




































In ternationa l
Scholars
Journa ls

 

African Journal of Environmental Economics and Management ISSN 2375-0707 Vol. 4 (1), pp. 249-254, January, 
2016. Available online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 

 

Full Length Research Paper 
 

Eco-impacts evaluation in the greening approach 
adopted by the Romanian Public University 

 
Andrew Walker 

 
Dunarea de Jos University, Domneasca, 47, 800008 Galati, Romania. Email: andrew_walker@yahoo.com. 

 

Accepted 04 October, 2015 

 
The present paper compared the results generated from 2 Eco-Indicators (Ecological Footprint and Carbon 
Footprint) as important markers in future greening strategy evaluation that will be adopted for the first time by a 
Romanian Eastern Public University (UGAL). The calculated amount of EF value per students is 0.818 gha and 
per capita is 0.760 gha. The Eco-Indicators values are more reasonable in compare with the recommended 
amount by the WWF (the average is 1.9 gha per capita) and also with the values which are reported by the other 
universities. Energy, transportation systems and foods are the most important portions of the total EF value. 
 
Keywords: Eco-indicators, ecological footprint , carbon footprint, higher education. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
The real world is moving towards a severe limitation of 
resources. Energies resource, essential resources for 
human well-being, which are approaching to their peak 
point.  

Human demand on ecosystem services continues to 
increase without a correlation with the regenerative and 
absorptive capacity of the biosphere. The natural capital 
may increasingly become a limiting factor for the future 
human demand. Humanity is posed in front of a major 
nature transformation and to face serious environmental 
challenges at global and local scales. The ecological 
attitude and sustainable behaviour has become a 
necessity in the recent decades (Chambers et al, 2000).  

The ecological footprint measure the natural capital 
demand of human activities (Wackernagel and Rees, 
1996) and reveal the sustainability of consumption 
patterns on individual, local, national and global scales 
(Arrow et al, 2002). Ecological footprint model assumes 
that all types of energy, material consumption and waste 
discharge require productive or absorptive capacity of a 
finite area. Six types of ecological biologically productive 
area (arable land, pasture, forest, sea space, built-up 
land and fossil energy land) are used to calculate the 
Ecological Footprint and ecological capacity 
(Wackernagel et al, 2002). 

 
 

 
The ecological footprint estimates the „„minimum land 
necessary to provide the basic energy and material flows 
required by the economy‟‟ (Wackernagel and Rees, 
1996). The consumption elements are converted into a 
single index: the land area to sustain the life living among 
human consummation groups. The area of land or sea 
available to serve a particular use is called biological 
capacity (bio-capacity) and represents the biosphere‟s 
ability to meet human demand for material consumption 
and waste disposal. The degree of non-sustainability is 
calculated as the difference between actual available and 
required land. In the original ecological footprints model 
created by Wackernagel and Rees (1996) and 
reformulated by Chambers et al. (2000), the land areas 
included were mainly those directly required by 
households with self-consummation life style. In the 
original ecological footprint model, land categories are 
weighted with equivalence and local yield factors, in order 
to express appropriated bio-productivity in world-average 
terms (Wackernagel et al, 2002).  

In the original ecological footprint method, only 
emissions of CO2 from energy use were considered 
without the influence of greenhouse gases, land clearing, 
and enteric fermentation in livestock, industrial 
processes, waste, coal seams, venting and leakage



Walker         250 
 
 

 
Table 1. General Inputs for the UGAL Eco-Indicators 
Assessment 
 
 Element Value 
 UGAL total students 18000 
 Full time students 10000 
 Part-time students 8000 
 UGAL total employees 1358 
 In-campus students 3400 
 Average total menus served per day 400 
 Active weeks per academic year 45 
 Total menus served per academic year 82000 
 Snack menus served per academic year 4100 
 Lunch   semi-complete   menus   served   per 41000 
 academic year  

 Lunch complete menus served per academic year 4100 
 Dinner menus served per academic year 32800 
 

 
of natural gas. Since the formulation of the ecological 
footprint, a number of researchers have criticized the 
method as originally proposed (Arrow, et al 2002; 
Costanza, 2000).  

In nowadays, the EU caterers are concerned about the 
environmental and sustainability issues, including the 
provenance and production methods of procured food, 
waste management, energy and water consumption 
(Dawe et al, 2004).  

Universities are public institutions that move to become 
more sustainable. New ways to measure progress are 
being sought such as Carbon Footprint Analysis (CFA) 
and Ecological Footprint Analysis (EFA). Many 
universities have adopted broad environmental 
responsibility and/or sustainability policies (Van Den 
Bergh and Grazi, 2010).  

All the public Universities have a particular social 
responsibility in encouraging best environmental practice, 
due to their considerable influence on societal 
development (Wackernagel, 1991).  

A number of campuses have published EFA 
assessment results (Burgess and Lai, 2006; Conway et 
al, 2008; Dawe et al, 2004; Flint, 2001; Li et al, 2008; 
Venetoulis, 2001; Wright, 2002) but only two studies 
regarding a large public university (Janis, 2007; Klein-
Banai et al, 2010). A comprehensive and consistent 
comparative study of EFA versus CFA results for a 
Eastern Public University is not available in the scientific 
literature.  

The objective of the present research is to evaluate the 
actual Eco-impact of UGAL activities by using the EFA 
and CFA methodology. In the medium term, UGAL 
intention is to promote a sustainable green policy with the 
following major objectives:  
1. decreasing the material (foods, packages, utilities etc.) 
and energetic waves as daily activities inputs;  
2. improvement of the air quality;   
3. improvement of the energetic quality performance and 
green energy production;  
4. improvement of the water management system;  

 
 
 

 
5 . improvement of the green facilities management.  
The present research compare the results generated by 2 
Eco-Indicators (Ecological Footprint and Carbon 
Footprint) as important markers in the evaluation of future 
greening strategy that will be adopted for the first time by 
a Eastern public University from Romania (UGAL). 
 
 
MATERIALS AND METHODS 
 
The data involved in the Eco-Indicators assessment were 
obtained directly from the UGAL campus and general 
administrative management office. The UGAL campus 
population in 2010 consisted of 10.000 full-time students, 
8000 part-time students and 1358 employed staff. The 
total UGAL facilities area is in average 11gha and the 
building area is about 5.4 gha. The EFA methodology 
was based on Wackernagel and Rees procedure (1996).  

In the calculation of specific EF we take into account all 
the quality-controlled life cycle information including 
energy, materials, transportation and wastes. In order to 
calculate EF, the inputs of different kinds are first 
converted to the corresponding actual area of land/water 
ecosystems needed to produce the resources or 
assimilate the emissions. The EFA results were 
expressed as units of EF in global hectare with world 
average biological productivity, for the purposes of adding 
areas together and comparing results across land types. 
 

The CFA is based on the calculation of CF for materials 
and processes with known quantity of fuel, energy or raw 
material multiplied by a conversion factor, which is a rate 
of tons of CO2e emitted per quantity of the material 
consumed (DEFRA, 2009). Greenhouse gases emitted 
through transport and the production of food, energy, 
utilities (electricity, gas, coal, water) for University 
activities and services are expressed in terms of the 
amount of CO2e emitted, in tonnes units. The 
methodology is highly compatible with ISO 14042 
requirements.  

Both methodologies generate the information and data 
necessary for the Eco-indicators assessment by 
analyzing and quantifying the flows of all resources 
(inputs) and produced waste (outputs) on the campus 
(canteen and student‟s residence) and in all UGAL 
facilities. The input data for the Eco-Indicators 
assessment were presented in Table1, Table 2.1, Table 
2.2 and Table 3. 

 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 
 

The results of EFA include the basic lifecycle data for 
food consummation, energy demand, food wastes and 
transportation (Table 4). The results of CFA include the 
basic lifecycle data for food consummation, energy 
demand, food wastes and transportation (Table 5). 



    

Table 2 .1. Utilities consummation in UGAL Table 3.Commodities Consummation in UGAL canteen 
    

Utility item Consummation NO,the units are Commodities Item Consummation, 
 specified in the utility line  (t/year)  

Electricity, MWh 1423 
Gas, m3 175313 
Water, m3 72808.76 
Coal, Gcal 5557.08 
Car traffic, km 29588 

 

 
Table 2 .2. Wastes collected in UGAL 

  
Beef meat 0.626 
Pork meat 2.906 

Poultry 5.337 
Fish 0.089 
Vegetables 19.568 
Pulses, Flavourings 0.436 
Eggs 0.602 

 
  Wastes categories Total Quantities  

   (kg/year)  

  Domestic waste 5291.81  

  Food wastes 419.26  

  Garden wastes 2439.76  

  Paper ,packages waste 636.84  

  Plastic waste 538.52  

  Glass waste 646.18  

  TOTAL 9972.37  

  TOTAL per Employee 7.34  

 Table 5. UGAL Carbon Footprint Assessment  
    

 Component CF,  

   tCO2Eq  

 Energy 1358.451  

 Electricity 1148.361  

 Gas 143.406  

 Coal 66.684  

 Water 0.80  

 Wastes 3.3  

 Transport 5177.9  

 Small traffic (175 g/km) 5177.9  

 Commodities 43.722  

 Beef meat 8.951  

 Pork meat 11.04  

 Poultry 5.870  
 Fish 0.039  

 Vegetables 4.500  

 Pulses 0,109  

 Eggs 6.000  

 Milk 0.272  

 Cream 0.846  

 Cheese 0.521  

 Pasta 0.599  

 Rice 0.103  

 Sugar 0.081  

 Vegetable oils 3.601  

 Flours 0.317  

 Cereals 0.873  

 Total CF, UGAL 2010 6584.173  

 CF per students 0.365  

 CF per capita 0.340   

 
 

 Milk 1.362 
 Cream 0.423 
 Cheese 0.372 
 Pasta 0.403 
 Rice 0.648 
 Sugar 0.090 
 Vegetable oils 3.274 
 Flours 0.357 
 Cereals 1.468 
 TOTAL 35.862 

 Table 4. UGAL Ecological Footprint Assessment 
   

 Component EF, gha 
   

 Energy 12301.674 
 Electricity 1302.045 
 Gas 5953.629 
 Coal 5046 
 Water 380.425 
 Wastes 3.025 
 Transport 1479.4 
 Traffic car 1479.4 
 Commodities (Foodprint) 559.565 
 Beef meat 76.24 
 Pork meat 123.79 
 Poultry 217.216 
 Fish 1.424 
 Vegetables 82.186 
 Pulses, Flavourings 2.341 
 Eggs 9.933 
 Milk 2.64 
 Cream 8.164 
 Cheese 5.743 
 Pasta 10.075 
 Rice 1.944 
 Sugar 4.869 
 Vegetable oils 130.96 
 Flours 7.854 
 Cereals 15.854 
 EF UGAL 2010 14724.089 
 EF per student 0.818 
 EF per capita 0.760 
 Ecological   Foodprint   per   in   campus 0.016 
 students  

 Ecological  Foodprint  per  student  which 1.39 
 serve the meal in the campus area  
    

251        Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 

 



 
 
 
 
 
The calculated EF value per students is 0.818 gha 
and per capita 0.760 gha. The Eco-Indicators values 
are reasonable in compare with the WWF 
recommendation (average of 1.9 gha per capita) 
and the values reported by the other universities 
(Table 6). Energy, transports and foods are the most 
important parts of the total EF value.  

