How institutional factors are related to greenhouse gas emissions
Download
1 / 19

How Institutional Factors are Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 107 Views
  • Uploaded on

How Institutional Factors are Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Cynthia Klein-Banai, Ph.D. Associate Chancellor for Sustainability. Outline. Background Methods used Results Implications. Background. ACUPCC reporting tool (>450 schools)

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' How Institutional Factors are Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions' - cullen


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
How institutional factors are related to greenhouse gas emissions

How Institutional Factors are Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Cynthia Klein-Banai, Ph.D.

Associate Chancellor for Sustainability


Outline
Outline Emissions

  • Background

  • Methods used

  • Results

  • Implications


Background
Background Emissions

  • ACUPCC reporting tool (>450 schools)

  • Colleges and universities are 1.6% of US GHG emissions

  • Depending on the year of construction, inpatient health care, education, lodging, public assembly, and other building types are approximately 1.5-3 X more energy intensive than an office building


Methods

ACUPCC requires reporting using EmissionsWRI Greenhouse Gas Protocol

Most campuses use the Campus Carbon Calculator

Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, including components of each such as air travel and commuting are to be reported

Methods


Contextual data from the acupcc

Reporting year and start date of year Emissions

State

Carnegie class

FTE enrollment

FT faculty, FT staff, FT students

PT faculty, PT staff, PT students

Residential students

Gross square feet

Health care space, laboratory space, residential space

Red = mandatory

Contextual data from the ACUPCC


Data from other sources

Heating and cooling degree days (National Weather Service) Emissions

Carnegie Foundation

Locale

Size and setting classification (residential nature)

Region

Medical school

Land-grant institution

Data from other sources


Data analysis

Most recent year for schools reporting Emissions

Small data set with all of above information (n=52)

Principal factor analysis to tease out most significant factors

Population showed a lot of colinearity, as did square footage although to a lesser extent

HDD and CDD explained less of the variance than the other independent variables

Data analysis



Final data set n 135

Used only FT enrollment for population factor Emissions

Created new variable

ONSF = GSF – LSF – HCSF – RSF where

LSF = square feet of laboratory facilities

HCSF = square feet of health care facilities

RSF = square feet of residential facilities

Final data set (n=135)


Scope 1 and 2 vs gross emissions

log (S12) = -2.433 + 1.027 log (GSF) + 0.000129 CDD + 0.000032 HDD

p<0.0001;R2=0.823

S12 = Scope 1 and 2 emissions

GSF = Gross square feet

CDD = total cooling degree days/yr

HDD = total heating degree days/yr

log (S123) = -1.25 + 0.92 log (GSF)

p<0.0001; R2=0.795

Scope 1 and 2 vs. Gross Emissions


Gross emissions model n 135

S123 = -10489 + 0.007 ONSF + 0.085 LSF + 0.019 RSF + 38100 M + 1.406 CE + 1.369 FTE

p<0.0001; R2=0.954

CE = calculated greenhouse gas emissions from commuting to campus (metric tons CO2-e)

M = medical school (0=no; 1=yes)

FTE = full-time equivalent enrollment as calculated by the institution

Gross emissions model n=135


Gross emissions 50 000 metric tons co2e n 107

S123 + 1.406 CE + 1.369 FTE<50,000 = 3654 + 0.001 ONSF +

0.015 LSF + 0.019 RSF + 0.627 CE +

1.08 FTE

p<0.0001; R2=0.642

Took out medical school since only 1

Gross emissions < 50,000 metric tons CO2e (n=107)


Conclusions

For gross emissions CDD and HDD are not important parameters.

The parameter estimate for LSF is more than 10X than for ONSF in both models and the parameter estimate for RSF is at least 2X ONSF. This shows a greater influence on emissions from these types of uses.

Smaller schools less influenced by student population and building space than larger schools.

Conclusions


Conclusions1

Find a contextual predictor for commuting emissions, such as number of parking spaces or permits, to improve the simplicity of this model.

Conduct an in-depth examination of the institutional factors that influence emissions.

Conclusions


Beyond technical solutions

Examine necessity of building space and use. Is it essential to mission?

Do we need multiple and/or large offices for faculty and staff, especially when we can telecommute?

Is space fully utilized for intended function?

Is it necessary that the institution support activities such as facility- (and energy-) intensive research?

Has vacated space been fully decommissioned and how can it be renovated and reassigned?

Beyond technical solutions


Questions

Cynthia Klein-Banai to mission?

[email protected]

312-996-3968

http://sustainability.uic.edu

Questions?


ad