Retrospective study finds higher carbon intensity per mile in conference athletic travel than non-conference trips, indicating competition structure directly shapes organizational emissions.
Research question Organizational travel represents a substantial but underexamined source of Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions in sport. This study examines how travel-related carbon intensity (CI) differs between conference-mandated and non-conference travel and how conference governance shapes institutional travel patterns.Research methods This study uses complete archival travel records from a single NCAA Division I athletic department during the 2018–2019 competitive season. Trips were classified as conference-mandated (structural) or non-conference (discretionary). Carbon intensity (CI) was quantified using two metrics, CI per mile and CI per person, and compared across groups using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Spatial analyses were conducted to examine destination dispersion and concentration.Results and findings Season-long travel generated approximately 436,295 kg CO2e across 117,645 miles, with air travel accounting for 99% of total emissions. Conference trips exhibited significantly higher carbon intensity per mile than non-conference trips, and conference destinations were substantially more geographically concentrated. Carbon intensity metrics further revealed that small-roster sports incurred disproportionately higher per-person carbon intensity despite producing lower total emissions than large-roster sports.Implications These findings demonstrate that collegiate team travel is shaped not simply by geographic distance but also by conference governance. By distinguishing conference-mandated and non-conference travel, the study shows that a substantial portion of travel-related emissions is structurally embedded in competition organization rather than determined solely by institutional choice. These findings provide an empirical basis for incorporating sustainability into scheduling and travel policy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bae et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: