Authors : Safeeya Fathima; Shashini Yapa; Chinthaka Kularatne; Jingru Liu; Sathsara Panchali; Lawrence Madapatha

Volume/Issue : Volume 9 - 2024, Issue 12 - December

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/mremfnbn

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/5n6fs42n

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14598600

Abstract : The Board of Investment (BOI) is a prime investment facilitation agency in Sri Lanka established in 1978, under the Greater Colombo Economics Commission to stimulate the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Countrywide, fifteen Export Processing Zones (EPZ) are dedicated to promoting FDI within the industrial zones while providing more than 1300 companies to operate outside the demarcated zones under the BOI purview. Out of the 15 EPZs operating, Kandy Industrial Park (KIP) plays a key role in the central region of Sri Lanka as it is the only regional industrial park functioning under the BOI by facilitating 24 industries to uplift the national economy. The area is located in a peak and forested interior and is demarcated as a sensitive area under the Soil Conservation Act in Sri Lanka. Kandy city and most of the region are shown as basin topography which is significant to the atmospheric emission and dispersion mechanisms. Further, BOI was selected as the focal point to implement Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Hence, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission and Carbon Footprint (CFP) calculation of this prime industrial park is essential to maintain a harmonized environment in terms of the economic, health, and social aspects and the view of global warming. This assessment spanned 195 acres covering a wide range of industrial activities including 24 industries of apparel manufacturing, food processing, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and telecommunication systems. According to the theoretical method to calculate CFP, scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3 were recommended. However, considering the deep analysis of park activity responses to the CFP, it has revealed that scope 1 and scope 2 are the most impactful emission types. The case study was selected the KIP as boundary. The scope 3 were disregarded. Accordingly, the GHG emission showed 1,617,341.13 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 eq). Emission inventory for Scope 1 due to diesel and gasoline combustion contributed 42,775.63 CO2 eq (MT), while Scope 2 due to electricity usage accounted for 1,574,565.50 CO2 eq (MT). These values are committed to the environmental challenges and drive to initiate the mitigation measures. In context, it has recommended encouraging investors and industrial management to align with renewable energy sources especially solar power compatible with the climate of the region. Further alternative fuel sources such as biofuels or electrical vehicle usage practices can be adhered. In addition, internal modifications, adaptation of cleaner production mechanisms, equipment optimizations, proper maintenance, and energy audits were recommended. Meantime, park managements and the users are adapted to increase the green cover in order to implement the natural carbon sink mechanisms forecasting the long term impact. In conclusion, the CFP assessment emphasized the crucial requirements to implement the sustainable practices to minimize the environmental impact and global warming. By following the recommended approaches, the park can potentially address its CFP and enhance its climate change mitigation efforts align to the NDCs. This study provides a model for other industrial zones in Sri Lanka and comprehensively underscores the significance of dynamic sustainability adaptations in industrial operations.

Keywords : Carbon Footprint, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Kandy Industrial Park, Scope 1 Emissions, Scope 2 Emissions, Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, Sustainability, Climate Change.

References :

1. Alhamid, A.K. et al. (2022) ‘Framework for probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment considering the effects of sea-level rise due to climate change’, Structural Safety, 94, pp. 3–4. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2021.102152.
2. Bhatti, U.A. et al. (2024) ‘Global production patterns: Understanding the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions, agriculture greening and climate variability’, Environmental Research, 245, p. 118049. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVRES.2023.118049.
3. Dong, H. et al. (2013) ‘Carbon footprint evaluation at industrial park level: A hybrid life cycle assessment approach’, Energy Policy, 57, pp. 298–307. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.057.
4. Eshel G., P. Martin, 2006, Diet, energy and global warming, University of Chicago study. Chicago: University of Chicago.
5. Eurostat (2020) ‘Energy Balance 2020’, pp. 1–238.Finkbeiner, M. (2009) ‘Carbon footprinting-opportunities and threats’, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14(2), pp. 91–94. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0064-x.
6. Geng, Y. and Cote, R. (2004) ‘Applying industrial ecology in rapidly industrializing Asian countries’, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 11(1), pp. 69–85. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500409469813.
7. Geng, Y. and Hengxin, Z. (2009) ‘Industrial park management in the Chinese environment’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(14), pp. 1289–1294. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.03.009.
8. Hasan, H., Ali, S.S. and Muhammad, M. (2015) ‘Towards a Towards a’, 25(2), pp. 1636–1639.
9. Hertwich, E.G. and Peters, G.P. (2009) ‘Carbon footprint of nations: A global, trade-linked analysis’, Environmental Science and Technology, 43(16), pp. 6414–6420. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1021/es803496a.
10. Huang, W. et al. (2017) ‘Carbon Footprint and Carbon Emission Reduction of Urban Buildings: A Case in Xiamen City, China’, Procedia Engineering, 198(February 2018), pp. 1007–1017. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.146.
11. IPCC (2014) ‘Global Warming Potential Values’, Global Warming Potential Values, 2014(1995), pp. 2–5. Available at: https://www.ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/Global-Warming-Potential-Values %28Feb 16 2016%29_1.pdf.
12. Liana, M. et al. (2020) ‘A review Considerations Concerning the Carbon Footprint’, 13, pp. 49–52. Available at: http://journals.usamvcluj.ro/index.php/promediu.
13. Macreadie, P.I., Hughes, A.R. and Kimbro, D.L. (2013) ‘Loss of “Blue Carbon” from Coastal Salt Marshes Following Habitat Disturbance’, PLoS ONE, 8(7). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069244.
14. Al Mamun, A. et al. (2024) ‘Energy consumption modeling in industrial sewing operations: A case study on carbon footprint measurement in the apparel industry’, Manufacturing Letters, 41, pp. 1635–1644. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mfglet.2024.09.190.
15. Matthews, H.S., Hendrickson, C.T. and Weber, C.L. (2008) ‘The importance of carbon footprint estimation boundaries’, Environmental Science and Technology, 42(16), pp. 5839–5842. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1021/es703112w.
16. Murray, J. and Dey, C. (2009) ‘The carbon neutral free for all’, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 3(2), pp. 237–248. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.07.004.
17. Pandey, D., Agrawal, M. and Pandey, J.S. (2011) ‘Carbon footprint: Current methods of estimation’, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 178(1–4), pp. 135–160. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1678-y.
18. Peters, G.P. and Hertwich, E.G. (2008) ‘CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy’, Environmental Science and Technology, 42(5), pp. 1401–1407. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1021/es072023k.
19. Rosenzweig C., A. Iglesias, X.B. Yang, P.R. Epstein, E. Chivian, 2001, Climate change and extreme weather events: Implications for food production, plant diseases, and pests. Global Change & Human Health, 2, 2, 90–104.
20. Shashini Yapa et al. (2019) ‘Journal of Environmental And Sciences ( ISSN 2836-2551 ) Optimizing Waste-To-Energy Boiler Performance in Kandy Industrial Park : A Comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment and Advanced Efficiency Enhancement Journal of Environmental And Sciences, pp. 1–17.
21. Stephen, R. et al. (2014) ‘Literature Review on Carbon Footprint Collection and Analysis’, (May).
22. WBCSD and WRI (2012) ‘A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard’, Greenhouse Gas Protocol, p. 116.
23. Wiedmann, T. and Minx, J. (2007) ‘A Definition of ‘ Carbon Footprint’, Science, 1(01), pp. 1–11. Available at: http://www.censa.org.uk/docs/ISA-UK_Report_07-01_carbon_footprint.pdf.
24. Yan, Y. et al. (2016) ‘Industrial carbon footprint of several typical Chinese textile fabrics’, Shengtai Xuebao, 36(3), pp. 119–125. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chnaes.2015.09.002.