1fjuly2015 PDF
1fjuly2015 PDF
1fjuly2015 PDF
net/publication/282231832
CITATION READS
1 285
2 authors, including:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Climate-Based Suitability Mapping for Adlay (Coix lacryma-jobi L.) in Bukidnon Province, Philippines View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Arieh P. Medina on 19 November 2015.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted as an effort to obtain a glimpse of the impact of the activities of the College of Forestry and
Environmental Science in Central Mindanao University, Philippines through ecological footprinting. The Ecological
Footprinting (EF) approach was undertaken to estimate the amount of bioproductive land needed to provide for the
annual operations of the College. Based on EF conversion factors from previous life cycle analysis (LCA) studies, a partial
ecological footprint of the College was estimated based on the following components: electricity consumption, water
consumption, fuel use, air travel, built up land, paper consumption, and waste generation. The ecological footprint of the
College was found to be higher than its occupied land area. This necessitates the need for sustainability planning to limit
the increasing impact of the development activities of the College in terms of its demand for ecological resources. Hence
several sustainability scenarios were developed such as off grid solar energy generation, manual lawn mowing,
rainwater harvesting, paper reuse, and waste recycling. Such measures were found to decrease the ecological footprint
of the college at a minimal level. Nonetheless, the study was able to demonstrate how EF can be a useful educational tool
as well as an aid to policy and decision making in an academic institution.
Keywords: Sustainability, Ecological Footprint, Scenario Building, Philippines.
INTRODUCTION
The important role of higher education in the achievement of sustainable development has been openly
accepted nowadays [1, 2, 3, and 4]. However, there is a difficulty in the monitoring and evaluation of
campus sustainability programs due to the varied means to measure and determine the success and
failure of such green initiatives towards achieving sustainability [2]. This calls for further development of
new tools or plainly enhancing existing ones which could lead us into successfully integrating
sustainability in higher education.
On the other hand, the ecological footprint (EF) has been found to be a simple yet effective tool to
determine ecological impact. EF is measured in terms of the amount of bioproductive land needed to
support the consumption of a country or an individual as well as for absorbing their waste. Thus, a higher
EF is interpreted as an unsustainable scenario. Therefore, reducing one’s EF is a path towards
sustainability. First used in 1996 to compare environmental performance of countries [5], EF has now
been used to determine the environmental impact of subsystems such as cities, industries, companies,
individuals, or products. Previous studies have dealt with the use of EF in determining the ecological
impact of the consumption behavior of students in a university [6, and 7]. Furthermore, other studies
have dealt with measuring the EF of whole academic institutions [8, 9, 10, and 11].
However, due to the inconsistency of the EF components measured in schools and universities, a
comparison of EF among institutions is impossible. This leads to questions and criticisms regarding the
practicality of using EF for academic institutions. Thus, to address these research difficulties, other
studies developed innovations for utilizing EF in the academic setting. One of these studies used EF to
predict increase of ecological impact due to climate change [10]. EF was also used to determine ecological
benefits from several sustainability initiatives in a university [9], which was based on a previous
technique applied to a city [12]. Furthermore, EF was also used to determine the sustainability of living
within the campus compared to off campus residence [7].
It is with the above path that this study is geared upon. In this context, EF is used to test the viability of
several programs and projects aiming for campus sustainability. With this, it is hoped that EF can be an
effective educational tool to promote environmental awareness among the university populace.
Furthermore, this will pave the way for university administrators to consider EF as an aid to policy and
decision making.
METHODOLOGY
The study area
Central Mindanao University (CMU) is an agricultural state university in the Philippines. It is located in
Bukidnon, a prime agricultural province in the island of Mindanao. Since its establishment by the
Americans in 1910 as an agricultural elementary school, it has gradually progressed into a state
university in 1965 by virtue of Republic Act 4498. To date CMU, is considered by the Philippine
government as a Level IV (highest level) state university. CMU is also awarded by the Commission on
Higher Education (CHED) with centers of excellence in agriculture, veterinary medicine, and forestry
education as well as centers of development in biology and mathematics education.
CMU’s College of Forestry and Environmental Science (CMU-CFES) is one of the 9 colleges in the
university. Currently, the College offers 2 undergraduate programs (BS in Forestry and BS in
Environmental Science) and 2 graduate programs (MS in Forestry and MS in Environmental
Management). CMU-CFES is currently manned by 15 faculty members and 9 support staff attending to
around 500 students per semester.
Data collection and sources
The identified components used in the EF computation of CMU-CFES are the following: electricity
consumption, water consumption, fuel use, air travel of personnel, built up land, paper consumption, and
waste generation. Table 1 shows the data that were collected and the different sources where they were
gathered. The 2013 consumption data of CMU-CFES were used in the study.
EF conversion
Using the component method of EF calculation, the consumption data were subjected to conversion using
EF factors from previous literature [14, and 15] (Table 2). The resulting units after the EF conversion are
expressed in global hectares (ghas). One global hectare is equivalent to a hectare of land with an annual
productivity equal to the world average. Thus, the EF of CMU-CFES is interpreted as the amount of
productive land needed to supply the materials consumed by the College as well as the amount of forest
land needed to absorb the greenhouse gases emitted from such consumption. A more detailed procedure
in the computation of EF prior to the derivation of the EF conversion factors can be found in Kitzes et al
[16].
