WELL-EDUCATED CARBON FOOTPRINT: SAMPLE OF A UNIVERSITY STAFF IN TURKEY

Öz

This paper aims to calculate the carbon footprint of a Turkish university staff and find out relations between demographical specification and the associated carbon footprint. The term personal carbon footprint is used to describe the total amount of carbon dioxide and another greenhouse gas emission for which each individual is responsible. 139 staff participated in the survey. According to the results; the carbon footprint of the participants was calculated at 12.069 tons per person. Lifestyle constitutes 35%, food constitutes 23%, housing constitutes 18%, and travel constitutes 24% of total calculated carbon footprint. The carbon footprint of the participants is higher than the average of Turkish people and the world. It has resulted in that gender, age and tenure did not affect housing, travel, food, lifestyle and total carbon footprint significantly. On the contrary, marital status had a significant impact on housing, travel, food, lifestyle and total carbon footprint. Regarding to income, it had a partial affect on total carbon footprint. It is seen that income is positively related to travel and total carbon footprint.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Carbon footprint,University staff,Turkey

WELL-EDUCATED CARBON FOOTPRINT: SAMPLE OF A UNIVERSITY STAFF IN TURKEY

Öz

This paper aims to calculate the carbon footprint of a Turkish university staff and find out relations between demographical specification and the associated carbon footprint. The term personal carbon footprint is used to describe the total amount of carbon dioxide and another greenhouse gas emission for which each individual is responsible. 139 staff participated in the survey. According to the results; the carbon footprint of the participants was calculated at 12.069 tons per person. Lifestyle constitutes 35%, food constitutes 23%, housing constitutes 18%, and travel constitutes 24% of total calculated carbon footprint. The carbon footprint of the participants is higher than the average of Turkish people and the world. It has resulted in that gender, age and tenure did not affect housing, travel, food, lifestyle and total carbon footprint significantly. On the contrary, marital status had a significant impact on housing, travel, food, lifestyle and total carbon footprint. Regarding to income, it had a partial affect on total carbon footprint. It is seen that income is positively related to travel and total carbon footprint.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Carbon footprint,University staff,Turkey

Kaynakça

1. BRIGHT GREEN (2015) Your Personal Carbon Footprint Calculator, FSC Publication: Telford, UK.
2. BUCHS, M. – SCHENPF, S.V. (2013) UK Households’ Carbon Footprint: A Comparison of the Association between Household Characteristics and Emissions from Home Energy, Transport and Other Goods and Services, IZA Discussion Paper No: 7204, IZA Publications, Bonn, Germany.
3. CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATOR (2015) Retrieved From http://www.carbonindependent.org
4. CARBON TRUST (2007) Carbon Footprinting: An Introduction for Organizations. Carbon Trust Publishing: London, UK.
5. CARBON TRUST (2012) Carbon Footprinting: The next step to reducing your emission. Carbon Trust Publishing: London, UK.
6. COHEN, M. A., VANDENBERGH, M. P. (2008) Consumption, Happiness, and Climate Change. Resources for the Future, Washington DC, USA.
7. EDGAR (2013) CO2 time series 1990-2013 per capita for world countries, Retrieved from http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts_pc1990-2013
8. EGAS, C. – YORK, R. (2012) Women’s status and carbon dioxide emissions: A quantitative cross-national analysis, Social Science Research, Volume: 41, Issue: 4, pp. 965–976. EMELIANOFF, C., MOR, E., DOBRE, M., CORDELLIER, M., BARBIER, C., BLANC, N., SANDER, A., CASTELAIN MEUNIER, C., JOLITON, D., LEROY, N., POUROUCHOTTAMIN, P., RADANNE, P. (2012) Lifestyles and carbon footprints: A Scenario Analysis of Lifestyles in France in 2050 and Carbon Footprints. Les cahiers du Club d’Ingénierie Prospective Énergie et Environnement, Issue: 21, pp. 1-87.

9. GREENSTEIN, R., PARROTT, S., SHERMAN, A. (2008) Designing Climate-Change Legislation that Shields Low-Income Households from Increased Poverty and Hardship. Budget and Policy Priorities: Washington DC, USA.
10. HAPPY PLANET INDEX (2012) The Happy Planet Index: 2012 Report, New Economics Foundation: London, UK.
11. KELEŞ, Ö. – UZUN, N. – ÖZSOY, S. (2008) “Measuring and Evaluating Pre-Service Teachers’ Ecological Footprints”, Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 9-2: 1-14.
12. KNIGHT, K. W., ROSA, E. A. (2011) The Environmental Efficiency of Well-Being: A Cross National Analysis, Social Science Research, 40: 931-949.
13. KNIGHT, Kyle – ROSA, Eugene A. – SCHOR, Juliet B. (2012) Reducing Growth to Achieve Environmental Sustainability: The Role of Work Hours, Political Economy Research Institute, Working Paper Series, Number: 304, UMASS, MA, USA.
14. ÖZSOY ERDEN, C. (2015) Düşük Karbon Ekonomisi ve Türkiye’nin Karbon Ayak İzi (Low-Carbon Economy and Carbon Footprint of Turkey). HAK-İŞ Uluslararası Emek ve Toplum Dergisi, 4-9: 198 – 215.
15. ROSNIC, D., WEISBROT, M. (2006) Are Shorter Hours Good for the Environment? A Comparison of U.S. and European Energy Consumption (Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington, DC, 2006.
16. WACKERNAGEL, M., REES, W. (1996) Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, Canada.
17. WIEDMANN T., MINX J. (2008) A Definition of Carbon Footprint. In C. C. Pertsova, Ecological Economics Research Trends, pp. 1-11. Nova Science Publishers: New York, USA.
18. WISSER, Wayne (2011), The Age of Responsibility, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, UK.
19. WWF (2012) Türkiye’nin Ekolojik Ayak İzi Raporu (Ecological Footprint Report of Turkey), Ofset Yapımevi: İstanbul, Turkey.
20. YORK, R., ROSA, E. A., DIETZ, T. (2009) A Tale of Contrasting Trends: Three Measures of the Ecological Footprint in China, India, Japan and The United States, 1961-2003, Journal of World-Systems Research, 15-2: 134-146.