نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار، گروه مهندسی شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه کردستان

2 دانش آموخته کارشناسی ارشد برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه کردستان

3 استادیار، گروه مهندسی معماری، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه کردستان، ایران

چکیده

یکی از ابزارهایی که با دقت بالا اثرات زیست محیطی کاربری­های شهری را ارزیابی می­کند و تأثیرات فعالیت­های انسانی را بر محیط زیست اندازه­گیری می­کند، مدل ردپای اکولوژیکی (Ecological Footprint) است. این مدل مقدار بار وارد شده از سوی یک کاربری مشخص بر محیط زیست را برآورد کرده و سطح زمین موردنیاز برای ارائه خدمات پایدار به جمعیت استفاده کننده از آن کاربری را نیز تعیین می­کند. امروزه کاربرد این مدل در مطالعات شهری و منطقه‌ای فراگیر شده و به همین خاطر در این تحقیق با استفاده از روش مؤلفه­ای (یکی از دو روش محاسبه ردپای اکولوژیکی) و با اندازه­گیری داده­های واقعی، پنج شاخص­ تأثیرگذار بر محیط ‌زیست (از جمله گاز طبیعی، برق، آب، غذا و زباله)، اثرات زیست محیطی دانشگاه کردستان در سال تحصیلی 2015-2014 ارزیابی شده است. نتایج تحقیق نشان می­دهد که شاخص ردپای اکولوژیکی دانشگاه کردستان در سال تحصیلی یاد شده برابر با 56/0- است که نشانگر عملکرد ناپایدار است. مقدار ردپای اکولوژیکی دانشگاه کردستان برابر 16 هزار و 675 هکتار جهانی است، بدین معنی که برای جبران مقدار منابع طبیعی مصرف شده و زباله­های ناشی از آن به زمینی برابر با 165 برابر وسعت دانشگاه کردستان نیاز است. همچنین شاخص­های انرژی (گاز طبیعی و برق) و آب با 03/72 و 97/0 درصد کل ردپای اکولوژیکی به ترتیب بیشترین و کمترین اثر زیست محیطی را در این دانشگاه بر محیط پیرامون داشته است. بنابراین می­بایست در این دانشگاه برنامه جامعی به منظور اصلاح الگوی مصرف و در نتیجه کاهش اثرات زیست محیطی این دانشگاه بر محیط پیرامونی ارائه گردد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluating the environmental impacts of educational land uses using the ecological footprint model in the University of Kurdistan

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hooshmand Alizadeh 1
  • Werya Lotfi 2
  • Salah Vaisi 3

1 Dept of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Kurdistan

2 M.Sc., Grad., Department of Urban Planning and Design, University of Kurdistan, Iran.

3 Dept of Architecture, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Kurdistan, Iran

چکیده [English]

Man’s unsustainable use of environmental resources needs to be tackled from different perspectives and at multiple levels of land use. Ecological Footprint (EF) is a renewable resource accounting tool that assesses the environmental impacts of urban land uses, and measures the impact of human activities on the environment with respect to the underlying issue of sustainable consumption. EF compares the level of consumption with the available amount of biocapacity to demonstrate how human beings are using natural resources faster than they can regenerate them. It was developed originally as an indicator of the environmental impacts of nations, individuals, or human populations or of organizational and corporate environmental performance and even product sustainability. Given this capability, the environmental impact of the University of Kurdistan campus as a major urban land use in the city of Sanandaj, Iran was evaluated in this study using the component-based footprinting method. Actual data on the five environmental indicators of natural gas, electricity, water, food, and waste were collected during the 2014-2015 academic year. The results indicate that the University of Kurdistan ecological footprint index in the above academic year is -0.56. On that basis, the function and performance of the university has been unsustainable with respect to the examined indicators. In addition, the results indicated that the University of Kurdistan ecological footprint is about 16,675 global hectares, which means that an area of land 165 times larger than the university is needed to compensate for the amount of natural resources consumed and the resulting waste. It can therefore be stated that the University of Kurdistan campus exhibits unsustainable performance in the 2014-2015 academic year. Furthermore, the energy (natural gas and electricity) and water indicators show the highest and lowest levels of environmental impacts with 72.03 and 0.97 percent of total ecological footprint, respectively. Therefore, the environmental impact of energy consumption is about 2.5 times that of the other indicators investigated here (water, food, and waste). As suggested in the literature, the most important indicators used in the ecological footprint model at various universities around the world include energy, fuel consumption in transportation, materials, food, water, waste, and paper consumption, among which energy exhibits the highest level of environmental impacts, as suggested by the results obtained for the University of Kurdistan. On that basis, the University of Kurdistan campus ranks second after the University of Algarve campus (Portuguese) in terms of impact on the environment. Therefore, it is necessary to prioritize energy consumption in the university policies and plans for reduction of natural resource consumption. For that purpose, a comprehensive plan should be developed firstly to monitor the environmental impacts of natural resource useand secondly to modify the consumption pattern and thus reduce the impact of the university on the environmental resources.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Ecological Footprint (EF)
  • University of Kurdistan
  • sustainable development
  • educational land uses
  • environmental impacts

-          Anielski, M., & Wilson, J. (2010). Environmental Footprinting for Agriculture in Alberta: Literature Review and Analysis. Environmental Stewardship Division of Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development

-          Bell, I., Curry, V., Kuperus, S., Myers, L., Walsh, A., & Walton, S. (2008). An Ecological Footprint Analysis of the Department of Zoology, University of Otago. OTAGO MANAGEMENT GRADUATE

-          Bicknell, K. B., Ball, R. J., Cullen, R., & Bigsby, H. R. (1998). New methodology for the ecological footprint with an application to the New Zealand economy. Ecological economics, Vol. 27(2), pp. 149-160

-          Burgess, B., & Lai, J. (2006). Ecological footprint analysis and review: Kwantlen University College. Kwantlen University College, Canada

-          Chambers, N., Simmons, C., & Wackernagel, M. (2014). Sharing nature's interest: ecological footprints as an indicator of sustainability: Routledge

-          Conway, T. M., Dalton, C., Loo, J., & Benakoun, L. (2008). Developing ecological footprint scenarios on university campuses: a case study of the University of Toronto at Mississauga. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 9(1), pp. 4-20

-          Dawe, G. F., Vetter, A., & Martin, S. (2004). An overview of ecological footprinting and other tools and their application to the development of sustainability process: audit and methodology at Holme Lacy College, UK. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 5 (4) pp. 340-371

-          Ewing, B., Moore, D., Goldfinger, S., Oursler, A., Reed, A., & Wackernagel, M. (2010). Ecological footprint atlas 2010

-          Ferng, J.-J. (2014). Nested open systems: An important concept for applying ecological footprint analysis to sustainable development assessment. Ecological economics, Vol. 106, pp. 105-111

-          Flint, K. (2001). Institutional ecological footprint analysis-A case study of the University of Newcastle, Australia. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 2(1), pp. 48-62

-          Gottlieb, D., Kissinger, M., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Haim, A. (2012). Analyzing the ecological footprint at the institutional scale–The case of an Israeli high-school. Ecological Indicators, Vol. 18, pp. 91-97

-          Gottlieb, D., Vigoda-Gadot, E., Haim, A., & Kissinger, M. (2012). The ecological footprint as an educational tool for sustainability: a case study analysis in an Israeli public high school. International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 32(1), pp. 193-200

-          Haidari, A., Avami, A., & Aghchehloo, M. (2017). Evaluating the environmental impacts of using ecological footprint model: case study of Department of Energy Engineering, Sharif University of Technology. Mohit Shenasi Journal, 43th time, No. 2, Summer. pp. 303-316. [in Persian]

-          Hamoon 1 Consulting Engineers (2013), The Spatial Planning of the Kurdistan Province (Fourth Edition), Kurdistan governer's (office). [in Persian]

-          Janis, J. (2007). Quantifying the ecological footprint of the Ohio State University. The Ohio State University

-          Klein-Banai, C., & Theis, T. L. (2011). An urban university's ecological footprint and the effect of climate change. Ecological Indicators, Vol. 11(3), pp. 857-860

-          Lambrechts, W., & Van Liedekerke, L. (2014). Using ecological footprint analysis in higher education: Campus operations, policy development and educational purposes. Ecological Indicators, Vol. 45, pp. 402-406

-          Li, G., Wang, Q., Gu, X., Liu, J., Ding, Y., & Liang, G. (2008). Application of the componential method for ecological footprint calculation of a Chinese university campus. Ecological Indicators, Vol. 8(1), pp. 75-78

-          Liu, H., Wang, X., Yang, J., Zhou, X., & Liu, Y. (2017). The ecological footprint evaluation of low carbon campuses based on life cycle assessment: A case study of Tianjin, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 144, pp. 266-278

-          Nunes, L., Catarino, A., Teixeira, M. R., & Cuesta, E. (2013). Framework for the inter-comparison of ecological footprint of universities. Ecological Indicators, Vol. 32, pp. 276-284

-          Rahimi, A., Habibi, K., & Abdi, H. (2015). Evaluating the tourism sustainability in historical-cultural sites using ecological footprint model. Gardeshgari Shahri Journal, 2nd time, No. 2, Summer. pp. 105-120. [in Persian]

-          Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 4(2), pp. 121-130

-          Rees, W. E. (1996). Revisiting carrying capacity: area-based indicators of sustainability. Population & Environment, Vol. 17(3), pp. 195-215

-          Simmons, C., Lewis, K., & Barrett, J. (2000). Two feet-two approaches: a component-based model of ecological footprinting. Ecological economics, Vol. 32(3), pp. 375-380

-          Solís-Guzmán, J. González-Vallejo, P., Marrero, M., & (2015). The ecological footprint of dwelling construction in Spain. Ecological Indicators, Vol. 52, pp. 75-84

-          Spirn, A. W. (2014). Ecological Urbanism: A Framework for the Design of Resilient Cities (2014) The Ecological Design and Planning Reader, pp. 557-571, Springer

-          Statistical Center of Iran. (2014). National Agriculture Census. [in Persian]

-          Stechbart, M., & Wilson, J. (2010). Province of Ontario Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity Analysis: Global Footprint Network

-          Südaş, H. D., & Özeltürkay, E. Y. (2015). Analyzing the Thoughts of Ecological Footprints of University Students: A Preliminary Research on Turkish Students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 175, pp. 176-184

-          Thattai, D. (2007). Ecological footprint calculation for a college campus in South India. Journal of Environmental Researh And Development Vol. 2(2)

-          Torregrosa López, J. I., Bellver Navarro, C. G., Ferreira, L. I., & Gladys, V. (2011). Experiences in the use of Ecological Footprint as a sustainability indicator

-          Venetoulis, J. (2001). Assessing the ecological impact of a university: the ecological footprint for the University of Redlands. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 2(2), pp. 197-180

-          Wackernagel, M., & Yount, J. D. (1998). The ecological footprint: an indicator of progress toward regional sustainability. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Vol. 51(1-2), pp. 511-52