Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The carbon footprint has positioned itself as a fundamental tool for the evaluation and management of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in higher education institutions, due to their patterns of energy consumption, resource use, and mobility, which present dynamics comparable to those of small urban areas. In this context, the objective of the present study was to estimate and analyze the institutional carbon footprint of the Faculty of Computer Science Mazatlán (FIMAZ) of the Autonomous University of Sinaloa (UAS), considering the consumption of electricity, drinking water, solid waste generation, and the mobility of students and faculty during the period from January to December 2024. The research was conducted using a quantitative approach, with a non-experimental, descriptive, and longitudinal design, employing a case study based on the guidelines of the GHG Protocol and the ISO 14064-1:2018 standard. The quantification of emissions was carried out using activity data obtained from institutional records and mobility surveys, which were combined with reference emission factors at the national and international levels, allowing for a systematic estimation of the emissions generated by each analyzed source. The results show that electricity consumption is the main source of emissions, with an annual footprint of 220,887.24 kg of CO₂, associated with the intensive use of computing equipment and climate control systems. University mobility constitutes the second largest contribution, with 24,810.15 kg of CO₂, highlighting the private vehicle as the main emitter. The consumption of water and the generation of solid waste contributed 1,422.36 kg of CO₂ and 362.75 kg of CO₂, respectively, related to the intensity of academic activity. These findings allow for the establishment of a technical baseline, the guidance of mitigation strategies, and the strengthening of comprehensive sustainable university environmental management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rodríguez et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: