Çevresel Sürdürülebilirlik Kapsamında Ege Üniversitesi Karbon Ayak İzi Analizi

Abstract

Üniversitelerin toplumda sürdürülebilirliği teşvik etmek için teknik rollerinin yanı sıra önemli sosyal sorumlulukları vardır ve paydaşları için bir lider olmalılardır. Sürdürülebilirliği sağlamak için karbon emisyonlarını yönetmek, azaltmak ve üniversitelerde sürdürülebilirliğin teşvik edilmesine önemli bir ihtiyaç vardır. Ege Üniversitesi (EU), sürdürülebilir ve yeşil bir kampüs olma vizyonuna sahiptir. Bu çalışmada, Ege Üniversitesi’nin kurumsal karbon ayak izi hesaplanmıştır. Yaşam döngüsü değerlendirme (YDD) aracı Ege Üniversitesi karbon ayak izini analiz etmek için kullanılmıştır. Çalışma, Sera Gazı Protokolü Kurumsal Muhasebe ve Raporlama Standardı ve ISO14064 / 1-2 standartları temel alınarak yapılmıştır. Çalışmada EU kampüsü Merkez Kampüs ve Tıp Fakültesi kampüsü olarak değerlendirilmeye alındı. Ege Üniversitesi'nin 2016 yılı toplam karbon salımı Kapsam 1, Kapsam 2 ve Kapsam 3 çerçevesinde toplam 40.608 tCO2e olarak analiz edildi. Çalışmanın sonucunda %37 sabit ve mobil yanmalardan, %39 elektrik kullanımından ve %24 ise seyahat ve personel ulaşımından kaynaklandığı ortaya konmuştur. Çalışmanın tartışma ve öneriler bölümünde ise EÜ’nün karbon salımını azaltması amacıyla kısa, orta ve uzun vadeli planlarında enerji tasarrufu, bilinçlendirme çalışmaları ve yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarına yönelmesi gerekliliği vurgulanmıştır.

Keywords

• Karbon yönetimi
• enerji yönetimi
• kampüslerde CO2 kaynakları
• karbon emisyon azaltımı

Carbon Footprint Analysis of Ege University within the Scope of Environmental Sustainability

Abstract

Universities play a leading role in promoting sustainability in society. Besides their technical roles, they have important social responsibilities and should be a leader for their stakeholders. Therefore, there is an important need to manage and reduce carbon emissions in universities to ensure environmental sustainability. Ege University (EU) has the vision of being a sustainable campus. In this context, in order to reduce carbon emissions, a carbon footprint study has been carried out primarily to determine carbon emission resources. The life cycle assessment (LCA) tool was used to analyze the Ege University carbon footprint. The study was based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard and ISO14064/1-2 standards. In the study, the EU campus was evaluated as the main campus and the medical faculty campus. Total carbon emissions of Ege University in 2016 were analyzed as a total of 40.608 tCO2e within the Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3. As a result of the study, it was revealed that 37% of total emission was caused by constant and mobile combustion, 39% from electricity usage, and 24% from travel and staff transportation. In the discussion, it was emphasized that EU should turn to energy conservation and efficiency, awareness activities, and renewable energy resources in its short, medium, and long term plans in order to reduce carbon emissions.

Keywords

• carbon management
• energy management
• carbon emission in campus
• reducing carbon emission

References

1. Alvarez, S., Blanquer, M., & Rubio, A. (2014). Carbon footprint using the Compound Method based on Financial Accounts. The case of the School of Forestry Engineering, Technical University of Madrid. Journal of Cleaner Production, 66, 224-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.050
2. Aroonsrimorakot, S., Yuwaree, C., Arunlertaree, C., Hutajareorn, R., & Buadit, T. (2013). Carbon footprint of faculty of environment and resource studies, Mahidol University, Salaya Campus, Thailand. APCBEE Procedia, 5, 175–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcbee.2013.05.031
3. Binboğa, G., & Ünal, A. (2018). Sürdürülebilirlik Ekseninde Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi’nin Karbon Ayak İzinin Hesaplanmasına Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 21, 187-202. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.323532
4. Boğaziçi University Carbon Footprint Studies. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.boun.edu.tr/tr (Date accessed: 2020, November 25).
5. California University Carbon Footprint Studies. (2007). Retrieved from https://www.sustainability.caltech.edu/documents/75-stanislava_-_final_draft.pdf (Date accessed: 2020, November 25)
6. Cambridge University Carbon Footprint Studies. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.environment.admin.cam.ac.uk/what-are-we-doing/carbon/scope-1-2-and-3-emissions (Date accessed: 2020, November 25)
7. Cape Town University Carbon Footprint Studies. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/image_tool/images/328/explore/sustainability/reports/UCT_Carbon_Footprint_Report_2014.pdf (Date accessed: 2020, November 25)
8. College Cork University Carbon Footprint Studies. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.ucc.ie/en/media/support/buildingsandestates/energy/reports/UCCCarbonFootprint2011-12BE1310-BR-B-002.pdf (Date accessed: 2020, November 25)

9. DEFRA Guide. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2017 (Date accessed: 2020, December 12)
10. Erdoğan, N., Ekşi, I., Çavdar, B., & Kaylı A. (2020). Kültürpark’ın Karbon Tutma Potansiyeli. Retrieved from http://www.tmmobizmir.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/12/Kent_Ekosistemine_Katkilari_.pdf (Date accessed: 2021, March 12)
11. Flores, R., Ramírez, R., & Ortiz, I. (2019). The carbon footprint of a public university campus in Mexico City. Carbon Management, 10(5), 501-511. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2019.1642042
12. Gökçek, Ö.B., Bozdağ, A., & Demirbağ, H. (2019). Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Örneğinde Karbon Ayak İzinin Belirlenmesi. Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(2), 721-730. https://doi.org/10.28948/ngumuh.514438
13. Gomez, N., Angeles Cadarso, M., & Monsalve, F. (2016). Carbon footprint of a university in a multiregional model: the case of the University of Castilla-La Mancha. Journal of Cleaner Production, 138, 119-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.009
14. Greenhouse Gas Calculation Inventory Manual. Retrieved from http://climate.emb.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/GHG-Manual.pdf (Date accessed: 2020, December 15)
15. Hong Kong University Carbon Footprint Studies. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.sustainability.hku.hk/report/2011-2013/sustainability-indicators/carbon (Date accessed: 2020, November 25)
16. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC (Date accessed: 2020, March 20).
17. https://ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools#cross_sector_tools_id (Date accessed: 2021, March 29).
18. https://www.unep.org/resources/toolkits-manuals-and-guides/greening-universities-toolkit-v20 (Date accessed: 2020, December 21).
19. Lambrechts, W., & Liedekerke, L. (2014). Using ecological footprint analysis in higher education: Campusoperations, policy development and educational purposes. Ecological Indicators, 45, 402–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.043
20. Larsen, H., Pettersen, J., Solli, C., & Hertwich, E.G. (2013). Investigating the Carbon Footprint of a University - The case of NTNU. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 39-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.007
21. Li, X., Tan, H., & Rackes, A. (2015). Carbon footprint analysis of student behavior for a sustainable university campus in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 7-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.084
22. Ozawa-Meida, L., Brockway, P., Letten, K., Davies, J., & Fleming, P.D. (2013). Measuring carbon performance in a UK University through a consumption-based carbon footprint: De Montfort University case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 56, 185-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.09.028
23. Nottingham University Carbon Footprint Studies. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/sustainability/carbonmanagement/carbonmanagement.aspx (Date accessed: 2020, November 25)
24. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi (OMÜ), Enerji Yönetimi Yönergesi, (2020). Retrieved from https://s3.omu.edu.tr/kalem/ku655hfkk8hccowcq73vy9r35i42 (Date accessed: 2020, December 25).
25. Pektaş, İ. (2017). Raylı Ulaşım Sistemleri Sektör Analizi 2017. Anadolu Raylı Ulaşım Sistemleri Kümelenmesi, 71 pp.
26. Queen University Carbon Footprint Studies. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.queensu.ca/sustainability/campus-initiatives/climate-action/carbon-footprint (Date accessed: 2020, November 25)
27. Rüşen, S.E., Topçu, M.A., Celep, G. K., Çeltek, S. A., & Rüşen, A. (2018). Üniversite Kampüs Binaları için Enerji Etüdü: Örnek Çalışma. Çukurova Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(2), 83-92.
28. Sreng, R., & Gümrükçüoğlu Yiğit, M. (2017). Carbon footprint studies on Esentepe Campus of Sakarya University, Turkey in (2015). Sakarya University Journal of Science, 21(5), 1095-1099. https://doi.org/10.16984/saufenbilder.340009
29. Tatsanawalai, U. (2015). Carbon Footprint of Environmental Science Students in Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, Thailand. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 1156-1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.371
30. Tokio University Carbon Footprint Studies. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.tscp.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/about.html (Date accessed: 2020, November 25)
31. Townsend, J., & Barrett, J. (2015). Exploring the applications of carbon footprinting towards sustainability at a UK university: reporting and decision making. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 164-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.004
32. Ugle, P., Rao, S., & Ramachandra, T.V. (2010). Carbon sequestration potential of urban trees. In Proceedings of the Lake 2010: Wetlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change Conference, Bengaluru, India, 22–24 December 2010.
33. Üreden, A., & Özden, S. (2018). Kurumsal Karbon Ayak İzi Nasıl Hesaplanır: Teorik Bir Çalışma. Anadolu Orman Araştırmaları Dergisi 4(2), 98-108.
34. Yaka. I.F., Koçer., A., & Güngör, A. (2015). Akdeniz University Health Services Vocational Determination of Carbon Footprint. Electronic Journal of Machine Technologies, 12(3), 37-45.
35. Yañez, P., Sinha, A., & Vásquez, M. (2020). Carbon Footprint Estimation in a University Campus: Evaluation and Insights. Sustainability, 12, 181. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010181