,(((+<'&21
A Study of Carbon Footprint in an Educational
Institution in India
R Rahul (1758513)
Department of computer science engineering
Sri Ramakrishna Engineering College
Coimbatore, India
rahul.1701157@srec.ac.in
R Pradip Kumar (1758519)
Department of computer science engineering
Sri Ramakrishna Engineering College
Coimbatore, India
pradipkumar.1701141@srec.ac.in
Abstract— This Study paper focuses on carbon emissions of
Sri Ramakrishna Engineering College, Coimbatore in India.
The study estimated the carbon emission of the institution
campus for the period from January 2018 to December 2019.
Direct, indirect and other indirect emissions of carbon were
considered for the study. A detailed and extensive consumption-
based carbon footprint of the campus was evaluated. It is
estimated that the majority of Carbon emission is from other
indirect methods of emission i.e. imported electricity which
contributes around 27.89% of carbon.
Keywords— Carbon Footprint (CF), Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), direct and indirect emissions
I. Introduction
As of 2018, India has managed to reduce its carbon emissions
by 12%. China, The United States of America and India, in
the specified order are countries with the most carbon dioxide
emission according to a study in 2008. India as a developing
country cannot afford to invest in emission control, yet India
is developing policies that will control carbon emissions. In
2012 the Climate Change Bill was passed in India. It focuses
on the reduction of specific carbon emissions in India. The
Climate Change Bill lays down budgeting and trading
schemes. India aims to reduce carbon emissions of its gross
domestic product, upon 35% in the period of 2005-2030 in
accordance with the Paris climate change agreement.
America and South Africa are taking necessary
action to reduce Carbon Footprint (CF). It is important to
focus on India because; India has 10,367 technical institutes
which contribute a significant amount to the net carbon
emission. There are over 3.7 million students enrolled in
these technical institutions and hence to spark awareness in
these institutions is to insure the future against emissions that
significantly affect the climate. Although India as a country
is focusing on CF reduction there is yet to be major steps
taken towards CF reduction. This study looks into the CF of
Sri Ramakrishna Engineering College, Coimbatore, Tamil
Nadu in India as a subject who can be further generalized for
other Indian educational institutions as well.
k,(((
Authorized licensed use limited to: Machakos University College. Downloaded on May 20,2021 at 10:20:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
J Selvakumar (1758517)
Department of computer science Engineering
Sri Ramakrishna Engineering College
Coimbatore, India
selvakumar.jayakumar@srec.ac.in
S Krishnaprabha (175821)
Department of Management Studies
Sri Ramakrishna Engineering College
Coimbatore, India
Krishnaprabha.siva@srec.ac.in
II. EXISTING STUDIES IN CARBON FOOTPRINT
Universities all around have quantified their carbon emission.
The quantitative data provided by these universities can be
used to create a generalized model to estimate the carbon
footprint of an educational institution. The studies below use
the ISO 14067:2018 standard for assessment. Across the
world, UN Environment is working with universities to set up
national and regional Green Universities Networks to enable
institutions to incorporate low carbon-climate resilience
development strategies and sustainability in education,
training and campus operations. The existing studies on
carbon footprint emission conducted by different educational
institutions like The University of Cape Town (UCT) South
Africa, University of Leeds UK Norwegian, University of
Technology and Science (NTNU), etc. are taken into
consideration for study.
A. University of Cape Town (UCT), South Africa:
In this study factors like goods & services emissions,
transport emissions and campus energy emissions are taken
into account. If data that is specific to South Africa cannot be
accessed then the IPCC(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change) emission factors were used to estimate CF(carbon
footprint). 81% of the total CF emission is attributed to
electricity and the carbon footprint per student is 3.2 tons
CO2-eq.
B. University of Leeds, UK:
Here an EEIO (Environmental Extended Input Output)
assessment has been used to estimate the CF of capital goods,
energy, waste, transport, leased assets, purchased goods, and
services. The data was acquired through several interviews
with the procurement staff of the university. This yielded the
following data:
ƒ Scope 1 emissions - 18%
ƒ Scope 2 emissions - 31%
ƒ Scope 3 emissions – 51%
 ,(((+<'&21
C. Norwegian University of Technology and Science
(NTNU):
This study uses the same EEIO method to analyze the carbon
footprint. The data is acquired from the 120 EEIO sectors
which can be found in the institute records. The carbon
footprint split-up is as follows:
ƒ Services – 5%
ƒ Consumables – 11%
ƒ Travel – 16%
ƒ Equipment and services – 19% each
ƒ Other Emissions - 10%
D. Bristol University:
It has reduced its carbon emissions by 27 percent in the period
of 2005-18. This was achieved by introducing heating
controls and LED lighting. The University aims to become
carbon neutral by 2030. The Bristol University took a major
leap towards CF reduction when it announced its plans to
withdraw completely from all investments in fossil fuel
within 2 years.
E. Bowdoin College in Maine:
It became carbon neutral in 2018, two years ahead of the
schedule it pledged as part of the Presidents’ Climate
Leadership Commitments. The private liberal arts college
reduced its carbon emissions by 29 percent, from 16,326
metric tons in 2008 to 11,620 metric tons in 2017. Bowdoin
installed a cogeneration turbine, which produces electricity as
a by-product of generating heat, converted buildings from oil
to natural gas, insulated 5,100 feet of underground steam
tunnels, replaced thousands of lights with efficient LED bulbs
and diverted more than 50 percent of its waste from landfills.
Bowdoin is also working with other educational institutions
to help fund the construction of a 75-megawatt solar project
in Farmington. The project is expected to offset nearly half of
Bowdoin’s annual electricity consumption.
F. American University (Washington D.C.):
It has reached carbon neutrality two years ahead of schedule.
It now uses 21 percent less energy per square foot than it did
in 2005. Fifty per cent of American University’s power needs
come from a solar panel farm it established in North Carolina
in partnership with George Washington University and
George Washington University Hospital. The other 50
percent comes from renewable energy credits.
G. Charles Sturt University, Australia:
It was certified as the country’s first carbon-neutral
university in 2016. As well as procuring carbon offsets, it has
introduced electric carts on campuses, commissioned solar
photovoltaic systems, established battery recycling centres
and beefed up its recycling processes.
H. Strathmore University, Kenya:
It set out to become the first climate-neutral university in the
Authorized licensed use limited to: Machakos University College. Downloaded on May 20,2021 at 10:20:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
country and installed a 0.6 MW rooftop solar plant to provide
energy and reduce its carbon footprint. The Strathmore
Energy Research Centre decided to export the excess energy
to the grid and a power purchase agreement was signed in
2015. The solar plant is also used as a live laboratory to train
technicians to design and maintain such installations.
I. West Hollow Middle School United States:
Students across the world have also taken direct, personal
action. In this school in Long Island in the United States,
students have taken the UN’s Climate Neutral Now pledge to
measure the school’s greenhouse gas emissions, reduce what
they can and offset the rest using certified emissions
reductions.
J. Green Schools Alliance:
It tries to harness this youthful enthusiasm and connects more
than 13,000 sustainability champions across more than
9,000 schools, districts, and organizations from 48 U.S. states
and 91 countries. The Alliance believes that schools act as
community hubs, helping to transform markets, policy,
education, and behavior. Its approach focuses on Whole
School Sustainability, which means integrating sustainable
solutions into the physical space, organizational culture and
educational programs.
III. Method:
The Study classifies the carbon emissions as direct,
indirect emission and Other Indirect emissions.
3.1 Direct Emissions:
The direct emissions of Carbon from institute owned
facilities i.e., Fuel used for fleet and other services and
indirect carbon emissions from the imported electricity from
State Government called Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
(TNEB).
3.2. Indirect Emissions:
Emissions from the imported electricity, heat or steam
consumed by the organization.
3.3. Other Indirect Emissions:
The indirect emissions are from commuting and
business travel, transportation of materials, people & waste;
waste generated by SREC but managed by another
organization; production and distribution of energy products,
other than electricity, steam, and heat, consumed by the
organization; purchased raw or primary materials.
3.4. Sri Ramakrishna Engineering College, Coimbatore
Campus:
Sri Ramakrishna Engineering College, Coimbatore
established in the year 1994, celebrated its Silver Jubilee in
 ,(((+<'&21

