» Articles » PMID: 38841663

The Carbon Footprint of a Dutch Academic Hospital-using a Hybrid Assessment Method to Identify Driving Activities and Departments

Overview
Specialty Public Health
Date 2024 Jun 6
PMID 38841663
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The healthcare sector is responsible for 7% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the Netherlands. However, this is not well understood on an organizational level. This research aimed to assess the carbon footprint of the Erasmus University Medical Center to identify the driving activities and sources.

Methods: A hybrid approach was used, combining a life cycle impact assessment and expenditure-based method, to quantify the hospital's carbon footprint for 2021, according to scope 1 (direct emissions), 2 (indirect emissions from purchased energy), and 3 (rest of indirect emissions) of the GHG Protocol. Results were disaggregated by categories of purchased goods and services, medicines, specific product groups, and hospital departments.

Results: The hospital emitted 209.5 kilotons of CO2-equivalent, with scope 3 (72.1%) as largest contributor, followed by scope 2 (23.1%) and scope 1 (4.8%). Scope 1 was primarily determined by stationary combustion and scope 2 by purchased electricity. Scope 3 was driven by purchased goods and services, of which medicines accounted for 41.6%. Other important categories were medical products, lab materials, prostheses and implants, and construction investment. Primary contributing departments were Pediatrics, Real Estate, Neurology, Hematology, and Information & Technology.

Conclusion: This is the first hybrid analysis of the environmental impact of an academic hospital across all its activities and departments. It became evident that the footprint is mainly determined by the upstream effects in external supply chains. This research underlines the importance of carbon footprinting on an organizational level, to guide future sustainability strategies.

Citing Articles

The green ICU: how to interpret green? A multiple perspective approach.

Smale E, Baid H, Balan M, McGain F, McAlistar S, De Waele J Crit Care. 2025; 29(1):80.

PMID: 39972357 PMC: 11837716. DOI: 10.1186/s13054-025-05316-8.


Carbon Footprint Analysis of an Outpatient Dermatology Practice at an Academic Medical Center.

Silva G, Waegel A, Kepner J, Evans G, Braham W, Rosenbach M JAMA Dermatol. 2025; 161(2):191-197.

PMID: 39774638 PMC: 11840641. DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.5669.

References
1.
Rodriguez-Jimenez L, Romero-Martin M, Spruell T, Steley Z, Gomez-Salgado J . The carbon footprint of healthcare settings: A systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2023; 79(8):2830-2844. DOI: 10.1111/jan.15671. View

2.
Romanello M, Di Napoli C, Drummond P, Green C, Kennard H, Lampard P . The 2022 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: health at the mercy of fossil fuels. Lancet. 2022; 400(10363):1619-1654. PMC: 7616806. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01540-9. View

3.
Hunfeld N, Diehl J, Timmermann M, van Exter P, Bouwens J, Browne-Wilkinson S . Circular material flow in the intensive care unit-environmental effects and identification of hotspots. Intensive Care Med. 2022; 49(1):65-74. PMC: 9734529. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-022-06940-6. View

4.
Steenmeijer M, Rodrigues J, Zijp M, Waaijers-van der Loop S . The environmental impact of the Dutch health-care sector beyond climate change: an input-output analysis. Lancet Planet Health. 2022; 6(12):e949-e957. DOI: 10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00244-3. View

5.
Tennison I, Roschnik S, Ashby B, Boyd R, Hamilton I, Oreszczyn T . Health care's response to climate change: a carbon footprint assessment of the NHS in England. Lancet Planet Health. 2021; 5(2):e84-e92. PMC: 7887664. DOI: 10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30271-0. View