1. Calculating UCT’s Carbon Footprint Aashikah Abdulla, Nicole Chetty, Tayla Geben, Numrata Manilall, Zahraa Mathews Staff and Student Commuting

2. Introduction

3.  Area of focus  Staff and Student Commuting (Including Jammie Shuttles), on Main Campus (upper, middle and lower), Hiddingh and Medical Campus  Scope 3 – indirect emissions as vehicles used for commuting are not owned by UCT

4. Introduction

5. What is a carbon footprint and why measure it?  Carbon footprint is seen as a measure of Green House Gas emissions that is caused by a product or service and is expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents and these emissions can be caused directly or indirectly by an activity or lifespan of the product or service

6. Relevant Data  Parking discs  Number of discs issued  Number of residence occupants that have parking discs  Student and Staff demographics  Total number of staff and students  Areas they commute from

7. Relevant data (continued…)  Jammie Shuttles  Total number of shuttles  Fuel consumption for 2012  Number of trip per route per day  Head count of shuttle users per month  Staff and Student commuting  How they commute to campus  Number of “Ridelink” participants

8. Data Sources  As suggested by the project manager:  Properties and services – Bruce Jansen  Centre of Transport Research – Marianne Vanderschuren  Carolyn McGibbon  UCT Website  Survey  Green Campus Initiative - Joe Mayson

9. Data Gathered  Total number of staff and students  Number of parking discs issued  Geographical map of staff and student residence up to ~6.73 km from campus  A sample through the paper based survey of:  Modes of transport used by staff and students  Average distance travelled to campus  Reasons for not using the Jammie shuttles

10. Area Distribution AreaSuburbs Average KM from campus Area 1 Bellville, Hout Bay, Mitchell's Plain, Muizenberg, Parklands, Table View 25 km Area 2 Camps Bay, Elsiesrivier, Dieprivier, Montague Gardens, Parow, Philippi 18 km Area 3 Canal Walk, Cape Town, Epping, Goodwood, Kenilworth, Milnerton, Wynberg 11 km Area 4 Athlone, Claremont, Maitland, Newlands, Pinelands, Woodstock 5 km Area 5 Mowbray, Observatory, Rondebosch2.6 km Area 6 UCT Campus0 km Area 7 Much further than all the above areas50 km

11. Carbon Emission Factors Defra Carbon Emission Factors for each Transport Mode ModeTotal Direct GHG in kg/kmClassificationTable Walk 0None Taxi 0.20659Regular Taxi6k Bicycle 0None Bus (Golden Arrow) 0.1238Bus - Local Bus6k Motorbike 0.13981Large Petrol Motorbike6j Jammie Shuttle 2.6769 Diesel (100% mineral diesel)7a in kg/l diesel Private Car 0.19443Average Medium Car6e Train 0.05818Rail - National Rail6k Figures taken from 2012 Guidelines to Defra / DECC's GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting

12. Data Sources  Jammie Shuttle Fuel Report (2012)  Survey 163 students responded 32 staff members responded

13. Calculation Equations  For Jammie Shuttles: CO 2 emissions (kg) = fuel consumption (l) * defra emission factor  For all other modes: CO 2 emissions (kg) = number of people * km travelled * defra emission factor (per km) of mode used

14. Assumptions  The Carbon emission factor for a medium sized car was used as it was observed that majority of cars on campus are medium sized.  Jammie Shuttles use diesel.  Private Cars use petrol. It was observed that the majority of cars parked on campus use petrol.  Defra Carbon Emission factors are best suited to South Africa, however South Africa would have higher emissions due to the use of less efficient cars and fuel being more carbon intensive than crude oil refining.  When a commuter uses more than one mode of transport, he travels 50% of the distance by each mode.  Commuters make 1 trip to and from campus a day for the 152 day academic year.

15. Calculation Example (students) AreaModeCo2 emission per mode # of users (in survey) # of users (in population) Average Km Travelled Co2 emissions per trip to campus 1Walk000250 11 (survey)Taxi0.2065900250 1721 (whole pop.) Taxi + Shuttle 0.14461115625565.6222955 6.7%Bicycle000250 Bus0.123800250 Bus + Shuttle 0.103215231325807.4227955 Jammie0.0826300250 Private Car0.194435782253802.432159 Private Car + Shuttle 0.138532313251083.682409 Train0.05818115625227.5631364 Train + Shuttle 0.1408100250 Scooter + Jammie 0.1112200250 Walk + Jammie 0.04131500250 111721Total 6486.723 CO 2 emissions (kg) = number of people * km travelled * defra emission factor

16. Total Calculations Total for each mode GHG in kg for 1 trip GHG in kg for 2 trips GHG in kg for a year GHG in tons for a year Walk0000 Bicycle0000 Taxi + Shuttle9661932293664293.664 Bus1933865867258.672 Bus + Shuttle24354870740240740.24 Jammie Shuttles3550.2828957100.56578910792861079.286 Private Car239894797872926567292.656 Private Car + Shuttle30446088925376925.376 Train3276549940899.408 Train + Shuttle22974594698288698.288 Private Car + Bus6211242188784188.784 Private Car + Taxi1563124742447.424 Train + Walk1132263435234.352 Walk + Shuttle448896136192136.192 Scooter + Shuttle45901368013.68 Total38184.2828976368.565791160802211608.022

17. Mode Contributions to Total Emissions

18. Preferred Transport Methods (staff and students)

19. Relevant Data  Parking discs  Number of discs issued  Number of residence occupants that have parking discs  Student and Staff demographics  Total number of staff and students  Areas they commute from

20. Relevant Data  Parking discs  Number of discs issued  Number of residence occupants that have parking discs  Student and Staff demographics  Total number of staff and students  Areas they commute from

21. Relevant data (continued…)  Jammie Shuttles  Total number of shuttles  Fuel consumption for 2012  Number of trip per route per day  Head count of shuttle users per month  Staff and Student commuting  How they commute to campus  Number of “Ridelink” participants

22. Data Sources  As suggested by the project manager:  Properties and services – Bruce Jansen  Centre of Transport Research – Marianne Vanderschuren  Carolyn McGibbon  UCT Website  Survey  Green Campus Initiative - Joe Mayson

23. Data Gathered  Total number of staff and students  Number of parking discs issued  Geographical map of staff and student residence up to ~6.73 km from campus  A sample through the paper based survey of:  Modes of transport used by staff and students  Average distance travelled to campus  Reasons for not using the Jammie shuttles

24. Preferred mode of transport by students

25. Area distribution on students

26. Preferred mode of transport by staff

27. Area distribution of staff

28. Recommendations  Improving Data Collection  Including the travel survey in the admission form  Storing demographic information so as not to violate privacy on access  Compiling and updating data concisely and regularly

29. Recommendations (continued…)  Reducing Carbon Footprint  Booming Systems  to prevent people parking in areas that they are not authorized to  Carpooling – Ridelink Initiative  Shuttle Service  changing routes or adding routes to current schedule  Working in conjunction with public transport providers, e.g. MyCiti

30. Challenges and Limitations  Initial understanding of project.  Lack of stakeholder cooperation  Data not available  Unexpected deliverables

31. Reflection  Good team work  Constant communication  Equal workload and contribution  No major issues  No conflict  No misunderstandings

32. Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing Model  Forming: Initiation of group.  Storming: Dealing with conflicts.  Norming: Beginning stages of successful work.  Performing: Working well to produce the final project.

33. Reflection (continued)  Overall success  Learnt new skills  Formed good working relationships