Estimating the global warming emissions of the LCAXVII conference: connecting flights matter

  • Miguel F. AstudilloEmail author
  • Hessam AzariJafari



Conferences are an important element of scientific activity but can also be a major cause of environmental burden. With this in mind, we analysed the global warming emissions of the 2017 annual conference of the American Center for Life Cycle Assessment (ACLCA), in order to estimate the carbon footprint and identify potential ways to reduce it.


We used survey data from participants as well as literature sources to complete an attributional assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions per participant. A method to calculate the ‘ideal’ location is proposed, which can be used to identify ‘unreasonably’ distant conference locations.

Results and discussion

The average emissions per participant were found to be 952 kg CO2eq, but with a large variability due to differences in travelled distance. Connecting flights were found to increase emissions up to 32% compared to direct flights, due to the increased number of take-offs and landings.


Results indicate that future studies should use distance-dependent flight emissions to increase the accuracy of the assessment. Some measures, such as meat-free menus, had a relatively minor contribution to emission reductions, but could be important as scientists advocating for the reduction of environmental burden should lead by example.


Conference footprint Global warming Travel footprint 



The authors thank the ACLCA board, Debbie Steckel and Prof. Ben Amor for giving us the opportunity to participate in the conference and conduct the survey. The authors also thank Joris Deschamps, Marianne Pedinotti-Castelle and Mohammad Davoud Heidari for their participation in an earlier version of the footprinting of the conference. Finally, we thank Brian Cox and co-authors for providing an early version of their results.

Supplementary material

11367_2018_1479_MOSM1_ESM.pdf (498 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 497 kb)


  1. Blanco G, Gerlagh S, Suh S, Barrett J, de Coninck HC, Diaz Morejon CF, Mathur R, Nkicenovic N, Ofosu Ahenkora A, Pan J, Pathak H, Rice J, Richels R, Smith SJ, Stern DI, Toth FL, Zhou P (2014) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change: contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner K, Seyboth A, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schomer S, Von Stechov C, Zwikel T, Minx JC (eds) Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Bossdorf O, Parepa M, Fischer M (2010) Climate-neutral ecology conferences: just do it! Trends Ecol Evol 25:61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cox B, Jemiolo W, Mutel C (2018) Life cycle assessment of air transportation and the Swiss commercial air transport fleet. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 58:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Grosbois D, and Fennell D (2011) Carbon Footprint of the Global Hotel Companies: Comparison of Methodologies and Results. Tour Recreat Res 36(3):231–245Google Scholar
  5. EPA (2017) Green meetings. Accessed 22 Apr 2018Google Scholar
  6. Favaro B (2014) A carbon code of conduct for science. Science 344:1461–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Geopy (2015) GeoPy. (accessed 10th December 2017)Google Scholar
  8. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, et al (2009) ReCiPe 2008. Accessed 22 Dec 2017
  9. Goldstein B, Hansen SF, Gjerris M, Laurent A, Birkved M (2016) Ethical aspects of life cycle assessments of diets. Food Policy 59:139–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Google Maps (2017) Distance and duration for multiple destinations and transport modes. (accessed 10th December 2017)Google Scholar
  11. Hager TJ, and Morawicki R (2013) Energy consumption during cooking in the residential sector of developed nations: A review. Food Policy 40:54–63Google Scholar
  12. Hischier R, Hilty L (2002) Environmental impacts of an international conference. Environ Impact Assess Rev 22:543–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kahan D, Peters E, Wittlin M et al (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Chang 2:732–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kalbar PP, Birkved M, Karmakar S, Nygaard SE, Hauschild M (2017) Can carbon footprint serve as proxy of the environmental burden from urban consumption patterns? Ecol Indic 74:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reynolds TG (2014) Air traffic management performance assessment using flight inefficiency metrics. Transp Policy 34:63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Spinellis D, Louridas P (2013) The carbon footprint of conference papers. PLoS One 8:6–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stroud JT, Feeley KJ (2015) Responsible academia: optimizing conference locations to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Ecography (Cop) 38:402–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tsai K-T, Lin T-P, Hwang R-L, and Huang Y-J (2014) Carbon dioxide emissions generated by energy consumption of hotels and homestay facilities in Taiwan. Tour Manage 42:13–21Google Scholar
  19. Vardi Y, Zhang C-H (2000) The multivariate L1-median and associated data depth. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97:1423–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Interdisciplinary Research Laboratory on Sustainable Engineering and Ecodesign (LIRIDE), Civil Engineering DepartmentUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada

Personalised recommendations