D4.3 Baseline assessment of the environmental performance

D4.3 Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Funding scheme EU-H2020-Grean Deal, H2020-LC-GD-2020-3 Project ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education Project number 101036505 Project Coordinator CIEMAT, Centro de Investigaciones Energeticas, Medioambientales y Tecnologicas Start Date of the Project 01.10.2021 Duration of project 48 months Contributing WP WP4 - Testing the ECF – Baseline assessment Tasks Task 4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Dissemination Level Public Due date 2023 January 31 Submission date 2023 January 31 Responsible partner IST Contributing organisations CIEMAT, USE, JYU, UAB, MedaResearch, QUE Authors: Joana Lage, Tiago Faria, Marta Almeida, Antonis Stratis, Panos Andriopoulos. Version 1.0 The project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101036505 H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive summary ....................................................................................................................... 1 2. Legal notice ................................................................................................................................... 2 3. About the project.......................................................................................................................... 3 3.1. Who we are ........................................................................................................................... 4 3.2. ECF4CLIM Methodology ........................................................................................................ 5 3.2.1. Pilot schools ........................................................................................................................... 5 3.2.1.1. Multi-criteria environment assessment through sustainable indicators ...................... 7 3.2.1.2. Environmental and behavioural data collection .......................................................... 10 4. Environmental performance: results and discussion ................................................................. 11 4.1. Waste management ............................................................................................................ 11 4.2. Water management ............................................................................................................ 13 4.3. Transports............................................................................................................................ 16 4.3.1. Parking characteristics ................................................................................................. 17 4.3.2. Public transport network ............................................................................................. 19 4.3.3. Mobility pattern of the students ................................................................................. 20 4.4. Green spaces ....................................................................................................................... 23 4.5. Green procurement ............................................................................................................. 26 4.6. Energy management ........................................................................................................... 29 4.6.1. Energy consumption .................................................................................................... 30 4.6.2. Energy cost ................................................................................................................... 32 4.6.3. Renewable energy........................................................................................................ 33 4.6.4. Annual carbon emissions ............................................................................................. 33 4.7. General environmental performance overview.................................................................. 35 5. IoT installations for the Baseline assessment ............................................................................. 35 5.1. Scope of installations within ECF4CLIM .............................................................................. 35 5.2. Roles and responsibilities .................................................................................................... 35 5.2.1. Pilot Director ................................................................................................................ 36 5.2.2. Technical Director ........................................................................................................ 36 H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance iii 5.2.3. Commissioner .............................................................................................................. 37 5.2.4. Technician(s) ................................................................................................................ 38 5.3. Installation procedure ......................................................................................................... 38 5.3.1. Pre-Installation ............................................................................................................. 38 5.3.2. Installation ................................................................................................................... 40 5.3.3. Post Installation............................................................................................................ 40 5.4. Deployment of equipment .................................................................................................. 40 5.4.1. IoT Equipment topology ............................................................................................... 40 5.4.2. Deployment plan .......................................................................................................... 41 5.4.3. Next steps..................................................................................................................... 42 6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 43 7. Appendix ..................................................................................................................................... 44 7.1. Appendix I ............................................................................................................................ 44 7.2. Appendix II ............................................................................................................................ 61 INDEX OF TABLES Table 1ECF4CLIM partners. ................................................................................................................ 4 Table 2List of the ECF4CLIM demonstration sites. ............................................................................ 6 Table 3: Environmental and energy sectors characterisation. ............................................................ 8 Table 4: Multi-criteria environmental assessment of schools: environmental pillars, KPIs and scores range. ................................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 5: KPIs calculation for the waste management sector. ............................................................ 11 Table 6: Methodology for the calculation of the waste management scores. .................................. 11 Table 7: KPIs calculation for the water management sector. ............................................................ 13 Table 8: Methodology for the calculation of the water management scores. .................................. 13 Table 9 - KPIs results (average values) for the water section. ........................................................... 16 Table 10: KPIs calculation for the transport sector ........................................................................... 16 Table 11: Methodology for the calculation of the transport scores. ................................................ 17 Table 12: KPIs calculation for the green spaces sector. ..................................................................... 23 Table 13: Methodology for the calculation of the green spaces scores. ........................................... 23 Table 14: KPIs results of the green spaces. ........................................................................................ 25 Table 15: KPIs calculation for the green procurement sector. .......................................................... 26 Table 16: Methodology for the calculation of the green procurement scores. ................................ 27 Table 17: KPIs calculation for the energy management sector. ........................................................ 29 Table 18: Methodology for the calculation of the energy management scores. .............................. 30 H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance iv INDEX OF FIGURES Figure 1Location of the ECF4CLIM pilot schools. ............................................................................... 6 Figure 2 - ECF4CLIM methodology. ...................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 - Weekly urban solid waste (non-recyclable and non-reused) (KPI-W1) and recyclable waste (KPI-W2) produced in each school per student. ................................................................................ 12 Figure 4 - Final score for the waste sector. ........................................................................................ 12 Figure 5 - KPIs results for the water section. ..................................................................................... 15 Figure 6 - Water final score (0-5). ...................................................................................................... 16 Figure 7Parking availability for bicycles (KPI-T1) and electric cars (KPI-T2) of the schools. ............ 18 Figure 8 - Parking score (0-5). ............................................................................................................ 19 Figure 9 - Results of the KPI-T3 for the public transport network. .................................................... 19 Figure 10Public transports network score (0-5). ............................................................................. 20 Figure 11 - Mobility pattern of the pilot schools' students. .............................................................. 20 Figure 12 - Mobility pattern per country (%) - Values based on person equivalent. ........................ 21 Figure 13 - Annual CO2 emissions per student (kgCO2/student) ....................................................... 21 Figure 14 - Annual CO2 transport emission score for the schools. .................................................... 22 Figure 15 - Final score of the transport sector. ................................................................................. 22 Figure 16 - Green spaces scores (0-5) of the pilot schools. ............................................................... 24 Figure 17 - Final score (0-5) for the green space sector. ................................................................... 26 Figure 18Green procurement scores (0-5). ..................................................................................... 28 Figure 19 - Final score of the green procurement sector .................................................................. 29 Figure 20 - KPIs results of the energy sector. .................................................................................... 31 Figure 21 - Energy consumption score (0-5). ..................................................................................... 32 Figure 22 - KPIs results of the energy cost per student and per m2. ................................................. 32 Figure 23 - Energy cost score (0-5)..................................................................................................... 33 Figure 24KPI results for the carbon emissions by the energy consumption. .................................. 34 Figure 25 - Carbon emissions score (0-5). .......................................................................................... 34 Figure 26 - Final score of the energy sector....................................................................................... 34 Figure 27Pilot Director ..................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 28 - Technical Director ............................................................................................................ 37 Figure 29 - Commissioner .................................................................................................................. 37 Figure 30 - Technician ........................................................................................................................ 38 Figure 31Level 1 Audit ..................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 32 - Scope of the Audits .......................................................................................................... 39 Figure 33Deployment plan .............................................................................................................. 41 H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 1 of 69 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The ECF4CLIM project aims to co-design and test a European Competence Framework (ECF) for climate change and sustainable development that will enable and empower the citizens to act towards sustainability. In its framework, students, teachers, parents, and the wider educational community are engaged, contributing to the climate action and to foster transformational changes towards sustainable development in the spirit of 'citizen science'. The present deliverable – "D4.3: Baseline assessment of the environmental performance", was produced in the context of task 4.3 of the WP 4 – "Testing the ECF – Baseline assessment". The WP4 has as its main purpose to assess the baseline of the individual and collective competences of the educational community and to evaluate the impact of the organisational structures, options and attitudes on the environmental performance of the pilot schools and universities. This WP promotes the co-design of measures to improve the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and social practices relating to sustainable development through a participatory hybrid approach, including elements from citizen science and citizen engagement. This document reports the achievements obtained in work developed in the pilot schools through four working phases, namely: a. Pre-audit phase b. Site audit phase c. Site assessment d. Data analysis These actions involved the school community, making schools aware of their environmental performance for a sustainable community, and helping them set goals and implement measures (in the structural and social axes). This deliverable includes the following information: • Executive summary; • The ECF4CLIM project: team and methodology; • Environmental audits: Results and discussion of the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Scores; • IoT solutions for real-time monitoring of selected parameters: methodology, results and discussion. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 2 of 69 2. LEGAL NOTICE The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the CINEA nor the European Commission is responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be translated, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher. Many of the designations used by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks. The quotation of those designations in whatever way does not imply the conclusion that the use of those designations is legal without the content of the owner of the trademark H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 3 of 69 3. ABOUT THE PROJECT The ECF4CLIM develops tests and validates a European Competence Framework (ECF) for transformational change, through a multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary and participatory process, which will empower the educational community to take action against climate change and towards sustainable development. This project intends to apply a novel hybrid participatory approach, rooted in participatory action research and citizen science, and to co-design the ECF in pilot schools and universities, by: 1) elaborating an initial ECF, supported by crowdsourcing of ideas and analysis of existing ECFs; 2) establishing the baseline of individual and collective competences, as well as environmental performance indicators; 3) implementing practical, replicable and context adapted technical, behavioural, and organisational interventions that foster the acquisition of competences; 4) evaluating the ability of the interventions to strengthen sustainability competences and environmental performance; and 5) validating the ECF. The proposed ECF is unique in that it encompasses the interacting STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) -related, digital and social competences, and systematically explores individual, organisational and institutional factors that enable or constrain the desired change. The novel hybrid participatory approach provides the broad educational community with an ECF adaptable to a range of settings, new ways of collaboration between public, private and third-sector bodies, and innovative organisational models of engagement and action for sustainability. To encourage learning-by-doing, several novel tools will be co-designed with and made available to citizens, including a digital platform for crowdsourcing, IoT solutions for real-time monitoring of selected parameters, and a digital learning space. Participation of various small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the consortium maximises the broad adoption and applicability of the ECF for the required transformational change towards sustainability. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 4 of 69 3.1. Who we are The ECF consortium consists of ten partners (Table 1). The project is coordinated by Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas - CIEMAT. Table 1ECF4CLIM partners. Name Country Logo Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT) ES Instituto Superior Técnico. University of Lisbon (IST) PT Universidad de Sevilla (USE) ES University of Jyväskylä (JYU) FI Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) ES Meda Research Ltd (MedaResearch) RO Instituto de Soldadura e Qualidade (ISQ) PT Trebag Szellemi Tulajdon Es Projektmenedzser Korlatolt Felelossegu Tarsasag (REBAG) HU Smartwatt Energy Sercuces SA (Smartwatt) PT Que Technologies Kefalaiouchiki Etaireia (QUE) GR H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 5 of 69 3.2. ECF4CLIM Methodology The ECF4CLIM methodology is based on an innovative hybrid conceptual and methodological participatory approach combining and integrating elements from participatory action research, citizen engagement, deliberative formation, crowdsourcing, and theory-based stakeholder evaluation. This hybrid methodology approach will guarantee that, for each group within the educational community, the most suitable participatory strategies and tools are implemented. The project methodology is divided into five main sections, namely: 1. The identification of 12 pilot educational institutions in Portugal, Spain, Romania, and Finland to apply the methodology; 2. The detail of the materials and methods used for data collection; 3. The development of a multi-criteria environment assessment to characterise the environmental performance of schools and their community through sustainability indicators; 4. The description of the structural procedure to engage and encourage students, teachers, and families towards an energy efficient and a Low-Carbon Economy (LCE) pathway; 5. The report of the data collection campaigns for methodology validation. 3.2.1. Pilot schools A set of 13 pilot schools located in Portugal, Spain, Romania, and Finland was selected to test and validate the ECF4CLIM methodology. The list of the demonstration sites and respective characteristics are shown in Table 2, while their location is depicted in Figure 1. There are three Portuguese schools located in Lisbon's district (two in the municipality of Loures and one in the municipality of Lisbon). Three schools are located in Spain, from which one is in Madrid, one in Sevilla, and one in Barcelona. The four Romanian schools 1 are located in Dragasani, Mioveni, Sercaia and Pitesti. Two of the Finnish schools are located in Tampere, one University in Jyväskylä. The 13 ECF4CLIM pilot schools cover the complete educational cycle, including pre-school, primary school, lower and upper secondary schools, higher education, and universities. 1 The project’s proposal only defined three pilot schools in Romania. However, an additional school was interested to participate in the project and therefore the results obtained in the environment audit performed in this fourth school were considered in the analyse of the global environmental performance and included in this deliverable. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 12 of 69 Figure 3 - Weekly urban solid waste (non-recyclable and non-reused) (KPI-W1) and recyclable waste (KPI-W2) produced in each school per student. The total school waste is the sum of the urban solid waste, recyclable waste and reused waste. However, the KPI-W3, which assesses the reused waste production, was zero or was not accounted for in all the schools. On average, the ECF4CLIM schools produce 3 litters of urban solid waste per student and per week, while the average production of recyclable waste is 0.6 litters per student per week. These results show that besides the efforts to increase the awareness of the school's community for the importance of the separation of waste, the amount of recyclable waste produced is still very low compared with the total amount of waste produced. It should be mentioned that waste is the environmental topic more explored in the awareness campaigns performed in the schools. Figure 4 - Final score for the waste sector. 2.2 1.2 2.5 0.0 1.9 2.3 0.8 1.3 0.5 1.2 2.5 2.5 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 Final score School code H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 13 of 69 Figure 4 shows the final score for the waste sector, which considers the three sub-scores, related to the production of urban solid waste, recyclable waste and reusable waste. Results show that the performance of the schools is, in general, weak and that there is an important margin for improvement. An additional observation of the obtained data is the fact that the quantification of the waste from S3, S11 and S12 was in kilograms. This data was converted to litters, the unity used in KPIs. For this conversion was applied the density values attributed to the recyclable material referenced by a Portuguese entity responsible for the recycling in Portugal. This fact may compromise the variability of the data. The audits and meetings developed in the schools showed that three main conditions contribute to the low performance of the schools regarding waste management: 1) The schools are equipped with bins to make the separation of the waste per typology, but the community is not contributing to the separation of the waste. In these schools, more training and awareness campaigns are needed; 2) The schools are not equipped with bins to make the separation of the waste per typology, or there are a limited number of bins and sometimes not well distributed in the schools. In these schools, it is important to invest in the acquisition of more bins and in the improvement of their management; 3) The schools are equipped with bins, but they are not well identified, and the users are not able to use them adequately, principally for new types of materials that are emerging. In these schools, it is important to focus on training and on signposting. 4.2. Water management The schools' performance regarding water management was assessed based on the KPIs and scores presented in Table 7Table 6 and Table 8. For the water KPIs were used the average of the consumptions and cost values of the last 5 years (2017-2021). Table 7: KPIs calculation for the water management sector. Sector KPI designation KPI calculation Water Water consumption per useful area KPIWr1 = annual water consumption useful area Water consumption per student KPIWr2 = annual water consumption no.of students Water costs per useful area KPIWr3 = annual water costs useful area Water costs per student KPIWr4 = annual water costs no.of students H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 14 of 69 Table 8: Methodology for the calculation of the water management scores. Parameters assessed:  Water consumption;  Water cost. Figure 5 displays the results obtained for each water management KPI and for each school, and Table 9 presents the average KPIs per country. Results show that the Spanish schools presented the highest water consumption per area (1.2 m3/m2) and per student (6.8 m3/student), followed by the Portuguese, Romanian and Finnish schools. However, the cost of water is higher in Portugal, which causes a negative impact on KPIs 3 and 4 from the Portuguese schools that the schools cannot avoid. Figure 6 shows the final water management score. It is clear that Portuguese schools are highly affected by the cost of water but, in general, the schools had a good performance in this sector. The audits and meetings developed in the schools showed that there are three main conditions that contribute to the consumption of water in the schools and that should be considered to improve their performance: 1) In some schools, the consumption of water is highly associated with the maintenance of green spaces. These schools should avoid the consumption of tap water for irrigation and give preference to wells. 2) We also identified important leakages in some schools that cause significant losses of water. The identification and reparation of these situations are urgent. 3) The toilets are another area with an import consumption of water. The use of temporised taps and faucet aerators can reduce water consumption. It is interesting to observe that the countries that presented the highest consumption of water are located in the south of Europe where the water is scarcer. This indicates that the implementation of measures in Portuguese and Spanish schools should be a priority. Sector Score designation Score calculation Less favourable scenario More favourable scenario Weighting for final score Water Water consumption per useful area SWr1 =(max(KPIWr1)−KPIWr1)×5 max(KPIWr1)−min(KPIWr1)×0.95 Highest KPIWr1 found Lowest KPIWr1 found less 5% 1 Water consumption per student SWr2 =(max(KPIWr2)−KPIWr2)×5 max(KPIWr2)−min(KPIWr2)×0.95 Highest KPIWr2 found Lowest KPIWr2 found less 5% 1 Water costs per useful area SWr3 =(max(KPIWr3)−KPIWr3)×5 max(KPIWr3)−min(KPIWr3)×0.95 Highest KPIWr3 found Lowest KPIWr3 found less 5% 1 Water costs per student SWr4 =(max(KPIWr4)−KPIWr4)×5 max(KPIWr4)−min(KPIWr4)×0.95 Highest KPIWr4 found Lowest KPIWr4 found less 5% 1 H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 15 of 69 Figure 5 - KPIs results for the water section. 0 4 8 12 16 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 KPI-Wr2 (m3/student) School Code 0 1 2 3 4 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 KPI-Wr1 (m3/m2) School Code 0 10 20 30 40 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 KPI-Wr4 (€/student) School Code 0 2 4 6 8 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 KPI-Wr3 (€/m2) School Code H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 16 of 69 Table 9 - KPIs results (average values) for the water section. Figure 6 - Water final score (0-5). 4.3. Transports The schools' performance regarding the transports sector, in what concerns the mobility patterns of the schools' community, the schools' infrastructures for parking, and the offer of public transportation was assessed based on the KPIs and scores presented in ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia. and Table 11. Table 10: KPIs calculation for the transport sector KPI-Wr1 - Water consumption (m3/m2) KPI-Wr2 - Water consumption (m3/student) KPI-Wr3 - Water cost (€/m2) KPI-Wr4 - Water cost (€/student) Portugal 0.9 5.8 4 26 Spain 1.2 6.8 0.3 1.8 Romania 0.6 2.6 1.2 5.4 Finland 0.2 2.9 0.6 8.6 Country KPIs (Average values) 2.6 1.2 1.1 2.1 3.6 3.3 3.2 2.6 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.9 0 1 2 3 4 5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 Final score (0 5) School Code Sector KPI designation KPI calculation Transports Charging stations for electric cars per student KPIT1 = no.of charging stations for eletric cars no.of students Parking places for bicycle per student KPIT2 = no.of parking places for bicycles no.of students Public transports per hour KPIT3 =no.of public transports per hour within a 1000 radius CO2 annual emissions per student 𝐏𝐄𝐢=(#𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 ×𝟎+#𝐚𝐥𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 ×𝟏 𝟑+#𝐚𝐥𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 ×𝟐 𝟑+#𝐚𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 × 𝟏) × 𝐧𝐨.𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐥 𝐧𝐨.𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐞 Where: i = transport mean (motorbike; car; boat; tram; train; subway; bus; bicycle; on foot); PE 𝑖 = person equivalent of the transport mean i. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 17 of 69 Table 11: Methodology for the calculation of the transport scores. Parameters assessed:  Parking characteristics;  Public transports network;  School community behaviour;  CO2 emissions from daily commuting to school. 4.3.1. Parking characteristics The parking characteristics of the ECF4CLIM schools were assessed based on the number of parking spaces for electric cars at the school or periphery (up to a 100m radius) and the number of parking spaces for bicycles at the school or periphery (up to a 100m radius) as it is presented in Figure 7. Considering the KPI-T1, it is clear that the Finnish schools have the highest number of parking places for bicycles, which shows the commitment of the schools and authorities to provide conditions for the school community to travel by bicycle. The application of the behavioural questionnaires showed that it is also in Finland that the school community use bicycle more frequently. Some schools from Spain and Romania also have a good number of parking places for bicycles. However, the behavioural questionnaire shows that bicycle is not used so frequently in these countries showing that the existence of parking for bicycles is not sufficient to change the behaviours of the community. The meetings developed in the schools showed that there are three conditions that do not contribute to the use of the bicycle: 1) Lack of paths between schools and homes that guarantee the safety of the commuters, principally in the case of small children. This constraint should be worked with the local 𝐂𝐎𝟐 𝐢𝐄𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬=∑(𝐅𝐄𝐢×𝐏𝐄𝐢) 𝐢× 𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 × 𝟐𝟐 × 𝟏𝟎 Where: CO2 𝑖 Emissions = Annual emissions associated to the transport mean i. = emission factor of the transport mean i [1]. KPIT4 = ∑CO2 i Emissions ino.of students Sector Score designation Score calculation Less favourable scenario More favourable scenario Weighting for final score Transports Parking ST1 = (KPIT1 +KPIT2)×5 1.05×[max(KPIT1)+max(KPIT2)] Without charging stations Highest (KPIT1 + KPIT2) found plus 5% 2 Public Transports ST3 =KPIT3 ×5 1.05×max(KPIT3) Without public transports Highest KPIT3 found plus 5% 1 CO2 annual emissions ST4 = 5−school emissions× 5 maximum emission 100% of the students go by car 100% of the students go on foot or by bicycle 2 H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 18 of 69 authorities to build cycle paths separated from the street by green barriers that protect people from accidents and air pollutants. 2) Lack of awareness of the community that still prefers using the private car instead of using active transportation or a combination between active transportation and public transport (principally when the distance between home and school is long). 3) The low income of the parents from some schools that do not allow them to buy bicycles for their children. Some schools have shared bicycles available, but they do not have the capacity to maintain them in proper conditions. Regarding the KPI-T2, from the 13 pilot schools, only two universities, from Portugal (S3) and Spain (S6) have parking spaces with charging stations available for electric cars. This result highlights the necessity of future investment in this field. Figure 7Parking availability for bicycles (KPI-T1) and electric cars (KPI-T2) of the schools. Figure 8 displays the final score for the parking section. It shows that the Finnish schools have the highest parking scores (between 0.72 and 2.38, with an average of 1.34), but in general the performance of the schools is reduced (average parking score is 0.64) indicating that there is a large space for improvement in the ECF4CLIM schools. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 KPI-T1 (nº. parking bicycles/student) School Code 0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.0010 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 KPI-T2 (nº. parking electric cars/student) School Code H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 19 of 69 Figure 8 - Parking score (0-5). 4.3.2. Public transport network The public transport network of the schools was assessed based on the:  Number of stops in the periphery of the schools.  Number of transports passing daily (1000m radius).  Number of transports passing daily during rushing hour (1000m radius).  Distance between the school and the nearest transport stop (m). Based on the data obtained in the environmental audit, all the schools have a bus stop within a radius of 1000 m, 3 schools (S5, S6, S12) have a train stop, 2 schools have a tram stop (S11 and S12) and 1 school has a metro stop (S3). Figure 9 shows the frequency of public transport passing by the school per hour within a radius of 1000 m (KPI-T3) and indicates that schools from Finland are very well served by public transports with an average of 79 transports per hour passing near the school. In the meetings with the schools, the short frequency of public transports, the incoherent connection between transports and the long time needed to make the daily route were identified as the main causes for the use of private cars instead of public transportation. Figure 9 - Results of the KPI-T3 for the public transport network. 0.09 0.02 1.26 0.14 0.00 2.58 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.16 0.91 0.72 2.38 0 1 2 3 4 5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 Parking Score (0 - 5) School Code 0 30 60 90 120 150 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 KPI-T3 (no. public transports daily/hour) School Code H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 20 of 69 Figure 10Public transports network score (0-5). Figure 10 shows the score of the public transports network (ST3). Finland schools presented the best performance in this area (average score: 2.6), far from the Portuguese (average score: 1.8), Spanish (average score: 0.43), and Romanian (average score: 0.15) schools. In general conclusion, we can say that the public transport network of the studied schools is weak, and it will need significant improvement in those schools/locations where the private car is a relevant fraction of the used transport. These low values of the ST3, mainly in Portuguese school S1 and in Spanish and Romanian schools, are a consequence of the low frequency of public transports in the period of hours analysed nearby of each school. 4.3.3. Mobility pattern of the students The daily commuting pattern of the schools' community of the ECF4CLIM schools was assessed by applying the behavioural questionnaire to the students (Appendix II). They were questioned about the type of transport modes they use, the distance between home and school and if they practice car sharing. Figure 11 and Figure 12 resume the information on the mobility patterns of the students per school and per country. Data is missing for the schools S1, S3 S8, S9, once they did not apply the questionnaire during the defined period. The data considered in the following analysis (Figure 11 and Figure 12) is based on people equivalent (see Table 10). Figure 11 - Mobility pattern of the pilot schools' students. 0.1 2.9 2.3 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 1.7 4.8 1.3 0 1 2 3 4 5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 Public transports network Score (0 -5) School Code 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 Percentage of transport mode use (%) School Code Foot Bicycle Bus Subway Train Tram Boat Car Motorcycle E-Bike E-Scooter H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 21 of 69 Figure 12 - Mobility pattern per country (%) - Values based on person equivalent. The previous figures show that Finland schools present a completely different mobility pattern characterised by a big diversity of transports means used to go to school and by a lower use of the private car (with a share of 29%). Instead of using the car, Finnish students go to school principally by foot (24%), by bus (24%), and by bicycle (19%). In Portugal, represented by one school, students go to school mainly by bus (51%), by car (26%), and by foot (18%). In Spain, students chose to do their daily commute by foot (41%), by car (32%), and by bus (24%). In Romania, students go to school mainly by car (46%), by bus (25%), and by foot (24%). Figure 11 also shows that the youngest students (primary and lower secondary schools) tend to go to school by car, followed by walking. The students from the secondary schools use the bus more (S11 and S12). The use of a car by university students from Romania (S10) is 74% which is a very high percentage when compared with university students from Finland (S13), that mostly choose to go to school by bicycle (35%) and walking (25%). The choice of transport mode is therefore dependent on the school's region (socioeconomic level of the country and infrastructures available), the school's education level (students age and autonomy), and the distance between home and school. The annual CO2 emissions per student regarding daily commuting (KPI-T4) was estimated and it is represented in Figure 13. Figure 13 - Annual CO2 emissions per student (kgCO2/student) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Portugal Spain Romania Finland General Average Mobility pattern per country (%) Foot Bicycle Bus Subway Train Tram Boat Car Motorcycle E-Bike E-Scooter 0 200 400 600 800 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 KPI-T4 (kgCO2/student) School Code H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 28 of 69 Figure 18Green procurement scores (0-5). Figure 18 shows only the scores results for the scores SGP1, SGP2 and SGP5, once Scores SGP3 and SGP4 are devoid of data. Considering the SGP1, which assesses the efficiency of the new equipment acquired by the schools, only the Spanish schools, S4 and S5, acquired new electronic equipment since 2021, and both of them purchased equipment with high efficiency levels (classification level A). The SGP2 makes a balance between the amount of paper used in the schools (KPI-GP2) and the consumption of recycled paper (KPI-GP3). Figure 18 to the results, the schools tend to not use recycled paper. The scores SGP3 and SGP4 highlighted the low or non-existent investment of the schools in training in green procurement and biological certification of food. These areas should be targeting areas in the future. 3.8 2.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 Score GP5 (purchases from local suppliers) School Code 2.3 1.9 0 1 2 3 4 5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 Score GP1 (equipment efficiency) School Code 0.001 2.2 2.4 4.9 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 Score GP2 (paper consumption) School Code H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 29 of 69 Figure 19 - Final score of the green procurement sector The final score of the green procurement sector is presented in Figure 19. Results show that schools have a great potential for improvement, in special the Portuguese and Finnish schools. Solutions can focus on the acquisition of recycled paper instead of white paper; investment in training about green procurement to empower the school staff so they can make sustainable decisions for the sake of the school; purchase of biological products from local suppliers, contributing to the increase of the local economy and for the decrease of the carbon footprint. In the meetings performed with the schools, it was mentioned that frequently the schools do not have the autonomy to select the suppliers and products. So, highlighting once again, the existence of a close collaboration between the schools and authorities is important to implement measurements. 4.6. Energy management The schools' performance regarding energy management was assessed based on the KPIs and scores presented in Table 17 and Table 18. Table 17: KPIs calculation for the energy management sector. 1.4 1.4 0.1 2.9 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 1.3 0.1 1.2 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 Final score (0 - 5) School Code Sector KPI designation KPI calculation Energy Energy consumption per useful area 𝐾PIE1 = ∑annual consumption of electricityi+∑(annual consumption of fuelj×densityj×FCj) ji useful area Where: i = type of electricity (provide by the grid; onsite produced); j = type of fuel (diesel; LPG; natural gas); FCj = conversion factor to kWh of fuel j Energy consumption per student KPIE2 = ∑annual consumption of electricityi+ ∑(annual consumption of fuelj×densityj×FCj) ji no.of students Where: i = type of electricity (provide by the grid; onsite produced); j = type of fuel (diesel; LPG; natural gas); FCj = conversion factor to kWh of fuel j Percentage of renewable energy production 𝐾PIE3 = Renewable energy produced for onsite consumption+renewable energy production sold to grid 3×[∑annual consumption of electricityi+ ∑(annual consumption of fuelj×densityj×FCj) ji ] Where: i = type of electricity (provide by the grid; onsite produced); j = type of fuel (diesel; LPG; natural gas); FCj = conversion factor to kWh of fuel j H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 30 of 69 Table 18: Methodology for the calculation of the energy management scores. Parameters assessed:  Energy consumption  Energy cost  Renewable energy  Carbon emissions 4.6.1. Energy consumption The assessment of the energy consumption in schools considered all the available energy sources: electricity, diesel, GPL, natural gas, biomass, biomass pellets, electric renewable and thermal renewable. The main sources of energy in the schools are electricity (S1-S13) and natural gas (S1, S3-S13), although some schools also use diesel (S9), GPL (S3), biomass pellets(S12), and renewable energy (S3,S13) to produce energy. The energy KPI-E1 and KPI-E2 consider the energy consumed in the previous 5 years of the audit (2017-2021), the number of students, and the area of the school. According to Figure 20, the universities (S3, Energy costs per useful area KPIE4 = energy annual costs useful area Energy costs per student KPIE5 =energy annual costs no.of students CO2 annual emissions KPIE6 =(electricity consumption −REP×GL)×FEe+∑(annual consumption of fueli×densityi×FCi) i×FEi no.of students Where: i = type of fuel (diesel; LPG; natural gas); FCi = conversion factor to kWh of fuel i FCe = emission factor associated to electrical energy consumption. FEi = emission factor associated to fuel i. REP = renewable electrical production GL = grid losses Sector Score designation Score calculation Less favourable scenario More favourable scenario Weighting for final score Energy Energy consumption SE1 =((max(KPIE1)− KPIE1)+(max(KPIE2)− KPIE2))× 5 2 × [max (KPIE1)− min(KPIE1)+max (KPIE2) − min(KPIE2)]× 0.95 Highest KPIE1 and KPIE2 found Lowest KPIE1 and KPIE2 found less 5% 1 Renewable energy SE3 =KPIE3 ×5 0% renewable energy 100% renewable energy 1 Energy cost SE4 =((max(KPIE4)− KPIE4)+(max(KPIE5)− KPIE5))× 5 2 × [max (KPIE4)− min(KPIE4)+max (KPIE5) − min(KPIE5)]× 0.95 Highest KPIE4 and KPIE5 found Lowest KPIE4 and KPIE5 found less 5% 1 CO2 annual emissions SE6 =(max(KPIE6)− KPIE6)×5 max (KPIE6) Highest KPIE6 found Lowest KPIE6 found less 5% 1 H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 31 of 69 S6, S10 and S13) have the highest consumption per area and per student. This fact reflects the higher complexity of the university buildings that join spaces with very specific requirements, such as laboratories with high consuming instruments that are operating continuously. Furthermore, these type of establishments are in operation for a long period of time, sometimes 14h, including classes and students activities, increasing the energy consumption. Figure 20 - KPIs results of the energy sector. Figure 20 - KPIs results of the energy sector.Figure 21 shows that the schools of Portugal and Spain have a higher energy consumption score (average score ≈ 4 and 3, respectively). In the Portuguese schools, most of the primary and secondary schools (S1 and S2), have natural ventilation and do not have an air conditioning system. Consequently, the comfort of the students and staff is frequently compromised. In the meetings with these schools, it was mentioned that the students in the winter are frequently dressed with coats and gloves during classes. In order to solve this problem, the school used to distribute some heaters in the classrooms, but due to the high costs of the energy, they are rarely turned on. Consequently, the indoor air quality is also compromised during cold and rainy days because the windows are not opened to promote ventilation due to the meteorological conditions. In the coldest countries the energy consumption is higher. One reason for these results is because the schools are equipped with mechanical ventilation, which can increase the energy consumption. The improvement of these KPIs relies on adequate management of energy efficiency, on the selection of more efficient equipment and, whenever possible, on the production of renewable energy. 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 KPI-E2 (kWh/student) School Code 0 200 400 600 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 KPI-E1 (kWh/m2) School Code H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 32 of 69 Figure 21 - Energy consumption score (0-5). 4.6.2. Energy cost The KPIs related to the energy cost (KPI-E4 and KPI-E5) and the respective score are presented in Figure 22 and Figure 23. The total energy cost depends on the energy consumption, energy mix and energy price in each country. Therefore, to reduce energy costs, the schools need to reduce energy consumption and, if possible, increase the contribution of renewables to their energy mix. However, schools do not have the autonomy and budget to invest in producing renewable energies on-site. Besides the non autonomy of the schools, the municipalities can have an important role in making a political decision in the schools’ use of renewable energy, being an example of that Finnish secondary schools. Energy companies can be an interesting solution to the implementation of energy efficiency measures and renewable solutions in schools. These companies can make the initial investment in the schools and are later paid with the savings resulting from the implementation of the measures. Figure 22 - KPIs results of the energy cost per student and per m2. 4.8 4.8 3.0 4.3 3.7 4.5 3.6 4.3 4.3 3.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 Energy consumption score (0 -5) School Code 0 10 20 30 40 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 KPI-E4 (€/m2) School Code 0 50 100 150 200 250 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 KPI-E5 (€/student) School Code H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 33 of 69 Figure 23 - Energy cost score (0-5). 4.6.3. Renewable energy The renewable energy KPI (KPI-E3) assesses the contribution of the renewable energy produced by each school and sold to the grid. In the ECF4CLIM pilot schools, there are two schools with on-site renewable energy consumption (electrical and thermal) which are S3 and S13, both universities. The production of renewable energy for own consume is an important measure to decrease the electrical consumption, in special in buildings with more demanding in operation. 4.6.4. Annual carbon emissions Carbon emissions associated with energy consumption can be seen as an important KPI to assess the environmental impact of energy consumption in schools. However, we should consider that the same electricity consumption in schools from different countries can cause different emissions of CO2 due to the different national energy mixes. As expected, the highest CO2 emissions were associated with buildings with more energy needs (universities and schools from Finland and Romania). The carbon emission from schools can be reduced by implementing energy efficiency measures and increasing renewable energy use. Biomass burning is often considered a carbon-neutral energy source, however, the IPCC considers that in terms of equivalent carbon dioxide, biomass burning is not totally neutral. In addition, the impact of biomass burning on indoor and outdoor air quality should not be neglected. 4.4 4.5 0.9 4.6 3.7 4.1 4.7 4.1 4.8 4.2 2.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 Energy cost score (0 -5) School Code H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 34 of 69 Figure 24KPI results for the carbon emissions by the energy consumption. Figure 25 - Carbon emissions score (0-5). The final energy score can be observed in Figure 26. Figure 26 - Final score of the energy sector. 0 150 300 450 600 750 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 KPI-E6 (kgCO2/student) School Code 4.4 4.4 2.5 4.8 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.5 3.4 3.3 0.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 Carbon emission score (0 -5) School Code 3.4 3.4 1.6 3.6 2.1 0.9 2.9 3.4 2.8 3.1 2.9 1.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 Final score (0 - 5) School Code H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 35 of 69 4.7. General environmental performance overview The baseline assessment of environmental performance carried out at the pilot schools is geared towards ECF definition, analysis, and support within the framework of GreenComp. The data presented results from a preliminary analysis and inserted in a participatory hybrid approach, where it is expected that throughout the project, through internal and external actions, the values presented will improve and evolve to a more sustainable scenario. The methodology was defined and applied before the application of project measures and will be applied and evaluated in the next stages of the project. This continuous evaluation in a living procedure format, where the entire school community is involved in all stages of the process, serves as a tool to monitor progress and evaluate the improvement of ECF competences. 5. IOT INSTALLATIONS FOR THE BASELINE ASSESSMENT 5.1. Scope of installations within ECF4CLIM The purpose of the IoT ecosystem deployment is to provide accurate and real-time data analytics of the selected pilot sites. These analytics will include metrics regarding the indoor air quality of the pilot site's classrooms, for example, temperature, humidity and CO2 concentrations. Through this approach, the educational community will be able to examine the quality of their classrooms since the covid 19 pandemic has raised awareness towards a clearer and healthier environment in the academic society. In addition, the IoT ecosystem solution gives the opportunity to pilot sites to have an accurate view of the energy consumption of the selected intervention spaces. Utilising the solution, the pilot sites could correlate the behavioural routine of the students to the impact that they deliver to the environment. Therefore, they could associate the carbon footprint that educational institutions deliver to the environment. Finally, the IoT equipment will provide the ECF4CLIM platform with real-time extraction of data from the selected pilot sites. In addition, it will offer the capability to distribute these extracted data to the ECF4CLIM database platform for the calculation of the respective dynamic Key Performance Indicators, to examine and validate the impact that the sustainability activities offer to the selected educational institutions. 5.2. Roles and responsibilities For the proper deployment of the IoT ecosystem to the respective academic pilot sites, a procedure must be executed to apply the solution to each premise accordingly. Each building has its unique building infrastructure, which must be considered before installing any IoT device. Therefore, all the respective partners must follow a plan for successful implementation. Finally, important is the assignment of the roles and responsibilities of the people participating in the installation procedure. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 36 of 69 5.2.1. Pilot Director The demo site coordination is the responsibility assigned to the pilot director. This role has been assigned to the pilot partners: CIEMAT, JYU, US, IST, MEDARESEARCH and UAB. Pilot Director's primary responsibility is the design and orchestration of the IoT ecosystem deployment in the respective pilot sites. The role description is very wide and includes all non-technical issues, along with managing the technical teams and communicating with academic institutions. Each pilot director will delegate the roles of the Commissioner and the Technician, who are key persons for installing and commissioning the IoT equipment in the pilot sites. The pilot director should comply with legal and ethical issues for data collection based on EU and national legislation and comply with the GDPR regulation. S/he is in charge of the administrative procedures of their organisation, for example, the procurement of the proposed IoT equipment. In addition, the pilot directors in all pilot sites are responsible for the anonymization of the pilots’ site information as they act as an interface between the end users and the consortium. Consequently, no information regarding user names and addresses is communicated to the technical directors. Similar considerations for GDPR compliance will be considered for all associated components that process data collected from pilots’ site data. These considerations will be described in the Deliverables reporting the individual components. Apart from the non-technical responsibilities, the pilot director is in charge of the proper completion of the audit templates, which were provided by the Technical Director. The audit templates describe the building infrastructure of the selected pilot sites in detail. To provide adequate information, they received dedicated workshops and guidance from the Technical Director, and in conjunction with inputs from the buildings' facility managers, they were able to fulfil this task successfully. Figure 27Pilot Director 5.2.2. Technical Director The Technical Director is behind in designing the IoT ecosystem that will be deployed in the ECF4CLIM project. Except for the design of the solution, the Technical Director trains the pilot partners, as described above, about which information to include in the audits and how to properly complete them. By providing workshops and guidelines to explain the appropriate information collection regarding the buildings' assets' characteristics, the Technical Director will minimise the error in the process and ensure that the building information corresponds to reality. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 37 of 69 The training activities address the commissioners as well. In order to become familiar with the solution and understand the steps that need to be carried out, the Technical Director tutors the commissioners about how to instal and commission the IoT equipment and finally overtake the maintenance of the IoT Ecosystem. After examining all the provided information from the audits, the technical director creates a list of proposed IoT equipment that must be deployed in the pilot sites addressing the project's requirements. In case the commissioners aren't able to solve an issue that appears during the maintenance procedure, they communicate with the Technical Director to receive guidelines to restore the system to its prior operational status. Figure 28 - Technical Director 5.2.3. Commissioner The Commissioner is a person which is chosen from the pilot director. Her/ his role's responsibilities include the installation and commissioning of the suggested IoT equipment in the selected pilot sites. Apart from the installation of the IoT equipment s/he is responsible for the health monitoring of the system and its troubleshooting when it's needed. Establishing a seamless extraction of data of the intervention spaces. To tackle these tasks efficiently, the commissioners attend the dedicated workshops provided by the Technical Director. The profile of the commissioner is based on technical knowledge and strong communicational skills since s/he acts as an interface between the Technical Director, the Pilot Director, the technician and the end users. Therefore, to communicate with the different parties and to understand the manuals of the IoT equipment, that person, or the involved groups, will guarantee an adequate communication capacity in the installation process with all the involved parties. Figure 29 - Commissioner H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 44 of 69 7. APPENDICES 7.1. Appendix I A) Administrative area A1. Name of the school A2. Type of school A3. Age-range of students A4. Country A5. City A6. Address A7. Contact person for the ECF4CLIM A8. General photo of the school B) Physical characteristics Data to request B1. Year of construction 1 - Architecture Project (Building's blueprints) B2. Total school Area (m2) (A x B) - See figure B3. Gross Floor Area (m2) (C) - See figure B4. Usable Floor Area (m2) (C + D) - See figure B5. Number of floors B6. Number of classrooms B7. Canteen (Y/N) B8. Gymnasium (Y/N) B8.1. Gymnasium's covered area (m2) B9. Provide the description (year, type) of any recent renovations. e.g. Heating, cooling, ventilation and air conditioning & refrigeration (HVAC&R) systems: H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 45 of 69 C) Use of the classroom building C1. Number of occupants C1.1. Students C1.2. Teachers C1.3. Administrative Staff C1.4. Auxiliary Staff C2. Number of occupants per classroom C3. Number of canteen users/day C4. Classroom building utilisation period (open and close time) C4.1. Week C4.2. Weekend C5. Yearly closure periods C5.1. Which energy-using equipment are in operation during the closure period? D) Use of the gymnasium D1. Gymnasium utilisation period (open and close time) D1.1. Week D1.2. Weekend D2. Yearly closure periods D2.1. Which energy-using equipment are in operation during the closure period? D3. Observations/comments on the use of the gymnasium (e.g. definition of extra-curricular school activities, gymnasium usage during the weekend for non scholar activities): E) Energy consumption Data to request E1. Is electricity consumed? (Y/N) 2 - Monthly bills of the last 5 years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021) for all types of energy consumption E1.1. Annual average bill (kWh, €) E1.2. What are the main uses of electricity (e.g. air conditioning, ventilation, lighting, ...)? E2. Is natural gas consumed? (Y/N) E2.1. Annual average bill (kWh, m3, €) E2.2. What are the main uses of natural gas (e.g. hot water, heating, ...)? E3. Is propane/LPG consumed? (Y/N) E3.1. Annual average bill (kg, €) E3.2. What are the main uses of propane/LPG (e.g. hot water, heating, ...)? E4. Is oil/diesel consumed? (Y/N) Data to request E4.1. Annual average bill (kg, €) H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 46 of 69 E4.2. What are the main uses of oil/diesel (e.g. hot water, heating, ...)? 2 - Monthly bills of the last 5 years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021) for all types of energy consumption E5. Are other fuel/energy sources consumed? (Y/N) Specify which sources are consumed: (e.g. natural gas, propane, oil/diesel biomass, …) E5.1. Annual average bill (energy units, €) E5.2. What are the main uses of other fuels or energy sources (e.g. hot water, heating, ...)? E6. Observations/comments on energy consumption: F) Energy production F1. Is there renewable energy production (e.g. photovoltaic panels, solar water heaters)? F1.1. What portion of this energy is consumed in the building? F2. Observations/comments on energy production: G) Lighting Data to request Gi. Interior Lighting 3 - Lighting Project Gi1. What type of lighting is predominantly used in the building (e.g. fluorescent, incandescent, halogen, LED, ...)? Gi1.1. Definition of available technical data. Characterisation (e.g. power (W), luminous flux (lumen), ...) Gi1.2. In what year was the system approximately installed? Gi1.3. Brand and model of the system (most common system) Gi2. What is the lighting schedule? Gi3. Are there systems for automatic control (e.g. motion sensor, time clock, photocell, ...)? Which and where? Ge. Exterior Lighting Ge1. What type of lighting is predominantly used (e.g. fluorescent, incandescent, halogen, LED, metal halide...)? H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 47 of 69 Ge1.1. Definition of available technical data. Characterisation (e.g. power (W), luminous flux (lumen), ...) Ge1.2. In what year was the system approximately installed? Ge1.3. Brand and model of the system (most common system) Ge2. What is the lighting schedule? Ge3. Are there systems for automatic control (e.g. motion sensor, time clock, photocell,...)? Which and where? G4. Observations/comments on lighting (internal or/and external): H) Heating Data to request H1. Are there heating systems in the building? 4 - HVAC project and HVAC descriptive documents H2. Equipment used for heating in the building: H2.1. Type of system (centralised system, single units, …)? H2.2. Which is the temperature set point for heating? H2.3. Type of equipment (e.g. heat pump, boiler, radiators, …) H2.4. Type of energy/fuel consumed (e.g. electricity, natural gas, propane, ...) H2.5. Definition of available technical data. Characterisation (e.g. Power, yield, EER, COP, ...) H2.6. In what year was the system approximately installed? H2.7. Brand and model of the system (most common system) H3. Utilisation schedules H3.1. In which months of the year is the heating system used? H3.2. How many hours a day is the heating on during those months? H4. Is there regular maintenance work? H4.1. Definition of maintenance frequency H4.2. Definition of annual maintenance cost H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 48 of 69 H5. Observations/comments on heating: I) Cooling Data to request I1. Are there cooling systems in the building? 4 - HVAC project and HVAC descriptive documents I2. Equipment used for cooling in the building: I2.1. Type of system (centralised system, single units, …)? I2.2. Which is the temperature set point for cooling? I2.3. Type of equipment (e.g. chiller, monosplits, …) I2.4. Type of energy/fuel consumed (e.g. electricity, natural gas, propane, ...) I2.5. Definition of available technical data. Characterisation (e.g. Power, yield, EER, COP, ...) I2.6. In what year was the system approximately installed? I2.7. Brand and model of the system (most common system) I3. Utilisation schedules J) Ventilation Data to request J1. Is there mechanical ventilation in classrooms? 4 - HVAC project and HVAC descriptive documents J1.1. Type of system/equipment of ventilation J1.2. In what year was the system approximately installed? J1.3. Definition of available technical data. Characterisation (e.g. ventilation rate, electric power, ...) J1.4. How many hours per day is the mechanical ventilation in classroom on? J2. Is there natural ventilation in classrooms? J2.1. Type of system/equipment of natural ventilation (e.g. windows, free-cooling system, ...) J2.2. Is ventilation operating at night? J3. Is there mechanical ventilation in other zones? Where? (e.g. kitchen, toilets, parking, ...) J3.1. Type of system/equipment of ventilation H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 49 of 69 J3.2. In what year was the system approximately installed? J3.3. Definition of available technical data. Characterisation (e.g. ventilation rate, electric power, ...) J3.4. How many hours a day is the ventilation on? J4. Is there natural ventilation in other zones (e.g. kitchen, toilets, ...)? Where? J5. Is there regular maintenance work of mechanical ventilation systems? J5.1. Definition of maintenance frequency per system J5.2. Definition of annual maintenance cost per system J6. Observations/comments on ventilation: K) Other equipment K1. Are there digital whiteboards in classrooms? K1.1. Are shading devices and lighting used when the digital whiteboard is on? K2. Are there digital projectors in classrooms? K2.1. Are shading devices and lighting used when the digital projector is on? K3. Observations/comments about other equipment: L) Energy metering Data to request L1. Electricity metering (Y/N and where) 5 - Electric installations project L1.1. General distribution board? L1.2. Partial distribution boards? L2. Natural gas metering (Y/N and where) H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 50 of 69 L2.1. General meter? 6 - Gas installations project L2.2. Partial meters? L3. Propane/LPG metering (Y/N and where) L3.1. General meter? L3.2. Partial meters? L4. Observations/comments on energy metering: M) Energy Management M1. Identification of the entity/person responsible for the energy management M1.1. Function, tasks and main responsibilities M1.2. Are the heating, cooling and ventilation systems controlled manually or automatically? M2. Is there an energy management system? M3. Observations/comments on energy management: N) Energy Audits N1. Were there any previous energy audits? N1.1. Date of the audit N2. Observations/comments on energy audits: O) Building envelope Data to request O1. How do you rate the quality of the facade and roof of the building (good/acceptable/bad)? Good: high insulation Acceptable: moderate insulation Bad: without insulation 7 - Construction details of the building envelope 8 - Map of glazed areas O1.1. Definition of facade and roof layers (if data is available) O1.2. Average thickness of facade and roof (e.g. wall thickness, measured through a window or opening) 9 - Characteristics of glasses and windows' frames O1.3. Are there infiltrations in the building facade? Where? O1.4. Are there any visible cracks on the walls? Where? H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 51 of 69 O2. How do you rate the quality of the building's windows (good/acceptable/bad)? Good: double glazing with high tightness Acceptable: moderate insulation Bad: single glazing without tightness O2.1. Definition of windows (e.g. sliding or hinged) O2.2. Are there infiltrations through the windows? Where? O2.3. Characterisation of the glazing and window frame O3. Shading devices O3.1. Are there outdoor shading elements (e.g. blinds, shutters, ...)? O3.2. Are there indoor shading elements (e.g. blinds, curtains, ...)? O3.3. Are there natural shading elements or from the building architecture (trees, building elements, ...)? O4. Observations/comments on the building envelope P) Comfort P1. How do you rate the thermal comfort felt in the building (too hot/acceptable/too cold)? P1.1. Is there any particular aspect that should be improved (e.g. there are building zones very cold in the winter or too hot in the summer, ...)