In the food processing department, vegetables, 
poultry, beef and vegetable oils have the greatest 
ratio in the total EF due to the greatest amount in 
the daily canteen use. In fact, only beef induce the 
leading  
impact on the total agro-foods EF and CF, 
respectively. Vegetables, milk, fruits and cereals 
have the lower value of EF and the ratio proposed in 
the optimized Eco-menus must be The increased in 
order to generate a significant reducing of the total 
EF. The poultry items present the lowest ecological 
and emissive impact, in average with 3 times less 
than beef items. regular use of low-carbon fish 
(mackerel, herring) could reduce substantially the 
meal‟s average carbon footprint.  
The food commodities created by an intensive 
processing such refining (oils, sugar), dry substance 
concentration (cream, cheese, pasta, cans) or 
extraction (flour) multiply the EF value of the raw 
material with the number of concentration /extraction 
degree. This is a strong reason for avoid the large 
quantities of industrialized foods, herbs, eggs and 
red meats and valorise the raw, unprocessed and 
fresh local/traditional products as input in the 
canteen production.  

In terms of gas emissive effect, the EC per student 
is calculated at 0.365 tCO2Eq/ year and EC per 
capita is 0.340 tCO2Eq/ year. The electricity 
represent 84.5% from total emission generated by 
all forms of energy used in UGAL facilities and the 
transportation system cover  
78.64% from total CF. Food commodities have a 
minor impact on the total CF (0.066%) and the 
undercollected wastes (7.34 kg/year, employees) 
represent an insignifiant part (0.005%, 3.025 EF 
units per year). In the food processing department 
the pork items are environmentally more favourable 
than chicken and the chicken items are more 
environmentally favourable than lamb and beef. 
Beef is found to be around four times more CO2-
emissions intense than pork meat. The comparative 
results of the present research and the prior studies 
conducted in other campuses and universities are 
presented in Table 6. 

 
 
 
 
 

The results are very much similar with the 
others presented in the previsious works, in terms 
of EF per capita and ratio of the principal UGAL 
EF elements (energy 83%, transport 10%, water 
2.5%, food 3.8%, wastes 0.02%) from the total EF 
value.  

The proportion of the energy module is overload 
because of the traditional technologies involved in 
the general management and the ratio of food is 
underload because only 11.7% of the total UGAL 
in-campus students eat in the canteen facilities 
every day. 
 
 
CONCLUSIONS 

 
Both EF and CF represent efficient and consistent 
tools to measure sustainable development by 
comparing communities‟ consumption of natural 
resources and the corresponding bio-capacity.  

The principal conclusions of the Eco-Indicators 
assessment are as followings:  
-the energy consummation for food processing is 
in average 3.967MWh/t, 10% from total energy 
consumed in UGAL;  
-meats commodities are the greatest emissive 
items involved in the daily menus and the 
potential  
environmental damage is estimated at 74.56% 
from the total foods EF (Foodprint value);  
-the primary agricultural products present the 
lowest EF value; in contrast, a greater 
industrialisation food degree due to a 
proportionally increasing of foodprint value (in 
case of refined foods as oils, sugar or food 
derivates such as cream butter or cheese);  
-as a general rule, the degree of the principal 
compound from the dry substance concentrated in 
the industrialisation process represent the factor 
of multiplying the EF value of the raw food; -the 
average wastes generated in a day is 0.036t and 
in average the ratio food/food wastes is 3.59/1; 
 
-the smallest impact on both gas emissive effect 
(CF) an EF value is generated by the wastes 
0,02% from total EF, followed by water 2.5% and 
food 3.8%.  
As a general rule, the choice of raw materials has 
a considerable impact on greenhouse emissions. 

Walker         252 



          
 

 .           
 

   Table 6. Comparison of EF for colleges and universities      
 

            
 

      University      
 

            
 

   Dunarea de University 
University of Holme Lacy college, Northeastern University of 

Colorado Kwantlen Ohio State 
 

   Jos University of Illinois at Toronto at University University  

   
Newcastle UK University, China College  

   
Galati (UGAL) Chicago Mississauga College Columbus  

       
 

 Year  2010 2008 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2006 2007 
 

 EF ,gha  14724.08 97601 3592 296 24787 8744 5603 3039 650,666 
 

 Ratio EF to 
897.81 1005 26 1.23 50 97 154 81 916  

 land area  

          
 

 EF per 
0.76 2.66 0.19 0.57 1.06 1.07 2.24 0.33 8.66  

 
capita  

 

           
 

 Energy,% 83 72.66 47 19 67.97 69.40 87 28.90 23.30 
 

 Transport,% 10 12.60 46 23 0.08 16.10 1.40 53 72.24 
 

 Materials           
 

 and  0.02 11.83 2 32 5.74 4 na na 4.46 
 

 Waste,%           
 

 Paper,%  na na na na 2 na na 7.20 na 
 

 Food,%  3.8 2.60 2 25 21.80 9.20 10 9.60 na 
 

 Built-up  
na 0.18 2 1% 0.44 1.20 na 1.10 w/transport  

 
land,%  

 

           
 

 Water,%  0.02 0.14% 1 w/built-up land 2 0.20 1 0.16 na 
  

Source: Vintila, 2011: Venetoulis,2001: Flint, 2001: Dawe et al.,2004: Li et al.,2008: Conway et al.,2004: Wright 2002: Burgess and Lai,2006: Janis,2007 
 
 

 
Different food ingredients such as low-carbon fish 
and meats can reduce substantially a meal‟s 
average foodprint 

 
RECOMMANDATIONS 
 
The future UGAL Greening strategy include 
following recommendation based on the present 
research results:  
1.reducing under 50% in the next 5 years the 
amount of food items with greatest energetically 
metabolism: meats, especially beef and refined 
foods as sugar, spices, coffee, oils, butter, cream, 
cheese. 

 
 

 
2. replacing animal origin protein commodities 
with vegetable protein sources once or twice in a 
week in the next 5 years;   
3. increase with 30% the number of meals served 
in UGAL canteen in the next 5 years;   
4. replacing 50% of the actual imported 
commodities with local sources of fresh and brute, 
unprocessed agro-foods in UGAL canteen in the 
next 5 years;   
5. moderate the thermal treatments of food 
products in order to reduce the energy involved in 
food processing;   
6. selected food equipments with optimal energy 
consummation related with the productivity and  

 
 

 
reduce the surface of the foodservice area in order 
to reduce the utilities consummation;  
7. increase the amount of collected wastes and 
the recycled wastes ratio, especially in case of 
glass, plastic and paper ;   
8. gradually replacing the actual car park used for 
internal transport with less emissive Eco car 
model ( emission under 120g/km);   
9. replacing 5% of the actual conventional fuels 
with agro-carburant in the next 3 years and with 
10% in the future 5 years;   
10.increase the amount of renewable energy 
resources and energy saving equipments; 
11.promote a Eco-conscience for all University  

253        Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 



Walker         254 
 
 

 
staff (Eco behaviour courses included in the general 
curricula), important part of the Eco-citizen attitude in 
nowadaysworld. 
 
 
Perspectives 
 
Actual statistics discuss about the resources limitation in 
the near future in which the Eco-management became a 
necessity in order to respect the regional biocapacity.  
The sustainable green policy is based on the direct 
relation existing between the quality of the environment 
and the health status of the students, professors as well 
as administrative &technical University staff.  
“Greening” the Public Universities is a social 
responsibility which must be imposed by the academic 
media and involve the development of a more sustainable 
resources using, transportation systems as well as the 
reduction of on-campus consumption.  
The model for the Eco-indicators assessment of UGAL in 
2010 will be proposed as a base of an Eco-strategy 
constructed in order to reduce the actual EF on the 
individual, institutional and national scale. 
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 
 
