Analysis of Interurban Mobility in University Students: Motivation and Ecological Impact

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article Analysis of Interurban Mobility in University Students: Motivation and Ecological Impact Javier Cruz-Rodríguez , Amalia Luque-Sendra , Ana de las Heras and Francisco Zamora-Polo * Departamento de Ingenier í a del Diseño, Escuela Polit é cnica Superior, Universidad de Sevilla, C/Virgen de Á frica, 7, 41011 Sevilla, Spain; javicrur[email protected] (J.C.-R.); [email protected] (A.L.-S.); [email protected] (A.d.l.H.) *Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 3 November 2020; Accepted: 11 December 2020; Published: 14 December 2020   Abstract: The management of mobility in large cities is a complex issue of great interest due to its economic, social, and environmental impact. In this work, the interurban mobility of engineering students from two campuses of the University of Seville is studied. Specifically, this work carries out an analysis of the preferences of students in terms of mobility to their study centres and determines the environmental impact of such mobility in terms of kg of CO 2 per student. Three constructs can be found to describe the motivation for their choice of transport: those related to comfort and speed, those related to sustainability and price, and those related to safety. Based on the responses obtained, groups of students are established that enable the design of specific actions in accordance with each of the profiles. From the analysis of the results obtained, recommendations are made for policymakers, and a reflection is given on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on this issue. Keywords: mobility; smart campus; means of transport; students; university; SDG 7; SDG 11; SDG 13 1. Introduction Mobility management in cities constitutes a major challenge [ 1 , 2 ]. There has been a rapid increase in city populations. In 2007, 50% of the world’s population lived in cities, and according to the United Nations’ Habitat program, it is estimated that by 2050, two-thirds of the world’s population will live in cities [3]. TheUnitedNationshasproposedanagendathatseekstopromotesustainablehumandevelopment, the well-known Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [ 4 ]. The SDGs were approved in the year 2015 by the General Assembly of the United Nations [ 4 ] and represent a first-level challenge for all countries. To achieve these goals, the participation of all actors is required, including governments, civil society, enterprises, and non-governmental organisations [ 4 – 6 ]. The 2030 Agenda must be understood in a joint way, since the SDGs are interconnected with each other [7–9]. Institutions of higher education play a fundamental role in achieving these SDGs [ 7 , 8 , 10 – 13 ]. In the exercise of teaching, research, and the transfer of results to society and governance, the university can provide a catalyst for social change [ 10 , 14 , 15 ]. Despite this importance, sustainability on university campuses still has plenty of room for improvement [16]. In previous work, we reflected on how the university can contribute towards the fulfilment of the Sustainable Development Goals through teaching [ 8 , 9 ] or research [ 17 ]. In this case, we want to reflect on how the university can contribute to sustainable development with campus operations. We are interested in ascertaining the means of transport used by students in their transportation to the university, the reasons for their choice, and the prospects for change in the future. Engineering is an area of special interest for the achievement of sustainable development in general [ 1 , 18 – 20 ] and the Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 9348; doi:10.3390/ijerph17249348 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 9348 2 of 26 Sustainable Development Goals in particular [ 20 – 22 ], and for this reason, engineering students are those analysed in this study. Previous work has reflected on the importance of using sustainable means of transport by the university community. In this respect, Mateo-Babiano et al. (2020) analysed the use that Filipino university students made of a system of shared bicycles [ 18 ], and Cattaneo et al. (2018) analysed the attitudes of university students towards various sustainable modes of transport [ 23 ]. In their work, the researchers revealed that the particularities of university campuses condition the type of student mobility. The use of transport in a Qatar University was carried out as a previous step for a sustainable mobility plan [ 1 ]. That work showed that a high number of members of the university community came to the university in their own cars and showed the importance of infrastructure in promoting mobility of a more sustainable nature. The motivation for walking on campus was analysed in students from Malaysia [ 24 ]. A study at a Greek university showed that a large majority of trips were made using public transport well in excess of those on foot or travelling in their own vehicles [ 25 ]. The motivation for the use of sustainable means of transport in the European Union was studied by Heras Rosas and Herrera (2019) [26]. Fissi et al. (2021) consider mobility as part of a strategy for the construction of green campuses [ 27 ]. In this vein, they consider that the university can contribute towards sustainability from four fundamental facets: teaching, research, promotion of sustainability among members of the university community (engagement), and campus operations. It is precisely in this last dimension where they consider mobility through the promotion of cheaper and sustainable means of transport [ 13 , 27 ] (Figure 1). The promotion of more sustainable modes of transport has effects on the environment, on the economy, and on the health of users [28]. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020. 