The Ecological Footprint of
Kwantlen Polytechnic University
In 2013

Source: Wackernagle, Mathis and Bill Rees, 1996. Our Eological Footprint. Gabriola: New Society

A Report by
Hillary Wolthers, Athena Williamson, Shazay Urera, Alexandra Syta,
Chelsea Scott, Samiihah Moosuddee, Carli McCartney, and Bill Burgess;
edited by Sinead Speirs, Corinna Souder and Bill Burgess, Geog 4501, Fall 2014.
Note: The collaborative nature of this study
meant that not all sections were reviewed by all authors and editors.

0.1 Executive Summary
The area of land required to produce the resources consumed by and to absorb the waste produced by KPU in
2013 was 9,690 global hectares, or over 150 times the 62-hectare area of KPU’s four campuses.
This calculation was derived by compiling data from various administrative units of the university and then
calculating the area of land or water somewhere on earth that is required to sustain the activities in question.
The various methods employed for these calculations were selected to best address the available data.
The largest contributors to the KPU ecological footprint were air flights by international students and KPU staff
(34%), auto transportation (25%), electricity and gas energy (11%), and a one year’s share of the construction
of buildings on campus (8%). Food and waste do not have large footprints in relative terms, but they are
nonetheless notable because of simple ways in which their footprints can be reduced.
Figure 0: KPU Ecological Footprint, 2013

Source: See text

These footprint areas should be considered accurate to about an order of magnitude. However, at this level of
precisions their calculation is still worthwhile. The main function of an ecological footprint is educational. It
makes more concrete what is or is not sustainable, or what is more or less sustainable than something else.
Footprint calculations can and should inform policy.
Recommendations from this study include the following:
•
•

That the ecological footprint of KPU should be calculated annually using a comparable methodology.
That KPU direct major efforts at reducing the need for students and staff to commute by car, notably by
becoming a major public voice for better transit in the South-of-Fraser region.

• That KPU institute more separation of waste on campus and compost on campus all organic waste
including food scraps.

0.2 Acknowledgements
It would not have been possible to calculate this ecological footprint without the generous assistance of the
following in providing data or other help:
Karen Hearn, Facilities
Maurice Bedard, Facilities Department
Shawn Cahill, Facilities Department
Paul Richard, Environmental Protection Program
Alan Tabbernor, Translink
Michelle Babiuk, Translink
Vincent Gonsalves, Translink
Matt Todd
Erin Maclean, Sodexo
Gary Lambert, Ryan Vending
Shannon Wise, Coca Cola
Mairi Lester, Kwantlen Student Association
Eva Tong, Kwantlen Student Association
Sean Kehler, KPU Print Shop
Evelyn Forrest, Finance Department
Wendy Bride, Finance Department
Maggie Fung, Information Technology Department
Sukey Samra, Information Technology Department
Kyla Rand, Kwantlen Faculty Association
Lori McElroy, Institutional Research and Analysis
Courtney Morrison, Institutional Research and Analysis
Victor Osifo, Institutional Research and Analysis
Jennie Moore, BCIT
Kerly Acosta, BCIT
Parthiphan Krishnan, Geography Department

0.3 Table of Contents
0.1

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 2

0.2

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 3

0.3

Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................... 4

1.0

Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 6

1.1

Sustainability – Responsibility and Opportunity for KPU .................................................................. 6

1.1.1

Role of Universities in Transition to Sustainability ........................................................................ 6

1.1.2

Implementing Sustainable Policies in Universities ........................................................................ 6

1.1.3

Sustainability Policy and Practice at KPU ..................................................................................... 7

1.2

Concepts of Sustainability ................................................................................................................ 8

1.2.1

‘Weak vs. ‘Strong’ Sustainability ................................................................................................... 8

1.2.2 Which Concept for KPU Policy? ...................................................................................................... 9
1.3

Ecological Footprints to Inform Sustainability ................................................................................... 9

2.0 Ecological Footprint Methodology and Applications ................................................................................. 10
2.1

Methodology and Metrics ............................................................................................................... 10

2.1.1 Land Use Types and Global Hectares ........................................................................................... 10
2.1.2 ‘Conversion Rates’ to Global Hectares ............................................................................................ 11
2.1.3 Compound vs. Component Methods.............................................................................................. 11
2.2

Selected Examples of Ecological Footprint Calculations ................................................................ 13

2.2.1

World Results and Trends .......................................................................................................... 13

2.2.2 National Level Footprints ............................................................................................................... 14
2.2.3 Metropolitan Regions in Canada.................................................................................................... 16
2.2.4 EFs at Universities......................................................................................................................... 20
3.0

Description of EF calculation at KPU – Methods and Results ............................................................... 20

3.1

‘Coverage’ of Ecological Footprint ................................................................................................. 20

3.2

Data Collection .............................................................................................................................. 21

3.3

Calculations and Results ............................................................................................................... 21

3.1.0

Overall Results ........................................................................................................................... 21

3.3.1

Campus Area, Buildings and Furniture ....................................................................................... 22

3.3.2

Energy........................................................................................................................................ 23

3.3.3

Food and Beverage ................................................................................................................... 24

3.3.4

Printing and Washroom Paper .................................................................................................. 26

3.3.5

Recycled Waste and Landfilled Waste ...................................................................................... 26

3.3.5

Computers and Telecommunications Equipment ....................................................................... 27

3.3.6

Auto and Transit Transportation ............................................................................................... 28

3.3.7

Air travel ..................................................................................................................................... 32

3.3.8

Vending Machines ...................................................................................................................... 33

5.0

Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................... 33

5.1

Summary of Results ...................................................................................................................... 33

5.2

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 34

5.3

Policy Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 35

6.0

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 37

7.0

Appendixes ........................................................................................................................................... 41

7.1 Calculations ......................................................................................................................................... 41
7.1.1 Campus Area, Buildings and Furniture ............................................................................................ 41
7.1.2 Energy ............................................................................................................................................. 41
7.1.3.Paper............................................................................................................................................... 42
7.1.4 Waste .............................................................................................................................................. 42
7.2.5 Computer and other equipment ....................................................................................................... 43
7.1.6 Auto and transit transportation ......................................................................................................... 44
7.1.7 Vending Machines: .......................................................................................................................... 44
8.0 Endnotes ................................................................................................................................................... 46

1.0

Introduction

1.1

Sustainability – Responsibility and Opportunity for KPU

Universities are places of knowledge, wisdom, conversation, and innovation. With a total campus population of
about 20,000 students, faculty and staff and its polytechnic mandate KPU can play a substantial role in
promoting a more sustainable future. It can educate its own population. It can function as a model for other
institutions and the community as a whole.

1.1.1 Role of Universities in Transition to Sustainability
In 1964 Professor John Diekhoff wrote, “It is not enough for the university to be ahead of the world in
knowledge… it must…bring the world along” (The University as Leader and Laggard, 181). This has never
been truer than with regard to sustainability.
Thousands of universities have now ratified the Talloires Declaration, the Kyoto Declaration, and the
Copernicus Charter to express their commitment to furthering sustainability holistically in their institutions. An
understanding of environmental issues and a moral obligation to work towards true sustainability drive these
and other initiatives and agreements (Lambrechts and Van Liedekerke, 2014).
Their adoption reflects the definition of sustainable development: to provide for the means of the present
without compromising the means of future generations. As a publicly funded educational institution, KPU
depends on future students. The inherent intergenerational nature of universities is a profound argument for
embedding sustainability in all their functions.

1.1.2 Implementing Sustainable Policies in Universities
In order for sustainability policy to be effective within a university it must be understood, developed, and
implemented holistically on a systemic and cultural scale. A holistic policy would fully integrate the economic,
social, and ecological considerations of all facets of the institution (Ralph and Stubbs, 2013). Many universities
have voluntarily agreed to integrate sustainability into their institutions. However, sustainability policies tend to
be disconnected and ineffective (Lambrechts and Van Liedkerke, 2014).
The most prominent barriers are generally internal. Public institutions face financial constraints, especially in
this neo-liberal era. Strong competition for resources within such institutions tend to disfavor sustainability
initiatives whose benefits are not quantifiable in the short-term and are not accounted for in traditional budget
modeling (Ralph and Stubbs 2013).
A lack of understanding of the benefits of sustainable policy integration, which stems from a lack of awareness
of environmental issues, is a major factor in the commitment and effectiveness of implementation from staff
(Ralph and Stubbs 2013). There is also a natural resistance to change in large institutions, contributing to a
difficult implementation process.
Another barrier may be a lack of consensus around the conceptualization of sustainability (Sherren et al,
2010). Finally, the sheer difficulty of developing holistic sustainability for an institution with many working parts
inhibits many institutions from meaningful progress towards sustainability.

Universities can overcome these barriers by viewing sustainability policy as being embedded rather than
overarching. Instead of one office imposing a singular vision of sustainability on all departments, as would be
traditional practice for such a policy, universities should determine how to use pre-existing institutional
infrastructure to foster inter- and transdisciplinary sustainability (Sherren et al, 2010).
This deep institutional change must involve all stakeholders and does not necessarily need to have a uniform
vision. However, sustainability must be measured and detected in every discipline, operation, and goal of the
institution in order to achieve true embeddedness. Committed individuals, institutional commitment, and
adequate funding are all necessary to realize effective sustainability policy (Ralph and Stubbs 2013).

1.1.3 Sustainability Policy and Practice at KPU
KPU has adopted some initiatives regarding sustainability. They cannot all be reviewed but some points
regarding KPU’s progress are highlighted below.
1.1.3.1 Curriculum
As of 2014 there were sixteen degrees and six diploma/certificate programs that incorporate sustainability into
their learning requirements (Zaidi, 2014). Several academic programs have sustainability at their core,
including Policy Studies, Sustainable Agriculture, and Environmental Protection Technology. These programs
embrace the interdisciplinary nature of sustainability. However, they are still in their infancy. Their success at
promoting systemic changes through cross-pollination of programs and a greater awareness of the importance
of sustainability is not yet clear. KPU has not yet earned the reputation of being a center for sustainability
education and research.
1.1.3.2 Energy Policy
One area where Kwantlen is an established leader is reducing energy consumed by its physical plant. A variety
of policies have been instituted regarding the reduction of energy consumption and carbon emissions, some
pursuant to provincial legislation mandating energy conservation in the public sector.
A strategic energy management plan was implemented to address annually reported energy consumption
across all four campuses. The plan uses consumption data, energy savings ideas, possible energy savings on
capital renewal and maintenance, and new technology to further reduce energy consumption (Strategic Energy
Management Plan, 2013).
Many actions such as light retrofitting, capital renewal projects, and new construction and renovations have
been identified as important in the further reduction of energy consumption at KPU. The plan notes that
educational institutions must reduce their impact on the environment and that the cost of energy will increase
with time (Strategic Energy Management Plan, 2013).
A seven-year or better payback is cited as an indicator of cost-effective investment, though longer-term return
may be considered if there is reduction of other costs. Multiple buildings on KPU campuses hold a Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. All new buildings and renovations at KPU are
targeted to LEED standards.
1.1.3.3 Environmental Sustainability Committee
An Environmental Sustainability Committee (ESC) exists to bring together the work of different departments
and provide cohesive leadership and planning of sustainability initiatives (Zaidi, 2014). The ESC meets a

minimum of three times a year for one to two hours and includes students, faculty, and staff. It has produced a
living document to record sustainability initiatives at KPU (Zaidi, 2014).
The ESC can serve as a uniting body for sustainability at KPU. However, it should be acknowledged that this
Committee is far from the center of discussions on most University affairs. Sustainability and polytechnic are
still not regularly used in the same sentence.

1.2

Concepts of Sustainability

1.2.1 ‘Weak vs. ‘Strong’ Sustainability
As noted above, one barrier to sustainability policy within a given institution may be the lack of shared
understanding of this concept. Figure 1 below expresses ‘strong’ sustainability. It does this by containing
economy and society within the biophysical environment. This acknowledges there are ecological limits to
human activity, e.g., how much can be drawn from the natural world and how many natural functions can be
replaced by human technology.
Strong sustainability requires “fundamental reassessment of values resulting in revamping behaviours”
(Lombardi et al, 2010). It is the most challenging conception of sustainability because radical changes are
required to current economic, social, and political systems to bring them in line with environmental processes.
Figure 1: ‘Strong’ Sustainability

Figure 2: ‘Weak’ Sustainability

‘Weak’ sustainability is expressed by Figure 2. An extreme version is ‘faux’ sustainability, where the ambiguity
of the term is simply exploited for other purposes (Lombardi et al, 2010). Other descriptors are ‘business as
usual’ and ‘greenwashing’.
The key assumption of weak sustainability is the existence of a ‘sweet spot’ where equally valid requirements
of environment, society, and economy coincide. Economic and social requirements may thus ‘trump’ those of
the environment as what is deemed ‘sustainable’ must also be economically profitable. This version
emphasizes making ‘smartest’ available choices within the existing socio-economic system rather than
changing that system and its relation to nature.1

1.2.2 Which Concept for KPU Policy?
Individual opinions can and should vary, but ‘strong’ sustainability should, in principle, guide policy at KPU.
There are limits to what changes KPU can make itself without the broader socio-economic changes required to
this perspective to be implemented more broadly. However, we can commit to trying to lead, to raise our own
bar as high as or higher than in other institutions. We can and should avoid the ‘easy’ solutions that fail to
demand that we re-think…almost everything.

1.3

Ecological Footprints to Inform Sustainability

While the concept of sustainability is not difficult to grasp, how can we judge what is and is not sustainable?
The ecological footprint allows such discussions to become much more concrete. It measures whether we are
using essential resources produced by nature more quickly than they are renewed by natural processes (Rees
and Wackernagle, 1996). The earth is basically a closed system except for the input of solar energy. Figure 3
illustrates how we are limited by this biophysical reality.
Figure 3: Not sustainable vs. sustainable: ‘Living on nature’s interest’

Source: Wackernagel and Rees, 2006

The ecological footprint is measured in terms of the area of land (and water) needed to produce the resources
and absorb the waste of a given population. This land or water can be anywhere in the world, and can be quite
distant from the point of consumption. The same areal unit of measurement expresses supply (how much can
be regenerated each year) and demand (how much is being drawn out or used each year).

The originators of the ecological footprint (Bill Rees and Mathis Wackernagel at UBC) emphasized that it is
primarily an educational tool. They deliberately adopted conservative methods for its calculation. For example,
instead of representing energy used by the land that would be needed to grow the feedstock for alternative
fuels (which is enormous), only the area required to absorb carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels
is considered (this is still very large, and it accounts for a large portion of most footprints). The ecological
footprint does not attempt to address important but non-renewable resources like metals, or account for issues
like toxicity, biodiversity, land availability to other species or other key ecological issues.2
Ecological footprints are often expressed on a per capita basis for a particular population. This tends to flatten
attention to differential responsibility within that population for the total footprint. Since total impacts are
attributed to persons, per capita footprints also fail to distinguish between the impact of individual activities and
the impacts of military, marketing and other activities that may be deemed ‘wasteful’.
However, ecological footprints have several advantages over other metrics of sustainability.3 Like the money
unit in economics, it provides a common basis for evaluating different activities. All are expressed in terms of
area of land (see more on this below), something everyone can understand. The role of area in biophysical
relationships also connects to the ‘strong’ sustainability conception. It thus often provides a useful contrast to
the perspectives provided by neoclassical and other pro-market economic models that ignore non-private
nature. It should especially be noted that it includes but is more ecologically comprehensive than the carbon
footprint.
The general proposition of this study is that calculating and considering the KPU ecological footprint can be an
effective way to inform discussions of sustainability issues at this university.

2.0 Ecological Footprint Methodology and Applications
2.1

Methodology and Metrics

2.1.1 Land Use Types and Global Hectares
The unit of measurement of the ecological footprint is the global hectare. This is a hectare of land of average
world bioproductivity. Because time is required for natural production it is expressed in per annum terms –
global hectare per annum, or gha.
After excluding land with minimal bioproductivity (e.g. ice caps, deserts) there are six different sub-categories
of land that compose the area measured by global hectares. Each represents one of the main demands human
activities place on the earth’s ecological processes. The definition of these land categories is also informed by
the type of data generally available (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996).
The Global Footprint Network (GFN)4 is the leading source of data for and advice on calculating ecological
footprints. It periodically calculates and reports the total area of each of these types of land on earth. It also
calculates their current relative biophysical productivity, as both the productivity and the area of that type of
land change may over time (e.g., as cropland is converted to built land).

Figure 4: Types of bioproductive land v
Crop land: most productive land for agriculture
Pasture land: for grazing domestic animals for
human consumption
Forest land: forests that yield timber products
Productive sea space: aquatic areas that yield
majority commercial fishing
Built land: roads and buildings
Energy land: land required to sequester carbon
emissions
Source: http://www.steppingforward.org.uk/tech/footprint.htm

Figure 5 below reports the relative biophysical productivities in Canada assumed for this report. In the year for
which this data was calculated, cropland in Canada was 2.64 times as productive as land of world average
bioproductivity.
Figure 5: Equivalence factors for Converting Different Land Use Areas to Global Average Productivity

Source: Acosta and Moore, 2009, p.21

2.1.2 ‘Conversion Rates’ to Global Hectares
Conversion rates quantify the relationship between the amount of resource produced by a particular product or
process or the waste that must be absorbed and the corresponding area in global hectares that is required.
‘Conversion rates’ are calculated to express the global hectares of land required for each type of resource that
is drawn from the environment or that must absorb waste. They vary on the basis of what kind of land is
required (e.g. cropland vs. forest land) and the yield of that land for the particular resource in question (e.g., the
weight of potatoes it can grow vs. the weight of tomatoes).
For example, the conversion rate for a given amount of a particular food type expresses the number of global
hectares equivalent to the area of cropland required to grow that amount of that food type, plus the global
hectares equivalent to the area of forest land required to absorb the greenhouse gases associated with the
energy that is embodied in that amount of that food type.

2.1.3 Compound vs. Component Methods
There are two general approaches to calculating ecological footprints, the compound method and the
component method.

2.1.3.1 Compound Method
The compound method is a ‘top down’ approach where the total global hectares available are compared to the
total global hectares demanded. It takes national-level economic and other data and adjusts it to take into
account imports and exports for that country. The national totals are then often expressed in per capita terms,
and subdivided into conventionally-defined economic sectors for more detailed evaluations. The Global
Footprint Network calculates these national ecological footprints and aggregates them to the global level on an
annual basis.
When desired, national data can be applied to sub-national populations, for example, by assuming that the
local per capita footprint for food is similar to the national per capita footprint. Such per capita footprints for a
local level might also be adjusted to reflect per capita local incomes being higher or lower than the national
average.
The compound approach is the most common and reliable method. The national-scale data it employs is
usually the most reliable available, and is comprehensive and comparable across jurisdictions. The Global
Footprint Standards6 established by the GFN require that all ecological footprints follow the compound
approach, or that compound calculations be reported for purposes of comparison if other approaches are
used.7
The main disadvantage of the compound approach is insensitivity to conditions that apply in local contexts or
particular processes. For example, when considering the footprint of energy use, the compound approach
assumes the same conversion rate applies as that for the county as a whole even though the local source of
energy might be very different. Similarly, the national pattern of food supply includes the overall imports and
exports of food while local patterns of food consumption may be very different.
The compound approach often breaks down the national data into major sub-categories that correspond to
conventionally-defined economic sectors. However, it does not extend down into the many minor categories
below these levels. For example, it may report data for the auto sector, but not for a particular brand and model
of car, or for all paper manufacturing but not for paper that is manufactured from recycled as opposed virgin
fiber.
While national data can be projected on a per capita basis to a local or regional scale of analysis, it is hard to
apply this data to other types of units, such as institutions. For example when considering the ecological
footprint of KPU we need to distinguish between resources used and waste produced by people in their roles
at KPU rather than in all their life roles.
2.1.3.2 Component Method
The component method is a ‘bottom up’ approach that relies on more specific calculations of the resources
used and waste produced by particular products and through particular functions. In principle, a complete life
cycle analysis of these products is conducted, following such products or processes from ‘cradle to grave’. In
theory a complete inventory of all the energy and material inputs and environmental releases are addressed.8
The impact of the use of a vehicle, for example, is determined by compiling data on area and type of land
required to produce its components, the energy embodied in its manufacturing and maintenance, the energy
used to operate the vehicle (depending on fuel consumption and distance travelled), and its share of the land
occupied by roads, parking, etc. These are aggregated to express the global hectares associated with the
vehicle.

The main advantage of the component method is its sensitivity to local contexts, and the attention to more
specific products and processes than is typically possible using compound methods. The component method
can also be more effective pedagogically, because the impact of specific activities is often better understood
than the somewhat abstract methodology of the top down, compound approach (Wackernagel and Rees,
1996).
The major drawback to the component approach is the effort needed to develop the conversions rates needed
to calculate the footprint of each individual component. There is no common source of data similar to that
provided for compound approaches by the Global Footprint Accounts published annually by the GFN.
A key liability of component calculations is the lack of consistency or comparability. Because of limitations in
data availability they often vary in terms of the stages in the total life cycle considered. Regional differences in
how products are produced and waste is absorbed, and the use of different sources of data for the same
phenomena are also complicating factors.
However, the component method is the only realistic way to calculate the footprint of KPU as an institution. The
two key areas of effort are to compile the necessary data on resources used and waste produced and the
conversion rates to express resources and waste in global hectares.
This study relies on conversion rates that have been calculated and reported by footprint experts. They include
an early book on the subject by Chambers et al (2000), an article reporting on a detailed study of the ecological
footprint of York in the UK by Barrett (2012), an article by Kissinger et al (2013) that compiles various
conversion rates, a dissertation on the Vancouver ecological footprint by Moore (2013), the calculation of the
ecological footprint of BCIT by Acosta and Moore (2009), and an on-line tool provided by the Carnegie Mellon
Life Cycle Analysis site.9

2.2

Selected Examples of Ecological Footprint Calculations

To provide context for the KPU ecological footprint it is useful to review a few points about footprints calculated
at larger scales and for other universities.

2.2.1 World Results and Trends
The most general evidence that our current world is not being managed sustainably is provided by ecological
footprint calculations at the global scale. These studies indicate that humanity has exceeded ‘one-planet living’
for approximately the last 45 years.

Figure 6: Global Footprint by Land Type

Source: Living Planet Report, p. 32 http://awsassets.wwf.ca/downloads/lpr2014_low_res__1_.pdf

As indicated by Figure 6 we currently use the equivalent of 1.5 planets to provide the resources we use and to
absorb our waste. Expressed differently, it now takes the earth one year and six months to regenerate what we
use in a year. Moderate UN scenarios suggest that if current population and consumption trends continue, we
will need the equivalent of two Earths to support us by 2030 and almost three by 2050.10

2.2.2 National Level Footprints
One of the main points evident from comparisons of national ecological footprints is the “North-South divide’.
The per capita footprint of about two-thirds of the world’s population is below their per capita share of planetary
capacity; they are, on average, living ‘sustainably’ in the sense this term is used here. Meanwhile the per
capita footprint of developed countries like Canada (7.25 gha) is far above the per capita global hectares
available, which is now about 1.9 gha, or even less.
The Living Planet Report 2014 reports that Canadians have the 11th largest per capita footprint of countries in
the world. The natural productivity of Canada’s land mass is still greater than consumption by Canadians, but
we are using approximately 3.7 times our per capita share of the Earth’s annual productivity. The report
documents the global trend of increasing demand for resources by a growing population that is putting
tremendous pressure on our planet’s biodiversity. It is also threatening our future security, health and wellbeing. For example, declining biodiversity threatens not only the balance of our ecosystems, but also economic
opportunities.11

Figure 7: Who is Sustainable, and Who is Not?

Having noted Canada’s national per capita footprints, it is important to note that Canadians do not contribute
equally to this average footprint. A conservative calculation of the variation in footprint size by family income
decile12 is reported in Figure 8 below. The footprint of top decile families is more than twice that of bottomdecile families.

Figure 8: Ecological Footprint in Canada by Income Decile:

Source: MacKenzie et al, Size Matters: Canada’s Ecological Footprint, by Income, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2008, p. 13.

This study also showed that transportation and housing are responsible for most of difference in footprint areas
by family income.13

2.2.3 Metropolitan Regions in Canada
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities commissioned a study of ecological footprints of cities across
Canada in 2001. As seen in Figure 9, this study reported that Vancouver’s footprint is slightly higher than the
average of the municipalities reported.
Surrey, Richmond and Langley were not addressed separately by this study. It instead projected the per capita
numbers for Vancouver to the metropolitan scale. Although the per capita rate for Vancouver is probably less
than the region as a whole, the latter is a useful reference point, e.g. as reported in Figure 10 further below, the
Metro Vancouver footprint is 57 times its land area.

Figure 9: Canadian Municipal Ecological Footprints

Source: Wilson, Jeffery & Anielski, Mark. (2005). Ecological Footprints of Canadian Municipalities and Regions. The Federation of
Canadian Municipalities Quality of Life Reporting System. Retrieved from
http://www.fcm.ca/Documents/reports/Ecological_Footprints_of_Canadian_Municipalities_and_Regions_EN.pdf

Figure 10: Ecological Footprints, Toronto and Vancouver Municipalities and Metropolitan Areas

Source: Bill Rees, 2010 Getting Serious about Urban Sustainability, in Bunting, et al, Canadian Cities in Transition, Don Mills: Oxford, p.
77.

A more detailed study of Metro Vancouver’s ecological footprint in 2006 was carried out by Moore et al (2013).
It found the total footprint was 10,071,670 gha, or about 36 times larger than the region itself. The per capita
ecological footprint was 4.76 gha, nearly three times the per capita global supply of biocapacity.14 As indicated
by Figure 11 this study found that food accounted for the largest share, followed by transportation.

Figure 11: Metro Vancouver Ecological Footprint by Component, 2006

Source: Moore, Jennie & Kissenger, Meidad & Rees, William E. (2013). An Urban Metabolism and Ecological Footprint Assessment of
Metro Vancouver. Journal of Environmental Management, 124.

In her earlier Ph.D. dissertation, Moore considered what it would mean for Vancouver to adopt ‘fair share oneplanet living’ (Moore, 2013). Figures 12, 13 and 14 below demonstrate that radical changes in consumption
patterns would be required to reach this goal. The scale of change is one indicator of the challenge faced by
KPU - and everyone else. The drastic reduction in material throughput and big changes in diet are notable
examples of the change entailed for our ways of life.
Figure 12: Vancouver’s Footprint and a One-Planet Footprint

Source: Moore, Getting Serious About Sustainability In Canada: Exploring the Potential for One-Planet Living in Vancouver, Ph.D.
Dissertation, UBC, 2013, p. 143.

Figure 13: Material Usage in One Planet Living in Vancouver

Source: Moore, Getting Serious About Sustainability In Canada: Exploring the Potential for One-Planet Living in Vancouver, Ph.D.
Dissertation, UBC, 2013, p. 159.

Figure 14: Food and One Planet Living in Vancouver

Source: Moore, Getting Serious About Sustainability In Canada: Exploring the Potential for One-Planet Living in Vancouver, Ph.D.
Dissertation, UBC, 2013, p. 148.

2.2.4 EFs at Universities
Figure 15 reports ecological footprints that have been calculated for a number of universities and colleges
around the world. Thompson River University and BCIT are added to provide local comparisons, along with
earlier ecological footprints for the years 2005 and 2011 that were calculated for KPU. There is considerable
variation in the coverage and methodology employed for these calculations. The difference between the KPU
footprints in 2005 and 2011 is mainly due to changes in coverage and methodology rather than actual footprint.
Such methodological differences probably also account for much of the reported variation between universities.
Figure 15: Ecological Footprints of Universities
Institution
Total Footprint (gha)

Per Capita Footprint (gha)

University of Illinois

97,601

2.66

University of Redlands

5,700

0.90

University of Newcastle, Australia

3,592

0.19

Holme Lacy College (UK)

296

0.57

Northeastern University (China)

24,787

1.06

University of Toronto Mississauga

8,744

1.07

Colorado College

5,603

2.24

Ohio State University, Columbus

650,666

8.66

Willamette University

7,804

2.30

University of East Anglia

23,455

7.30

Campus de Vegazana University León

6,300

0.45

University of Santiago Compostela

5,159

0.16

Thompson River University15

2,985

n/a

BCIT Burnaby Campus16

16,590

0.49

KPU, 200517

2,977

0.17

KPU, 201118

7,325

0.35

Source: Except as indicated otherwise, data from Lambrechts, Wim & Liedekerke, Luc Van. (2014). Using Ecological Footprint Analysis
in Higher Education: Campus Operations, Policy Development and Educational Purposes. Ecological Indicators. Retrieved from
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/10/

3.0 Description of EF calculation at KPU – Methods and Results
3.1

‘Coverage’ of Ecological Footprint

The first issue is what should be included in the ecological footprint calculation. For an institution like KPU it
should obviously include the activities or functions that very directly relate to the purpose and operation of the
institution. This would include the food consumed on campus and the energy used to power the buildings.
However, clothing worn by KPU students and employees and the food they consume at home should not be
included as they are arguably better understood as contributing to personal footprints rather than the footprint
of the institution.

Daily or weekly transportation to and from campus is a prime example of a ‘border’ case. It is included in this
study, as in most campus footprint calculations. Also included here is an estimate of the air travel by
international students. The latter presumes a very broader perspective on the ‘borders’ of the institution, but
was included here because the size of this component is so significant.
The other main issue of coverage is what stages of the life cycle of a product or process are included. Ideally,
all stages should be represented, from the extraction of the resource though the processes of manufacturing,
distribution, to the use of the product and finally it’s recycling or waste disposal. However, as will be discussed
below, the ‘conversion’ rates used do not always include all life cycle stages. In a number of cases only the
embodied energy for manufacturing and distribution is included. Other stages that should ideally be
considered, including the land and materials used to produce the good, the energy used during its service life,
and the impact of its absorption as waste were not always fully included.
Finally, the components to be included in the calculation are partly affected by the sources of the required data,
which is influenced by how administrative units on campus are organized. For example, responsibility for
purchasing paper is divided among several different units, and there are several different providers of food
services. The reliability of the data coverage is probably reduced by this dispersal of responsibility.

3.2

Data Collection

As in previous years’ calculation of the KPU ecological footprint, the KPU Facilities Department played a key
role in providing data or directing us to and facilitating our requests to other departments. The following lists
areas of data compiled for various components of the footprint and the departments from which data was
requested and received by the Geog 4501 instructor on behalf of the class.19
Electricity and gas usage
Recycled materials and waste
Water and sewerage
Washroom TP and paper towels
Campus buildings and furniture
Food services, vending machines
Computers and telecommunications
Copy and writing paper
Student and staff postal codes
Employee air travel
KSA Shuttle
KSA transportation survey

3.3

Facilities Dept.
Facilities Dept., Environmental Protection Program classes
Facilities Dept.
Facilities Dept., Finance Dept.
Finance Dept.
Sodexo, Ryan Vending, Coca Cola, KSA
Info. Tech. Dept., Kwantlen Faculty Association (KFA)
Print Shop, Facilities Dept., Finance Dept., KFA
Institutional Analysis Dept.
Finance Dept.
Kwantlen Student Association (KSA)
Kwantlen Student Association (KSA)

Calculations and Results

3.1.0 Overall Results
Figure 16 below provides and overview of the components of the KPU ecological footprint and their
corresponding footprint areas in global hectares per annum. Each component is then discussed below, with
additional details reported in the Appendix.

Figure 16: KPU Ecological Footprint 2013: Summary of Components, Amounts and Footprints in GHA
Students
Campus population
Staff and Admin
Faculty
TOTAL

19,626
535
732
20,893

93.9
2.6
3.5
100.0

Energy

Natural gas
Electricity
Vehicle gas
TOTAL

1023.8

10.0

TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL

153.7
758.8
57.9
67.5

1.5
7.4
0.6
0.7

Category

Sub cat

Gha

%

Food

SODEXO total
Tim Hortons
Grassroots
TOTAL

KPU campus land
Buildings
Recycle materials
Unrecyled waste

185.7

1.8

Vending machines Ryan Vending
Coca Cola
KSA water
TOTAL

44.5

0.4

Auto transportation Auto parking
Auto student
Auto faculty
Auto staff
Employee milage
Employee car rental
Car2Go
Auto share of BC roads
TOTAL
3199.0

31.1

Transit transportationStudent transit
Faculty transit
Staff transit
KPU Shuttle
Transit share of BC roads
TOTAL
246.4

2.4

Paper

KSA
KFA
KPU office
KPU Printing
Bookstore
Library
TOTAL

387.2

KSA telecommunications
Computers, printers and
KFA
KPU computers
KPU printers
KPU network
TOTAL
307.8
Furniture
TOTAL
517.9
Water and sewer TOTAL
12.3

3.8

Air transportation

3.0
5.0
0.1

International students
Faculty and staff travel claims
TOTAL
3326.0

Total Campus Footprint (ha)
Footprint per non FTE student
Footprint per non FTE person

10288.482
0.524
0.492

32.3
100.0

Source: See text below and Appendix

3.3.1 Campus Area, Buildings and Furniture
3.3.1.1 Campus Area:
The four campuses of KPU have an area of 61.74 h, of which 9.69 h is buildings, 0.34 h is forest and 3.17 h is
parking lots.20 A hectare of Canadian forest is 1.33 times as bioproductive as a global hectare, so .45 gha was
deducted from the KPU footprint, as this area remains bioproductive. The rest of the campus area is treated as
having been removed from cropland, which is 2.64 times as productive as world average bioproductive land.
The 3.17 h of parking lots are counted under auto transportation and so are excluded from this component.
The result is that the footprint of the campus land component is 154 gha, or 1.5% of the KPU total ecological
footprint.
3.3.1.2 Buildings:
It is difficult to calculate the volume of wood, steel, glass, concrete and other materials used to construct the
buildings on campus in order to estimate the embodied energy and the area of land required to produce these
materials.21 Since the resulting footprint is an annual measure it would also be necessary to divide these

amounts by the assumed service life of the buildings (for concrete buildings this is usually considered to be
about 75 years).
The procedure adopted in this study was to input the 2013 amortization amount for buildings and fixed assets
reported in the KPU Financial Statement 2013-2014 (p. 15) into the life cycle analysis tool provided by
Carnegie Mellon University.22 This tool basically adds several ‘environmental impact’ sectors to the 428
conventional economic sectors in an input-output model.
Input output models can quantify the ‘share’ of activity in each of the other sectors that are related to activity in
a given sector. When the $6.121 million amortization amount for KPU buildings in 201323 is entered under the
Construction sector/Commercial, Health and Educational sub-sector, the tool calculates that the volume of
CO2e generated in all economic sectors directly and indirectly necessary for this amount of construction
activity at KPU is 3,610 tCO2e, which requires about 758 gha to absorb.24
The Carnegie Mellon tool also reports that the land area corresponding to the contribution by other sectors to
the construction sector/subsector is another .516 h.25 Assuming the land used would have been forest land
originally, this area is multiplied by the forest land equivalence factor of 1.33. The year’s total ecological
footprint for KPU buildings is estimated to be 759 gha, or about 7.4% of the total KPU footprint.
3.3.1.3 Furniture and Equipment:
The Carnegie Mellon tool was also used to estimate the footprint of the $3.8 million amortization amount for
furniture and equipment reported by the KPU Financial Statement 2013-14 (p. 15).26 The tool reports that the
total emissions from this amount of production in the office furniture manufacturing sector were 2,460
tCO2ewhich corresponds to.59 h of land. The result is a total annual ecological footprint of 518 gha, or 5.0% of
the KPU total footprint.27

3.3.2 Energy
The two forms of energy consumed are natural gas (to heat buildings and water) and electricity (for lights,
ventilation, computers, etc.). A small amount of gas is used by KPU vehicles.
KPU Energy Consumption Records 2013 (p. 3) report that 45,114 GJ of natural gas were consumed. This is
equivalent to 924,053 m3 of gas according to the rate reported by Natural Resources Canada.28 When the
latter is multiplied by the conversion rate to global hectares of .000465 gha/m3 gas reported by Chambers,
2000, p.89, the ecological footprint of natural gas is 430 gha.
The same source reports that KPU consumed 1,113,788 kWh of electricity, or 11.14 Gwh. Different means of
generating power have different ecological footprints, and exports and imports of energy from other
jurisdictions add to the difficulty in identifying the footprint of power provided by BC Hydro. The following
breakdown was calculated: Hydro 70.83%, thermal (gas) 26.01%, biogas/other 2.97%.29 The conversion rates
of 42.5, 94.0 and 12.3 gha/kWh for these sources of power generation are averages of the (considerable range
in) values reported by Chambers, 2000, p. 83).The result is an ecological footprint for KPU electricity
consumption of 588 gha.30
The total energy footprint of KPU is 1024 gha, or 10.0% of the total. However, thanks to the diligent efforts to
implement energy saving measures by the Facilities Department, KPU uses less gas and electricity now than it
did 15 years ago despite a significant increase in campus infrastructure and population. KPU’s ecological

footprint for gas plus electricity was 7.7% higher in 1998 than in 2013, despite the building area being 26%
smaller in 1998 than in 2013.31

3.3.3 Food and Beverage
The food services on campus are the cafeteria services by Sodexo, Sodexo’s Tim Horton’s franchises, and the
KSA’s Grassroots Cafe on Surrey Campus.
Weekly orders by Grassroots in 2011 (see Figure 17 below) were projected for the entire year and used
because data for 2013 were not available. KPU’s population has increased since then so it is likely that the
amount of food served has also increased.
Figure 17: Grassroots Café’s Weekly Food Orders, Conversion Rates and Results (CGS)
Food Product
Seafood
Meat and poultry
Vegetables
Grain
Dairy
Fruits
Coffee
Tea
Beverages
Beer
Total

Weight (kg)
0
560
2193
800
960
997
720
0
8278
750
29.51

Conversion Factor
Footprint (gha)
0.0045
0.0069
0.0004
0.0017
0.0011
0.0005
0.00118
0.00118
0.00074
0.00018

0
3.86
0.88
1.36
1.06
0.5
0.85
0
6.14
0.13

14.78

Source: Food order data courtesy of Grassroots, conversion factors from Chambers, 2000.

In addition to the food, the waste stream should also be considered. Figure 18 reports the results of a survey of
organic waste from Grassroots Cafe. It was used to estimate the annual waste stream of 2.308 tonnes32,
whose footprint was calculated to be 2.317 gha on the basis of the energy used to transport it to the landfill, the
energy used for landfill operations and the methane produced by its decomposition.33
Figure 18: Grassroots Café’s Waste
Weight (kg)
Grassroots - Tues
Material
Organics and compost
Recyclables
Paper cups
To-go-containers
Paper towels
Garbage
Cardboard
Total

Weight (kg)
Grassroots – Thurs

Average weight (kg)
per week

11.8
2.4
0.34
1.8
1.5
1.8
4.4
24.04

67.25
26.25
1.7
9.25
8.0
13.25
16.0
141.7

15.1
8.1
0.34
1.9
1.7
3.5
2.0
32.64

Source: Robbins, T., 2014, ENVI 2900 Research Project - Waste Audit

The weight of various foods and supplies purchased in 2013 for the cafeterias were provided by Sodexo
manager Erin Mclean. The groupings in these reports were not well matched to those for which conversion
rates to global hectares are available, which limits the precision and coverage of these footprint calculations.
While conversion rates from Chamber were used for Grassroots Café, the footprint for the Sodexo cafeterias
was calculated as described in Figure 19. Rates of embodied energy and crop yield land for various food
products as reported by Acosta and Moore, 2009 were used. The following are sample calculations for beef
and produce.34
Figure 19: Calculation Method for Footprints of Sodexo Beef and Vegetables

What

Amount and units

Source

Sodexo 462.4 kg of beef 2013
.4624 t beef
embodied energy for beef production
67.9 MJ/ t beef
Resulting CO2 to be absorbed
19.3 t CO2e/ t beef
Less the 25% absorbed by oceans
14.475 tCO2e/t beef
CO2 sequestration rate by CDN forests
.97 tCO2e/ha
Forest land to absorb CO2
14.923 ha/t beef
Forest land equivalence factor
1.33
Energy land in global hectares
19.847gha/t beef
Yield factor for beef (land to raise beef)9.64 ha/t beef( Acosta, p 20)
Grazing land equivalence factor
0.5
Food land needed to raise beef
4.82 ha/t beef
Energy and food land to produce beef
24.667 gha/t beef
Footprint of Sodexo beef
11.406 gha

(Acosta, p 20)
(=9.64*.5)
(=19.847+4.82)
(=.4624 t beef*24.667 gha/t)

Sodexo vegetables 2013
embodied energy for veg production
Resulting CO2 to be absorbed
Less the 25% absorbed by oceans
CO2 sequestration rate by CDN forests
Forest land to absorb CO2
Forest land equivalence factor
Energy land in global hectares
Yield factor for veg (land to raise veg).
Crop land equivalence factor
Food land needed to raise veg
Energy and food land to produce veg
c Footprint of Sodexo veg

(Sodexo)
(Acosta, p.20, ave. 4 veg)
(Acosta. p. 20, ave. 4 veg)
(Acosta, p 22)
(Acosta, p. 21)
(=1.8/.97)
(Acosta, p 21)
(=1.33*1.856)
(Acosta, p 20, pot. + tom.)
(Acosta, p 20)
(=.035*2.64)
(=2.464+.0924)
(=5.66 t veg* 2.56 gha/t)

5.66 t veg
22.0725 MJ/ t veg
2.4 t CO2e/ t veg
1.8 tCO2e/t veg
.97 tCO2e/h
1.856 ha/t veg
1.33
2.468 gha/t veg
035 ha/t veg
2.64
.092 gha/t veg
2.56 gha/t veg
14.49 gha

(Sodexo)
(Acosta, p.20)
(Acosta. p. 20)
(Acosta, p 22)
(Acosta, p. 21)
(=14.475/.97)
(Acosta, p 21)
(=1.33*14.923)

Comparing the calculation for beef to that of vegetables makes clear the different scales of their ecological
impact. The beef footprint per ton is almost 10 times that for vegetables (24.67 gha/t vs. 2.56 gha/t).
Data was not available for Tim Hortons, so as a ‘placeholder’ calculation it was assumed its footprint is half of
the Sodexo cafeterias. No separate calculation was made of the waste from Sodexo cafeterias or Tim Hortons,
but its footprint is included in the overall waste category for KPU. The combined footprint estimated for
Grassroots Café, Sodexo cafeterias and Tim Hortons was 207 gha, or 1.8% % of the KPU total.

3.3.4 Printing and Washroom Paper
The total weight of paper reported by various areas of KPU during 2013 was 370 tonnes, with a total ecological
footprint of 323 gha, or 3.8% of the total KPU footprint (see Appendix 7.1.3 for details and sources of data).
Of this, 151 tonnes was toilet paper and paper towels in the washrooms, 20 tonnes were used in KPU offices,
and 44 tonnes were used in the Print Shop. Much smaller amounts were reported by the KSA, the KFA and
Library acquisitions. Different conversion rates were used for washroom paper as opposed to fine paper, and
to account for the percentage of fibre in copy paper that is recycled.

3.3.5 Recycled Waste and Landfilled Waste
Annual waste data was provided by the Facilities department but the data did not break down the types of
waste in a way that was useful for our purposes. However, an audit of the waste on Langley Campus was
carried out by Environmental Technology Program (EPT) students. Figure 20 reports the breakdown of waste
by type. We applied these shares to the total waste reported by the Facilities Department to estimate the
composition of total KPU by waste by type.
Figure 20: Waste by Type Based on EPT Audit of Langley Campus

Solid Waste by Category

EPT Waste
Collection Data from
November 15, 2014
(kg)

Percentage
from Total
Waste
Collected (%)

Totals of KPU
Waste by EPT
Waste Audit's
Category
Percentages
(kg)

Garbage

41.104kg

36.42%

176703.65

Non-Recyclable Plastic

6.586kg

5.81%

28189.13

Soft Plastic

0.722kg

0.64%

3105.17

Recyclable Plastic

6.22kg

5.48%

26588.03

Cardboard

3.96kg

3.49%

16932.89

Paper

16.37kg

14.43%

70011.91

Organic Waste

38.45kg

33.51%

162584.82

Totals

113.41kg

100.00%

485183.00

Source: EPT waste audit data courtesy of Paul Richard, EPT program.

Figure 21 outlines the method used to calculate the footprint of transporting the general waste to the landfill,
which follows that in Acosta and Moore, 2009. Further details are in Appendix 7.1.4, along with estimates of
the footprint to operate the landfill and the footprint to transport recyclable materials to their depot.

Figure 21: Calculation of Footprint of Transport to Landfill
Variables

Values Used

Total General Waste

176703.65kg (176.70365t)

Heavy Duty Vehicle Emission Rate

0.00018tCO2e/Km

Distance to Closest Landfill in Metro Vancouver

28.30 Km

Global Ecological Footprint Factor

0.28 gha/tCO2

Total Ecological Footprint

3.21gha

The same procedure was used to calculate the footprint of transporting materials that are recycled to the
recycling depot. Finally, the footprint of the landfill itself was calculated (energy used for operations and release
of methane from decomposition) using conversion rates from Barrett (2012) as also outlined in Appendix 7.1.4.
The total footprint of recycled material and waste was estimated to be 58 gha, and of waste that is landfilled 78
gha. Together they represent 1.3% of the KPU footprint.

3.3.5 Computers and Telecommunications Equipment
Data on the numbers of computers and other telecommunications equipment were provided by the IET
department. We were unable to obtain any reliable conversion rates for physical units for these items so we
used the input-output model made available by the Carnegie Mellon Life Cycle site to estimate the embodied
energy and land associated with manufacturing. Operating energy for computers was also reported by IT, and
the total footprint for this component is the sum of these two stages. It does not include the recycling or
disposal stage of the equipment.
To use the Carnegie Mellon tool, the physical numbers of computers and other equipment had to be expressed
in dollars. This was done by calculating the average price of equivalent items on the Best Buy website. The IET
department provided the average service lives for some of this this equipment, and this was used to calculate
one year’s cost. This total was entered under the “Computers and peripherals” sector of the Carnegie Mellon
model, and the resulting greenhouse gasses, energy used and land areas associated with the manufacturing
of this value of production by this sector are reported in Figure 22.35
Figure 22: Carnegie Mellon Estimates of Emissions and Land Area Associated with Manufacturing Computers
and Telecommunications Equipment.
Equipment
Number of
Annual cost (one
Greenhouse
Energy
Land use
Footprint
type
units
year depreciation)
gas
(Tj)
(Ha/a)
area
($)
(tCO2e)
(Gha/a)
Computers
3512
571,470
162
24
110
155.55
Printers
716
109,073
31
.47
2
118.68
Network
7426
206,621
56.6
.88
4
19.85
Telecom
1299
19,582
41.7
.63
2
13.68
Total
291.3
4.41
118
307.8
Source: Calculated from KPU data courtesy of Sukey Samra and calculator tool from Carnegie Mellon University Green Design
Institute. (2014) Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA) US 2002 (428 sectors) Producer model [Internet], Available
from: <http://www.eiolca.net/> [Accessed 15 Nov, 2014], for more details see Appendix 7.1.5

In addition to the manufacturing footprint, the energy used to operate computers and other equipment was
calculated from data on energy use provided by the IET department (see Figure 23 below). The total computer
and peripherals footprint to both manufacture and operating this equipment was 308 gha, or 3.0% of the KPU
total. It does not include the final stage in the life cycle of this equipment, recycling and disposal.
Figure 23: Footprint of Operating Electricity, Computers
Operating energy footprint of KPU computers
No. units

kWh/year/unit $/day/unit

Source

kWh/year

$/year

Gha

30
284
Lab computers, Open Access
in Library

26.75 PC rate

8,520

803

0.362

Student PC

537

284

26.75 PC rate

152,508

14,366

6.482

Staff PC

550

284

26.75 See below

156,200

14,714

6.639

Staff laptop

464

142

13.38 Half PC rate

65,888

6,207

2.800

Thin Clients

1600

132

12.43 See below

211,200

19,895

8.976

Macs

146

284

26.75 PC rate

41,464

3,906

1.762

Servers (physical units)185

284

26.75 PC rate

52,540

4,949

2.233

688,320

64,840

29.2536

Total computer

3512

Source: Number of units provided by and electricity consumption estimated from data courtesy of Sukey Samra.36

3.3.6

Auto and Transit Transportation

As reported in Figure 24 below, the auto transportation component of the KPU footprint was estimated to be
3199 gha, or 31.1% of the KPU total, while that for transit was 246 gha or 2.4% of the total.
Figure 24: KPU Auto and Transit Footprint

Auto transportation
Gha
ConversionSource
rate
Category
Unit Data
Source
Data
Auto parking
m2
31,700 See Campus area above
3.17
2.64000 Equivalence factor for cropland
8.37 in Canada from GFN in A
Auto student
km
34,609,273 Home postal codes for
34609
0.000069
1000
students,
pass
kmfaculty and staff in
Fall 2013Barrett,
were obtained
p. 49 reports
from 2,401.88
KPU
this rate
Institutional
for cars in
Analysis
the UK Dept.
(whichT
km
0
0.000069
Auto student passenger or drop-off
Home postal codes for
1000
students,
pass kmfaculty
and staff in
Fall 2013Barrett,
were obtained
p. 49 reports
from KPU
this 0.00
rate
Institutional
for cars in
Analysis
the UK Dept.
(whichT
Auto faculty alone
km
4,105,629 Home postal codes for
0.000069
284.93
1000
students,
pass4106
kmfaculty and staff in
Fall 2013Barrett,
were obtained
p. 49 reports
from KPU
this
rate
Institutional
for cars in
Analysis
the UK Dept.
(whichT
Auto staff alone
km
3,694,787 Home postal codes for
0.000069
256.42
1000
students,
pass3695
kmfaculty and staff in
Fall 2013Barrett,
were obtained
p. 49 reports
from KPU
this
rate
Institutional
for cars in
Analysis
the UK Dept.
(whichT
Employee milage
$
222,086 Estimates using milage
222mileage claims,0.000069
15.41
1000rate
pass
from
km
data courtesy
Barrett,
of Evelyn
p. 49 Forrest,
reports this
KPU
rate
Finance
for cars
Dept,
in email
the UKto(which
Bill Bu
Employee car rental
$
8,348 Estimates using milage
1000rate
pass
from
km8mileage claims,0.000069
data courtesy
Barrett,
of Evelyn
p. 49 Forrest,
reports this
KPU0.58
rate
Finance
for cars
Dept,
in email
the UKto(which
Bill Bu
Car2Go
km
0.000023 One third of the above rate0.00
1000 pass km0
in light of lower emissions a
Auto share of BC roads
ha
174 Taken from 2008 EF: Estimated on theSee
1.33000
231.42
basis
Moore
of 62%
137Kwantlen
for calculations
Forest
pop using
land
of road
cars,
conversion
area,
and their
etc.
factor
Kwantlen use of the car being
What if?
(Auto total), includes parking area
3199.0
Transit transportation
Student transit
Faculty transit
Staff transit
KPU Shuttle
Transit share of BC roads
What if?
(Transit total)

km
km
km
pass km
ha

7,716,254
287,458
116,789
11,820
1.74

231.49
Home postal codes for students, faculty and staff in0.00003
Fall 2013Chambers
were obtained from KPU
Institutional Analysis Dept. T
Home postal codes for students, faculty and staff in0.00003
Fall 2013Chambers
were obtained from KPU 8.62
Institutional Analysis Dept. T
Home postal codes for students, faculty and staff in0.00003
Fall 2013Chambers
were obtained from KPU 3.50
Institutional Analysis Dept. T
0.00006
twide
theaccording
above to Mathew
0.73Schwartz, Fleet Coordina
600 passenger trips (19.7 km according to Goodle maps)
in fall
2011,
1.20000 quarter of trips by bus
2.09
Guestimated as auto share of BC roads/25 people/bus/one
246.4

Source: KPU 2014 Ecological Footprint calculator, See below for details

In order to estimate the distance travelled to and from campus by students and staff, 6 digit home postal codes
for students, faculty and staff in Fall 2013 were obtained from KPU Institutional Analysis Department. The
latitude/longitude coordinates for the postal code centroids were obtained from the Platinum Postal Codes
Suite 2006 on the Equinox data base37 and converted to UTM coordinates.38 The distance from home postal

code to home campus was then calculated as the sum of the difference in easting and northing of the UTM
coordinates.39
For 2,379 of 14,593 of the postal code-campus combinations, the distances between the postal codes and the
home campus had previously been derived by the Geography 2250 class in 2013. This analysis used Google
Maps to estimate distances, and it was found that this method was, on average 0.5 km more than the
corresponding distance calculated from the UTM coordinates. The former distances were used when available
and when not, the latter.
Frequency and mode of travel were taken from the 2014 Transportation Survey commissioned by the KSA.
The 212 faculty members surveyed reported they travelled to campus on average 3.7 times per week, with 4%
walking or biking, 80% driving and 16% using transit. For the 230 staff members surveyed, the average
number of trips per week to campus was 4.7, with 5% walked or biked, 11% travelling by transit and 84%
driving. The 2,193 students surveyed reported travelling to campus an average of 3.1 times per week, with
10% walking or biking, 40% travelling by transit and 50% driving.40 Faculty were assumed to travel to campus
36 weeks per year, staff 46 weeks per year. The number of weekly trips by students was adjusted to reflect the
relative enrollment numbers by semester - fall 40.2%, spring 38.5% and summer 21.3%, according to
enrollment data from the Institutional Analysis department.
The conversion rate for auto transportation was taken from Barrett, 201241 and for transit from Chambers,
2000.42 The area of campus parking lots was included in the transportation footprint, along with the estimated
share of the area of roads in BC pro-rated by the distances travelled to and from campus relative to all vehicle
trips in BC.43
It is evident that improving transit access to KPU campuses would be an important way to both meet the
transportation needs of students and staff and reduce the overall KPU footprint. In order to identify obstacles to
improvements in access to campus, basic information on where students and staff live relative to the
campuses is needed.
Figure 25 below displays the home postal code of students and staff for whom Surrey was the home campus in
the fall of 2013.44 It should be noted that postal codes vary a great deal in area covered (e.g., the largely rural
areas in Delta and South Langley cover very large areas; this should be taken into account when registering
the number of students and staff by postal code).45

Figure 25: Home Postal Codes of Students and Staff, Surrey Home Campus:

To illustrate accessibility to KPU campuses by transit, Figure 26 depicts the areas within the Lower Mainland
that are within 500 meters of a transit stop, and Figure 27 is an enlargement of the same for the Surrey area.
Finally, Figure 28 reports the numbers of students, faculty and staff who live in postal codes whose centroid is
within 500 metres of a transit stop.46 A distance of 500 metres is assumed by Translink to represent accessible
transit.
As can be seen, in municipalities like Abbotsford, Fort Langley and Mission, less than 10% of the KPU
population live within 500 metres of a transit stop. In Surrey, 33% of the KPU population live within 500 metres
of a transit stop, 37% in Langley and 36% in Richmond. Issues like the frequency of transit service, the hours
of service, and the number of connections are obviously also important, but the above data provide a
beginning point to identify locations needing better transit service.

Figure 26: Areas Within 500 Meters of a Transit Stop, Lower Mainland

Figure 27: Area Within 500 Meters of a Transit Stop, Surrey

Figure 28: Numbers of Students, Faculty and Staff Living in Postal Codes with Centroids Within 500 Metres of
a Transit Stop

City of Residence

Total KPU students and
employees in Cities

Total KPU students and
employees in city living
within 500 m transit
buffers

Abbotsford
Aldergrove
Anmore
Belcara
Bowen Island
Burnaby
Cloverdale
Coquitlam
Delta
Dewdney
Fort Langley
Ladner
Langley
Maple Ridge
Mission
New Westminster
North Delta
North Vancouver
Pitt Meadows
Port Coquitlam
Port Moody
Richmond
South Surrey
Surrey
Tsawwassen
Vancouver
West Vancouver
White Rock

253
82
5
2
1
661
6
206
1707
1
31
15
1500
215
74
246
34
116
38
112
46
3381
11
9459
10
1765
44
220

3
26
3
1
1
339
4
138
737
1
2
8
553
128
1
135
13
82
21
80
31
1227
4
3139
6
1120
27
131

Percentageof KPU
Students and
Employeesin city living
within 500 m transit
buffers
1.2
31.7
60
50
100
51.3
66.7
67
43.2
100
6.5
53.3
36.9
59.5
1.4
54.9
38.2
70.7
55.3
71.4
67.4
36.3
36.4
33.2
60
63.5
61.4
59.5

3.3.7 Air travel
Air transportation is estimated to account for 3326 gha, or 32.3% of the total KPU footprint, the largest single
component. Of this total, 3002 gha represents the footprint of a questimated one return flight to Europe, Asia or
South America per year by each of KPU’s 1,962 international students. Data for business and conference
travel by KPU employees were provided by the Finance Department and the flight portion of these submitted
expenses was estimated. The conversion rates for air travel were taken from Chambers, 2000. See Appendix
7.1.6 for more details.

The above estimate for international students is obviously crude, but it is clear this component is very
significant. If international student air travel is considered part of the KPU footprint in future calculation more
effort should be expended to accurately quantify its contribution.

3.3.8 Vending Machines
Vending machines for sweet and salty snacks are operated by Ryan Vending, Coca Cola operates the
machines that dispense bottled and canned drinks, and the KSA operates water dispensing machines. Each
group provided the data on product volumes dispensed from their machines.
Footprints were calculated for the snack and drink and drink products using conversion rates from Kissinger,
2013. The footprint of the energy required to deliver recyclable plastic and aluminum to the recycle depot was
calculated, along with the footprint of the waste going to landfill. The Carnegie Mellon tool was used to
calculate the embodied energy and land needed to manufacture the vending machines, and the footprint of the
electricity to operate the machines was estimated. See Appendix 7.1.7 for more details. The total resulting
footprint was 44.5 gha, or 0.4% of the KPU total.47

5.0 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1

Summary of Results

Figure 29 reports the total KPU footprint. 48 The largest contributors were air flights by staff and international
students (32%), auto transportation (31%), electricity and gas energy (10%), and this year’s share of the
construction of the buildings (7%).
Figure 29: KPU Ecological Footprint, 2013

These footprint areas should be understood as accurate to about an order of magnitude. While we can have
confidence in the data reported on energy and gas usage, in most other areas it is hard to evaluate the
reliability of the data reported. As in all cases of the component approach to calculating ecological footprints,
there is considerable uncertainty regarding the conversion rates used to derive the global hectares of land
required to produce the resources or absorb the wastes. Several different conversion rates were employed,
and not all component footprints address all stages of the life cycle of the product or process in question.
However, the general pattern is probably reasonably accurate. It is clear that transportation stands out as a
major contributor to the overall footprint. If we exclude the one return flight per year by international students,
auto transportation in particular begs attention by contributing 46% of the total annual footprint, more than
three times that of the second largest category, gas and electricity energy (see Figure 30 below). The footprints
recorded here for food and waste are not large in relative terms, but they are notable because they can
probably be reduced more easily than for some other areas.
Figure 30: KPU Footprint, Excluding Air Transportation Component

5.2

Conclusions

The main conclusion of this study is that the calculation of KPU’s ecological footprint is a worthwhile exercise
for both education regarding sustainability issues and to inform institutional policy. This ‘first cut’ effort should

be refined and extended. More complete and consistent data from the various departments and other campus
bodies, and more up-to-date sources of and otherwise standardized conversion rates that include all stage of
the life cycle would make this possible.

5.3

Policy Recommendations

The following are recommendations to KPU from this study by the members of the Fall 2014 Geography 4501
class:
1. General KPU Sustainability Policy
Sustainability should be a higher and more visible priority in all KPU activities as a matter of institutional policy.
This should include aspects of curriculum development, campus operations, and KPU’s role in the community.
Sustainability policy should, in principle, reflect the science that underpins the ‘strong’ sustainability approach
rather than being limited to those measures that are consistent with the status quo, whether individualbehavioral or political-economic in nature.
KPU should commit a portion of their budget to install/host/promote demonstration projects for alternative
energy generation on campuses; for example, solar, wind, geothermal and to promote a reduction of energy
use overall.
2. Sustainability Curricula
KPU should consciously develop sustainability as an important aspect of its polytechnic mandate, including by
investing in demonstration projects and new programs oriented to knowledge and training for sustainability. All
KPU programs should require that students take one course with substantial ‘sustainability’ content. An
interdisciplinary first year course should be developed for this purpose, or departments or faculties could offer
a version tailored to their particular programs.
3. Ecological Footprint Calculation
As KPU’s energy conservation measures have demonstrated, “you can’t manage what you don’t measure.”
The KPU ecological footprint should be calculated annually as one metric of ‘strong’ sustainability, using a
methodology that is comparable over time. A list of the required data should be distributed to all KPU
departments so this information can be made available in a timely and consistent fashion.
4. Transportation
Providing better access and reducing the environmental impact of transportation to, from and between
campuses should be adopted as the current priority measure related to KPU’s sustainability initiatives.
KPU should include questions about trip origin, mode, time and frequency in the annual transportation survey
of students and staff to provide the data needed to inform possible improvements.
KPU should continue to be a major public advocate of better transit in the South-of-Fraser region. It should
continue to be actively involved in the discussion of new transit infrastructure in order to maximize

improvements in transit, pedestrian and bicycle access to KPU campuses. KPU should feature information on
transit access when recruiting students.
KPU should discourage flying by employees on KPU business when there are other feasible options, e.g.
teleconferencing, fewer trips that address more business, etc.
5. Waste
KPU should institute more separation of waste (e.g., the 5 bin system) and should have an organic waste
composing facility on one or more campuses for KPU’s organic waste.
6. Food Services
As part of a broader effort to educate the campus community about sustainability issues, the food service
operators on campus should report the environmental impact of their menus and institute practices like
“Meatless Monday”.
Food service operators should switch to local ingredients when possible to reduce ‘food miles’ and otherwise
promote more sustainable agriculture.

6.0 Bibliography

Adomssent, Maik, Godemann, Jasmin, and Michelsen, Gerd, eds. (2007), International Journal
of Sustainability in Higher Education, Volume 8, Issue 4 : "Sustainable University" : Holistic Approach to
Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions. Bradford, GBR: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd, 2007. Accessed
November 24, 2014.
Acosta, Kerly, and Jennie Moore. (2009) "Creating an Ecological Footprint Assessment: Using Component and
Compound Economic Input Output Methods." Case Study: BCIT Burnaby Campus 2006/2007.
ArcGIS. (2013). ArcGIS Help 10.1: About Symbolizing Layers to Represent Quantity. Retrieved from
http://resources.arcgis.com/en/help/main/10.1/index.html#//00s500000034000000
ArcGIS. (2013). ArcGIS Help 10.1: Buffer Analysis. Retrieved from
http://resources.arcgis.com/en/help/main/10.1/index.html#//000800000019000000
Baker, Kelly. (2008). Harms of Dumping Electronics in Landfills. Retrieved from:
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/enge/ewaste/2008/11/environmental_health_hazards_
i.html
Barrett, John et al (2012). A Material Flow Analysis and Ecological Footprint of York. Technical Report.
Stockholm: Stockholm Environmental Institute, www.sei,se.
BCIT. (2008). Reduce Our Ecological Footprints.
Bekessy, S. & Burgman, M. (2003). Universities and sustainability. Retrieved from
http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:7691
Burgess, Bill and Jessica Lai (2006), “Ecological Analysis and Review,” Kwantlen University College, 2006.
Burgess, W. (2014). Ecological Footprints: Compound vs. component method [Geog 4501 class notes].
Surrey, Canada: Kwantlen Polytechnic University.
Carley M. & Christie I. (2000). Managing Sustainable Development. London, U.K. :Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Carnegie Mellon University (2014), How Technology Can Harm The Environment. Retrieved from:
http://carnegiecyberacademy.ini.cmu.edu/faculty Pages/environment/issues.html
Chambers, N. Simmons, C. Wackernagel, M. (2000). Sharing Nature’s Interest. London, UK: Earthscan
Publications Ltd.
D. Rachel Lombardi, Libby Porter, Austin Barber, and Chris D.F. Rogers (2010), “Conceptualizing
Sustainability in UK Urban Regeneration: a Discursive Formation” Urban Stud 2011 48: 273, DOI:
10.1177/0042098009360690

Diekhoff, John S. “The University as Leader and Laggard (1964).” The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 35,
no. 4, pp 181-188. Ohio State University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1978588
Dunn, C. (2008). Your Ecological Footprint: Defining, Calculating, and Reducing Your Environmental Footprint.
Retrieved from http://www.treehugger.com/culture/your-ecological-footprint-defining-calculating-and-reducingyour-environmental-footprint.html
Earth Day Network. “Ecological Footprint Facts” Earth Day Network, n.d. Web. 27 October 2014.
Equinox. (n.d.). BCldu. Retrieved from http://equinox.uwo.ca/EN/BasicSearch.asp
Ewing, B et al, 2010, The Ecological Footprint Atlas. Oakland: Global Footprint Method.
Ewing, et al. (2001). Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts, 2010 Edition. Retrieved from
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/National_Footprint_Accounts_Method_Paper_2010.pdf
Environmental Advisory Committee. Annual Report to Board of Governor (2013). Thompson Rivers
University Campus Sustainability Action Plan: Ecological Footprint Analysis and Steps Forward. Thompson
Rivers University. 2010-2012. PDF file.
Global Footprint Network,. “Frequently Asked Questions”, Global Footprint Network, n.d. Web. 27 October
2014.
Global Footprint Network, (2009), Ecological Footprint Standards, 2009, Oakland: Global Footprint Network.
Google Maps. (2014). Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Campuses: Richmond, Surrey, Cloverdale, Langley.
Henderson, S. (2008). Raw Materials and Electronics Manufacturing. Retrieved from
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/enge/ewaste/2008/11/raw_materials_and_ electron ics.html
Hockin, A.(2009). Thompson Rivers University Campus Sustainability Action Plan: Ecological Footprint
Analysis and Steps Forward 2010-2012
Kissinger, M., Sussman, C., Moore, J, and Rees, W. (2013). Accounting for the Ecological Footprint of
Materials in Consumer Goods at the Urban Scale. Sustainability, 2013, 5, 1960-1973, doi10.3390/su5051960
Kitzes, J., et al. (2007). Current Methods for Calculating National Ecological Footprint Accounts. Science for
Environment & Sustainable Society, 4. Retrieved from www.footprintnetwork.org/download.php?id=4)
Henderson, S. (2008). Raw Materials and Electronics Manufacturing. Retrieved from
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/enge/ewaste/2008/11/raw_materials_and_ electron ics.html
Kitzes, J. et al. (2008). Shrink and Share: Humanity’s Present and Future Ecological Footprint. Philos Trans R
Soc Lond B Biol Sci., (363(1491), 467-475.
Kohler, A. R. (2013). Material Scarcity: A reason for Responsibility in Technology Development and Product
Design. Source & Engineering, 19(3), 1165-1179.
Kwantlen Polytechnic University. “KPU Quick Facts” KPU. Kwantlen Polytechnic U, n.d. Web. 27 October
2014.

Kwantlen Polytechnic University (n.d.). Sustainability and Energy. Retrieved September 29, 2014, from
http://www.kpu.ca/sustainability
Kwantlen Student Association. (2014). Grassroots Cafe and Lounge. Retrieved from
https://sites.google.com/a/kusa.ca/cafe/
Lambrechts, Wim & Liedekerke, Luc Van. (2014). Using Ecological Footprint Analysis in Higher Education:
Campus Operations, Policy Development and Educational Purposes. Ecological Indicators. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X14001940
Lenzen et al (2007), Forecasting the Ecological Footprint of Nations: a blueprint for a dynamic approach. ,
Stockholm Environmental Institute and University of York. available at
http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/DEF.pdf
McFarlane, D. A. & Ogazon, A. G. (2011). The Challenges of Sustainability Education. Journal of
Multidisciplinary Research, 3(3), 81-107.
Moore, J. Kissinger, M. Rees, W. (2013) An urban metabolism and ecological footprint assessment of Metro
Vancouver. Journal of Environmental Management.
Moore, Jennie (2013). Getting Serious About Sustainability In Canada: Exploring the Potential for One-Planet
Living in Vancouver, Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Urban and Regional Planning, UBC.
Obach, B. K. (2009). Consumption, Ecological Footprints and Global Inequality: A Lesson in Individual and
Structural Components of Environmental Problems. Teaching Sociology, 37 (3), 294-300.
Parker, A. (2007). Creating a “Green” Campus. BioScience, 57(4), 321.
Ralph, Meredith, and Wendy Stubbs (2014) Integrating environmental sustainability into universities. Higher
Education 67, (1): 71-90. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-013-9641-9/fulltext.html
Bill Rees, (2010) Getting Serious about Urban Sustainability, in Bunting, et al, Canadian Cities in Transition,
Don Mills: Oxford.
Richardson, J, M. The Ecological Footprint of Food. What Does Living within a Fair Earth Share Mean?
Robbins, T. (2014). ENVI 2900 Research Project – Waste Audit.
Rodrigo Lozano, Rebeka Lukman, Francisco J. Lozano, Donald Huisingh, Wim Lambrechts (2013),
Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university
system, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 48, June 2013, Pages 10-19, ISSN 0959-6526,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.006.
Sherren, Kate, Libby Robin, Peter Kanowski, Stephen Dovers, (2010), Escaping the disciplinary straitjacket:
Curriculum design as university adaptation to sustainability", Journal of Global Responsibility, Vol. 1 Iss: 2,
pp.260 - 278

Sonja, K. et al. (2009). Creating Local Ecological Footprints in a North American Context. Local Environment,
14(6), 495-513.
Stewart, Chelsea & Jennifer Loo. (2005). User Manual for UTM’s Ecological Footprint Calculator. Retrieve
from: http://geog.utm.utoronto.ca/conway/ ecofoot/calcmanual.pdf
Strategic Energy Management Plan (2013). Kwantlen Polytechnic University.
Svada, Suzana, & Shakeel, Tooba (2009). “Ecological Footprint of the University of Toronto, Mississauga:
Calculations and Analysis” Univesrity of Toronto at Mississauga.
Sylvestre, Paul, Tarah Wright, and Kate Sherren (2013),. Exploring faculty conceptualizations of sustainability
in higher education: Cultural barriers to organizational change and potential resolutions. Journal of Education
for Sustainable Development 7, (2): 223-244.
Thompson Rivers University. (2007). Environmental Advisory Committee Annual Report to Board of
Governors.
Translink (n.d.). GTFS Data. Retrieved from
http://www.translink.ca/en/Schedules-and-Maps/Developer-Resources/GTFS-Data.aspx
Translink. (2010). Transit-Oriented Communities: A Primer on Key Concepts. Retrieved from
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/plans_and_projects/transit_oriented_communities/transit_oriented_
communities_primer.ashx
University of Michigan. (n.d). E-waste Crisis. Retrieved from:
http://sitemakerumich.edu/section002group3/e-waste
Venetoulis, Jason, and John Talberth (2008). Refining the ecological footprint.
Environment, Development and Sustainability 10, (4): 441-469.
http://link.springer.com.ezproxy.kwantlen.ca:2080/article/10.1007/s10668-006-9074-z/fulltext.html
Wackernagel, Mathis and William Rees (1996), Our Ecological Footprint: reduce human impact on the earth,
Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers, pp. 7-29.
“What is a Sustainable University?” (2014) Chronicle of Higher Education 53, no. 9 (October 20, 2006): 6.
WWF. (n.d.). What is an ecological footprint? Retrieved from
http://www.wwf.org.au/our_work/people_and_the_environment/human_footprint/ecological_footprint/
WWF. (2013). Calculating the Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity. Retrieved from
http://awsassets.wwfhk.panda.org/downloads/hong_kong_ecological_footprint_report_2013_appendix.pdf
Zaidi, Saima (2014). “KPU Sustainability: Where are we now?” Kwantlen Polytechnic University.

7.0 Appendixes
7.1 Calculations
7.1.1 Campus Area, Buildings and Furniture
Campus area:
-Total of 61.7 h (from KPU Site Plans), of which .34 h is forest and 3.17 h parking lots (calculated using Google
Earth).
- .34 h* 1.33 forest equivalence factor = .45 gha deducted from campus area component
- 3.17 h * 2.64 cropland equivalence factor = 8.35 gha attributed to auto transportation
61.7* 2.64 cropland factor = 162.888 gha - (.45gha + 8.35gha) = 153.7gha
Buildings and major renovations:
-2013 amortization amount for buildings and major renovations $mil 6.121 (KPU Financial Statements 201314, p. 15; buildings amortized over 40 years, major renovations over 10 years)
-From Carnegie Mellon Life Cycle Tool: (Sector - Construction/Non-residential Commercial, Health Care and
Education Structures, No 230101, US 2002 (428 sectors) Producer model, http://www.eiolca.net/):
-GG emissions: 3,610 tCO2e
-Land: .516h
- 3610 tCO2e - 25% absorbed by oceans = 2707.5 tCO2e * .28 gha/tCO2e = 758.1 gha
-.516 h*1.33 forest equivalence factor = .69 gha
Furniture and equipment:
-2013 amortization amount for buildings and fixed assets: $mil 3.806 (KPU Financial Statements 2013-14, p.
15; furniture amortized over 5 years)
-From Carnegie Mellon Life Cycle Tool: (Sector - Furniture/Office furniture manufacturing, No 33721A, US
2002 (428 sectors) Producer model, http://www.eiolca.net/):
-GG emissions:: 3806 tCO2e
-Land: .95h
- 2460 tCO2e - 25% absorbed by oceans = 1845tCO2e * .28 gha/tCO2e = 516.6 gha
-.95 h*1.33 forest equivalence factor = 1.26 gha

7.1.2 Energy
-2013 electricity consumption 11.3578 gwh (Energy Consumption Records 2013, p. 3)
BC Hydro source
%**
Gwh Conversion rate (gha/gwh) Source
EF (gha)
large dam hydro
70.8 8.004
42.5
Chambers, p. 83*
323.49
thermal (gas)
26.01 2.854
94.0
Chambers, p. 83*
262.73
biogas, municipal,
2.97 .3373
36.5
Chambers, p. 83*
12.31
non-storage hydro
[* average of values reported]
** estimated from BC Hydro, 2011, BC Hydro Annual Report 2011, Vancouver: BC Hydro, p. 34, 88,
http://www.bchydro.com/planning_regulatory/acquiring_power/how_power_is_acquired.html,
http://www.bchydro.com/energy_in_bc/our_system/generation.html , the breakdown of IPP power from
http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/planning_regulatory/acquiring_power/2011q4/201110
01_ipp_supply1.Par.0001.File.20111001-IPP-Supply-List-In-Operation.pdf, imports and exports from

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/bus_stat/busind/trade/trade-elec.asp. The calculation assumes that imported
electricity is thermal (gas) generated. The thermal share is higher than reported by BC Hydro, possibly
because they do not seem to include imports in their calculation.Non-storage hydro, biogas and municipal
waste treated as the same.
-less the estimated electricity reported for computers (.688320 gwa) and vending machines (.006927 gwa), see
below .688343
55.6
w. ave. of above
38.30
=Total EF of electricity component
593.61 gha
KPU vehicle gas:
-litres of fuel used
7,141 (Facilities Dept, from SMARTOOL report to BC government)
- fuel consumption rate of 10l/100 km assumed; one passenger
-.000071gha/passenger km calculated from Chambers, 2000, p. 74 report of gha rate of .49 for petrol use per
10,000 pass km and .22 for manufacture and maintenance per 10,000 passenger km
((.49+.22)/10000=.000071), though this appears to only represent the embodied energy, not the land area
required for material inputs and manufacturing and for disposal. ,
-7141 l *10 km/l=71410 km, 10000 pass/km = 7.14 *.000071 gha/10,000 pass km = .51 gha.

7.1.3.Paper
-KPU office fine paper: Data courtesy of the Facilities Dept. (from SMARTTool report at
https://www.wheregreenideaswork.gov.bc.ca/,art/aspx?report=Unit23&reportType…). 18,920 packages of
8.5*11 paper, 150 packages of 8.5*14 paper and 550 packages of 11*17 paper, all 20 lb and 30% postconsumer recycled fibre. 8.5*11 reams each weighs 5 lbs because the area for which the basis weight of 20
lbs is defined is 17*22 which 4 times 8.5*11, and 1lb = 0.453592 kg. Recycled proportion of 30% an estimate.
The conversion rate is an average of the fine paper rates in Kissinger, p. 1967.
KPU Print Shop fine paper: Data is for 2011, as the 2013 data was not available, but the print Shop Manager
Sean Kheler confirmed that there has been little change over this period. In 2011 he reported 167,568.48
pounds of paper, of which 35,271 pounds was recycled fibre = 21.05%. The conversion rate used is an
average of the fine paper rates in Kissinger, p. 1967.
KPU washroom paper: The data for toilet paper and paper towels was compiled from the Unisource Customer
Velocity Report, courtesy of the Finance Dept. The product code was looked up on the Unisource site
http://www.unisource.ca/unisource/en/uni_products/ to confirm the product type was paper towels or toillet
paper and to obtain the weight per unit. The data was for the first 10 months of 2014, so the totals were
multiplied by 12/10 for an annual total. The recycled fibrer rate was calculated from data for 2011 courtesy of
KPU Purchasing and http://productcatalog.gp.com/. The conversion rates used was the average value for
newsprint in Kissinger, page 1967.
KSA, KFA and Library: Data for the KSA is from 2011 courtesy of Kari Michaels, and for the KFA courtesy of
Kyla Rand. The Library reported acquiring 5400 books and the weight of their paper was calculated on the
basis of the 1.37 lbs that Better Book Worlds reports is the average weight of a discarded book. The
conversion rates used was the average value for commercial paper in Kissinger, page 1967.

7.1.4 Waste
The data resources used were from Kwantlen Polytechnic University’s Environmental Protection Technician
program’s 2012 Waste Audit Report and the 2013 Waste Audit Report. The 2012 Waste Audit Report was

done on November 15th, 2012 for Langley campus, and has a breakdown, both recyclable and not, of wastes
similar to what data categories were laid out for the calculations of the Ecological Footprint of KPU. These
categories included: garbage, non-recyclable plastics, recyclable plastics, cardboard, soft plastics, paper and
organic waste.
The data for Langley campus was projected to all campuses on the basis of the relative number of students, as
reported below.
Percentage Distribution of Garbage for each Kwantlen Campus, Determined by EPT student survey:

The transportation footprint for disposing of these projected total amounts of KPU waste by type were
then calculated on the basis of the distance to the nearest landfill; note this does not include the area
of the landfill in question or the emissions from the landfill itself:
Footprint calculations for disposing of Kwantlen’s waste:
Cardboard
Organic Waste
Soft Plastic Waste Recyclable Plastic
to Landfill
Waste type
to Landfill
Waste to Landfill Waste to Landfill
Total Waste
Heavy Duty Vehicle Emission Rate
Distance to Closest Lanfill in Metro
Global Ecological Footprint Factor
Total Ecological Footprint

3105.17 kg
26588.03 kg
16932.89kg
162584.82 kg
0.00018tCO2e/km 0.00018tCO2e/Km 0.00018tCO2e/k 0.00018tCO2e/k
28.30 Km
28.30 km
28.30 km
28.30 km
0.28 gha/tCO2
0.28 gha/tCO2
0.28 gha/tCO2 0.28 gha/tCO2
0.056 ha
0.48 ha
0.308 ha
2.96 ha

7.2.5 Computer and other equipment

The table below reports the inventory of equipment provided by the KPU IET department and the
manufacturing footprint as calculated by the Carnegie Mellon tool.
Computer and telecomunication KPU hardware inventory

Category

Item

# of
Items

Service
life

no.

years

Units

s
o
price
u
r
$/unit

Manufacturing footprint according to Carnegie Mellon life cycle analysis to
S
o
Cost
u
r
$/year

Greenhous
Economic
e Gasses T Energy TJ
sector
CO2e

Transport Air tonnes-

Land use

tCO2e

km

ha

Tj

946.99of Estimated
Library
Numbers
units8,117
and average
by Alex from
service
prices
life courtesy
on Best Buy
of Sukey
at http://www.bestbuy.ca/
Samra, KPU IET Dept., by email to Bil
Computers Lab computers, Open30Access in3.5
Student PC

537

Staff PC

550

4 Numbers
859.99of Estimated
118,249
0.061
0.001
1.41
0 by email to Bil
units
and average
by Alex from
service
prices
life courtesy
on Best Buy
of
Sukey
at http://www.bestbuy.ca/
Samra,
KPU IET Dept.,

Staff laptop

464

3.5 Numbers
777.30of Estimated
103,048
0.063
0.001
1.46
0 by email to Bil
units
and average
by Alex from
service
prices
life courtesy
on Best Buy
of
Sukey
at http://www.bestbuy.ca/
Samra,
KPU IET Dept.,

Thin Clients

1600

7 Numbers
388.65of Estimated
88,834
units
and average
as half the
service
above
life courtesy of Sukey Samra, KPU IET Dept., by email to Bil

Macs

146

3.5 Numbers
1707.34of Estimated
71,220
0.138
0.002
3.2
0 by email to Bil
units
and average
by Alex from
service
prices
life courtesy
on Best Buy
of
Sukey
at http://www.bestbuy.ca/
Samra,
KPU IET Dept.,

185
Servers (physical units)

Printers

3.5 Numbers
859.99of Estimated
131,947
0.07
0.001
1.62
0 by email to Bil
units
and average
by Alex from
service
prices
life
courtesy
on Best Buy
of
Sukey
at http://www.bestbuy.ca/
Samra,
KPU IET Dept.,

3.5 Guestimate
946.99 Estimated
50,055 by Alex from prices on Best Buy at http://www.bestbuy.ca/

Total computer

3512

MFD printers

108

3.5 Numbers
716.36of Estimated
22,105
units
courtesy
by Alex
of Sukey
from prices
Samra,
onKPU
BestIET
Buy
Dept.,
at http://www.bestbuy.ca/
by email to Bill Burgesscited by KPU IE

571,470 334111 Electronic
162 Computer2.44
Manufacturing

110

Local printers

250

3.5 Numbers
716.36of Estimated
51,169
units
courtesy
by Alex
of Sukey
from prices
Samra,
onKPU
BestIET
Buy
Dept.,
at http://www.bestbuy.ca/
by email to Bill Burgesscited by KPU IE

Printer ink, etc.

358

Total printer

716

100.00
35,800
Number
of printers
Guestimate
109,073 334111 Electronic
31 Computer
0.467
Manufacturing

2

259

3.5 Numbers
25.00of Guestimate
units1,850
courtesy of Sukey Samra, KPU IET Dept., by email to Bill Burgesscited by KPU IE

Wifi access points 375

3.5 Numbers
100.00of Guestimate
10,714
units
courtesy of Sukey Samra, KPU IET Dept., by email to Bill Burgesscited by KPU IE

Network ports

6792

3.5 Numbers
100.00of Guestimate
194,057
units
courtesy of Sukey Samra, KPU IET Dept., by email to Bill Burgesscited by KPU IE

Total Network

7426

Network hardware
Edge switches

206,621 334111: Electronic
56.6computer0.882
manufacturing

4

Telecommunication
4
Servers - telecommications

3.5 Numbers
946.99of Estimated
units1,082
courtesy
by Alex
of Sukey
from prices
Samra,
onKPU
BestIET
Buy
Dept.,
at http://www.bestbuy.ca/
by email to Bill Burgesscited by KPU IE

Phone sets

3.5 Numbers
50.00of Guestimate
18,500
units
courtesy of Sukey Samra, KPU IET Dept., by email to Bill Burgesscited by KPU IE

1295

1299
Total telecommunications

19,582 517000 Telecommunications
41.7
0.628

TOTAL ALL

291.3

4.417

2
118

Source: Number of items courtesy of Sukey Samra, KPU IET Dept., service life a questimate, prices from similar units at Best Buy.
Manufacturing footprint from Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute. (2014) Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment
(EIO-LCA) US 2002 (428 sectors) Producer model [Internet], Available from: <http://www.eiolca.net/> [Accessed 15 Nov, 2014]

7.1.6 Auto and transit transportation
The estimates for distances travelled are described in the text. The conversion rates used are from Barrett,
2012, and Chambers, 2000. The KPU share of the roads was estimated on the basis of 62% of Kwantlen pop
using cars, and their Kwantlen use of the car being 50% of total use, times the per car road area in BC
calculated from total road area in BC and total number of cars in BC from Moore, 2013, p. 137, and that the
forest land converted to roads had 133% bioproductivity of a world hectare.

7.1.7 Vending Machines:
Weight for sweet and salty snacks vending machines (1 year):
Langley Campus: approximately 19,000 units
Surrey Campus: approximately 31,500 units

Cloverdale Campus: approximately 4,000 units
Richmond Campus: approximately 13,000 units

(Average weight of wrapper = 2 g)

Langley Campus: 19,000 units x 2 g = 38,000 g = 38 kg
Surrey Campus: 31,500 units x 2 g = 63,000 g = 63 kg
Cloverdale Campus: 4,000 units x 2 g = 8,000 g = 8 kg
Richmond Campus: 13,000 units x 2 g = 26,000 g = 26 kg
38 kg + 63 kg + 8 kg + 26 kg = 135 kg = 0.135 tonnes/year (wrappers)
Electricity for sweet and salty snacks vending machines ($/year):
Langley: 4 snack machines x 15.07 cents/day = 60.26 cents/day = 21,994.90 cents/year = $219.95/year
Surrey: 7 snack machines x 15.07 cents/day = 150.49 cents/day = 54,928.85 cents/year = $549.29/year
Cloverdale: 1 snack machine x 15.07 cents/day = 15.07 cents/day = 5,500.55 cents/year = $55.01/year
Richmond: 3 snack machines x 15.07 cents/day = 45.21 cents/day = 16,501.65 cents/year = $165.02/year
$219.95 + $549.29 + $55.01 + $165.02 = $989.27/year
(Information received from Gary Lambert, Ryan Vending Ltd.)
Weight/Volume for Coca Cola vending machines (1 year):
72 cases of cans (24 units each) = 1,728
1,672 cases of bottles (24 units each) = 40,128
Cans: 1,728 units x 14 g = 24,192 g = 24.192 kg
Bottles: 40,128 units x 59 g = 2,367,552 g = 2,367.552 kg
24.192 kg + 2,367.552 kg = 2,391.744 kg = 2.392 tonnes/year49

8.0 Endnotes
1 Some also point to an ‘intermediate’ conceptualization of sustainability. Dependence on environmental services is
acknowledged but it holds that capital and technology created by human societies can substantially replace natural capital
and natural processes. Ambitious changes may be required (e.g., dedicating carbon resources to finance the transition to
a non-carbon economy), but no full restructuring of the existing social and economic order (Rees, 2006).
2 The EF excludes open oceans, less productive lands, allocation of land and habitat for other species, the global carbon

budget, and multi-use land (Talberth and Venetoulis 2007). Net primary productivity (measure of carbon accumulation into
plant biomass) is not taken into account, which could take place of equivalency factors (EQFs) for greater accuracy
(Talberth and Venetoulis 2007). It does not measure issues such as quality of life for humans or other animals
(Wackernagle 2000). Carbon sequestration is based on what forests are able to sequester (plus some by oceans), not the
entire Earth’s surface. Thus, the EF is a generalization of reality, a simplification of nature, and intentionally
underestimates impacts. One interesting extension of the basic ecological footprint model is the effort to convert it from a
‘static’ measure to a ‘dynamic’ measure by quantifying the effects over time of resource use and waste production in much
the same way that climate models have been developed to predict the long term effects of greenhouse gases (see, e.g.,
Lenzen et al, Forecasting the Ecological Footprint of Nations: a blueprint for a dynamic approach, Stockholm
Environmental Institute and University of York, 2007, http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/DEF.pdf ).
3 A variety of social, ecological, and economic indicators have been developed to measure a society’s well-being

(Wackernagle 2000). Most are not standardized and vary throughout the different populations using them. Some are
drawn from aggregate data such as CO2 emissions and concentrations, and while it is important to know the carbon
emissions and concentration of an area, they do necessarily help understanding of their contribution to unsustainability or
global warming (Wackernagle 2000).
The Natural Step has developed principles that can be followed to achieve sustainability. These principles are a
framework for sustainability but they are not standardized. They do not get to the root causes of unsustainable behaviour,
and are so detailed they may lead initiatives off track (Wackernagle 2000). The Environmental Space metric accounts for
the amount of ecological capacity that is used by people as well as what can sustainably be used. This metric is specific
to per capita expressions of sustainability. It has a set target of sustainability, which may be perceived as subjective, takes
little account of differing ecological materials and is not very accessible or meaningful to the average person
(Wackernagle 2000).
Almost all countries have legally mandated environmental impact assessments processes. When done correctly they can
provide detailed and useful descriptions of possible ecological, social, and economic impacts of a particular industrial or
infrastructure project. However, as with most other metrics they are not standardized, they are often detailed for popular
purposes, and they usually fail to take into account cumulative effects (Wackernagle 2000). Life Cycle Analysis is a metric
that studies the life cycle of a particular product, such as paper, from cradle to grave. It is often a very specific
measurement that is not standardized. By itself it does not lead to much understanding by the average person
(Wackernagle 2000).
4 See http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/
v The categories in this figure vary from those on the right used by the Global Footwork Network. There are good
biological reasons for including an area for bioproductivity but it is not included in the GFN methodology in the interests of
conservative estimation.
6 See http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/application_standards/ and

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/Ecological_Footprint_Standards_2009.pdf
7 Global Footprint Network, Ecological Footprint Standards 2009, p.4)

8 See “Life Cycle Assessment,” from United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA). [Sustainable Technology]. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/lca/lca.html.
9

Chambers, N. Simmons, C. Wackernagel, M. (2000). Sharing Nature’s Interest. London, UK: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Moore, Jennie (2013). Getting Serious About Sustainability In Canada: Exploring the Potential for One-Planet Living in
Vancouver, Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Urban and Regional Planning, UBC;
Kissinger, M., Sussman, C., Moore, J, and Rees, W. (2013). Accounting for the Ecological Footprint of Materials in
Consumer Goods at the Urban Scale. Sustainability, 2013, 5, 1960-1973, doi10.3390/su5051960;
Moore, Jennie & Kissenger, Meidad & Rees, William E. (2013). An Urban Metabolism and Ecological Footprint
Assessment of Metro Vancouver. Journal of Environmental Management, 124;
Barrett, John et al, 2012. A Material Flow Analysis and Ecological Footprint of York. Technical Report. Stockholm:
Stockholm Environmental Institute, www.sei,se;
Acosta, Kerly, & Moore, Jenny. (2009). Creating an Ecological Footprint Assessment: Using Component and Compound
Economic Input Output Methods;
Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute. (2014) Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA) US
2002 (428 sectors) Producer model [Internet], Available from: <http://www.eiolca.net/> [Accessed 6 Dec, 2014]
10 World Footprint Do we fit on the planet? (2014, October 30). Retrieved Dec. 16, 2014, from

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/
11WWF. (2014). Canadians must choose environment and economy for strong future. Living Planet Report 2014.
Retrieved from http://www.wwf.ca/newsroom/reports/living_planet_report_2014.cfm
12 Deciles are one tenth, so the figure reports on the poorest 10% of families up to the richest 10% of families.

13

MacKenzie et al, Size Matters: Canada’s Ecological Footprint, by Income, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2008. Note that
this study divides the total Canadian footprint among all income groups and does not attempt to distinguish between footprints for food
and shelter as opposed to bitumen extraction or military activities, for example.

14 Moore, Jennie & Kissenger, Meidad & Rees, William E. (2013). An Urban Metabolism and Ecological Footprint
Assessment of Metro Vancouver. Journal of Environmental Management, 124.
15 Thompson Rivers University. (2012). Thompson Rivers University Campus Sustainability Action Plan: Ecological

Footprint Analysis and Steps Forward 2010-2012.
16 Acosta, Kerly, & Moore, Jenny. (2009). Creating an Ecological Footprint Assessment: Using Component and

Compound Economic Input Output Methods. Retrieved from
https://courses.kpu.ca/pluginfile.php/68613/mod_resource/content/3/bcit_ ecofootprint__methods_final_report_.pdf
17 Burgess, Bill and Jessica Lai, Ecological Footprint Analysis and Review, KPU, 2006, available at

http://www.kpu.ca/sites/default/files/downloads/Ecological_Footprint_Study6847.pdf .
18 Kwantlen Ecological Footprint Calculator 2012, Geography 4501 files.
19 One unfortunate omission from the calculation is the KPU Bookstore.
20 Campus and building areas reported on Facilities Dept. web site http://www.kpu.ca/sites/default/files/Facilities, while the
area of parking lots and of forest area calculated by overlaying a grid on Google Map images of the campus areas.
21 One tool to do so can be found at http://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/ecocalculator/
22 Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute. (2014) Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA)

US 2002 (428 sectors) Producer model [Internet], Available from: <http://www.eiolca.net/> [Accessed 6 Dec, 2014]
23 KPU amortizes buildings over 40 years and major capital repairs over 10 years. While the average service life of

buildings might be more than that we should recognize that the buildings are already well into a possible service life of 75
years so 40 years may be reasonable.
24 Oceans absorb about 25% of atmospheric CO2. The remaining 2,707 tCO2e is absorbed by land.
25 This total also reports other impacts including the volume of toxic releases, water withdrawals and distances travelled in
the transportation sector that contributes to the construction sector in questions but these are not considered here.

26 KPU amortizes furniture over 5 years. Another estimate of this amount is the $ 2.614 million for furniture and fixtures
moved from expenses to capital in 2013, as reported by a Finance Department employee.
27 As above, this assumes a 25% uptake of CO2 by oceans and the .28 gha/tCO2e is considered for the embodied

energy, and the 1.33 forest land equivalence factor for the land area.
28 See http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/natural-gas/5641
29 BC Hydro, 2011, BC Hydro Annual Report 2011, Vancouver: BC Hydro, p. 34, 88,

http://www.bchydro.com/planning_regulatory/acquiring_power/how_power_is_acquired.html,
http://www.bchydro.com/energy_in_bc/our_system/generation.html , the breakdown of IPP power from
http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/planning_regulatory/acquiring_power/2011q4/20111001_ipp_su
pply1.Par.0001.File.20111001-IPP-Supply-List-In-Operation.pdf, imports from
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/bus_stat/busind/trade/trade-elec.asp. The calculation assumes that imports are all
thermal (gas). It treats non-storage hydro, biogas and municipal waste as the same. The thermal share is higher than
reported by BC Hydro, probably because they do not report the imports.
30 The rate used by Acosta and Moore is lower, on p. 25 she reports that BC Hydro estimates 46.5 t C02e/ GWh (in BC

Hydro Greenhouse Gas Report, March 2005), and it would take 13.04 gha to sequester I Gwh of BC Hydro power. Part of
the difference may be the embodied energy and land for dams, roads and transmission infrastructure.
31 This assumes the same sources of generation for BC Hydro as above for 2013. Electricity and gas in 1998 were

11.547,798 Kwh and 53,367Gj, and the building area was 72,464m2 in 1998 compared to 98,068m2 in 2013, according to
Energy Consumption Records 2013, p. 6.
32 26.25 kg (recyclables) + 1.7 kg (paper cups) + 9.25 kg (to-go containers) + 16 kg (cardboard) = 53.2 kg/week = 0.0532

tonnes/week. It was assumed that the numbers are roughly the same for the fall and spring semesters, with summer total
half of those in the fall and spring: 0.0532 tonnes/week x 52 weeks = 2.77 tonnes/year ÷ 3 semesters = 0.923
tonnes/semester; of which Summer semester = 0.923 tonnes ÷ 2 = 0.462 tonnes; 0.923 tonnes (Spring) + 0.462 tonnes
(Summer) + 0.923 tonnes (Fall) = total of 2.308 tonnes/year
33 For this methodology see the section for Waste.
34 Produce is mostly vegetables but it include some fruit, which is ignored here. We assume that beef is produced on
grazing land, which has a much lower equivalence factor to global hectares than does cropland.
35 The conversion rate used for manufacturing emissions was.28 gha/tCO2e reported by Acosta and Moore, 2009, p. 17.

No conversion rate was applied to the land areas.
36 Electricity calculated from data courtesy of Sukey Samra comparing electricity consumption for 1600 PCs

(1818Kwh/day*5days/week*50 weeks per year, with sleep mode and $171/day for 1600 units) versus 1600 Thin Clients
(845 Kwh/day *5days/week*50 weeks per year, with sleep mode and $80/day for 1600 units). Gha rate the 42.5 gha/Gwh
average for hydro reported by Chambers, 2000, p. 83. 1gwh=1,000,000 kwh.
37 at http://equinox2.uwo.ca.ezproxy.kwantlen.ca:2080/dbtw-

wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?QF0=AltTitle|Title|Subtitle|SeriesTitle|Filespecifics|PersAuthor|CorpAuthor|Acronym|Nation|Abstrac
t|Codebook|SupplierTitle|Topic|VarName|QuestionPreface|QuestionText|VarNotes|FreqTable|VarUniverse|Varlist|VarLab
el&QI0=postalcodes&TN=Equinox&RF=UserDisplayComboEN&QB0=AND&QF1=Recordtype&QB1=AND&QI1=file/variab
le&AC=QBE_QUERY .
38 Using the calculator available at

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/UsefulData/HowUseExcel.HTM.

39 There were 1042 postal code-campus combinations were no lat/long was available (in some cases the postal code

may have been out of BC) in which case the average distance of 12.7 km was inputed.
40 The KSA survey included a “mixed mode” category that was excluded from these results.
41 P. 49. The rate for students sharing cars or being dropped off was assumed to be half that for single occupancy

vehicles.

42 Chambers reports a GHa rate of .49 for petrol and .22 for manufacture and maintenance per 10,000-passenger km,

which appears to only represent the embodied energy. Chambers, 2000 reports a passenger car rate of .06 to .13 (USA)
GHa per 1000 passenger km, this apparently includes manufacture, fuel and road use (UK).
43 Estimated on the basis of 62% Kwantlen pop using cars, and their Kwantlen use of the car being 50% of total use. The

per car road area in BC calculated from total road area in BC and total number of cars in BC. The conversion factor
assumes that BC land used is forest land with 130% the bioproductivity of world hectares.
44 Home postal codes were made available by the KPU Institutional Analysis Department, and map layers from the
Platinum Postal Codes suite.
45 A similar perspective, but for all KPU students is provided by this map from the KSA Transportation Survey:

46 The use of centroids to represent postal codes means that some residents will be farther from the transit stop than 500
metres. However, most postal codes are quite small, e.g. less than 500 metres in diameter
47 Ryan Vending and Coca Cola reported the number of machines, and the number for the KSA was estimated. Ryan

Vending reported the service life of a vending machine and its annual electricity consumption, and these were projected to
the other machines. The mid-range cost of a vending machine from Costco was used for the Carnegie Mellon
calculations.
48

The KPU bookstore was unfortunately omitted.

49 Shannon Wise, Coca Cola.