

Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019

24%
7 – 21 gallons
21 – 35 gallons
76%

Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019

Average Weekly Cost of Frequency Percentage

Electricity and Fuel

Business Household Total

L$2,000 – L$5,000 0 275 275 76

44
 L$5,000 – L$10,000 34 53 87 24

Total 34 328 362 100

Table 7: Average Weekly Cost of Electricity and Fuel

Table 7 shows that out of the total of 362 respondents interviewed about their average

weekly cost of electricity and fuel, 275 constituting 76%, said they spend L$2,000 –

L$5,000, while 87 constituting 24%, said they spend L$5,000 – L$10,000.

Figure 7: Average Weekly Cost of Electricity and Fuel

Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019

24%

L$2,000 – L$5,000
L$5,000 – L$10,000
76%

Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019

Table 8: Carbon Footprint of Business Spending on Electricity and Fuel

Average Weekly Frequency Est. USD Carbon Percentage

Cost (LD) Amount Value Footprint

(LD) (Tons CO2e)

$2,000 –$5,000 0 0 0 0 0

45
 $5,000 –$10,000 34 $170,000 $1030.3 316 100

Total 34 $170,000 $1030.3 316 100

Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019

Table 8 shows the carbon footprint calculated based on businesses’ average weekly

spending on electricity and fuel; out of the total of 34 business participants, all of them

said they spend L$5,000 – L$10,000 weekly on electricity and fuel, which leads to the

production of 316 tons CO2e footprint.

Figure 8: Carbon Footprint of Business Spending on Electricity and Fuel

L$5,000 – L$10,000
316
Tons CO2e
L$2,000 – L$5,000 0

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350

Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019

Table 9: Carbon Footprint of Household Spending on Electricity and Fuel
Average Weekly Frequency Est. USD Carbon Percentage
Cost (LD) Amount Value Footprint
(LD) (Tons CO2e)
$2,000 – $5,000 275 $412,500 $2,500 766 84

$5,000 – $10,000 53 $132,500 $804 246 16

46
 Total 328 $170,000 $1030.3 316 100

Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019

Table 9 shows the carbon footprint calculated based on households’ average weekly

spending on electricity and fuel; out of the total of 328household participants, 275

constituting 84% said they spend L$2,000 – L$5,000 weekly on electricity and fuel,

which leads to the production of 766 tons CO2e footprint, while 53 constituting 16% said

they spend L$5,000 – L$10,000 weekly on electricity and fuel, which leads to the

production of 246 tons CO2e footprint.

Figure 9: Carbon Footprint of Household Spending on Electricity

246
L$5,000 – L$10,000

Tons CO2e
L$2,000 – L$5,000
766
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800

Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019

Table 10: Average Carbon Footprint from Spending on Electricity and fuel
Average Weekly Frequency Est. USD Carbon Percentage

Cost (LD) Amount Value Footprint

(LD) (Tons CO2e)

$2,000 – $5,000 275 $825,000 $5,000 1532 76

47
 $5,000 – $10,000 87 $435,000 $2,636 807 24

Total 362 $1,260,000 $7,636 2339 100

Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019

Table 10 shows the carbon footprint calculated based on businesses and households’

average weekly spending on electricity and fuel; out of the total of 362businesses and

households participants, 275 constituting 76% said they spend L$2,000 – L$5,000 weekly

on electricity and fuel, which leads to the production of 1532 tons CO2e footprint, while

87 constituting 24% said they spend L$5,000 – L$10,000 weekly on electricity and fuel,

which leads to the production of 807 tons CO2e footprint.

Figure 10: Average Carbon Footprint from Spending on Electricity and Fuel

L$5,000 – L$10,000 807

Tons CO2e
L$2,000 – L$5,000
1532
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600

Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019

Mitigating Strategies Frequency Percentage

Business Household Total

Provision of renewable energy 9 244 253 70

Provision of Efficient energy 20 71 91 25

48
 Provision of Biofuel 5 13 18 5

Total 34 328 362 100

Table 11: Mitigating Strategies to reduce Carbon Footprint in the Community

Table 11 shows that out of the total of 362 respondents interviewed about the mitigating

strategies to reduce carbon footprint in the community, 253 constituting 70%, said

provision of renewable energy, 91 constituting 25%, said provision of efficient energy,

while 18 constituting 5%, said provision of biofuel.

Figure 11: Mitigating Strategies to reduce Carbon Footprint in the Community

5%
Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019 Provision of renewable
25%
energy
Provision of Efficient
70% energy
Provision of Biofuel

Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2019

4.2 Findings

After carefully cleaning and analyzing the data collected from the respondents in this

study, the researcher therefore presents the findings gathered from this study below:

Table 1 shows that out of the total of 362 respondents, 254 constituting 70% were males,

while 108 constituting 30% were females.

49
Table 2 shows that out of the total of 362 respondents, 34 respondents constituting 9%,

are from the business sector, while 328 respondents constituting 91%, are from

households.

Table 3 shows that out of the total of 362 respondents interviewed about the number of

persons in their businesses and households, 208 constituting 57%, have 1-5 persons, 112

constituting 31%, have 6-10 persons, while 42 constituting 12%, have 11-15 persons.

Table 4 shows that out of the total of 362 respondents interviewed as to whether they are

using electricity in their businesses and households, all of them, said yes, they are aware.

Table 5 shows that out of the total of 362 respondents interviewed about their sources of

electricity, 55 constituting 15%, said commercial source, while 307 constituting 85%,

said personal generator.

Table 6 shows that out of the total of 362 respondents interviewed about their average

weekly quantity of electricity on fuel, 275 constituting 76%, said they consume 7 – 21

gallons, while 87 constituting 24%, said they consume 21 – 35 gallons.

Table 7 shows that out of the total of 362 respondents interviewed about their average

weekly cost of electricity and fuel, 275 constituting 76%, said they spend L$2,000 –

L$5,000, while 87 constituting 24%, said they spend L$5,000 – L$10,000.

Table 8 shows the carbon footprint calculated based on businesses’ average weekly

spending on electricity and fuel; out of the total of 34 business participants, all of them

said they spend L$2,000 – L$5,000 weekly on electricity and fuel, which leads to the

production of 316 tons CO2e footprint.

50
Table 9 shows the carbon footprint calculated based on households’ average weekly

spending on electricity and fuel; out of the total of 328 household participants, 275

constituting 84% said they spend L$2,000 – L$5,000 weekly on electricity and fuel,

which leads to the production of 766 tons CO2e footprint, while 53 constituting 16% said

they spend L$5,000 – L$10,000 weekly on electricity and fuel, which leads to the

production of 246 tons CO2e footprint.

Table 10 shows the carbon footprint calculated based on businesses and households’

average weekly spending on electricity and fuel; out of the total of 362 businesses and

households participants, 275 constituting 76% said they spend L$2,000 – L$5,000 weekly

on electricity and fuel, which leads to the production of 1532 tons CO2e footprint, while

87 constituting 24% said they spend L$5,000 – L$10,000 weekly on electricity and fuel,

which leads to the production of 807 tons CO2e footprint.

Table 11 shows that out of the total of 362 respondents interviewed about the mitigating

strategies to reduce carbon footprint in the community, 253 constituting 70%, said

provision of renewable energy, 91 constituting 25%, said provision of efficient energy,

while 18 constituting 5%, said provision of biofuel.

4.3 Discussion of the Findings

On the basis of the data collected, the interpretations of the results from the reviewed

findings, the researcher revealed the following:

51
In response to the first research question, what activities in Kaba Community Households

and of Business Centers that are producing the most Carbon Footprint, the study shows

that out of the total of 362 respondents interviewed about the number of persons in their

businesses and households, 208 constituting 57%, have 1-5 persons, 112 constituting

31%, have 6-10 persons, while 42 constituting 12%, have 11-15 persons. It also shows

that out of the total of 362 respondents interviewed as to whether they are using

electricity in their businesses and households, all of them, said yes, they are. Furthermore,

the study shows that out of the total of 362 respondents interviewed about their average

weekly quantity of electricity and fuel, 275 constituting 76%, said they consume 7 – 21

gallons, while 87 constituting 24%, said they consume 21 – 35 gallons. Also, it shows

that out of the total of 362 respondents interviewed about their average weekly cost of

electricity and fuel, 275 constituting 76%, said they spend L$2,000 – L$5,000, while 87

constituting 24%, said they spend L$5,000 – L$10,000.This finding is similar to study

conducted by (Coup et al, 2010).

Also, in response to the second research question, what activities in Kaba Community

Households and of Business Centers that are producing the most Carbon Footprint, the

study shows the carbon footprint calculated based on businesses’ average weekly

spending on electricity; out of the total of 34 business participants, all of them said they

spend L$5,000 – L$10,000 weekly on electricity, which leads to the production of 0.316

tons CO2e (326 kgCO2e) footprint. Also, the study shows the carbon footprint calculated

based on households’ average weekly spending on electricity; out of the total of 328

household participants, 275 constituting 84% said they spend L$2,000 – L$5,000 weekly

52
on electricity, which leads to the production of 0.766 tons CO2e (766 kgCO2e) footprint,

while 53 constituting 16% said they spend L$5,000 – L$10,000 weekly on electricity,

which leads to the production of 0.246 tons CO2e (246 kgCO2e) footprint. Moreover, the

study shows the carbon footprint calculated based on businesses and households’ average

weekly quantity fuel (gallon/liter) consumption; out of the total of 362 businesses and

households participants, 275 constituting 76% said they used 7 – 21 gallons weekly to

generate electricity and powered other equipment, which leads to the production of

41.389 tons CO2e (41389 kgCO2e) footprint, while 87 constituting 24% said they used 21

– 35 gallons weekly to generate electricity and powered other equipment, which leads to

the production of 10.234 tons CO2e (10234 kgCO2e) footprint for businesses and 15.954

tons CO2e (15954 kgCO2e) for households respectively. This finding is similar to studies

conducted by (Coup et al, 2010).

Lastly, in response to the third research question, what mitigating strategies can be put in

place to reduce this Carbon Footprint in the community, shows that out of the total of 362

respondents interviewed about the mitigating strategies to reduce carbon footprint in the

community, 253 constituting 70%, said provision of renewable energy, 91 constituting

25%, said provision of efficient energy, while 18 constituting 5%, said provision of

biofuel. This finding is similar to study conducted by (Coup et al, 2010).

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary

53
The study is “Carbon Footprint in Kaba Community, Barnersville, Montserrado County,

Liberia; January – April, 2019”. This study is significant in that its findings will estimate

the Carbon Footprint (CO2-e) of Households and Businesses in the Kaba Community;

identify the opportunities for emission reduction at the community level that account for

carbon footprint and its climate change and global warming. The researcher used a

qualitative descriptive research design. The study was conducted through a cross-

sectional design survey and targeted 2250 households and 37 businesses with a sample

size of 328 and 34 for households and businesses in the Kaba Community. In response to

the first research question, what activities in Kaba Community Households and of

Business Centers that are producing the most Carbon Footprint, the study shows that out

of the total of 362 respondents interviewed about the number of persons in their

businesses and households, 208 constituting 57%, have 1-5 persons, 112 constituting

31%, have 6-10 persons, while 42 constituting 12%, have 11-15 persons. It also shows

that out of the total of 362 respondents interviewed as to whether they are using

electricity in their businesses and households, all of them, said yes, they are. Furthermore,

the study shows that out of the total of 362 respondents interviewed about their average

weekly quantity of electricity and fuel, 275 constituting 76%, said they consume 7 – 21

gallons, while 87 constituting 24%, said they consume 21 – 35 gallons. Also, it shows

that out of the total of 362 respondents interviewed about their average weekly cost of

electricity and fuel, 275 constituting 76%, said they spend L$2,000 – L$5,000, while 87

constituting 24%, said they spend L$5,000 – L$10,000. Also, in response to the second

research question, what activities in Kaba Community Households and of Business

Centers that are producing the most Carbon Footprint, the study shows the carbon

54
footprint calculated based on businesses’ average weekly spending on electricity and

fuel; out of the total of 34 business participants, all of them said they spend L$2,000 –

L$5,000 weekly on electricity and fuel, which leads to the production of 0.316 tons CO2e

footprint. Also, the study shows the carbon footprint calculated based on households’

average weekly spending on electricity; out of the total of 328 household participants,

275 constituting 84% said they spend L$2,000 – L$5,000 weekly on electricity, which

leads to the production of 0.766 tons CO2e footprint, while 53 constituting 16% said they

spend L$5,000 – L$10,000 weekly on electricity, which leads to the production of 0.246

tons CO2e footprint. Moreover, the study shows the carbon footprint calculated based on

businesses and households’ average weekly quantity of fuel in gallons for the generation

of electricity and power other equipment; out of the total of 362 businesses and

households participants, 275 constituting 76% said they used 7 – 21gallons weekly on

electricity, which leads to the production of 41.389 tons CO2e footprint, while 87

constituting 24% said they used 21 – 35 gallons weekly on electricity, which leads to the

production of 10.234 tons CO2e business footprint and 15.954 tons CO2e households

footprint. Lastly, in response to the third research question, what mitigating strategies can

be put in place to reduce this Carbon Footprint in the community, shows that out of the

total of 362 respondents interviewed about the mitigating strategies to reduce carbon

footprint in the community, 253 constituting 70%, said provision of renewable energy, 91

constituting 25%, said provision of efficient energy, while 18 constituting 5%, said

provision of biofuel.

5.2 Conclusion

55
Based on the findings gathered from this study, the researcher therefore concludes that

the consumption of electricity and quantity of fuel are activities producing the most

carbon footprint of 3236.846 tons CO2e (98%) for fuel consumption as oppose to the

spending on electricity, fuels, etc of 80.815 tons CO2e (2%) with households having a

much greater impact on the overall community level footprint of Kaba than businesses

with 3225.814 tons CO2e (97%) and 91.847 tons CO2e (3%) respectively.

Additionally, the estimated average carbon footprint production of the Kaba community

is 3,317.661 tons CO2e (3317661 kg CO2e) for two month period as compare to

1,161,000 tons CO2e (1, 161,000000 kg CO2e) produced nationally (World Bank

Development Indicator Report, 2014) per annual.

That based on the estimated carbon footprint of Kaba, it is stated by the study that the

footprint of Kaba is statistically high comparing the nation’s annual production

(1,161,000 tons CO2e) from all major sources to the two month Kaba’s production

(3,317.661) from energy, fuels and spending on energy and fuels couple with the many

communities nationwide.

Lastly, it can be concluded that the provision of renewable energy is a major mitigating

strategy to reduce carbon footprint in the Kaba Community.

5.3 Recommendations

Based on the findings from this study, the researcher recommends the following for

consideration:

56
 1. That the residents of Kaba practice the usage of energy efficient appliances and

renewable energy be provided for businesses and households in the community;

2. That efficient energy is provided for businesses and households in the

community; and

3. That biofuel be provided for businesses and households in the community.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aalbers, T. G., C. Brink, E. Drissen, A. Faber, D. S. Nijdam, T. Rood, K. Vringer and H.

C. Wilting (2008). Sustainable production and consumption: An assessment for the
Netherlands, MNP Report 771404006/2007.

57
Aamaas, B., Borken-Kleefeld, J., & Peters, G. P. (2013). The climate impact of travel
behavior: A German case study with illustrative mitigation options. Environmental
Science & Policy, 33, 273–82.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1462901113001366.

Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention
studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
25(3), 273–291. http:// linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S027249440500054X.

Ahmad, N., & Wyckoff, A. (2003). Carbon dioxide emissions embodied in international
trade of goods. http:// search.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/?
doclanguage=en&cote=dsti/doc(2003)15.

Air New Zealand, n.d. Carbon offset calculator, Retrieved October 8, 2011 from
https://carbonoffset.airnewzealand.co.nz/carbonoffset/carbonCalculator.do
Alfredsson, E. C. (2000). Green Consumption Energy Use and Carbon Dioxide Emission.
PhD Thesis,Umeå University.

Andreasen, A. R. (1994). Social marketing—Its definition and domain. Journal of Public

Policy & Marketing, 13(1), 108–114.

Argonne National Laboratory. (2012a). The greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and
energy use in transportation (GREET 2.8a).
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/GREET/index.
html.

Argonne National Laboratory. (2012b). The greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and
energy use in transportation model (GREET 1.8c).
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/GREET/
index.html.

Bahaj, A.S., Myers, L & James, P.A.B., ‘Urban energy generation: influence of micro-
wind turbine output on electricity consumption in buildings,’ Energy and Buildings, no.
39, pp. 154-165.
Baiocchi, G. and J. C. Minx (2010). "Understanding Changes in the UK's CO2
Emissions: A Global Perspective." Environmental Science & Technology 44(4): 1177-
1184.
Barr, S., G. Shaw, T. Coles and J. Prillwitz (2010). "'A holiday is a holiday': practicing
sustainability, home and away." Journal of Transport Geography 18(3): 474-481.

Barrett, J., Peters, G., Wiedmann, T., Scott, K., Lenzen, M., Roelich, K., et al. (2013)
Consumption-based
GHG emission accounting: A UK case study. Climate Policy, 13(4), 451–470.
http://www.tandfonline. com/doi/abs/10.1080/14693062.2013.788858.
58
Barthelmie, R.J., Morris, S.D., & Schechter 2008, ‘Carbon neutral Biggar: calculating
the community carbon footprint and renewable energy options for footprint reduction,’
Sustainable Science, no. 3, pp. 267-282.

Baynes, T. M., M. Lenzen, et al. (2011). "Comparison of Household Consumption and

Regional Production Approaches to Assessing Urban Energy Use and Implications for
Policy." Energy Policy 39(11): 7298-7309.

Baynes, T. M. and T. Wiedmann (2012). "General approaches for assessing urban

environmental sustainability." Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4(4):
458-464.

Berkhout, P. H. G., Muskens, J. C., & Velthuijsen, J. W. (2000). Defining the rebound
effect. Energy Policy, 28, 425–432.

Bin, S. and H. Dowlatabadi (2005). "Consumer lifestyle approach to US energy use and
the related CO2 emissions." Energy Policy 33: 197-208.

Birol, F., & Keppler, J. H. (2000). Prices, technology development and the rebound
effect. Energy Policy, 28, 457–469.

Blok, L. Anders. 2010. Topologies of Climate Change: Actor-Network Theory,

Relational-Scalar Analytics, and Carbon-Market Overºows. Environment and Planning
D: Society and Space 28 (5): 896–912.

Bose, R. K., Ed. (2010). Energy Efficient Cities: Assessment Tools and Benchmarking
Practices. Washington DC, The World Bank.

BP (2007), What is a Carbon Footprint? Internet site:

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/
downloads/A/ABP ADV what on earth is a carbon footprint.pdf

Brinkman, N., Wang, M., Weber, T., & Darlington, T. (2005). Well-to-wheels analysis of
advanced fuel/ vehicle systems—A North American study of energy use, greenhouse gas
emissions, and criteria pollutant emissions.

Brouwer, R, Brander, L & Van Beukering, P 2008, ‘”A Convenient Truth”: air
passengers’ willingness to pay to offset their CO2 emissions’, Climatic Change, vol. 90,
no. 3, pp. 299-313
BSI (2012). Draft PAS 2070: Specification for the assessment of greenhouse gas
emissions of a city by direct plus supply chain, and consumption-based approaches
(Draft 2.0 for public consultation). London, UK, British Standards Institution.

59
Bullard, C. W., & Herendeen R. A. (1975) Energy impact of consumption decisions.
Proceedings of IEEE, 63(3), 484–493.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=1451705.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2012). http://bts.gov

Bumpus, A. G., and Diana M. Liverman. 2008. Accumulation by Decarbonization and the
Governance of Carbon Offsets. Economic Geography 84 (2): 127–155.

Bundesministerium fuer Wirtschaft und Technologie. (2010). Energie in Deutschland

Trends und Hintergru nde zur Energieversorgung. Berlin.

Callon, Michel. 2009. Civilizing markets: Carbon trading between in vitro and in vivo
experiments. Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (3–4): 535–548.

Callon, Michel, and Fabian Muniesa. 2005. Peripheral Vision: Economic Markets as
Calculative Collective Devices. Organization Studies 26 (8): 1229–1250.

Carbonfund.org. 2004. Welcome to Carbonfund.org! Available at: http://web.archive

.org/web/20040121010654/http://www.carbonfund.org/, accessed November 1,
2011.

Carbon Trust (2006). The carbon emissions generated in all that we consume. London,
UK, Carbon Trust.

Carney, S. and S. Shackley (2009). "The greenhouse gas regional inventory project
(GRIP): Designing and employing a regional greenhouse gas measurement tool for
stakeholder use." Energy Policy 37(11): 4293-4302.

Chavez, A. and A. Ramaswami (2011). "Progress toward low carbon cities: approaches
for transboundary GHG emissions’ footprinting." Carbon Management 2(4): 471-482.

Chavez, A. and A. Ramaswami (2013). "Articulating a trans-boundary infrastructure

supply chain greenhouse gas emission footprint for cities: Mathematical relationships
and policy relevance." Energy Policy 54.

Chavez, A., A. Ramaswami, et al. (2012). "Implementing Trans-Boundary Infrastructure-

Based Greenhouse Gas Accounting for Delhi, India." Journal of Industrial Ecology
16(6): 814-828.

Chester, M., & Horvath, A. (2011). Vehicle manufacturing futures in transportation life-
cycle assessment. Research Reports, Institute of Transportation Studies. Berkeley: UC
Berkeley. http://www. escholarship.org/uc/item/1qp3f0vc.

Claudio, L. (2007). "Waste Couture: Environmental Impact of the Clothing Industry."

Environmental Health Perspectives 115(9): A449–A454.

60
Clinch, J. P & Healy, J. D 2001, ‘Cost –benefit analysis of domestic energy efficiency’,
Energy Policy, Vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 113-124

CoolCalifornia.org. 2013. Calculations and Data Sources. Available at: http://www

.coolcalifornia.org/calculator-documentation, accessed January 14, 2013.

CoolClimate Network. 2011. Carbon Footprint Calculator. Available at: http://

coolclimate.berkeley.edu/carboncalculator, accessed November 21, 2011.

Cox, Robert W. 2011. Open IO: Developing a Transparent, Fully Accessible Economic
Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment Database. Available at: http://www
.sustainabilityconsortium.org/wp-content/themes/sustainability/assets/pdf/
OpenIO_ModelDocumentation_June2011.pdf, accessed November 10, 2013.

Consumer NZ, n.d., Price Trends. Retrieved October 8, 2011, from

http://www.powerswitch.org.nz/powerswitch/region/S03/S034/price trends

Davis, Steven J., and Ken Caldeira. 2010. Consumption-based accounting of CO2
emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (12): 5687–5692.

DECC. (2009). "Energy Consumption in the UK. Domestic Data Tables 2009 update."
Accessed from http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/publications/ecuk/
ecuk.aspx.

Dernbach, J.C 2008, ‘Harnessing Individual Behavior to Address Climate Change:

Options for Congress’, Virginia Environmental Law Journal, vol. 26, no.107, pp. 108-
157

Dill, J & Carr, T 2003, ‘Bicycle commuting and facilities in major U.S. Cities: if you
build them, commuters willuse them – another look’, Journal of the Transportation
Research Board , no. 1828, pp. 116–123

Dhakal, S. (2009). "Urban energy use and carbon emissions from cities in China and
policy implications." Energy Policy 37(11): 4208-4219.

Dodman, D. (2011). "Forces driving urban greenhouse gas emissions." Current Opinion
in Environmental Sustainability 3(3): 121-125.

Downs, Anthony. 1972. Up and Down with Ecology: The “Issue-Attention Cycle.” Public
Interest 28 (1): 38–51.

Druckman, A., P. Bradley, E. Papathanasopoulou and T. Jackson (2008). "Measuring

progress towards carbon reduction in the UK " Ecological Economics 66(4): 594-604.

61
Druckman, A. and T. Jackson (2008). The Surrey Environmental Lifestyle MApping
(SELMA) framework: development and key results to date. RESOLVE Working Paper 08-
08, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK. Available from

Druckman, A. and T. Jackson (2009a). Mapping our carbon responsibilities: more key
results from the Surrey Environmental Lifestyle MApping (SELMA) framework.
RESOLVE Working Paper 02- 09, University of Surrey, Guildford

Druckman, A. and T. Jackson (2009b). "The carbon footprint of UK households 1990-

2004: a socioeconomically disaggregated, quasi-multiregional input-output model."
Ecological Economics
68 (7): 2066–2077.

DTI. (2006). "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics (DUKES)." The Stationery
Office, London, UK, Accessed 02.03.08,

Dunstan, S. (2007). Personal email communication between Steven Dunstan of ONS and
Angela Druckman, concerning EFS 2004-5 Table A1 Components of Household
Expenditure. 20.04.07

EECA, n.d., Solar electricity generation (photovoltaics), Retrieved October 7, 2011 from
http://www.energywise.govt.nz/how-to-be-energy-efficient/generating-renewable-energy-
at-home/solar-electricity-generation

Energystar, n.d., Heat & Cool Efficiently, Retrieved October 7, 2011 from
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=heat_cool.pr_hvac

Experian (2004). MOSAIC United Kingdom: The consumer calssification for the UK.
Nottingham, Experian UK.

Fordyce, A 2009, ‘carboNZero certification - 'greening' our trading future’, Landcare

Research Case Studies, Retrieved September 20, 2011 from
http://new.carbonzero.co.nz/news/reports.asp

Green, L. W & Mercer, S. L 2001, ‘Can Public Health Researchers and Agencies
Reconcile the Push From Funding Bodies and the Pull From Communities?’,
Community-Based Participatory Reasearch, vol. 91, no. 12, pp. 1926-1943
Hall, G.M.J, 2001, ‘Mitigating an organization’s future net carbon emissions by native
forest restoration’, Ecological Applications, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 1622-1633.

Heinonen, J. and S. Junnila (2011). "Case study on the carbon consumption of two
metropolitan cities." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 16(6): 569-579.

Heinonen, J., R. Kyrö, et al. (2011). "Dense downtown living more carbon intense due to
higher consumption: a case study of Helsinki." Environmental Research Letters 6(3):
034034.

62
Hillman, T. and A. Ramaswami (2010). "Greenhouse Gas Emission Footprints and
Energy Use Benchmarks for Eight U.S. Cities." Environmental Science & Technology
44(6): 1902-1910.

Hoffmann, W, 2006, PV solar electricity industry: Market growth and perspective, Solar
Energy Materials & Solar Cells no. 90, pp. 3285–11.

Hoornweg, D, Sugar, L, Gomez, C, 2011, Cities and greenhouse emissions: moving

forward, Environment and Urbanisataion, vol. 23 pp.207-26.

IEA (2006). CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion: 2006 edition. Paris, France,
International Energy Agency.

IPCC, 2011, Summary for Policymakers, In: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy
Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs‐Madruga, Y. Sokona, K.
Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C.
von Stechow (eds),, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA.

Jones C. M & Kammen, D. M 2011. ‘Quantifying Carbon Footprint Reduction

Opportunities of U.S. Households and Communities’, Environmental Science &
Technology, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 4088-4095

Kalaogirou, S. A 2004, ‘Environmental benefits of domestic solar energy systems’,

Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 45, no. 18-19, pp. 3075-3092

Kellett, R., A. Christen, et al. (2013). "A systems approach to carbon cycling and
emissions modeling at an urban neighborhood scale." Landscape and Urban Planning
110(0): 48-58.

Kennedy, C., A. Ramaswami, et al. (2011). Chapter 2 Greenhouse Gas Emission

Baselines for Global Cities and Metropolitan Regions. Cities and Climate Change:
Responding to an Urgent Agenda. D. Hoornweg, M. Freire, M. J. Lee, P. Bhada-Tata
and B. Yuen. Washington, D.C., The World Bank.

Kennedy, C., J. Steinberger, et al. (2010). "Methodology for inventorying greenhouse gas
emissions from global cities." Energy Policy 38(9): 4828-4837.

Kennedy, C., J. Steinberger, et al. (2009). "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global
Cities." Environmental Science & Technology 43(19): 7297-7302.

Kennedy, C., J. Steinberger, et al. (2011). "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global
Cities." Environmental Science & Technology 45(8): 3816-3817.

63
Kennedy, S. and S. Sgouridis (2011). "Rigorous classification and carbon accounting
principles for low and Zero Carbon Cities." Energy Policy 39(9): 5259-5268.

Landcare Research, CarboNZero household calculator, Retrieved September 20, 2011

from http://www.carbonzero.co.nz/EmissionsCalc/login.aspx

Larsen, H. N. and E. G. Hertwich (2009). "The case for consumption-based accounting of

greenhouse gas emissions to promote local climate action." Environmental Science &
Policy 12(7): 791-798.

Larsen, H. N. and E. G. Hertwich (2010). "Identifying important characteristics of

municipal carbon footprints." Ecological Economics 70(1): 60-66.

Larsen, H. N. and E. G. Hertwich (2010). "Implementing Carbon-Footprint-Based

Calculation Tools in Municipal Greenhouse Gas Inventories." Journal of Industrial
Ecology 14(6): 965-977.

Lenzen, M. (2001). "Errors in Conventional and Input-Output-based Life-Cycle

Inventories." Journal of Industrial Ecology 4(4): 127-148.

Lenzen, M., L.-L. Pade, et al. (2004). "CO2 Multipliers in Multi-region Input-Output
Models." Economic Systems Research 16(4): 391-412.

Lenzen, M. and G. M. Peters (2010). "How City Dwellers Affect Their Resource
Hinterland - A Spatial Impact Study of Australian Households." Journal of Industrial
Ecology 14(1): 73-90.

Lenzen, M. and G. J. Treloar (2005). "Endogenising Capital - A comparison of Two

Methods." Journal of Applied Input-Output Analysis 10: 1-11?

Lenzen, M., R. Wood, et al. (2010). "UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS FOR MULTI-REGION

INPUT-OUTPUT MODELS: A CASE

MAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) 2011, A Guide to Look-up Tables for
Forestry in the Emissions Trading Scheme, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry,
Wellington.

