Search

Data centers are estimated to have the fastest growing carbon footprint from across the whole information and communication technology (ICT) sector. Evaluating the performance of data centers in terms of energy efficiency and sustainability is becoming an increasingly important matter for organizations and governments (e.g., for regulation or reputation purposes). It nonetheless remains difficult to achieve such evaluation, as data centers imply to take into consideration a wide range of dimensions and stakeholders. Even though a wide range of sustainability performance indicators exist in the literature, there is still a lack of frameworks to help data center stakeholders (spanning from data center owners, governmental regulators to engineers/field operators) to evaluate and understand how a data center performs in terms of sustainable development/behavior. Our research work proposes such a framework, whose originality lies in the combination of state-of-the-art sustainability metrics with the biomimicry commandments of eco-mature system, which enables holistic sustainability assessment of data centres. From a theoretical perspective, the proposed model is designed based on a benefit-cost analysis using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique. This approach allows data center stakeholders for specifying their own preferences and/or expertise in the comparison process, whose practicability is demonstrated in this paper considering three data center candidates, which are respectively located in France, Germany and Sweden. • A new model for comparing data center sustainability performance is proposed. • The model makes use of state-of-the-art sustainability metrics together with biomimicry lessons. • The model is designed based on a benefit-cost approach using the AHP technique. • A comparison study is carried out with three distinct data center candidates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Universities considering integrating an environmental management system (EMS) have numerous decisions to consider. Should they pursue a formal certified model or an informal uncertified one? If informal is appropriate, which framework best meets their needs? Which environmental interactions are most important to manage? Are there any other sector-specific considerations? This article discusses six different campus EMS frameworks, three different categories of drivers, and the six unique features of a campus EMS, and offers suggestions on when each framework is best applied. The frameworks considered are from: ISO 14001; Higher Education 21 (UK); the EMS Self-Assessment Checklist (USA); the Auditing Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education (Netherlands); the Osnabrück University model (Germany) and the Sustainable University model (Mexico). This article also draws upon the empirical experiences of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]