the last academic year. The campus is situated in South India.
The Nearest Airport is around 20 Kms and The Nearest
Railway station is around 15 km. The Institution currently has
4400 Students, passionately mentored by 279 Teaching
Faculty members and 170 Non-Teaching Faculty. The
institution is spread over a sprawling 42.24 acres with a total
built-up area of 98,770.35 Sq.mt.
The infrastructural of the institution are as below:
x Instructional area – 25,637.31 Sq.mt.
x Sports area – 8.67 acres
x General amenities area – 25,440.81 Sq.mt.
x Parking area – 2,182.95 Sq.mt.
x Residential area – 727.07 Sq.mt.
General Amenities :
x 1500 Seater Auditorium with Audio Visual Facility
x 11 seminar halls with capacity ranging from 150 to 350
x 98 classrooms equipped with audiovisual facilities
Men‟s Hostel capacity:
Hostel I – 188 Rooms,
Hostel II – 192 Rooms and (1178 Students)
Hostel III – 89 Rooms
Womens’ Hostel capacity:
Hostel I – 91 Rooms and
Hostel II – 139 Rooms (848 Students)
3.6. Data Collection and Methodology:
The data has been collected by identifying the possible
sources of carbon emissions from students, teaching faculty
and non-teaching by conducting semi-structured interviews.
Data were also taken from an existing study carried out on
the campus. A study for the estimation of waste generated in
various departments and buildings is carried out. Various
wastes generated within the campus were measured. The data
collection sources are listed in Table.1.
The scope 1 data was collected from The Transport
department and The Estate office. Scope 2 data were
collected from the estate office using the Bills from the
service provider for the purchased electricity. The
Boundaries considered for the study are as discussed in
section 3.4. The operational boundaries of the presents study
includes: scope 1 - direct emissions from burning of fossil
fuel in electric generator sets and campus fleet; scope 2 -
indirect energy emissions of imported electricity from state
electricity board i.e. from TNEB; scope 3 – other indirect
emissions consists of commuting and business travel by
Teaching Faculty, Non-teaching staff, and Students of
Institution, data were collected from Transport department
and estate office.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was
used for the carbon footprint assessment of the Institution.
The calculation method used for the direct, indirect and other
indirect carbon footprint is as follows.

