Environment and Interdisciplinary Development

Assessment of the Ecological Footprint of the University Based on the Life Cycle Assessment Approach (Case Study: Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Seyedhamed Mirkarimi
Sepideh Saeidi
Shaghayegh Ebrahimi
Mohsen Salehi
Fatemeh Chitband

Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Fisheries and Environmental Sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran

10.22034/envj.2025.532941.1520
Abstract
Introduction: Urban land uses, including educational institutions, especially universities, have a significant share in the consumption of natural resources and the production of pollutants, and consequently exert considerable impacts on the environment. Due to the service-oriented nature and the wide range of educational, research, and support activities, universities consume large amounts of energy, water, and other resources. Therefore, accurate and comprehensive assessment of their environmental impacts through indicators such as the ecological footprint is an undeniable necessity for sustainable resource management and reducing environmental consequences.
Material and Methods: The present study was conducted with the aim of evaluating the ecological footprint of Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources in the new campus area, using the life cycle assessment approach. In this study, by identifying the consumed resources and related environmental flows, an attempt was made to provide a quantitative picture of the impacts resulting from university activities. The results of this research can be used as a basis for optimizing consumption patterns, developing environmental strategies, and moving towards green universities. Considering the significant share of universities in resource consumption and pollutant production, and the lack of comprehensive and scientific assessments of the environmental impacts of educational institutions in the country, conducting this research with a life cycle approach is an important step towards improving sustainable management and enhancing the environmental performance of universities. In this study, in addition to the ecological footprint by the EF method, the water footprint by the AWARE method, and also the carbon footprint by the IPCC method in 2023 were examined. The total number of staff and students of Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources in the campus unit is 4,121.
Results: The final estimated ecological footprint score of Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources is -2.75 pt. The greatest negative impact on the university’s ecological footprint relates to electricity consumption, and in the impact categories, to climate change, followed by resource consumption, while the greatest environmentally compatible effect on the university’s ecological footprint is related to water storage and the university’s water recycling system. The results obtained from examining the carbon footprint show that the final value obtained for the carbon footprint of Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources is -2.17 × 104 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent. Water storage is one of the most effective solutions in reducing the carbon footprint, since this action, by reducing dependence on pumping operations, significantly reduces energy consumption and ultimately leads to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Electricity consumption at the university has increased its carbon footprint. The total estimated score for the water footprint of Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources is -1.06 × 104.
Discussion: The measures presented, such as creating water storage and recycling systems and green spaces at the university, have positive and environmentally compatible effects. Analysis of the ecological footprint of universities using the life cycle approach can be used as a model for other educational institutions to reduce environmental impacts and for effective planning. This study shows that accurate and comprehensive assessments are an effective step in optimizing resource consumption and protecting the environment. Overall, this research, through a multidimensional evaluation of environmental impacts, reveals the importance of resource management and the implementation of sustainable solutions in universities and can pave the way for improving the environmental performance of educational institutions.

Keywords

Ecological Footprint
Water Footprint
Carbon Footprint
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources
Subjects
1-       Alizadeh, H., Lotfi, V. and Veysi, S., 2019. Arzyabi-ye asarat-e zist-mohiti-ye karbarihaye amoozeshi ba estefade az model-e radpa-ye boom-shenakhti: motale'e-ye moredi-ye Daneshgah-e Kordestan [Environmental impact assessment of educational land uses using the ecological footprint model: A case study of University of Kurdistan]. Motale'at-e Shahri – Daneshgah-e Kordestan, 8(32), pp.77–88.
2-       Anderson, P., Green, T. and Hall, S., 2018. Water footprint assessments in academic institutions: Benchmarking and improvement strategies. Journal of Sustainable Water Management, 5(2), pp.87–99.
3-       Beckmann, H., Rickards, S. and Barrett, J., 2013. Ecological footprint benchmarking of 40 tertiary education campuses. Proceedings of the 13th International Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference, Sydney, Australia, pp. 1–16.
4-       Binejad, A., Ahmadpour Borazjani, M., Ziaei, S. and Mohammadi, H., 2019. Barrasi-ye rabete-ye masraf-e āb va tolid-e enerji dar Iran taye dore-ye 1357 ta 1395 ba roykard-e model-e STAR [Investigating the relationship between water consumption and energy production in Iran during 1979–2016 using the STAR model]. Majalleh-ye Ecohydrology, 6(2), pp.493–503. https://doi.org/10.22059/ije.2019.275286.1047
5-       Boulay, A.M., Bare, J., Benini, L., Berger, M., Lathuillière, M.J., Manzardo, A., Margni, M., Motoshita, M., Núñez, M., Pastor, A.V., Ridoutt, B., Oki, T., Worbe, S. and Pfister, S., 2018. The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE). International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(2), pp.368–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1333-8
6-       Cafaro, P., Hansson, P. and Götmark, F., 2022. Overpopulation is a major cause of biodiversity loss and smaller human populations are necessary to preserve what is left. Biological Conservation, 272, p.109646.
7- Castellani, V., Benini, L., Sala, S. and Pant, R., 2016. A distance-to-target weighting method for Europe 2020. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(10), pp.1159–1169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1079-8.
8- Chini, C.M. and Stillwell, A.S., 2018. The water intensity of the urban water supply system. Environmental Research Letters, 13(1), p.014009.
9- Conway, T.M., Dalton, C., Loo, J. and Benakoun, L., 2008. Developing ecological footprint scenarios on university campuses: a case study of the University of Toronto at Mississauga. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1): 4-20.
10- Elghamry, Y. and Hassan, A., 2021. The impact of window parameters on energy consumption, environmental impact and CO₂ emissions in hot, semi‑arid climates. Energy and Buildings, DOI available via MDPI.
11- Elsharkawy, M.A.M.M., Hegazy, I., Elbeltagi, I. and Elshaer, I.A., 2022. Carbon footprint at institutions of higher education. Science of the Total Environment, 804, 150-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150158.
12- Ercin, A.E. and Hoekstra, A.Y., 2014. Water footprint scenarios for 2050: A global analysis. Environmental International, 64, pp.71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2013.11.019
13- European Commission – JRC, 2012. Characterisation factors of the ILCD Recommended Life Cycle Impact Assessment methods. Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/10.2788/62262
14- Gao, T., Shen, L. and Shen, M., 2016. Urban building sustainability: An overview on performance assessment tools. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62, pp.881–891.
15- Global Footprint Network, 2017. National footprint accounts. Available at: https://www.footprintnetwork.org [Accessed 9 August 2025].
16- Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources (GAU), 2024. Darbare-ye daneshgah [About the university]. Gau.ac.ir. Available at: https://www.gau.ac.ir/page?pageid=6.
17- IEA (International Energy Agency), 2022. CO₂ emissions from fuel combustion – Highlights. [online] Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-from-fuel-combustion-overview [Accessed 2 Jul. 2025].
18- International Organization for Standardization, 2006. Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044:2006). ISO, Geneva.
19- IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.
20- Iran Modares, 2021. Daneshgah-e ‘Olum-e Keshavarzi va Manabe’-e Tabii-ye Gorgan: Tarikhcheh va mo’arrefi [University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources of Gorgan: History and introduction]. Iranmodares.com. Available at: https://www.iranmodares.com/article-index.php?ID=447.
21- ISO, 2020. ISO 14040: 2006/AMD 1: 2020. Environmental management–Life cycle assessment–Principles and framework–Amendment 1.
Junnila S., Horvath A. (2018). Life-cycle Environmental effects of an office building. Infrastructure systems;9(4):157–66.
22- Kouchaki, A., Nasiri, M. and Javadi, M., 2022. Assessment of ecological footprint of students at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Agricultural Ecology Journal, 14(3), pp.399–413. Available at: https://civilica.com/doc/1570870.
23- Lin, X., Cai, H. and Zhao, S., 2024. An Empirical Analysis of Carbon Emissions in Higher Education Institutions: A Case Study of Zhejiang Ocean University Using Emission Factor Methodology. Sustainability, 16(21), p.9412. [online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219412.
24- Mancini, L., et al., 2024. Ecological footprint as a tool for sustainability assessment: recent advances and challenges. Environmental Research Communications.
25- Mutambo, N., Peirson-Smith, A., KeChi-Okafor, C., Irving-Munro, A., Sheridan, K.J., Prendergast-Miller, M.T., Namdeo, A., Stanton, T., Gallidabino, M.D. and James, A., 2024. Mapping the environmental impact assessment landscape in the fashion and textile industries: critical gaps and challenges. Sustainability, 16(19), p.8377.
26- Myhre, G., Shindell, D., Bréon, F.M., Collins, W., Fuglestvedt, J., Huang, J., Koch, D., Lamarque, J.F., Lee, D., Mendoza, B., Nakajima, T., Robock, A., Stephens, G., Takemura, T. and Zhang, H., 2013. Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In: Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V. and Midgley, P.M. (Eds.), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 659–740. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.018
27- Nguyen, H., Wiedmann, T. and Lenzen, M., 2020. The carbon footprint of a major university. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252, 119742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119742
28- Nunes, L., Catarino, A., Teixeira, M.R. and Cuesta, E., 2013. Framework for the inter-comparison of ecological footprint of universities. Ecological Indicators, 32: 276-284.
29- Ozawa-Meida, L., Brockway, P., Letten, K., Davies, J. and Vaughan, N., 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.
30- Pune Sprawl (Koparde and Chalke), 2025. Urban sprawl reduces carbon sequestration by 34% in Pune. Times of India, June 2025.
31- See, T.A., Wai, C.W. and Zen, I.S., 2016. Ecological Footprint of Research University Students: A Pilot Case Study in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. In MATEC web of conferences (Vol. 66, p. 00073).
32- Sharma, A., Saxena, A, Sethi, M. and Shree, V., 2011. Life cycle assessment of buildings: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 1; 15(1):871-5.
33- Silva, D., Nunes, A.O., da Silva Moris, A., Moro, C. and Piekarski, T.O.R., 2017. How important is the LCA software tool you choose Comparative results from GaBi, openLCA, SimaPro and Umberto. In Proceedings of the VII Conferencia Internacional de Análisis de Ciclo de Vida en Latinoamérica, Medellin, Colombia (pp. 10-15).
34- Sonetti, G., Barioglio, C. and Campobenedetto, D., 2020. Education for Sustainability in Practice: A Review of Current Strategies within Italian Universities. Sustainability, 12(13), 5246. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135246
35- Sonetti, G., Lombardi, P. and Chelleri, L., 2016. True Green and Sustainable University Campuses? Sustainability. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010083
36- Sustainability, P., 2016. SimaPro database manual Methods library. SimaPro: Utrecht, The Netherlands.
37- Tettey, U. et al., 2022. Literature review on estimating the impact of glazing on energy demand. Energies, 16(11), p.4429. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/11/4429.
38- Valls-Val, M. and Bovea, M.D., 2021. Carbon footprint in higher education institutions: A literature review and prospects for future studies. Environmental Sciences Europe, 33(1), pp.1-18. Available at: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-021-00454-6.
39- Venetoulis, J., 2001. Assessing the ecological impact of a university: the ecological footprint for the University of Redlands. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2(2):197-180.
40- Xue, Z., Liu, H., Zhang, Q., Wang, J., Fan, J. and Zhou, X., 2020. The Impact Assessment of Campus Buildings Based on a Life Cycle Assessment–Life Cycle Cost Integrated Model. Sustainability, 12(1), 294.
41- Yazdkhasti, B., Hajilou, F. and Alizadeh Aghdam, M., 2013. Examining the relationship between ecological literacy and ecological footprint: Case study of Tabriz citizens. Urban Sociological Studies (Motale'at-e Jame'e-shenakhti-ye Shahri), 3(7), pp.77–103. Available at: https://www.sid.ir/paper/210368/fa.
42- Zafar, M.W., Zaidi, S.A.H., Khan, N.R., Mirza, F.M., Hou, F. and Kirmani, S.A.A., 2019. The impact of natural resources, human capital, and foreign direct investment on the ecological footprint: the case of the United States. Resources Policy, 3, p.101428.
43- Zampori, L. and Pant, R., 2019. Suggestions for updating the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 29682 EN. https://doi.org/10.2760/424613.
44- Zhao, X., et al., 2023. Life cycle assessment applications for environmental sustainability: current trends and future perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 382, p.135233.
Environment and Interdisciplinary Development
Volume 11, Issue 92
Spring 2026
Pages 16-33

Home

Submit Manuscript

Contact Us