17. x 2 of 27 an area of special interest for the achievement of sustainable development in general [1,18–20] and the Sustainable Development Goals in particular [20–22], and for this reason, engineering students are those analysed in this study. Previous work has reflected on the importance of using sustainable means of transport by the university community. In this respect, Mateo-Babiano et al. (2020) analysed the use that Filipino university students made of a system of shared bicycles [18], and Cattaneo et al. (2018) analysed the attitudes of university students towards various sustainable modes of transport [23]. In their work, the researchers revealed that the particularities of university campuses condition the type of student mobility. The use of transport in a Qatar University was carried out as a previous step for a sustainable mobility plan [1]. That work showed that a high number of members of the university community came to the university in their own cars and showed the importance of infrastructure in promoting mobility of a more sustainable nature. The motivation for walking on campus was analysed in students from Malaysia [24]. A study at a Greek university showed that a large majority of trips were made using public transport well in excess of those on foot or travelling in their own vehicles [25]. The motivation for the use of sustainable means of transport in the European Union was studied by Heras Rosas and Herrera (2019) [26]. Fissi et al. (2021) consider mobility as part of a strategy for the construction of green campuses [27]. In this vein, they consider that the university can contribute towards sustainability from four fundamental facets: teaching, research, promotion of sustainability among members of the university community (engagement), and campus operations. It is precisely in this last dimension where they consider mobility through the promotion of cheaper and sustainable means of transport [13,27] (Figure 1). The promotion of more sustainable modes of transport has effects on the environment, on the economy, and on the health of users [28]. Figure 1. Green campus framework. Source: Authors’ own. Based on Fissi et al., (2021) [27]. In previous work, the analysis of the life cycle of universities has been carried out [19,29]. Universities are very complex entities, and there are numerous factors that must be considered when evaluating the environmental impact of their activity [19]. In this respect, transport and mobility are considered in the majority of the studies carried out regarding the analysis of the life cycle of the university [19]. Several articles include recommendations for policymakers. Azzaly and Abdel Sabour [1] propose a framework for the improvement of transport at Qatar University. Based on an analysis of transportation needs, they propose a mobility plan for the university that includes actions in infrastructure, transportation, and culture [1]. The evaluation of the current situation and the knowledge of the opinions of the users of the means of transport are fundamental for the definition of public policies that promote sustainable mobility [23]. In Spain, the sustainability commission, created within the Conference of Rectors of Spanish Universities, is responsible for evaluating environmental policies of Spanish universities and for promoting actions to reduce the environmental impact created by universities [30]. It has several Figure 1. Green campus framework. Source: Authors’ own. Based on Fissi et al., (2021) [27]. In previous work, the analysis of the life cycle of universities has been carried out [ 19 , 29 ]. Universities are very complex entities, and there are numerous factors that must be considered when evaluating the environmental impact of their activity [ 19 ]. In this respect, transport and mobility are considered in the majority of the studies carried out regarding the analysis of the life cycle of the university [19]. Several articles include recommendations for policymakers. Azzaly and Abdel Sabour [ 1 ] propose a framework for the improvement of transport at Qatar University. Based on an analysis of transportation needs, they propose a mobility plan for the university that includes actions in infrastructure, transportation, and culture [ 1 ]. The evaluation of the current situation and the knowledge of the opinions of the users of the means of transport are fundamental for the definition of public policies that promote sustainable mobility [23]. In Spain, the sustainability commission, created within the Conference of Rectors of Spanish Universities, is responsible for evaluating environmental policies of Spanish universities and for Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 9348 3 of 26 promoting actions to reduce the environmental impact created by universities [ 30 ]. It has several working groups: Evaluation of University Sustainability, Environmental Improvements in University Buildings, Sustainable Mobility, and University Urbanism [ 30 ]. Ascertaining the opinions of students becomes crucial when promoting policies to promote sustainability on university campuses [15]. The University of Seville (Spain) is an institution founded in 1505 and hosts 70,900 undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral students in its 32 owned and affiliated centres [31]. The University of Seville has 13 campuses distributed throughout different areas of the city. It is made up of 56 buildings, including faculties, libraries, administration services, sports facilities, and general services. The areas in which the 13 campuses are located are all accessible by urban transport (Figure 2). Several of these campuses are located in the city centre and therefore enjoy better connections with public transport (train, metro, bus, bicycles, etc.). However, they also suffer from many more restrictions on car use due to the reduction in parking opportunities and to policies aimed at reducing the number of cars and at promoting pedestrianisation in downtown areas of the city. In contrast, those campuses located in the areas outside the city centre have a good public transport structure as well as an increase in the possibility of access to public parking. This situation also favours the use of private cars due to the decrease in services and transport combinations available. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020. 17. x 3 of 27 working groups: Evaluation of University Sustainability, Environmental Improvements in University Buildings, Sustainable Mobility, and University Urbanism [30]. Ascertaining the opinions of students becomes crucial when promoting policies to promote sustainability on university campuses [15]. The University of Seville (Spain) is an institution founded in 1505 and hosts 70,900 undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral students in its 32 owned and affiliated centres [31]. The University of Seville has 13 campuses distributed throughout different areas of the city. It is made up of 56 buildings, including faculties, libraries, administration services, sports facilities, and general services. The areas in which the 13 campuses are located are all accessible by urban transport (Figure 2). Several of these campuses are located in the city centre and therefore enjoy better connections with public transport (train, metro, bus, bicycles, etc.). However, they also suffer from many more restrictions on car use due to the reduction in parking opportunities and to policies aimed at reducing the number of cars and at promoting pedestrianisation in downtown areas of the city. In contrast, those campuses located in the areas outside the city centre have a good public transport structure as well as an increase in the possibility of access to public parking. This situation also favours the use of private cars due to the decrease in services and transport combinations available. The case that concerns us involves campuses 1 and 12 that together represent the university areas covering the field of engineering. The centres that will be analysed in this paper are the Higher Technical School of Engineering (HTSE) (Campus 1) and the Higher Polytechnic School (HPS) (Campus 12). Figure 2. Campus distribution of the University of Seville [32,33]. All areas of the city, and therefore all its campuses, are easily accessible through public transport throughout the week, since the city grants extended hours for the use of all of these means of transport. However, regarding the use of cars, from Monday to Saturday, there are paid outdoor parking areas throughout the city that make it difficult to park cars that do not belong to the residential area, especially in downtown areas and neighbouring annexes. The Higher Polytechnic Figure 2. Campus distribution of the University of Seville [32,33]. The case that concerns us involves campuses 1 and 12 that together represent the university areas covering the field of engineering. The centres that will be analysed in this paper are the Higher Technical School of Engineering (HTSE) (Campus 1) and the Higher Polytechnic School (HPS) (Campus 12). All areas of the city, and therefore all its campuses, are easily accessible through public transport throughout the week, since the city grants extended hours for the use of all of these means of transport. However, regarding the use of cars, from Monday to Saturday, there are paid outdoor parking areas throughout the city that make it difficult to park cars that do not belong to the residential area, especially Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 9348 4 of 26 in downtown areas and neighbouring annexes. The Higher Polytechnic School (HPS) campus is located in a neighbourhood attached to the downtown area of the city, and although it has high accessibility for all means of public transport, vehicle parking remains very limited owing to the overcrowding of residential vehicles. For the Higher Technical School of Engineering (HTSE) campus, the opposite is true; it is not located in a central or adjacent area and contains no residential buildings, and hence parking is free and more abundant. This situation causes the most commonly used means of transport for this campus to be the private vehicle. The Higher Polytechnic School will soon be moved to the Scientific and Technological Park “Isla de la Cartuja” (Campus 1) in new facilities. The objectives of this work are: 1. To analyse the preferences of students in terms of mobility to their study centres. 2. To determine the environmental impact of such mobility in terms of kg of CO2per student. The structure of the article is as follows: in the next section, the methodology is described. For this purpose, the questionnaire employed, the sample analysed, and the statistical methods applied are all detailed. In Section 3, the results are presented: firstly, the mobility patterns of the two schools analysed are described and the reasons expressed by the students for their choice of the means of transport and the evaluation of these are then analysed. The alternative means of transport are subsequently analysed, as are the CO 2 emissions emitted by each of the groups. In Section 4, the results are discussed in comparison with other findings in the literature. Finally, the conclusions of the work are presented together with recommendations for policymakers, and the possible influence of COVID-19 is described. 2. Methodology 2.1. Questionnaire A questionnaire was developed for this study. In order to create this questionnaire, a bibliographic search was made of similar studies [ 1 , 18 , 23 – 25 ]. A brainstorming methodology was employed, in which 27 people participated, to determine the constructs that students would use to justify their choice of means of transport. Following the affinity analysis, it was decided that the descriptive terms that should be considered are (a) Dynamic, (b) Availability, (c) Freedom, (d) Comfort, (e) Environmental Quality, (e) Price, (f) Innovative, (g) Non-Polluting and (h) Safety. A total of 3 experts evaluated the questionnaire. They provided certain minor modifications in the implementation of the questionnaire. The questionnaire is structured in 3 sections (Appendix A). The first is related to the sociological data of the students (gender, age, degree) and their habitual residence. The second section asks about their most common means of transport, as well as the reasons for choosing this means of transport, and an assessment of the current means of transport and its future viability. In this section, the students were asked about the number of daily trips and the number of days per week they attend the university. Finally, the last section asks whether students are willing to change their means of transport, to which means of transport they would change, and the emotions/feelings that this new means of transport would provoke in them. 2.2. Sample Due to the exploratory character of our study, a non-deterministic sample was carried out. The students interviewed come from either of the two centres of the University of Seville that offer engineering studies. Specifically, 289 students from the Higher Technical School of Engineering (HTSE) and 288 students from the Higher Polytechnic School (HPS) were randomly selected from among the total number of students in each centre. The average age of the students is 21.25 years for undergraduate students and 23.8 years for Master’s students. Ninety percent of the students are currently taking undergraduate degrees, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 9348 5 of 26 and 10% are taking graduate degrees. Of the students surveyed, 72% are male and 28% are female. These percentages differ slightly from the ratio of men to women in engineering studies across Spain [ 34 ] and similar to other previous studies [ 35 ]. It should be borne in mind that this difference is predominantly due to the degrees of industrial design engineering and chemical engineering, whereby the percentage of female professionals in Seville remains higher than the average in engineering studies across Spain. The questionnaire described above was provided in electronic format using the Google Form tool, similar to other previously published studies [ 7 , 36 , 37 ]. The advantages of the electronic distribution of a questionnaire have been described in previous work, and these include the fact that anonymity is guaranteed and that the transcription of the results is easier than paper-based questionnaires [ 7 , 35 ]. The questionnaire was supplied between January and February 2020, previous to the first lockdown triggered by the COVID-19 disease. In terms of ethical considerations, participants were informed about the purpose of the study, responses were anonymous, and participation was voluntary. 2.3. Statistical Analysis of the Results For the study of statistical results, the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) (IBM) software version 26 for Windows (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) was employed [38]. A descriptive analysis of the results obtained was first carried out in order to verify the difference between two populations. The existence of normality (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and Shapiro–Wilk test) and homoscedasticity (Levene test) was also verified in order to use ANOVA. In the cases where it has been possible, the hypothesis contrast for ANOVA averages has been applied while considering a significance of 5%. Where this was not possible, non-parametric contrasts (Mann–Whitney U test) with a significance of 5% were used. A factorial analysis was carried out in an effort to group the students’ motivation when choosing the means of transport. The method used was that of principal component analysis. The element extraction method is based on the eigenvalues greater than 1. The maximum number of iterations for convergence was 100. The Varimax method was selected to obtain the rotated component matrix. To determine the relevance of the application of this analysis, the Bartlett sphericity test was performed, and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) sample-adequacy measurement was calculated. The evaluation of the constructs obtained through factorial analysis was analysed by determining Cronbach’s alpha coefficient [39]. For the establishment of the user profiles, an ANOVA analysis has been used in order to deduce which survey questions to use in the User Test. The Levene test, Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, and Shapiro–Wilk test were analysed to ascertain which questions were available for their integration into or removal from the User Test in accordance with the parametric tool ANOVA Analysis. For two questions, the Kruskal–Wallis test was applied, since these failed to correspond to a parametric tool, and hence, a non-parametric tool was needed. Once the previous analysis had been carried out, it was time to perform a hierarchical cluster analysis in order to ascertain the number of questions in the cluster. First, a dendrogram was developed, and subsequently, a sufficiently representative number of clusters were chosen based on the number of iterations of SPSS required in order to attain an optimal number of profiles. In this way, the distance of the dendrogram is obtained. Finally, to improve the resolution of the results, the non-hierarchical analysis, K-means cluster, was used. Since the ideal number of clusters was known, it was possible to determine the table of Final Cluster Centres, how many respondents belonged to each cluster, and the scatter plot. 2.4. Determination of the Ecological Footprint In order to determine the ecological footprint, the distance in kilometres between the student’s habitual residence and the educational centre was calculated. For this purpose, the computer tool GoogleMaps[ 32 ]wasused. In ordertodeterminethe amountofCO 2 emittedperweek, both thenumber Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 9348 6 of 26 of trips made per week and the degree of occupation of the vehicle were considered. The emission factors of each of the types of vehicles were obtained from previously published work (internal combustion engine (ICE) car [ 40 ], hybrid car [ 41 ], internal combustion engine (ICE) motorcycle [ 40 ], electric motorcycle [42,43], electric scooter [43,44], bus [40], train [41], tram [41], and metro [41]). The work has considered the level of occupation of the cars. Table 1shows the amounts of CO 2 (in kg) emitted per km for ICE and hybrid cars according to the percentage of occupation. Table 1. CO 2 emissions per kilometre for the internal combustion engine (ICE) car [ 40 ] and the hybrid car [41] as a function of occupancy. Occupancy Level 25% (1 or 2 People) 50% (3 People) 75% (4 People) 100% (5 People) ICE car [kg of CO2/km] 0.2 0.1 0.07 0.05 Hybrid car [kg of CO 2 /km] 0.11 0.07 0.05 - 3. Results The results of the questionnaire are set out below. Firstly, the distribution of the most common means of transport is presented, and subsequently, the reasons for this choice are analysed, as well as the assessment of the means of transport. From the results obtained in the users’ answers, different user profiles are then obtained. Finally, the impact of the CO 2 footprint of the analysed sample is calculated. 3.1. Means of Transport Used From the analysis of the results of Question 6 (Q6), various patterns in the mobility of students from the analysed centres can be found. Figure 3shows the means of transportation frequently used by students at each of the university centres. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020. 17. x 6 of 27 emission factors of each of the types of vehicles were obtained from previously published work (internal combustion engine (ICE) car [40], hybrid car [41], internal combustion engine (ICE) motorcycle [40], electric motorcycle [42,43], electric scooter [43,44], bus [40], train [41], tram [41], and metro [41]). The work has considered the level of occupation of the cars. Table 1 shows the amounts of CO2 (in kg) emitted per km for ICE and hybrid cars according to the percentage of occupation. Table 1. CO2 emissions per kilometre for the internal combustion engine (ICE) car [40] and the hybrid car [41] as a function of occupancy. Occupancy Level 25% (1 or 2 People) 50% (3 People) 75% (4 People) 100% (5 People) ICE car [kg of CO2/km] 0.2 0.1 0.07 0.05 Hybrid car [kg of CO2/km] 0.11 0.07 0.05 - 3. Results The results of the questionnaire are set out below. Firstly, the distribution of the most common means of transport is presented, and subsequently, the reasons for this choice are analysed, as well as the assessment of the means of transport. From the results obtained in the users’ answers, different user profiles are then obtained. Finally, the impact of the CO2 footprint of the analysed sample is calculated. 3.1. Means of Transport Used From the analysis of the results of Question 6 (Q6), various patterns in the mobility of students from the analysed centres can be found. Figure 3 shows the means of transportation frequently used by students at each of the university centres. Figure 3. Means of transportation most frequently used by students of (a) Higher Polytechnic School (HPS) and (b) Higher Technical School of Engineering (HTSE). As can be observed from Figure 3, there is a clear difference between students’ mobility preferences. The HPS students often come to their study centre on foot (25%), by bus (19%), or to a lesser extent by car (18%) and metro (14%). The most frequent means of transportation for HTSE students is by car (43%) followed by bus (31%), bicycle (9%), and on foot (9%). Previously published studies have found differences between mobility patterns in students from different campuses of the same university [23]. Figure 3. Means of transportation most frequently used by students of ( a ) Higher Polytechnic School (HPS) and (b) Higher Technical School of Engineering (HTSE). As can be observed from Figure 3, there is a clear difference between students’ mobility preferences. The HPS students often come to their study centre on foot (25%), by bus (19%), or to a lesser extent by car (18%) and metro (14%). The most frequent means of transportation for HTSE students is by car (43%) followed by bus (31%), bicycle (9%), and on foot (9%). Previously published studies have found differences between mobility patterns in students from different campuses of the same university [ 23 ]. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 9348 7 of 26 3.2. Reasons to Use the Means of Transport and Valuation Table 2shows the average student responses for each of the questions Q7–Q14. These questions focus on the students’ motivation for their choice of transportation. According to the total number of students, the means of transport that are considered to be the fastest (Q7) are the scooter, the motorcycle, and the bicycle. At the other end of the scale are the bus and walking. In terms of the availability of transportation (Q8), the best-rated means of transportation are bicycles and scooters. In terms of freedom (Q9), the most sustainable means of transport, such as walking, bicycles, and scooters, achieve the highest scores, with collective means of transport such as the metro, bus, and train achieving the worst scores. Regarding comfort (Q10), students give the highest score to the car and the scooter. Items 11, 12, and 13 are clearly correlated. Students value walking, cycling, and skateboarding as sustainable and cheap means of transport. In terms of safety, students consider walking the safest form of mobility, with motorcycles, bicycles, and skateboards among the most unsafe. As indicated in the Methodology section, the survey was provided prior to the World Health Organisation’s declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic (11 March 2020) [ 45 ], and hence, the values presented here do not reflect the impact that the COVID-19 has exerted on public transport. Table 2. Average student responses to items Q7–Q14 (motivation for choice of transportation). Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Walking HTSE 3.31 4.65 4.58 3.85 4.85 4.88 4.92 4.08 HPS 3.51 4.55 4.55 3.89 4.83 4.87 4.87 4.10 Total 3.45 4.58 4.56 3.88 4.84 4.88 4.89 4.09 Bus HTSE 2.87 4.22 2.77 2.93 3.68 3.90 2.64 3.84 HPS 2.75 4.31 2.58 3.07 3.67 3.58 2.29 3.71 Total 2.82 4.26 2.70 2.99 3.68 3.78 2.51 3.79 Bicycle HTSE 4.15 4.65 4.50 4.00 4.92 4.85 4.92 3.50 HPS 3.97 4.65 4.59 3.89 5.00 4.89 4.89 3.41 Total 4.05 4.65 4.56 3.94 4.97 4.87 4.90 3.44 Car HTSE 4.29 4.66 4.46 4.73 2.24 2.91 1.42 3.73 HPS 4.08 4.76 4.48 4.62 2.20 2.84 1.50 3.58 Total 4.23 4.69 4.47 4.70 2.23 2.89 1.45 3.69 Metro HTSE 3.29 3.57 2.43 2.71 3.29 2.29 2.29 4.00 HPS 4.03 4.51 3.00 3.36 3.85 2.87 3.33 4.05 Total 3.91 4.37 2.91 3.26 3.76 2.78 3.17 4.04 Motorcycle HTSE 4.25 4.88 4.75 4.13 2.88 4.25 2.00 2.63 HPS 4.48 4.87 4.48 4.04 2.78 3.96 1.65 2.57 Total 4.42 4.87 4.55 4.06 2.81 4.03 1.74 2.58 Skateboard HTSE 4.67 4.33 4.67 4.67 4.33 4.67 4.33 3.67 HPS 4.43 4.86 4.86 4.57 4.29 4.71 4.29 3.14 Total 4.50 4.70 4.80 4.60 4.30 4.70 4.30 3.30 Train HTSE 3.33 3.67 2.33 2.83 3.50 2.83 3.00 3.67 HPS 4.50 4.75 4.00 3.75 4.50 3.00 4.00 4.75 Total 3.80 4.10 3.00 3.20 3.90 2.90 3.40 4.10 In order to ascertain whether there are any differences between students from the separate study centres (HPS and HTSE), a normality analysis was first performed to verify that the ANOVA test can be used. Table 3shows the results of this normality test for all the samples and indicates whether the test is the Kolmogorov–Smirnov or Shapiro–Wilk test. Those samples that have a p-value higher than 0.05 are marked with an *. For normal samples, the ANOVA test was employed to compare averages of independent samples while for non-normal samples, the Mann–Whitney U test was used. In the table, those cases in which significant differences have been found are marked with an *. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 9348 8 of 26 Table 3. Results of normality tests and differences between simples (ANOVA and non-parametric test). Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Walking HTSE Sig. 10.002 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 HPS Sig. 20.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Dif. Sig. 30.378 U0.550 U0.652 U0.935 U0.628 U0.680 U0.578 U0.756 U Bus HTSE Sig. 20.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 HPS Sig. 20.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Dif. Sig. 30.439 U0.529 U0.238 U0.352 U0.914 U0.086 U0.044 **U0.423 U Bicycle HTSE Sig. 10.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 HPS Sig. 10.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Dif. Sig. 30.395 U0.803 U0.555 U0.697 U0.089 U0.398 U0.929 U0.652 U Car HTSE Sig. 20.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 HPS Sig. 20.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Dif. Sig. 30.129 U0.526 U0.928 U0.138 U0.682 U0.658 U0.679 U0.248 U Metro HTSE Sig. 10.482 * 0.609 * 0.020 0.183 * 0.086 * 0.086 * 0.086 * 0.144 * HPS Sig. 20.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Dif. Sig. 30.068 U0.006 **U0.152 U0.088 U0.079 U0.162 U0.009 **U0.792 U Motorcycle HTSE Sig. 10.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.006 0.018 0.030 0.324 * HPS Sig. 10.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.014 Dif. Sig. 30.677 U0.969 U0.318 U0.681 U0.921 U0.332 U0.327 U0.831 U Skateboard HTSE Sig. 10.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 HPS Sig. 10.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.008 0.006 Dif. Sig. 30.513 U0.416 U0.513 U0.789 U1.000 U0.886 U0.896 U0.398 U Train HTSE Sig. 10.000 0.001 0.091 * 0.421 * 0.101 0.804 * 0.960 0.473 HPS Sig. 10.024 0.001 0.683 * 0.001 0.024 0.683 * 0.024 0.001 Dif. Sig. 30.037 U0.021 U0.013 **A0.166 U0.165 U0.844 A0.265 U0.069 U 1 p-value for normality test (Shapiro–Wilk test, in bold normal samples) 2 p-value for normality test (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, * normal samples) 3 p-value ANOVA test and Mann–Whitney U test, in ** significative differences, AANOVA, UMann–Whitney U test. As can be observed, no significant differences could be demonstrated in the tests performed. A factorial analysis was performed with the help of the SPSS software. The results of the KMO test and the Bartlett sphericity test are shown in Table 4. The value of the KMO test is not very high: most authors recommend a value above 0.7 [46,47]. However, the results of this analysis can provide an idea of the relationship between the items in the survey. Table 4. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett test. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measurement of Sampling Adequacy 0.697 Bartlett Sphericity Test χ21768.002 Degrees of freedom 28 Sig. 0.000 Table 5shows the eigenvalues associated to each of the main components together with the percentage of variance explained by the components and the percentage of accumulated variance. Table 5. Eigenvalues and variance explained. Component Eigenvalue % Explained Variance % Explained Accumulated Variance 1 2.548 31.856 31.856 2 2.340 29.256 61.111 3 1.002 12.520 73.631 4 0.693 8.664 82.295 5 0.550 6.872 89.167 6 0.401 5.017 94.184 7 0.300 3.747 97.931 8 0.166 2.069 100.000 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 9348 9 of 26 The previous results show that with the first three components, 73.631% of the variance is explained by the model. Table 6shows the values of the rotated components with the main component method used as the extraction method, and the Varimax rotation method with Kaiser normalisation. The solution was obtained after four iterations. Table 6. Rotated component matrix. Components 1 2 3 Q7 −0.111 0.751 −0.092 Q8 0.084 0.667 0.015 Q9 0.158 0.830 −0.057 Q10 −0.201 0.816 0.188 Q11 0.906 −0.115 0.165 Q12 0.843 0.114 −0.092 Q13 0.903 −0.033 0.122 Q14 0.121 0.015 0.977 The factor analysis indicated that the three factors obtained were mainly related to the following items: Q11–Q13 (C1), Q7–Q10 (C2), and Q14 (C3). The results obtained are very interesting. The first factor is associated with sustainability and economy, the second factor is associated with comfort in use, and the third factor is associated with safety. In order to corroborate that these items can constitute independent constructs, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated for each of these constructs, and the following values were obtained: 0.765 (C1) and 0.862 (C2): both values higher than 0.7. Hence, these can be considered as independent constructs [ 7 , 9 , 39 , 48 ]. These results are of interest because the factors are grouped and therefore allow us to look for relationships with other variables and to establish strategies to influence these variables. Figures 4and 5show the evaluation of each means of transport chosen by the students (Q15) and the viability of this means of transport for the future (Q16). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020. 17. x 9 of 27 The previous results show that with the first three components, 73.631% of the variance is explained by the model. Table 6 shows the values of the rotated components with the main component method used as the extraction method, and the Varimax rotation method with Kaiser normalisation. The solution was obtained after four iterations. Table 6. Rotated component matrix. Components 1 2 3 Q7 −0.111 0.751 −0.092 Q8 0.084 0.667 0.015 Q9 0.158 0.830 −0.057 Q10 −0.201 0.816 0.188 Q11 0.906 −0.115 0.165 Q12 0.843 0.114 −0.092 Q13 0.903 −0.033 0.122 Q14 0.121 0.015 0.977 The factor analysis indicated that the three factors obtained were mainly related to the following items: Q11–Q13 (C1), Q7–Q10 (C2), and Q14 (C3). The results obtained are very interesting. The first factor is associated with sustainability and economy, the second factor is associated with comfort in use, and the third factor is associated with safety. In order to corroborate that these items can constitute independent constructs, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated for each of these constructs, and the following values were obtained: 0.765 (C1) and 0.862 (C2): both values higher than 0.7. Hence, these can be considered as independent constructs [7,9,39,48]. These results are of interest because the factors are grouped and therefore allow us to look for relationships with other variables and to establish strategies to influence these variables. Figures 4 and 5 show the evaluation of each means of transport chosen by the students (Q15) and the viability of this means of transport for the future (Q16). Figure 4. Average of students’ assessment of the most frequently used modes of transportation (Q15). 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Students' assessment (average) Mean of transport HTSE HPS Total Figure 4. Average of students’ assessment of the most frequently used modes of transportation (Q15). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 9348 16 of 26 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020. 17. x 16 of 27 CO2/week/student. The values of one centre are 26% higher than those of the other centre. This may be justified based on the location of the buildings. 4. Discussion The results shown in this work are in line with the Mobility Plan of the city of Seville [50]. According to this document, 8.8% of journeys in Seville are due to study trips, of which most are made on public transport (43.4%), 24.1% of the trips are in a private vehicle, 21.6% are made on foot, 7.7% are made by bicycle, and 3.2% are made by other means. Regarding the districts in which this work is framed, the Seville Mobility Plan [50] establishes that most journeys to and from “La Cartuja” (HTSE) are made by car or motorcycle (54.2%), by bus (18.8%), and by bicycle (11.9%). In the case of journeys made to or from “Los Remedios” (HPS), 35.5% of the trips are made by ICE vehicle, 31.5% are made on foot, and 22% are made by bus. The results obtained in our study probably vary due to the lower purchasing power of students compared to that of other user profiles, such as professionals. In the following figures (Figures 11 and 12), an analysis of both campuses and their associated transportation structures is laid out in order to clarify the situation of both campuses. Figure 11 shows the campus to which HPS belongs. It is in the “Los Remedios” neighbourhood, attached to the city centre, which is a highly residential area. The buildings have an average of four to five floors and, according to the 2019 city census, it houses a population of 25,038 inhabitants. For this reason, this area enjoys many services and an extensive public transport infrastructure, but it also has a limitation in the number of parking spaces for vehicles, since those that exist are largely paid. Within the public transport network, there are 3 metro stations, approximately 15 bus stops with approximately 12 bus lines that connect with various parts of the city, 5 municipal bicycle rental stations within a radius of 1 km of the HPS, numerous rental motorcycle parking areas, 1 paid parking esplanade at a reduced price attached to the metro station that connects to the outskirts of Seville, and 3 paid car parks. Figure 11. Georeferenced analysis of the HPS campus.