The author would like to thank the UGAL Rector 
Prof.Minzu Viorel, UGAL General administration Head 
Ms.Narcisa Condrea,UGAL Canteen Administration Head 
Mr.Bichescu Cezar and his collaborator Ms.Onofrei 
Nicoleta.Further,the author would to extend a special 
thank you to all the collaborators from AgroBio 35 
Mr.Jaffre, Conseil Regional de Bretagne Ms. Rouger, 
Manger Bio35 Mr.Gabillard, Association Solidarite 35 
Mr.Venien and Ms.Sinequin, Scarabee BioCoop 
Mr.Chevalier, FRCIVAM Mr.Marechal, Inter Bio Bretagne 
Ms.Fassel, Les Quisines du Quotidien Mr.Mariot. 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Arrow K, Bolin B, Costanza R, Dasgupta P, Folke C, Holling CS, 

Jansson BO, Levin Bagliani M, Ferlaino F, Procopio S (2002). 
Ecological footprint and input-output methodology: the analysis of the 
environmental sustainability of the economic sectors of Piedmont 
Region (Italy) – In: 14th International Conference on Input-Output 
Techniques, Montréal.  
Burgess B, Lai J (2006). Ecological Footprint Analysis and Review.-
Kwantlen University College.  

Chambers N, Simmons C, Wackernagel M (2000). Sharing Nature‟s 
Interest: Ecological Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability.-
Earthscan Publications Ltd.,London.  
Conway TM, Dalton C, Loo J, Benakoun L (2008). Developing 
ecological footprint scenarios on university campuses. A case study 
of the University of Toronto at Mississauga.- Int. J. Sustainability 
High. Ed. 9: 4–20.  

Constanza R (2000). The dynamics of the ecological footprint concept.-
Ecol. Econ.32:341–345.  
Dawe GFM, Vetter A, Martin S (2004). An overview of ecological 
footprinting and other tools and their application to the development 
of sustainability process.- Int. J. Sustainability High. Ed. 4, 340–371. 

 

  
 
 

 
DEFRA (2009). Guidelines to Defra. version 2.0. AEA for DECC and 

Defra.  
Flint K (2001). Institutional ecological footprint analysis: a case study of 

the University of Newcastle, Australia. Int. J. Sustainability High. Ed. 
2:48–62.  
Klein-Banai, C, Theis TL, Brecheisen TA, Banai A (2010) A 
greenhouse gas inventory as a measure of sustainability for an urban 
public research university.-Environ. Pract. 12: 35–47.  

Janis AJ (2007). Quantifying the Ecological Footprint of the Ohio State 
University. – In: Ph.D Thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus. 
Li GJ, Wang Q, Gu XW, Liu JX., Ding Y, Liang GY (2008). 
Application of the componential methodology for ecological footprint 
calculation of a Chinese university campus.- Ecol. Indic. 8: 75–78.  

Ree WE (1992) Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying 
capacity: what urban economics leaves out. -J. Environment and 
Urbanisation 4 (2): 121–130.  
Rees WE, Wackernagal M (1996). Urban ecological footprints 
andwhycities cannot be sustainable – and why they are a key to 
sustainability.- Environ. Impact Assess.Rev. 16: 223–248.  
Rees WE (2003). Impeding sustainability? The ecological footprint of 
higher education. – In: Plan. High. Ed. March–May.  

Van Den Bergh J, Grazi F (2010): On the Policy Relevance of 
Ecological Footprints Environ.- Sci. Technol. 44: 4843–4844. 
Venetoulis J (2001). Assessing the ecological impact of a university: 
the ecological footprint for the University of Redlands.- Int. J. 
Sustainability High. Ed. 2, 180–196.  

Wackernagel M (1991).Land Use: Measuring a Community's 
Appropriated Carrying Capacity as an Indicator for Sustainability and 
"Using Appropriated Carrying Capacity as an 