? P2. How do you rate the visual comfort felt in the building (good looking/acceptable/bad looking)? P2.1. Is there any particular aspect that should be improved (e.g. there are building zones with poor lighting or too bright)? P3. How do you rate the noise from outdoor in the building (quiet/moderately quiet/too noisy)? P3.1. Is there any particular aspect that should be improved? P4. Observations/comments on comfort: Q) Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 52 of 69 Q1. In this section, you will characterise the general building and 4 different classrooms with different characteristics (e.g. types of occupancy, activities, exterior influences on IAQ, others...) Classroom 1 Classroom 2 Classroom 3 Classroom 4 General Building Q1.1. How do you rate the indoor air quality? (good/acceptable/bad) Q1.2. Is there any particular aspect regarding the air quality that should be improved upon? (eg Poorly ventilated areas) Q1.3. Are there any recent complaints related to poor indoor air quality? (e.g. headaches, dry nose, other symptoms, ...) Q1.4. Is dust deposition (or other particulate deposition) visible on surfaces? Q1.5. Is fungi growth (mould growth) visible on the walls or ceilings? Q1.6. How do you rate the hygienic conditions of spaces? (rate both in a scale from: 1 - "very bad" to 5 - "excellent") Q2. Classroom characteristics Q2.1. Localisation Q2.2. Area (m2) Q2.3. Height (m) Q2.4. Type of flooring Q2.5. Type of windows Q2.6. Electricity power available (Y/N). Number and location of the electric sockets. Q2.7. Number of students in the classroom Q2.8. Number of chalk blackboards, white boards or digital board Q2.9. Classroom identification (number, name, etc) Q2.10. Are there any spaces where chemicals are handled nearby the selected classrooms (e.g. detergents)? H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 53 of 69 Q2.11. Is there a printer inside the classroom? Q2.12. Are there any windows that open directly to a nearby busy road in either classrooms? Q2.13. Are the air intakes (HVAC/AC units) for the classrooms located near the floor level? Q2.14. Are the air intakes (HVAC/AC units) for the classrooms located near exhausts from other buildings (or its own building)? Q2.15. How often are the chalk blackboards used? (Rate the usage: 1 - Almost never to 5 - Daily usage) Q2.16. How often are the whiteboards used? (Rate the usage: 1 - Almost never to 5 - Daily usage) Q2.17. How often are the digital boards used? (Rate the usage: 1 - Almost never to 5 - Daily usage) Q3. Photo of the classrooms Q4. Observations/comments on IAQ: R) Waste management R1. Do you keep tracks on how much total waste is produced? R2. Is there separation of waste for recycling (paper, glass, plastic)? R2.1. Is there any recycling activity at the school? R2.2. Is there any accounting for the amount of waste sent for recycling? R2.3. Specify the volume per week produced for the following waste types: R2.3.1. Total waste (Recyclable + Non Recyclable - L/week) R2.3.2. Waste sent for recycling (L/week) H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 60 of 69 Juglans nigra 0,78 kg CO2 seq/tree . year Bougainvillea glabra 0,81 kg CO2 seq/tree . year Juniperus phoenica 0,81 kg CO2 seq/tree . year Schinus polygamus 0,81 kg CO2 seq/tree . year Ligustrum japonicum 0,84 kg CO2 seq/tree . year Albizia julibrissin 0,87 kg CO2 seq/tree . year Viburnum tinus 0,92 kg CO2 seq/tree . year Spartium junceum 0,97 kg CO2 seq/tree . year Prunus americana 0,98 kg CO2 seq/tree . year Rosmarinus officinalis 1,15 kg CO2 seq/tree . year Rhamnus sp, 1,31 kg CO2 seq/tree . year Buxus sempervirens 1,36 kg CO2 seq/tree . year Ligustrum ovalifolium 1,43 kg CO2 seq/tree . year Ficus benjamina 1,44 kg CO2 seq/tree . year H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 61 of 69 7.2. Appendix II  ECF4CLIM Behavioural questionnaire about mobility patter and resources consumption: 1. School identification 2. Class 3. Eco-Schools member a. Yes b. No 4. If yes, do you participate in the Eco-schools' programme activities? a. Yes b. No 5. Classification/Role in the school a. Student b. Teacher c. Staff 6. Gender a. Female b. Male c. Other 7. Age PART A: Transports 1. Do you go to school by foot? a. Never b. Sometimes c. Almost Always d. Always 2. If yes, indicate the time, in minutes you spend going from your home to school' 3. Do you go to school by bicycle? a. Never b. Sometimes c. Almost Always d. Always 4. If yes, indicate the time, in minutes you spend going from your home to school 5. Do you go to school by bus? a. Never b. Sometimes c. Almost Always d. Always 6. If yes, indicate the time, in minutes you spend going from your home to school 7. Do you go to school by subway? a. Never b. Sometimes c. Almost Always d. Always 8. If yes, indicate the time, in minutes you spend going from your home to school H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 62 of 69 9. Do you go to school by train? a. Never b. Sometimes c. Almost Always d. Always 10. If yes, indicate the time, in minutes you spend going from your home to school 11. Do you go to school by tram? a. Never b. Sometimes c. Almost Always d. Always 12. If yes, indicate the time, in minutes you spend going from your home to school 13. Do you go to school by car? a. Never b. Sometimes c. Almost Always d. Always 14. If yes, indicate the time, in minutes you spend going from your home to school 15. Type of car: a. Never b. Sometimes c. Almost Always d. Always 16. If yes, indicate the time, in minutes you spend going from your home to school a. Type of car b. Gasoline c. Diesel d. Electric vehicle e. Hybrid - Gasoline f. Hybrid - Diesel g. Other h. I do not know 17. Do you go to school by motorcycle? a. Never b. Sometimes c. Almost Always d. Always 18. If yes, indicate the time, in minutes you spend going from your home to school 19. Do you go to school by public electric transports? a. Never b. Sometimes c. Almost Always d. Always e. Other 20. If yes, which transport do you use? a. Public electric bicycle H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 63 of 69 b. Public electric scooter/motorcycle 21. On the way to school, do you use more than one transport or way of mobility? a. Yes b. No 22. If yes, select the ones that you use a. Walking b. Bicycle c. Bus d. Subway e. Tram f. Car g. Motorcycle h. Electric bicycle i. Electric scooter/motorcycle 23. Do you practice car sharing when you go to school? a. Yes b. No 24. If yes, how many passengers go to your school with you? 25. Do you go back to your home and return to school more than once per day? a. Yes b. No 26. What is the distance between your home and school? 27. How much do you spend, in EUROS, on your trips home – school, using car or motorcycle each month? a. I don't know it b. I know it (Please, fill the amount in EUROS in the Comment) 28. How much do you spend, in EUROS, on your trips home – school, using public transports each month? a. I don't know it b. I know it (Please, fill the amount in EUROS in the Comment) 29. If there was a bike path between your home and the school, would you rather the bike? a. Yes b. No 30. Do you use the public transport when you go out with your family on the weekend? a. Never b. Sometimes c. Almost Always d. Always PART B: Students consumption 1. Could you estimate the amount of each of the following materials that you consume in school each year? a. I am not able to estimate my material consumptions (Question not applicable to this level) b. In class, I use my own stationery material, and the electronic devices provided by the school c. In class, I use the stationery material and the electronic devices provided by the school H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 64 of 69 2. If you use your own material, could you estimate the amount of each of the following materials that you consume in school each year? a. Paper (sheets) b. Recycled paper (sheets) c. Large size notebooks or notepads (DinA4) d. Small size notebooks or notepads (DinA5 ) e. Large size notebooks (DinA4) made of RECYCLED PAPER f. Large size notebooks (DinA5) made of RECYCLED PAPER g. Cardboard sheets (50x65) 3. Do you use books in class? a. Yes, I use my own printed books b. Yes, I use the printed books provided by my school c. No, I do not use printed books 4. If yes, could you tell us how many books you bought in the last school year? Include new books, second-hand books and books you borrowed a. New books b. Second-hand/Reused books 5. SC3. Some of the materials and supplies used in class may last more than one school year. Below, we ask you to estimate which and how many of these materials you purchased in the last school year: a. Cardboard folders b. Plastic folders c. Erasers d. Pens e. Markers f. Pencils g. Colour pencils h. CDs i. DVDs j. Glue sticks k. Scissors l. Plastic rulers m. Plastic cases (approx. 20x10x2 cm) 6. Frequently computers and other devices are used in class. You could estimate the, HOURS PER DAY in average, you use the computer or tablet in class, whether it is a computer available at the school or if it is yours. a. School computer b. Student computer c. School tablet d. Student tablet  7. Previous questions include the materials that are often used. If there are other materials or stuff you purchased or acquired, please include up to three additional ones. To do so, please indicate the weight (kg) and material (s) which it is made of: a. Wood b. Glass H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D4.3 - Baseline assessment of the environmental performance Page 65 of 69 c. Aluminium d. Steel e. Metal (other) f. Plastic PET* g. Plastic PVC* h. Plastic HPDE* i. Plastic PP* j. Plastic ABS* 8. Please, include below any information or comment you can share with us: