Penilaian Jejak Karbon (Carbon Footprint) yang Dihasilkan oleh Aktivitas Penduduk di Kawasan Gading Serpong, Tangerang

  • Firman Zulpikar Surya University
  • Angela Brennette Surya University
Keywords: carbon footprint, housing type, income, resident


The development of new residential areas using independent city concept encourages the potential increase of greenhouse gas emissions. It is derived from new infrastructure development and residents activities in this area. The objective of this study was to estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions through carbon footprint calculations derived from the resident's activities in Gading Serpong, Tangerang. Carbon footprint values were conducted by questionaire from 200 respondents and from three different types of housing: clusters, sectors and general houses in villages around the area. The emission sources were calculated including transportation, energy use at home, food consumption, and lifestyle. The results showed that lifestyle gave the highest value contribution about 39% of total carbon footprint, followed by transportation and energy use at home around 30% and 27%, respectively. The average value of individual carbon footprint approximately 7.99 tCO2 Eq./year. Moreover, carbon footprint values for cluster-type, sectors-type and general houses in the village were 9,602, 8,453 and 5,009 tCO2 Eq./year respectively. The result also found that the resident's income has a significant contribution to carbon footprint value.This study showed that the carbon footprint value of residents in Gading Serpong area influenced by housing type and individual income level.


Ahangari A, Moradi M. 2014. The possibility of environmental kuznets curve for CO2 emission. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 5 (27):277-282.

Aichele R, Felbermayr G. 2012. Kyoto and the carbon footprint of nations. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 63:336–354.

Angelakoglou K, Gaidajis G, Lymperopoulos K, Botsaris PN. 2015. Carbon footprint analysis of municipalities – Evidence from Greece. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review 8 (4): 15-23.

Baiocchi G, Minx J, Hubacek K. 2010. The impact of social factors and consumer behavior on carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom. Journal of Industrial Ecology 14:50-72.

Brand C, Boardman B. 2008. Taming of the few - The unequal distribution of greenhouse gas emissions from personal travel in the UK. Energy Policy 36:224-238.

Brand C, Preston JM, 2010. 60-20 emission-The unequal distribution of greenhouse gas emissions from personal, non-business travel in the UK. Transport Policy 17:9-19.

Buchs M, Schnepf SV. 2013, From expenditure to emissions? Comparing three methods of estimating UK household emissions using expenditure data. To be published as S3RI working paper.

Choi E, Heshmati A, Cho Y. 2010. An empirical study of the relationships between CO2 emissions, economic growth and openness. Discussion Paper Series, IZA DP No. 5304.

Curry R, Maguire C. 2011. The use of ecological and carbon footprint analysis in regional policy making: application and insights using the REAP model. local environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 16 (9):917-936.

Fahmy E, Thumim J. White V. 2011. The distribution of UK household CO2 emissions: Interim report. JRF programme paper: climate change and social justice, University of Bristol and Centre for Sustainable Energy.

Fan J, Guo X, Marinova D, Wu Y, Zhao D. 2012. Embedded carbon footprint of Chinese urban households: Structure and changes. Journal of Cleaner Production 33:50-59.
Finkbeiner M. 2009. Carbon footprinting- opportunities and threats. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14:91-94.

Gough I, Abdallah S, Johnson V, Ryan-Collins J, Smith C. 2011. The distribution of total greenhouse gas emissions by households in the UK, and some implications for social policy. CASE paper 152, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion. London School of Economics, London.

Jones, C. and Kammen, D. 2010. Quantifying carbon footprint reduction opportunities for US households and communities. Environmental Science and Technology 45 (8):4088-4095.

Kuznets S. 1955. Economic growth and income inequality. American Economic Review 45 (1):1-28.

Lin T, Yu Y, Bai X, Feng L, Wang J. 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions accounting of urban residential case study. Environment, Development, and Sustainability 17 (1):1-12.

Markolf SA, Matthews HS, Azevedo I, Hendrickson C. 2017. An integrated approach for estimating greenhouse gas emissions from 100 U.S. metropolitan areas. Environment Research Letter 12 (2):1-11.

Miehe R, Scheumann R, Jones CM, Kammen DM, Finkbeiner M. 2015. Regional carbon footprints of households: A German case study. Environment, Development, and Sustainability 8 (2):1-12.

Padgett JP, Steinemann AC, Clarke JH, Vandenbergh MP. 2008. A comparison of carbon calculators. Environmental Impact Assessment Review: 106–115.

Shirley R, Jones C, Kammen D. 2012. A household carbon footprint calculator for islands: Case study of the United States Virgin Islands Ecological Economics, 80: 8–14.

Yusgiantoro P. 2000. Ekonomi Energi: Teori dan Praktek. Pustaka LP3ES, Jakarta.