x Staff quarters capacity - 6 (2BHK) Electricity (kWh/yr) * EF (kg CO2e/kWh) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr) (1)

x In house Health Center - 220.63 Sq.mt. Natural Gas (therms/yr) * EF (kg CO2e/therms) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr) (2)
x Multi-Cuisine Food Court - 658.5 Sq.mt. Fuel Oil (litres/yr) * EF (kg CO2e/litre) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr) (3)
x Parking facilities - 2182.95 Sq.mt. LPG (litres/yr) * EF (kg CO2e/litre) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr) (4)
Waste (kg/week) * 52 * EF (kg CO2e/kg) = emissions (kg CO2e/yr) (5)

IV. Study of Carbon Footprint (CF) in the Institution:

The present study in Sri Ramakrishna Engineering
College, Coimbatore in India aims to estimate the carbon
emissions for the period from January 2019 to December
2020. Table 1 lists the factors emitting carbon in the
institution and its source.

S.No Factors Source

1. LPG The Gas utilized in Hostels
Fig.1. Satellite Picture of Sri Ramakrishna Engineering College and Canteen
2. Fuel Fuel used for Generator,
3.5. Scope of the Study: Lorry, Tractor
3. Commuting Students College Bus, Public transport,
This study measures the Carbon Footprint of the cabs two-wheelers and cars
institution for the period from January 2019 to December used by students.
4. Commuting Cars and two-wheelers used
2019.
Employees by SREC employees.
x Scope 1: Measure the Direct Carbon Footprint of the 5. Engineering LPG, petrol, and chemicals
Institution Laboratories and used in Laboratories
x Scope 2: Measure the Indirect Carbon Footprint of Workshops
the Institution 6. Imported Electricity Electricity consumption -
x Scope 3: Measure the other Indirect Carbon TNEB
Footprint of the Institution 7. Mobile Phone Mobile phones used by
students and SREC employees

Authorized licensed use limited to: Machakos University College. Downloaded on May 20,2021 at 10:20:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 ,(((+<'&21

8. Laptops Laptops used by students and the Institution employees and students which contributes
faculty around 17.06%, fuel 16.64%, commuting students 10.57%,
9. Paper and Note Paper and Note Books used by Laptop usage 9.98%, food wastage 6.69%, LPG 6%,
Books students and faculty Commuting 3.27%, waste treatment plant 1.46%, paper and
10. Food Wastage The wastage from Hostels and notebooks usage 0.37% and Engineering Workshop and
Canteen
Laboratories 0.07%.
11. Waste Treatment Emission from Waste water
Plant treatment plant
Table.3. Direct, Indirect and other Indirect Emission of
Carbon Footprint in the Institution
Table 2 lists the annual carbon emissions in the Institution
with the factors, consumption and carbon emission in Kg.per Factor Classification Carbon Emission in Kg.
annum with percentage. per annum
Direct Emission 482265
S.No Factors Consumption Carbon In % Energy Indirect Emissions 594000
Emission
Other Indirect Emission 1053471
in
Kg. per Total 2129736
annum
1. Engineering LPG and 1500 0.07 % The comparison between direct, indirect and other indirect
Laboratories other emissions of carbon footprint is shown in Figure.3.
&Workshops chemicals
2. Paper and 12500 kg. 7812 0.37 %
Note Books
3. Waste 120000000 31134 1.46 %
Treatment litre
Plant
4. Commuting 18500\10000 69550 3.27 %
Faculty litre
(P/D)
5. LPG 36250 kg. 127890 6.00 %
6. Food 75000 kg. 142500 6.69 %
Wastage
7. Laptops 4250000 hrs. 212500 9.98 %
8. Commuting 92500\5000 225100 10.57 %
Students litre
(P/D)
9. Fuel (diesel) 131250 litre 354375 16.64 % Fig.3. Direct, Indirect and other Indirect Emission of Carbon
10. Mobile 106250 hrs. 363375 17.06 % Footprint in the Institution
Phone
11. Imported 990000units 594000 27.89 %
Electricity (kwh) 5. Conclusion:
Total 2129736
It is estimated that the majority of Carbon emission
is from other indirect emissions i.e., 10,53,471 CO2 Kg. per
A detailed and extensive consumption-based carbon annum, the energy indirect emission is 5,94,000 CO2 Kg. per
footprint of the Institution is evaluated. Fig. 2 shows a annum and the direct emission in the Institution estimated
breakdown of the different sources of carbon emissions. around 4,82,265 CO2 Kg. per annum. This study has created
Results show a total of 21,29,736 CO2 Kg. per annum is awareness among the Institution faculty and students for the
emitted. possible reduction of Carbon Footprint. This study can serve
as an example for other Educational Institutions to reduce
their Carbon Footprint.

6. Future Scope:
This study can be further generalized to other
educational institutions all around the world to reduce their
carbon footprint by developing the Institution’s own carbon
management plans.

7. References:
Fig.2. Annual Carbon Emission in the Institution 1. Baboulet.O., Lenzen.M.: Evaluating the environmental
The Carbon emission from imported electricity ie., performance of a university. Vol.18. Journal of Cleaner
Production, (2010) 1134–1141
5,94,000 CO2 Kg. per annum, which contributes around
27.89%, the remaining emission is by Mobile phone usage by

Authorized licensed use limited to: Machakos University College. Downloaded on May 20,2021 at 10:20:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 ,(((+<'&21

2. Bastianoni. S., Pulselli. F. M., Tiezz. E.: The problem of

assigning responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions,
Vol.4. Ecological Economics, (2004) 253–257
3. Bull. J.G., Kozak. R.A.: Comparative life cycle
assessments: the case of paper and digital media. Vol.45.
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev, (2014) 10–18
4. Burgess. B., Lai. J.: Ecological Footprint Analysis and
Review. Kwantlen University College. (2006)
5. Garg. A., Shukla. .P.R., Kankal. B., Mahapatra. D.: CO2
emission in India: trends and management at sectoral, sub-
regional and plant levels. Carbon Manag (2017)
6. Higher Education Funding Council for England. Carbon
reduction target and strategy for higher education in
England. HEFCE: Bristol. (2010)
7. Klein-Banai.C., Theis.T.L.: Quantitative analysis of
factors affecting greenhouse gas emissions at institutions
of higher education. Vol.48. Journal of Cleaner
Production, (2013) 29–38
8. Kuldip Singh.S., Vikrant.B.: Measuring carbon footprint
of an Indian university using life cycle assessment.
Procedia CIRP 69 (2018 ) 475 – 480
9. Letete, T.C.M., Marquard, A.: Carbon footprint of the
University of Cape Town.Vol.22. Journal of Energy in
Southern Africa (2011) 2–12
10. Maike Sippel., Daniel Meyer., Niklas Scholliers.: What
about greenhouse gas emissions from students? An
analysis of lifestyle and carbon footprints at the University
of Applied Science in Konstanz, Germany
CARBONMANAGEMENT (2018)
11. Newel.A.F., Gregor.P.: User sensitive inclusive design- in
search of a new paradigm. Proceedings on the 2000
conference on universal usability. Washington DC, USA
(2000)
12. Oliver J. Robinson., Adam Tewkesbury., Simon Kemp.,
Ian D. Williams.: Towards a universal carbon footprint
standard: A case study of carbon managementat
universities, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017)
13. Sunil D. Kulkarni.: A bottom up approach to evaluate the
carbon footprints of a higher educational institute in India
for sustainable existence. Vol.231. Journal of Cleaner
Production (2019) 633-641
14. Townsend. J., Barrett. J.: Exploring the applications of
carbon foot printing towards sustainability at a UK
university:reporting and decision making.Vol.107. J.
Clean. Prod. (2015) 154–176
15. Wright. L., Kemp.S., Williams.I.: Carbon footprinting:
towards a universally accepted definition. Carbon Manag.
2 (2011)

Authorized licensed use limited to: Machakos University College. Downloaded on May 20,2021 at 10:20:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.