Table 2: EF Conversion Factors for each Component
Component EF Conversion Factor (ghas) Sources
Electricity 0.0000958 ghas/KWh Chambers et al (2000)
Water 0.00008 ghas/m3 Chambers et al (2000)
Fuel Diesel = 0.000867 ghas/L Chambers et al (2000)
Gasoline = 0.000774 ghas/L
Air Travel 0.000049 ghas/pkm Acosta & Moore 2009
Built up Land 0.000283 ghas/ m2 Chambers et al (2000)
Paper 0.003645 ghas/ream Chambers et al (2000)
Waste Paper = 0.0028 ghas/kg Chambers et al (2000)
Glass = 0.001 ghas/kg
Aluminum = 0.0094 ghas/kg
Plastic = 0.0036 ghas/kg
Built up land EF refers to the amount of land occupied by the buildings of the College. The total area
occupied by the three buildings of the College (Administration, Main, and Annex) corresponds to 1.11
ghas.
Paper consumption EF is attributed to the amount of forest needed to supply the trees used to produce
the paper consumed by the College. Consequently, it also includes the amount of forest land needed to
sequester the greenhouse gases produced from the generation of energy used in manufacturing the said
amount of paper. The CMU-CFES EF for paper consumption is 0.40 ghas.
Solid waste EF corresponds to the amount of land needed to accommodate waste for landfills.
Furthermore, it also includes the forest land needed to absorb the greenhouse gases emitted by the
decomposition of waste in landfills [17]. Solid waste EF for CMU-CFES is equal to 0.17 ghas.
In terms of the distribution of the different components, majority of the EF is attributed to fuel use. This is
around 1/3 of the total EF of the College. Most of the fuel use comes from the transportation of faculty
members who own private vehicles. Previous studies attribute majority of carbon emissions in the
academic setting from transportation of faculty, staff, and students [18, and 7]. Thus, it is just normal that
in this context, the single component with the highest EF in CMU-CFES is from fuel use. However, a small
part of the fuel use EF comes from fuel consumed for landscaping (grass cutter, lawn mower, etc.) rather
than for transportation.
Air travel constitutes 1/5 of the total EF of the College. These travels however, are necessary for the
operations of CMU-CFES as these are official travels by personnel for attending meetings, conferences,
and other such activities needed for the development of the College [19].
The smallest contributor to the total EF of CMU-CFES is waste generation. This comprises ~2% of the
total EF. Paper consumption on the other hand is the next lowest EF contributor with ~5% of the total
EF. Water consumption is also considered as having a low contribution to the total EF of CMU-CFES which
is ~8% of the total EF.
CONCLUSIONS
The total EF of CMU-CFES which is equivalent to 7.39 ghas which is extremely higher than its actual land
area occupied. This gives us an idea of the ecological impact of CMU-CFES to land resources. Fuel use is
found to be the component with the highest ecological pressure on land. This however could mean that
reduction of fuel use will have a greater potential for EF reduction. In fact just a mere shift from gasoline
powered grass cutters toward manual lawn mowing has a greater EF reduction potential than off grid
solar electricity generation. A more substantial EF reduction however entails a larger reduction in fuel
use such as carpooling, mass transportation, or use of hybrid cars. These however are difficult to legislate
in CMU-CFES because car ownership among faculty, staff and students are more of a personal choice
rather than institutional. However, further environmental awareness and education especially with the
use of EF may provide a guarantee of influencing personal choices of CMU-CFES constituents.
Furthermore, the single most promising EF reduction option is rainwater harvesting. This can lead to a
4% decrease in the total EF of CMU-CFES once implemented. However, implementing waste recycling,
paper reuse, and manual lawn mowing (all of which can be implemented at almost no cost) altogether can
lead to ~5% EF reduction which is higher than rainwater harvesting.
Though the sustainability scenarios developed and analyzed in the study only provided a minimal EF
reduction, it should be noted that the importance of EF lies in its ability to educate the populace on the
impact of their activities on our ecological resources. Furthermore, it can provide us with insights on how
even a minimal change of lifestyle can reduce the pressures we exert on nature. The results add to the
growing literature dealing with the usefulness of EF as both an educational tool as well as an aid to policy
making.
ACKNOWLEGEMENT
This research is part of a larger project funded by Central Mindanao University (Grant No. 0076).
Personnel from the various offices where the research data were collected are instrumental in the
completion of this study. Dr. Jose Hermis P. Patricio and For. Alex S. Olpenda provided essential
comments and suggestions for the improvement of this manuscript.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
1. Segovia V.M., Galang A.P. (2002). Sustainable development in higher education in the Philippines: the case of
Miriam College. Higher Education Policy; 15: 187–195.
2. Shriberg M. (2002). Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education: strengths, weaknesses,
and implications for practice and theory. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education; 3(3): 254–
270.
3. Cortese A.D. (2003). The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Planning for Higher
Education; 31: 15–22.
4. Rees W.E. (2003). Impeding sustainability? Planning for Higher Education; 31: 88–98.
5. Rees W.E., Wackernagel, M. (1996). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: measuring the
natural capital requirements of the human economy (Eds. Johansson A. M., Hammer M., Folke C., Costanza R.)
Investing in natural capital: the ecological economics approach to sustainability, Island Press, Washington D.C.,
pp. 362-391.
6. Raj S., Goel S., Sharma M., Singh A. (2012). Ecological footprint score in university students of an Indian city.
Journal of Environmental and Occupational Science; 1(1): 23–26.
7. Medina MAP (2000). The sustainability of on campus residence: a utilization of ecological footprinting in a state
university in Mindanao, Philippines. AES Bioflux; 7(1): 1-10.