14 | EAUC | NEWS AND CURRENT AF FAIRS
W:
www.universitybusiness.co.uk | T: @UB_UK
Contextualising carbon performance with intensity metrics
Paul Lewis, Director at Carbon Credentials, explores how intensity metrics can create an information-rich carbon programme that helps with opportunity identification, staff and student engagement and the robust measurement and verification of carbon emissions reductions.
As we know, universities are not static. Over the last five years we have seen increasing revenue, student numbers and a higher demand for energy intensive equipment. Consequently, there is a need to evaluate carbon performance in the context of university operations in order to accurately describe the progress that has been made. Similarly, benchmarking performance against peers requires an assessment across multiple factors to build up a more complete story. The annual publication of the Higher Education Statistics
Agency’s (HESA) Estates Management Record provides an opportunity to take a big data approach to performance assessment. By delving into this data set we have been able to develop a more complete understanding of carbon performance and the factors that affect it, allowing us to identify how specific universities should be tracking their progress.
Scope 1 & 2 Carbon Emissions: by FTE staff and students and type of student Universities often use the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff and students to normalise carbon emissions, improving their understanding of how and why performance tracks over time. When we looked at this metric at a sector scale it did not tell the whole story. While the regression model described 82% of the variance, further analysis revealed that the type of student (i.e. research or teaching) significantly influences scope 1 and 2 carbon emissions. It is clear those universities with a lower ratio of research
to teaching students have much lower carbon emissions than universities with a similar number of FTE staff and students. In the graphic below, this can be seen by the smaller dots residing below the regression line.
“Over the last five years we have seen increasing revenue, student numbers and a higher demand for energy intensive equipment”
Key learnings Through our work with reviewing and building Energy Strategies and Carbon Management Plans for higher education institutions across the UK, we have learnt a great deal, but it can really be boiled down to three key observations:
Data quality and management will help you to understand performance, identify new opportunities, engage stakeholders and confidently report on success
A bespoke approach that carefully considers the unique nature of your organisation is required
Collaboration and strengthening existing systems will support effective implementation
Carbon Credentials is a London-based sustainability services provider that has supported a number of universities with their carbon management efforts. This support has ranged from discrete to large-scale projects involving data management, energy audits and stakeholder engagement.
www.carboncredentials.com | 020 3053 6655 |
info@carboncredentials.com | @CCESltd
Scope 1 & 2 Carbon Emissions: by income and floor area Using total income and gross internal area to normalise carbon emissions is also commonplace across the sector. By combining these metrics we are able to unpick and explain performance in a more comprehensive manner. This is demonstrated in the graphic below, where a comparison of London School of Economics & Political Science and the Open University highlights the efficiencies that can be achieved through distance learning. Evidently this business model will be key to delivering low carbon education. The validity of using carbon emissions by income as a
benchmarking metric between institutions is undermined when you look at the efficiencies achieved by research funded institutions like University College London, the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge. While there is a link between carbon emissions and income, as evidenced by the regression model explaining 93% of variance, it should be used with caution due to the numerous other factors that affect carbon performance.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90