efp leon university 09

8/3/2019 EFP Leon University 09

1/20

Ecological footprint of the campus de Vegazana, Lenuniversity; a calculation approach. Implications for thesustainability of the university communityENVIRONMENT

In 1996, the Canadian Scientists Mathis Wackernagel andWilliam Rees published the book Our ecological footprint:reducing human impact on the earth, defining a new

sustainability indicator dubbed the ecological footprint. Thispaper reports on the ecological footprint study made ofLen Universitys Campus de Vegazana. The ultimate aimof this study is to determine this footprint and pinpoint thepossible reduction measures.

By Paula Arroyo, Environmental Science Graduate. Researcher of theEnvironment Institute (Instituto de Medio Ambiente). Leon University.Len. Ecology Area. Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences.Campus de Vegazana. Len. [email protected] Manuel lvarez, Environmental Science Graduate. Researcher inthe Ecology Area. Leon UniversityJorge Falagn Fernndez, Biological Sciences Graduate. AssociateEcology Professor. Leon UniversityCarlos Martnez Sanz, Biological Sciences Graduate. Researcher in theEcology Area. Leon University

Gemma Ansola Gonzlez, Doctor of Biological Sciences. TenuredEcology Professor. Leon UniversityEstanislao de Luis Calabuig, Doctor of Sciences. Ecology Professor.Leon University.

In recent decades many indicators and methodologicalapproaches have been developed for evaluating the sustainabilityof a region or given social activity. Some of these evaluationmethods are related to the Earth and the resources used by agiven society to live and carry out an activity. Such is the case ofthe ecological footprint indicator.

The ecological footprint

In the nineties William Rees and his pupils (Bicknell et al., 1998)from the Canadian university of British Columbia coined theconcept of ecological footprint (hereinafter EF) as the newindicator of a populations degree of sustainability. The main ideabehind this research is that each individual, each process, eachactivity and each population has an impact on the Earth, due tothe resources they consume, the waste they produce and also theuse of the services furnished by nature. This information can beconverted into the biologically productive area needed to meetthese flows.

The footprint calculation method proposed by Wackernagel andRees (1996) works from the assumption that each unit of matteror energy consumed calls for a certain tract of land for providingthe resources consumed or dealing with the waste produced. This

is why the calculation of this indicator involves an estimation ofthe necessary land for producing each consumption element perperson. This area is obtained by dividing the annual meanconsumption of each of these elements (Kg / inhabitant) by the

Year 29 N 113 first quarter 2009

Page 1 of 20Seguridad y Medio Ambiente - N 113


2/20

annual mean productivity (Kg /hectare) (Mayor et al., 2003).

Objectives: application o f the ecologicalfootprint calcultatio to the cam p u s d e Vegazanaof Len university

This paper presents the EF calculation for Len Universitys

Campus de Vegazana in 2006. Due to the particular features ofthe studys territorial sphere, the methodology needed to beadapted in certain aspects to bring it into line with what someauthors have called the EF of a closed economy, i.e. acommunity engaging in no trade with other economies. Thismeans that consumption does not exceed interior production,because no more products can be consumed than those comingfrom the biologically productive area available. The EF wouldtherefore offer no information on the existence of any ecologicalreserves or deficits and would hence forfeit much of its utility(Penela and Villasante, 2007).

There are two standardised methods for EF calculation, thecompound method and the component method (see Simmons etal., (2000) and Chambers et al., (2000), for more information

thereon). This study has adopted the second method.

EF calculations in other universities would enable a comparison tobe made of the values obtained.

The Cam pus d e Vegazana of Len UniversityMost studies of Len University concentrate on the campus calledCampus de Vegazana, located to the north of the city of Len. Atthe moment it offers a total of 53 degree subjects taught in 17Centres by 26 Departments. In the academic year 2006/2007 thetotal number of students was about 14,000.

Calculation of the ecological footprint

Drawing from the classic resource categories established by Reesand Wackernagel (Table 1), this study has worked with a total of11 variables. Only the food category has been left out, sincethere were not enough data and methodological motives to goon.

Energy ConsumptionAll buildings of the Campus de Vegazana use natural gas as fuel.The only exception is the Sports and Physical Activity Faculty(Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fsica y del Deporte) whichuses gas oil for heating. As well as the energy used as fuel,consideration was also given to the electricity consumed by all

campus buildings.

Electrical Energy

Table 1. Resource categories considered in the EF of theCampus de Vegazana.

Energa Mobility Goods andServices

Built-up area

Electricity Car Unrecycled waste Space occupied bybuildings

NaturalGas

Bus Drinking-waterand wastewatertreatment

Space occupied bypavements,gardens, etc.

Gas oil Motorcycle Buildingconstructionmaterial

Campus de Vegazana

CO2 emission



3/20

Spains electricity supply comes from diverse productionsources (Table 2).

A different calculation method was used for each type, interms of its impact on the environment. In the case of fuelsthat emit CO2 in their production or consumption, a

calculation is made of the kilograms of CO2 emitted by each

Gj of fuel consumed. In the case of electricity produced by

nuclear plants, its emission has been likened to liquid fossilfuels, following the method proposed in other studies(Relea and Prats, 1998).

The CO2 emission factors used are those presented in the

Renewable Energy Sources Plan of Spain (Plan de EnergasRenovables de Espaa) 2005-2010 of the Ministry ofIndustry, Tourism and Trade (Ministerio de Industria,Turismo y Comercio).

Energy for Heating PurposesAs in the case of electricity, CO2 emission calculations have

used the conversion factor laid down in the Plan deEnergas Renovables de Espaa 2005-2010 of the Ministeriode Industria, Turismo y Comercio.

Table 2. Source of the electrici ty consumed. 2006Report of Red Elctrica Espaola.

Type of power plant GWh Total %

Coal fired 66,006 27,78

Combined cycle plant 63,506 26,73

Nuclear 60,126 25,31

Hydroelectric 25,330 10,66

Wind power 22,631 9,52

Table 3 . CO2 emission due to electricity consumption considering

the e lect r i c i t y m ix .

Electricity

consumption

% Kwh Gwh CO2

emissionfactor (tCO2/Gwh)

t CO2

Coal fired 27,78 1.789.996,81 1,79 961,0 1.720,19

Combinedcycle plant

26,73 1.722.340,34 1,72 372,0 640,71

Nuclear 25,31 1.630.843,03 1,63 262,8 428,59

Hydroelectric 10,66 686.874,23 0,69 0 0

Wind power 9.52 613.418,63 0,61 0 0

TOTAL (t) 2.789,48TOTAL (kg) 2.789.483,09

Table 4 . CO2 emission due to the consumption of energy

for heating purposes.

Consumptionof fossilfuels

Kwh CO2 emissionfactor(kgCO2/Kwh)

Kg CO2



4/20

Goods and Services Unrecycled WasteThe unrecyclable portion of solid urban waste generated in

the province of Len is taken to the Provincial Solid WasteTreatment Centre in San Romn de la Vega.

It was originally intended to include this variable in thisstudys EF calculation but lack of concrete data made thecalculation thereof impossible.

WaterThe drinking water supplied to the city of Len and theCampus de Vegazana comes from the River Pormacatchment area.

This study presents the energy consumption calculationsassociated with the transport, drinking-water treatment andsubsequent wastewater treatment.

Drinking Water. The water consumed on the Campusde Vegazana is treated in a treatment plant lying onlya few kilometres away in the municipality ofValdefresno. The plant lacks any supply pumpsbecause the water is taken by gravity from the RiverPorma through a pressurised canal. The final energyconsumption is 0.016 Kwh/m3.The calculation alsoincludes the water used for irrigating the campusgreen areas. The garden area spreads over100,098.89 m2 and is watered with drinking water. Asan exception, the sports facilities receive their water

supply from a well; the water is not treated fordrinking purposes and the watered area adds up to8,626.98 m2.Water consumption for irrigating the campus is 6litres/m2/day. The green areas do not need wateringin winter.

Treated Wastewater. The Campus wastewater is ledoff to the wastewater treatment plant of the city ofLen. The wastewater treatment process with onewater line (activated sludge) and one sludge lineinvolves electricity consumption of 0.03 kwh/m3.

Natural Gas 8.950.225,00 0,201 1.798.995,23

Gas oil* 24.320,92 0,264 6.420,72

TOTAL (kg) 1.805.415,95

Table 5. Wa ter consumption for irrigating the campus greenareas.

Waterconsumption( l/m2/da)

Irrigationarea (m2)

Wateringdays

Total (l) Total(m 3)

6,00 100.098,89 210,00 126.124.601,40 126.124,60

Table 6. Energy consumption necessary in 2006 for thedrinking-water and w astewater treatment of the waterconsumed and produced on Campus.

Faculty,College orBuilding

Consumption(m 3)

Energyconsumptionfor drinking

watertreatment(0.016

Energyconsumptionfor

wastewatertreatment(0.03



5/20

kwh/m3) kwh/ m3)

Fac. deCienciasEconmicas yEmpresariales

1.846,00 29,54 55,38

Fac. de

Educacin

1.828,00 29,25 54,84

Fac. deCiencias delTrabajo

797,00 12,75 23,91

Esc. deIngenierasIndustrial eInformtica

2.138,00 34,21 64,14

Fac. deFilosofa yLetras

5.914,00 94,62 177,42

Fac. deDerecho 970,00 15,52 29,10

Servicebuilding

1.592,00 25,47 47,76

Cafeteria I 2.097,00 33,55 62,91

Fac. deCienciasBiolgicas yAmbientales

8.343,00 133,49 250,29

Fac. deVeterinaria

25.046,00 400,74 751,38

ClnicaVeterinaria 5.193,00 83,09 155,79

BibliotecaUniv. SanIsidoro

2.435,00 38,96 73,05

Teachingblock

424,00 6,78 12,72

INDEGA 2.126,00 34,02 63,78

Pavilion 1.604,00 25,66 48,12

Fac. de CC.ActividadFsica y delDeporte

7.688,00 123,01 230,64

Irrigationwater

126.124,60 2.017,99

TOTAL 70.041,00 3.138,65 2.101,23

Table 7 . CO2 emission due to the necessary energy consumption

for the drinking-water and wastew ater treatment of the w aterconsumed and produced on Campus.

Electricityconsumption

% Kwh Gwh CO2

emissionfactor (tCO2/Gwh)

t CO2



6/20

PaperDue to the eminently academic activity carried out on thewhole Campus de Vegazana, it was thought necessary toinclude paper consumption by the university community inthe EF calculation.

This consumption has been estimated from the data

furnished by Lpez et al. (2008) who have calculated paperconsumption in two faculties of Santiago University,rounding this out with campus surveys.

The emission factor associated with this consumption hasbeen calculated from the figures of Lpez et al. (2008) whoin turn worked from the figures obtained by theEnvironment Department of the Aragn Government, thePolytechnic University of Valencia, the Polytechnic Collegeof Manresa and the Greenpeace organisation.

It should be pointed out here that the paper industry is thefifth biggest energy-consuming sector, accounting for 4% ofthe worlds energy consumption.

This study has considered the CO2 emissions associatedwith the energy consumption in the paper manufacturingprocess (table 8) working from the figures of Lpez et al.(2008).

Coal fired 27,78 1.468,14 0,0014681 961 1,41

Combinedcycle plant

26,73 1.403,03 0,0014030 372 0,52

Nuclear 25,31 1.337,60 0,0013376 262,8 0,35

Hydroelectric 10,66 563,37 0,0005634 0 0,00

Wind power 9,52 503,12 0,0005031 0 0,00

TOTAL (t) 2,28

TOTAL (kg) 2.284,33

Table 8. Estimated number of foli os of paper used onthe Campus in 2006.

Number of sheets Tons of paper

Virginpaper

Recycledpaper

Virginpaper

Recycledpaper

Note-taking

sheets

8.242.290 3.532.410 41.134 17.629

Essay-writingsheets

2.747.430 1.177.470 13.711 5.876

Photocopies 10.030.000 50.056

Total Folios 104.901 23.505

Table 9 . CO2 emissions due to energy consumption in paper

manufacture.

Tons of paper Emission factor

(t CO2/t paper)

CO2 Emissions (kg)

Virginpaper

Recycledpaper

Virginpaper

Recycledpaper

Virginpaper

Recycledpaper



7/20

MobilityThe transport of all individuals of the university community to theCampus de Vegazana has been studied by way of surveys. Astratified sample survey was made of the various components,

the variables considered being the faculty or school of eachperson polled as well as his/her status of student, teaching fellow

TotalFolios

104,901 23,505 1.84 0.61 193,017.84 14,338.05

(personal docente investigador: PDI), service personnel (personalde servicios: PAS) and others (such as the cleaning personnel).

The poll offers information on diverse variables or factorsimpinging on the EF calculation. Information has been culled onthe type of transport used for travelling to the university, thejourney distance, the number of vehicle occupants or number ofdaily journeys to Campus, plus other important factors.

The survey results show that nearly half of the universitycommunity walk from the point of origin to the Campus(49.87%), followed by those who come by car (27.92%) and bus(15.08%).

Graph 1. Main means of transport used for getting to the Campusde Vegazana

The means of transport used varies according to the faculty orcollege concerned (table 12). Cyclists are commonest amongthose going to the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fsica ydel Deporte; motorcyclists among those going to the IndustrialEngineering and IT School (Escuela de Ingenieras Industrial eInformtica); car drivers those going to the Economics andBusiness Administration School (Ciencias Econmicas yEmpresariales); bus users those going to the Education Faculty(Facultad de Educacin) and, lastly, walkers those heading forthe Biological and Environmental Sciences Faulty (Facultad deCiencias Biolgicas y Ambientales).

Table 10. Percentage using each means of transpor t in terms of thedestination faculty or school. Grey shading show s the most frequentdestination for each means of transport.

Building Onfoot %

Bybike%

Motorcycle%

Car % Bus % Other%

Teachingblock

0 0 0 0,32 0 0

Library 0,18 0 0 0,32 0 0

Cienciasbiolgicas yambientales

24,51 20,90 22,22 12,78 11,83 25,00



8/20

Graph 2. Main means of transport used for getting to the Campusde Vegazana in terms of the subject matter studied.

CarsThe report of the Sustainable Building Research Model(Model dInvestigaci dEdificaci Sostenible: MIES), Cuchet al. (1999) shows that a vehicles CO2 emissions do not

depend in the number of passengers it carries. Theemissions would be similar whether it held a single person,two, three, four or five; the only variant is that the impactis shared out among more people.

Ciencias de laActividadFsica y delDeporte

5,01 31,34 0 4,15 7,10 0

Ciencias delTrabajo

3,04 7,46 0 4,47 5,33 0

CienciasEconmicas yEmpresariales

13,06 0 11,11 19,17 13,61 50

Derecho 6,44 2,99 11,11 7,03 7,69 0

Sportsbuilding

0 0 0 0,32 0 0

Servicebuilding

0,18 0 0 1,28 0 0

Educacin 12,34 7,46 11,11 15,65 18,34 0

Filosofa yLetras

5,19 1,49 0 6,39 10,65 0

Ingenierasindustrial eInformtica

12,16 11,94 33,33 13,74 11,24 0

Veterinaria 12,16 10,45 0 7,67 7,69 0

Others 5,72 5,97 11,11 6,71 6,51 6,51

TOTAL 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00

Table 11. Mean distance (km) in terms of the mainmeans of transport used for reaching the Campus.

Onfoot

Bybike

Bymotorcycle

Car Bus Other

1,86km

2,20km

3,83 km 4,36km

5,41km

3,67km



9/20

Other authors, like Lpez et al. (2008), argue that there isa specific consumption of primary energy depending on thenumber of passengers and the power of the vehicle andalso whether it is diesel or petrol driven. This study hasconsidered the thesis of Lpez et al. (2008) to be the bestoption for our purposes. The mobility calculations have thusbeen made on the basis of the findings made by theseauthors for the two faculties of the University of Santiago

de Compostela.

Graph 3. Mean occupancy of vehicles arriving on campus.This calculation is made only for cases where the car is themain means of transport used.

The surveys show that 56.45% of the people using the caras the main means of transport make the trip twice a day,i.e. they go to the campus in the morning, go home againat midday and return to the university in the afternoon.

The type of fuel is very evenly shared out among the carsused for commuting back and forth to the Campus, 51% ofthem using diesel and 49% using petrol.

On the basis of the main journey figures and the vehicleoccupancy level, type of fuel used (all information gleaned

from the poll) a calculation has been made of the total CO 2emissions for the whole Campus. Table 14 shows theresults. The calculation has been simplified by taking amean CO2 emission value among diesel and petrol vehicles.

* Figures taken from Noy Serrano (1996), ** 150 teachingdays a year have been taken into account, *** Figuresdrawn up from Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for NationalGreenhouse Gas Inventories: Reference Manual,International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC),

Motorcycles

Table 12. Transport-associated CO2 emission, travelling by car and by vehicle

occupancy.

Consumptionof primaryenergy perperson *(MJ/km)

Consumptionof primaryenergy pervehicle*(MJ/km)

Kilometrescovered onselectivedays of theyear 2006**

Emissionfactor kgCO2/km)

***

Kg CO2

Lowoccupancy

2,87 2,87 2.746.521,456 0,199 546.557,77

Middlingoccupancy

1,43 4,29 2.532.903,121 0,298 754.805,13

Highoccupancy

0,95 4,75 376.578,023 0,329 123.894,17

TOTAL 1.425.257,07



10/20

As in the case of cars, the university communitys meancommuting distance from point of origin to the Campus hasbeen gleaned from surveys. The total figure of kilometrescovered has been calculated from the survey figures.Consideration has also been given to the number of tripsmade each year by each person. As with cars, a CO2emission factor per kilometre covered has been applied toascertain total emissions.

* Taken from Lpez et al, (2008),

BusesThe study of CO2 emissions stemming from bus-based

mobility has been carried out in the same way as for carsand motorcycles. The distance covered by the bus has beenestimated from surveys, although the method could also beapplied on the basis of the distance covered from point oforigin on bus lines running from different parts of the city tothe Campus de Vegazana.

The primary energy expense has been estimated from a75% occupancy rate according to the figures established byLpez et al. (2008). There were no calculation differences

for urban and suburban buses.

Occupied LandThe study related to the use of land and construction of allphysical elements making up the Campus de Vegazana has beentackled from two points of view: analysis of land occupation andthe impact associated with the construction of the Campus itself.

Land directly occupied by the CampusThe method followed for ascertaining the occupied landinvolved on-screen digitalisation of all campus buildings andinfrastructure on high resolution geo-referenced digitalorthophotography, based on AutoCAD-type .dwg files andusing Arc GIS 9.2 software (ESRI, 2006). From the birth ofLen University as a self-governing organisation in 1979until 2006, the Campus de Vegazana took the structureshown in figure 1. This digitalisation has shown the landarea occupied by faculties, multipurpose buildings, roadsand paths, car parks, plots with planning permission for

Table 13. Emission factor and final CO2 emission

associated with motorcycle transport.

Kilometrescovered onselective days ofthe year 2006**


***

KgCO2

Motorcycle 897,27 0,06 53,84

TOTAL 53,84

Table 14. CO2 emissions stemming from bus

transport.

Consumptionof primaryenergy *(MJ/km)

Kilometrescovered onselectivedays of theyear 2006**


***

KgCO2

0,39 28.283,485 0,028 791,94

TOTAL 791,94



11/20

future constructions and green zones (Table 17).

Figure 1. 3D view of Campus de Vegazana in 2006,

digitalised with Arc GIS 9.2 (ESRI, 2006).

Table 15. Land area occupied by buil dings, roadsand path, plots with planning permission and greenzones on the Campus de Vegazana. 2006.

Descrip-Organisation tion rea (m2)

Escuela de Ingenieras Industrial eInformtica

9.987,02

Facultad de Ciencias Biolgicas yAmbientales

5.157,00

Facultad de Ciencias del Trabajo 2.462,13

Facultad de Ciencias Econmicas yEmpresariales

7.753,04

Facultad de Derecho 4.064,92

Facultad de Educacin 2.462,13

Facultad de Filosofa y Letras 4.703,60

Facultad de Veterinaria 9.146,00

Instituto de CC. Actividad Fsica yDeporte

5.192,65

Sports facilities 12.802,24

Sports buildings 4.797,40



12/20

To sum up the results, the Campus de Vegazana spreads

over a total area of 422,760.06 m2 (42.28 hectares). Thisincludes not only the land occupied by the various facultiesand schools, libraries, cafeterias and multipurpose buildings(with a total area of 87,665.25 m2) but also the areaoccupied by roads and footpaths (71,494.24 m2), car parks(25,374.07 m2), plots with planning permission for futureconstructions, which currently house the new EducationFaculty (Facultad de Educacin) and High-PerformanceCentre (Centro de Alto Rendimiento) (129.500,64 m2) andgreen zones (108,725.86 m2).

Graph 4. Land occupancy in Campus de Vegazana in 2006.

Impact of Campus constructionThe environmental impact of Campus construction has beenstudied in terms of the amount and type of materials usedin constructing the different campus buildings plus roads,footpaths and parking areas. There values were determined

by querying experts inside and outside the university. Theresults are shown in tables 16 and 17.

Once converted to cubic values by the best possible

Teaching block 703,45

Service building 1.125,23

Biblioteca Universitaria San Isidoro 1.497,71

Institutos de I nvestigacin 2.323,59

Clnica Veterinaria 4.585,00Animalario 687,76

Cafeteria I 959,47

Cafeteria II 621,151

Cafeteria II I 744,27

Caja Espaa (bank) 252,04

'Emilio Hurtado' University Residence 3.431,70

Centro TIC de Recursos para elAprendizaje y la Investigacin (CRAI)

1.497,71

Pow er supply buildings 299,87

Roads 38.803,05

Footpaths 32.691,19

Green areas 108.725,86

Parking areas 25.374,07

Plots w ith planning permission 129.500,64

TOTAL AREA OCCUPIED 422.760,06



13/20

estimation (total built area and average height for eachedifice, estimated at 3.5 m, 7 m and 12.5 m accordingly), acalculation was made of the total CO2 emissions following

the guidelines of the MIES report (Cuch et al., 1999). Aseries of conversion factors are then applied to thematerials used and the amount thereof to give the tons ofCO2 emitted by the use of certain fixed amounts of these

materials.

Table 16. Kilograms of materials used in theconstruction of all campus buildings.

Material Kg / 10000 m3built

Total tonsCampus

Gravel andaggregate

2.000 2.623,00

Bricks 3.000 3.934,49

Wood 200 262,30

Plaster 2.500 3.278,74Plywood panels 100 131,15

Portland cement 1.500 1.967,25

Asphalt 100 131,15

Chipboard 300 393,45

Glass 800 1.049,20

Plastic paint 400 524,60

Steel 500 655,75

Polyurethane 160 209,84

Polyethylene 100 131,15

PVC 300 393,45

Copper 100 131,15

Paint (enamel) 150 196,72

Expandedpolystyrene

200 262,30

Neoprene 100 131,15

Aluminium 400 524,60

Table 17. Kg of materials used in the constru ctionof all the roads, footpaths and carparks of theCampus.

Material Kg / 10000 m3built

Total tonsCampus

Gravel andaggregate

660 63.933,08

Bricks 2.5 242,17

Portland cement 50 4.843,42

Asphalt 40 3,874,73

Steel 0,3 29,06



14/20

On the basis of this information and measurements of thenecessary energy for making diverse materials used in theconstruction work, a calculation was made of the total

energy consumed in creating the Campus de Vegazanafrom its origins in 1979 up to 2006. The information ofmaterials invested in the construction can then be finallyused for calculating CO2 emissions, replacing the amount of

these materials used by the energy required to make them,and this in turn by the CO2 emissions associated with the

use of this energy. The calculations are based on thefigures recorded in the MIES Report (Cuchet al. 1999). Itshould be pointed out here that new construction materialscall for much more manufacturing energy than other morebasic types.

The construction of the Campus de Vegazana, therefore,including buildings and sundry infrastructure and parkingareas, involved the emission of 31,919.29 tons of CO

2into

the atmosphere. The annual rate for a 27-year period istherefore 1,182.20 tons. The faculties and the rest of theCampus buildings are made up by the basic structurethereof, as well as the physical image of Len University.The construction of all of them involved the emission of31,907.59 tons of CO2, implying an annual rate of 1,181.76

tons of CO2, again for the period running from 1979 to

2006. Construction of the asphalted surfaces for vehiclecirculation and pedestrian zones within the campusperimeter, for their part, involved the emission of 11.7 tonsof CO2, with an annual rate of 0.43 tons.

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRI NT OF THE CAMP US DEVEGAZANA.

Once we have worked out the global consumption of Campus deVegazana for 2006, we turn to the calculation of the biologicallyproductive hectares necessary for producing the resources usedon campus.

Calculated consumption figures have been converted into globalhectares by dividing the total amount consumed of each good byits biological productivity and multiplying it by an equivalencefactor. In the particular case of CO2 emissions the total amount

of emissions is divided by the CO2-fixing capacity of woodland

masses and oceans and multiplied by the correspondingequivalence factor. This gives us the ecological footprint of eachgood consumed.

Adding together the ecological footprints of all the goods anddividing this figure by the number of people making up theuniversity community of Campus de Vegazana gives us the totalper capita ecological footprint. This then represents the necessarysurface area for satisfying the consumption and absorbing thewaste of each campus member.

The factors used are those established by the classicalmethodology. According to Rees and Wackernagel theserepresent the primary biomass equivalence factors. The ratiobetween them defines their relative biomass-production capacity.In addition, the factors are scaled by an index that keeps theglobal per capita capacity constant. A factor of 3.2 signifies thatthis capacity of the land is 3.2 times as productive as the world-

Polyethylene 0,1 9,69

PVC 0,2 19,37



15/20

average land productivity.

The final result shows an ecological footprint per member of theuniversity community of Campus de Vegazana of 0.45 gha/cap.The spreadsheet drawn up by Domenech(http://www.huellaecologica.com/) is highly useful for making thefinal calculation.

The main component of the EF is the necessary surface area forabsorbing CO2 emissions. This surface area takes up 0.44

gha/cap, representing 99% of the EF. It should be pointed outhere that this calculation does not include the surface areaassociated with the consumption of farm products, a surface areathat, in other EF studies, is another significant component of thetotal area.

The world biocapacity, according to the EF methodology, refersto the maximum per capita consumption that it is possible tosustain with the available area of the planet without permanentlyaltering its structure. According to the figures put forward byRees and Wackernagel (1996) and also by the World WildlifeFund, WWF (2002), the worlds available productive area is about2 hectares per person (or 1.75 hectares per person ifconsideration is given to the 12% of the area necessary forpreserving biodiversity) according to Rees and Wackernagel, and1.9 hectares per person according to the WWF.

Table 18. Equivalence factors used in the study.

Equivalence Factor

Fossil energy 1.138688

Cropland 2.821875Pastureland 0.541097

Woodland 1.138688

Built up land 2.821875

Sea 0.217192

Table 19. Ecological footprint of the Campus deVegazana.

Types of area Globalhectares

Global hectares / percapita (gha/ cap)

Cropland 0 0

Pastureland 0,11 0,00001

Productivewoodland

6,72 0,00045

Sea 0 0

Built up land 51,64 0,00344

CO2 Absorption 6.587,57 0,43917

TOTAL 6.646,04 0,45

Table 20. World bio capacity and EF of the Campus deVegazana. Ecological deficit.

Ava ilab le Biocapac ity 1 ,75 gha/cap-1 ,9 gha/ cap



16/20

A comparison of Campus de Vegazanas EF with the worldwidebiocapacity could be misleading and the particular idiosyncrasiesof the field under study have to be taken into account again inthe analysis. The concept of local ecological carrying capacityor local biocapacity also has to be brought into the picture

along with the planets available biocapacity, but in reference tothe real surface area of each type of terrain in the actual placewhere the EF is calculated. The local campus biocapacity, as caneasily be understood from the information given so far (74%unproductive space occupancy, the remaining 24% being nearlyall non-productive garden space), is very low.

The results obtained are not comparable to other EF studiescarried out in the national or regional sphere because of theparticular features of the community studied. They arecomparable, however, to the results obtained from otheruniversities. In recent years several universities have conductedEF-assessment studies. Table 25 shows the results obtained inthe different studies as well as the categories of resources takeninto account.

The EF of Campus de Vegazana (0.45 gha/cap) is the secondlowest of all EFs calculated. Only Newcastle University in Australiarecords a significantly lower value.

Ecological footprint 0,45 gha/cap

Table 21. Ecological footp rint in different universities andcomparison with the ecological footprint of Campus deVegazana, Len University.

University Location Studyyear

Resourcecategories

Ecologicalfootprint(gha/ cap)

University of

Toronto atMississauga

Ontario

(Canad)

2005 Food, energy,

transportation,waste, waterandconstruction

1,04

University ofNewcastle

Newcastle(Australia)

1999 Food, energy,transportationandconstruction

0,19

University ofHolme, LacyCollege

Herefordshire(Inglaterra)

2001 Food, energy,transportation,waste, andwater

0,56

ColoradoCollege

Colorado(EEUU)

2001 Food, energy,transportation,waste, waterandconstruction

2,24

University ofRedlands

California((USA)

1998 Energy,transportation,waste andwater

0,85

Universidadde Santiago,Facultad deCienciasEconmicas y

Empresariales,Facultad deFormacin de

Santiago deCompostela(Spain)

2008 Food, energy,transportation,waste, waterandconstruction

579.5hectare/year



17/20

Climate-change implications. CO2 emission

Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), the

chlorofluorocarbon compounds (CFC) and ozone (O3) are the

main greenhouse gases. These gases have the particular propertyof permitting the entry of short wave solar radiation but trappinga large part of the long-range radiations bouncing back from theearths surface. Any variation in the concentration of these gasesin the atmosphere will lead to variations in the earths climate.

This paper presents the results of the study of one of theemissions of one of the greenhouse gases, CO2, caused by the

activities of Campus de Vegazana.

Most of the emissions come from energy consumption forelectricity (38%) and heating (24%). Mobility or transportarrangements represent the third biggest source of CO2

emissions (19%).

The province of Len has a wide range of woodland massescapable of fixing the atmospheric CO2. Lens woodland area, as

Profesorado

Universidadde Len,Campus deVegazana

Len (Spain) 2006 Energy,transportation,water andconstruction

0,45

Table 22. Total CO2 emissions of the Campus de

Vegazana in 2006.

Source CO2 Emissions (kg)

Electricity consumption 2.789.483,09

Consumption of fossil fuels 1.805.415,95

Campus Construction 1.182.195,95

Water consumption 2.284,33

Paper consumption 207.355,89

Mobility (cars) 1.425.257,07

Mobility (motorcycles) 53,84

Mobility (buses) 791.94

TOTAL 7.412.838,06

recorded by the National Forestry Inventory (Inventario ForestalNacional), is shown in the following table.

Table 23. Woodland area in the province of Len. Figures taken from the Inventario Fo restalNacional.

SURFACE AREAS (hectares)

Inventoryyear

Climaxwoodland

Thinnedpasturewoodland

Low,scatteredwoodland

Totalwoodland

Clearfelledwoodland

Totalforestryland

Totalnonforestryland

ProvinceTotal

2003 508.875 0 17.695 526.570 473.744 1.000.313 557.772 1.558.085

1992 167.281 0 101.928 269.209 590.316 859.525 698.560 1.558.085



18/20

The CO2-offsetting capacity differs from one type of woodland to

another. The province of Len has a high diversity of woodlanddue to its intermediate position straddling the Mediterraneanregion and the Eurosiberian region.

As a broad estimate, the total woodland area of the province ofLen is capable of offsetting a total of 8,470,168.06 tons of CO2.

This means that 46% of this woodland area is necessary as a sinkfor the CO2 emitted by Campus de Vegazana. This estimate has

been made on the assumption that only the woodland masses areCO2 sinks. In fact it is not only the woodland masses that carry

out this function in nature but also the soil, water and crops.

SWOT analysis of Campus de Vegazana

The SWOT analysis (Albert S Humphrey, 1970) arose as amethod for analysing the competitiveness of companies and alsofor self-evaluation purposes. It is a question of ascertaining theStrengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats in an attemptto arrive at an effective strategy to suit the firm itself and marketcharacteristics. In the case of Campus de Vegazana, to allow for

the differences from a company, the chosen methodologyconsisted of four steps:

1. External analysis (Opportunities and Threats) vis--viscompetitors. Porters five forces model, (Porter, 1979).Opportunity: Favourable situation proffered by theenvironment.Threat: Unfavourable situation existing in the environment.

2. Internal analysisWeakness: Unfavourable position of the university, of aninternal character.Strength: Favourable position of the university, of aninternal character.

3. Drawing up the SWOT matrix

4. Determination of the strategy to be employed forlessening the impact of the campuss ecological footprint.

Starting pointFigures. The ecological footprint calculated for the Campus deVegazana is 0.45 (gha/cap), as well as the environmentalimpacts deriving from its activity.

Measures to be taken. Reduction of the ecological footprint,development of campus sustainability strategy. Reduction ofenvironmental impacts: emission of greenhouse gases (CO2).

Len University Initiatives underway. Creation of the GreenOffice, development of sustainability strategies.

Needs detected

Current values

UNIVERSITY BY THE POPULATION(students, PAS, PDI )

Reduce consumption ofwater, electricity andpaper.

Lighting increase,

Selective wastecontainers

Bike park,

Bike lane.

UNIVERSITY BY THE POPULATION (students,PAS, PDI )



19/20

SWOT analysis:

Conclusions and recommendations. The Campus de Vegazanahas an ecological footprint lower than the average universityfigure. Even so the consumption deriving from the factorsanalysed threaten its ongoing viability. It would be desirable to

reduce these consumption levels to increase the universityssustainability.

Potential approach towards the ecological footprint.Reduction by raising awareness of the environmental impact ofthe campuss current ecological footprint.

Acknowledgements

This research work has been carried out under the 2008 researchgrant scheme of the Institute of Prevention, Health andEnvironment (Instituto de Prevencin, Salud y Medio Ambiente)of FUNDACIN MAPFRE.

Our thanks also go to all the following:

To all those persons and institutions that have helped us incarrying out this research work, in all its phases.

To URBASER and to GERSUL, especially to Antonio Nicols, JosManuel and Secundino Prieto, for the input of figures on thewaste generated by the Campus de Vegazana.

To Vicente Fernndez, for all the figures on the universitysenergy consumption.

To Luis Roy, for the information on campus occupancy and thebuildings making it up. And to Nacho and Miguel of SERCAR, whoare ever willing to do everything they can to help.

To Francisco Gallego, for his input of information on paper

Geographicallocation

Green zones

Public transport

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

The campussecological footprint islower than theuniversity average(See table 25).

Proximity to the city,reducing averagecommuting distance.

High paper consumption. Watering of the campus

green areas represents itsbiggest water consumption,accounting for 64% of thetotal.

Electricity consumption ishigh.

High use of privatevehicles.

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

Efficient publictransport.

Possibility of rooftopinstallation of solarpanels.

Reduction of greenareas by the localcouncil.

Reduction of enrolments. Reduction of public

money allocated to theuniversity.



20/20

consumption and photocopies of all the faculties.

And to all of you for your interest in how much we consume andwhat our ecological footprint is. And to all of you once again forstarting, little by little, to apply the measures most conducivetowards the sustainability of our university.

Bibliography1. Arc GIS 9.2 (ESRI. 2006).

2. Bicknell K B. Ball R J. Cullen R. Bigsby H R. Newmethodology for the ecological footprint with an applicationto the New Zealand economy. Ecological Economics. 1998.(27) 149-160.

3. Cuch A. Lpez I. Informe MIES. Una aproximaci alimpacte ambiental de lEscola dArquitectura del Valls.Bases per a una poltica ambiental de lETSAV. UniversidadPolitcnica de Catalua con el apoyo del Departamento deMedio ambiente de la Generalitat de Catalua. 1999.

4. Chambers. N. Simmons. C. Wackernagel. M. Sharingnature's interest: ecological footprints as an indicator of

sustainability. Earthscan. 2000. London.5. Humphre.and A S. Stanford Research Institute. 1970.

Unpublished report.

6. Lpez R. Taboada JL. Lpez N. Impacto ambiental encentros da USC. Vicerrectora de Calidade e Planificacin.Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Direccin Xeneralde Desenvolvemento Sostible. Xunta de Galicia. 2008.

7. Mayor X. Quintana V. Belmonte R. Aproximacin a la HuellaEcolgica de Catalua. Consejo Asesor para el DesarrolloSostenible de Catalua. 2003.

8. Plan de Energas Renovables de Espaa 2005-2010 of theMinisterio de Industria. Turismo y Comercio.

9. Porter. M. How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard

business Review. March/April. 1979.10. Rees W. Wackernagel M. Our ecological footprint. Reducing

human impact on earth. New Society Publisher. Canada.1996.

11. Relea F, Prat A. La petjada ecolgica de Barcelona. Unaaproximaci. Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, Presidencia,Comisin de Medio Ambiente y Servicios Urbanos, 1998.

12. Serrano N. Una estimaci dels costos reals de lautombil;Revista Medi Ambiente: Tecnologa i Cultura, n15; Elcotxe, mesure de totes les coses, Departament de MediAmbient i Habitatge, Generalitat de Catalunya, 1996.

13. Simmons C, Lewis K, Barrett J. Two feet two approaches:a component-based model of ecological footprinting.Ecological economics, 2000 (32) 375-380.

14. Tercer Inventario Forestal Nacional. 2003.http://www.mma.es/secciones/biodiversidad/inventarios/ifn/ifn3/pdf/estapridac_04_06_2007.pdf

15. WORLD WILDLIFE FUND. Living Planet Report 2002,. Gland


efp leon university 09

Documents