Matthews, E. H, Kleingeld, M & Taylor P. B 1999, ‘Estimating the electricity savings

effect of ceiling insulation’, Building and Environment, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 505-514

Mathews, H , Hendrickson, C , Webber, C, 2008, The Importance of Carbon Footprint

Estimation Boundaries, Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 42, no. 16, pp. 5839-
42 30

Mendelsohn, R, Morrison, W, Schlesinger, M. E & Andronova, N, G 200, ‘Country-

Specific Market Impacts of Climate Change’, Climatic Change, vol. 45, no. 3, 553-569

64
Mithraratne, N, 2009, ‘Roof-top wind turbines for microgeneration in urban houses in
New Zealand,’ Energy and Buildings, no. 41, pp. 1013-1018.

Nelson, L 1948, Rural Sociology, American Book Co, New York. Padgett, J.,
Steinemann, a, Clarke, J., & Vandenbergh, M. (2008). A comparison of carbon
calculators. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 28, no. 2-3, pp. 106- 115
Pandey, D., Agrawal, M., Pandey, J. S 2011, ‘Carbon Footprint: Current Methods of
Estimation’, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Vol. 178, No. 1, pp. 135-160

Stegou-Sagia, A, Antonpoulos, K, Angelopoulou, C & Kostiovelos, G 2007, ‘The Impact

of glazing on energy consumption and comfort’, Energy Conversion and Management,
vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 2844-2852

Taiyab, N 2006, Exploring the market for voluntary carbon offsets, International Institute
for Environment and Development, London.

Turner, B 2010, ‘Embodied Sustainability in community gardens’, in Turner, B, Henryks,

J & Pearson, D (eds.), Community Garden Conference; Promoting sustainability, health
and inclusion in the city, University of Canberra, Canberra pp. 80-87

Weber, C. L & Matthews, H. S 2008, ‘Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of
Food Choices in the United States’, Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 42, no.
10, pp. 3508-3513

Wegener, M 1996, ‘Reduction of CO2 emissions of transport by reorganisation of urban

acitivities’, in Hayashi, Y & Roy, J (eds.), Transport, Land-Use and the Environment,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 103-124

Windflow 2007, Windflow 500 Brochure, Retrieved 02/10/2011 from

http://www.windflow.co.nz/pdf- older/misc/Windflow%20Brochure%20Mar%2007.pdf
Vandenbergh, M. P, Barkenbus, J & Gilligan J 2008, ‘Individual Carbon Emissions: The
Low Hanging Fruit’, UCLA Law Review, Vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 1701-1758 31

VandeWeghe, J Kennedy, C, 2007, A Spatial Analysis of Residential Greenhouse Gas

Emissions in the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area Community, Journal of Industrial
Ecology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 133-44.

65
APPENDIX I:

1
 APPENDIX II: INFORMED CONSENT

Dear Sir/Madam:

My name is Sam P. Jallah. I am a student of the Cuttington University School of

Graduate & Professional Studies. I will be doing a survey entitled “Carbon Footprint in

Kaba Community, Barnersville, MontserradoCounty, Liberia; February – April, 2019”. I

would highly appreciate your full participation in this survey. The interview will take 5-

10 minutes to complete. There will be no financial benefits and risks to the participation,

and all information gathered will be confidential and for academic purpose only. Feel free

to ask me any question about the survey and I will answer.

Can I start the interview now? Yes No

Signed: ____________________ (Respondent) Date: __________________

2
 APPENDIX III: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Instruction: Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge. Select

the answer of your choice by placing a check mark (√) in the box before it.

Section I: BIO Data

1. What is your gender?

a. Male

b. Female

2. Which sector do you fall?

a. Business

b. Household

3. How many persons are in your business or household?

a. 1-5 persons

b. 5-10 persons

c. 11-15 persons

d. Others Please specify: __________________

Section II: What activities in Kaba Community Households and of Business Centers

that are producing the most Carbon Footprint?

4. Are you using electricity?

a. Yes

b. No

5. What is your source of electricity?

a. Commercial (Community)

b. Personal generator

3
Section III: What is the approximate Carbon Footprint in the Kaba Community,

Barnersville?

6. What is your average quantity of electricity and fuel being consumed weekly?

______________________________________________

7. What is your average cost of electricity and fuel being consumed weekly?

___________________________________________

8. What is the estimated carbon footprint being produced from businesses spending on

electricity and fuel?

______________________________________________

9. What is the estimated carbon footprint being produced from households spending on

electricity and fuel?

______________________________________________

10. What is the estimated carbon footprint being produced from both businesses and

households spending on electricity and fuel?

______________________________________________

Section IV: What mitigating strategies can be put in place to reduce this Carbon

Footprint?

11. What mitigating strategy can be put in place to reduce carbon footprint in this

community?

_______________________________________________________________