[32,33]. Figure 12 shows the location of the campus where the HTSE is located. As indicated, this campus is in a neighbourhood far from the central areas of the city, where the universal exhibition was held in Seville in 1992. Since 1993, it has become a business area, far from the residential areas of the city and lacking services. It is connected through public transport (bus, suburban train whose station is 1 km away, and bicycle rental network), although it has no metro station (the closest station is 4.5 km away). There are a dozen bus stops where the two main circular lines of the city connect, two bicycle rental stations, two paid parking lots, extensive free parking throughout the urbanised areas of the neighbourhood, and a train stop connecting to the outskirts that connects with other areas of the city and neighbouring towns. As it is not a residential area, it has a greater area of Figure 11. Georeferenced analysis of the HPS campus [32,33]. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020. 17. x 17 of 27 parking for vehicles, although this unleashes a situation of isolation, since it is too far to arrive on foot and requires the use of transport, thereby increasing the use of private vehicles. Figure 12. Georeferenced analysis of the HTSE campus [32,33]. The city’s urban transport network is committed to reducing pollution and the use of renewable energy. The metro network is supplied by 100% renewable sources. Likewise, since the introduction in the city of its single operational metro line, it has progressed from 20.3 to 13.9 gigawatts/hour of consumption. By analysing the data of the last seven years, the average consumption per user has decreased from 1.44 to 0.80 kilowatt hours (kwh). As for the bus network, it has a fleet of Compressed Natural Gas buses. The use of natural gas in urban transport provides considerable environmental benefits compared to the use of traditional fossil fuels, which highlights the zero emission of solid particles and SO2, as well as the significant reduction of NOx and CO emissions; a reduction is also achieved in CO2 emissions. With this reduction in emissions, the quality of the city’s environment has improved. Since the project began in 2006, the number of buses with this propulsion system has increased from 36 units (10% of the fleet) in 2006 to 275 units today (67% of the fleet). Likewise, in the last 4 years, a network of electric rental motorcycles has been established in the city that, with more than a thousand motorcycles divided into several companies that currently have headquarters in Seville, offers citizens a simple, fast, and sustainable way of moving around the city. From the literature review carried out, the link between the results obtained herein and previous research is sought. In this work, the differences due to location have been appreciated and, in addition, the hypothesis that the type of mobility varies according to the location of the university centre is verified. This is consistent with previous studies published in the literature [23]. In a study conducted at Qatar University [1], 69% of female students came to campus by car, 9% came by taxi, 1% came by carpool, and 21% came by other means of transportation (largely by bus). In the case of male students, 86% of the students had their own car, 8% caught a taxi, 6% travelled in a car with friends, and these male students did not report using public transport. A study carried out at the University of Bergamo [23] found that 77% of students used sustainable means of transport, including active modes of transport (4%), carpooling, and using public transport. The remaining students used cars or motorcycles. In this same study, the authors found differences between the various university campuses [23]. In the districts that were farthest from the city, students preferred to use private means of transport in comparison with the campuses located near the city centre or the historical centre, whose students preferred to use public means of transport [23]. Similar differences between campuses have also been found in our study. In a study with UCLA students (USA), 32.7% of the students went to campus by car or motorcycle only, 30.9% used public transportation, 8.5% travelled by carpool, and 24.8% of the students went to their study centre on foot or by bicycle [28]. In reference to the motivation shown by the students for the choice of various means of transport, a study by the University of Bergamo showed that students gave greater importance to Figure 12. Georeferenced analysis of the HTSE campus [32,33]. Figure 11 shows the campus to which HPS belongs. It is in the “Los Remedios” neighbourhood, attached to the city centre, which is a highly residential area. The buildings have an average of four to five floors and, according to the 2019 city census, it houses a population of 25,038 inhabitants. For this reason, this area enjoys many services and an extensive public transport infrastructure, but it also has a limitation in the number of parking spaces for vehicles, since those that exist are largely paid. Within the public transport network, there are 3 metro stations, approximately 15 bus stops with approximately 12 bus lines that connect with various parts of the city, 5 municipal bicycle rental stations within a radius of 1 km of the HPS, numerous rental motorcycle parking areas, 1 paid parking esplanade at a reduced price attached to the metro station that connects to the outskirts of Seville, and 3 paid car parks. Figure 12 shows the location of the campus where the HTSE is located. As indicated, this campus is in a neighbourhood far from the central areas of the city, where the universal exhibition was held in Seville in 1992. Since 1993, it has become a business area, far from the residential areas of the city and lacking services. It is connected through public transport (bus, suburban train whose station is 1 km away, and bicycle rental network), although it has no metro station (the closest station is 4.5 km away). There are a dozen bus stops where the two main circular lines of the city connect, two bicycle rental stations, two paid parking lots, extensive free parking throughout the urbanised areas of the neighbourhood, and a train stop connecting to the outskirts that connects with other areas of the city and neighbouring towns. As it is not a residential area, it has a greater area of parking for vehicles, although this unleashes a situation of isolation, since it is too far to arrive on foot and requires the use of transport, thereby increasing the use of private vehicles. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 9348 17 of 26 The city’s urban transport network is committed to reducing pollution and the use of renewable energy. The metro network is supplied by 100% renewable sources. Likewise, since the introduction in the city of its single operational metro line, it has progressed from 20.3 to 13.9 gigawatts/hour of consumption. By analysing the data of the last seven years, the average consumption per user has decreased from 1.44 to 0.80 kilowatt hours (kwh). As for the bus network, it has a fleet of Compressed Natural Gas buses. The use of natural gas in urban transport provides considerable environmental benefits compared to the use of traditional fossil fuels, which highlights the zero emission of solid particles and SO 2 , as well as the significant reduction of NO x and CO emissions; a reduction is also achieved in CO 2 emissions. With this reduction in emissions, the quality of the city’s environment has improved. Since the project began in 2006, the number of buses with this propulsion system has increased from 36 units (10% of the fleet) in 2006 to 275 units today (67% of the fleet). Likewise, in the last 4 years, a network of electric rental motorcycles has been established in the city that, with more than a thousand motorcycles divided into several companies that currently have headquarters in Seville, offers citizens a simple, fast, and sustainable way of moving around the city. From the literature review carried out, the link between the results obtained herein and previous research is sought. In this work, the differences due to location have been appreciated and, in addition, the hypothesis that the type of mobility varies according to the location of the university centre is verified. This is consistent with previous studies published in the literature [23]. In a study conducted at Qatar University [ 1 ], 69% of female students came to campus by car, 9% came by taxi, 1% came by carpool, and 21% came by other means of transportation (largely by bus). In the case of male students, 86% of the students had their own car, 8% caught a taxi, 6% travelled in a car with friends, and these male students did not report using public transport. A study carried out at the University of Bergamo [ 23 ] found that 77% of students used sustainable means of transport, including active modes of transport (4%), carpooling, and using public transport. The remaining students used cars or motorcycles. In this same study, the authors found differences between the various university campuses [ 23 ]. In the districts that were farthest from the city, students preferred to use private means of transport in comparison with the campuses located near the city centre or the historical centre, whose students preferred to use public means of transport [ 23 ]. Similar differences between campuses have also been found in our study. In a study with UCLA students (USA), 32.7% of the students went to campus by car or motorcycle only, 30.9% used public transportation, 8.5% travelled by carpool, and 24.8% of the students went to their study centre on foot or by bicycle [28]. In reference to the motivation shown by the students for the choice of various means of transport, a study by the University of Bergamo showed that students gave greater importance to comfort followed by sustainability and safety [ 23 ]. Ramakreshnan et al. (2020) studied the motivation of the university community at a tropical university in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, for walking on campus [ 24 ]. The reasons stated included the proximity of the buildings (90.7%), as exercise (88.7%), for transport (72.8%), and as recreation (55.6%) [24]. Universities have a certain ethical commitment to society and can contribute through their way of promoting the construction of a more sustainable society [ 13 – 15 , 19 ]. Universities train the professionals and citizens of the future: in their classrooms, policymakers are formed [ 27 , 51 , 52 ]. In this respect, it is crucial that universities address sustainability. There are multiple possibilities for the development of the SDGs in the university context [ 13 ]: the implementation of transformative actions can provide a good opportunity to contribute towards the construction of a more sustainable society [ 27 ]. One of the main problems in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals is their multidisciplinary nature. In order to achieve these goals, it is necessary for the various actors to work together [ 11 ]. Universities can contribute towards sustainability in a double direction, on the one hand by reducing the negative impacts they produce, and on the other hand by promoting improvement actions that make it possible to build a more sustainable world [27]. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 9348 18 of 26 Mobility carries a very important weight in the study of university life cycle analysis [ 19 ]. In a study of the ecological footprint of the University Campus of Politecnico di Torino (Italy), it was determined that 52.7% of the carbon footprint was due to mobility [ 53 ]. Other studies have corroborated the importance of mobility in the analysis of the life cycle of universities as in the Polytechnic University of Valencia [54] and the University of Leon (Vegazana Campus) [55]. It has been studied how the users themselves see their means of transport in the future. On the one hand, the vehicles that the respondents themselves consider will be used more in the future (with respect to the means of transport they currently use) are the scooter (both electric and conventional), the metro, and the bicycle. On the other hand, those that will be used the least are the ICE car, the bus, and walking. The electric scooter has undoubtedly been one of the revolutions of the 2019–2020 academic year (first lockdown in Spain), which has changed the current panorama in cities to the point of legislation having to be created for its control [ 56 ]. This type of mobility is still growing in popularity in Seville since it is a flat city, the weather is good throughout the year, and there is already a good cycling network, which is where these users are usually observed. For these reasons, the bicycle will continue to perform better in the future according to the respondents. The university in Seville considers that the metro will be the best transport in the future after the scooter, any many wish that the metro lines would reach the HTSE so that cars and buses could be done without. As for those that will be used the least, the university in Seville is aware that the ICE car is something of the past, and they do not expect this type of vehicle to continue in use in the future. The same happens with travelling on foot, since it is considered not very comfortable and very slow, and there are already options on the market, such as the bicycle and the electric scooter, that are not only more comfortable and faster but are also low-polluting vehicles. Finally, the bus is a somewhat outdated vehicle according to the opinion of the students, because it is a community, public, and slow means of transport, and it is not popular among student users. Today, society is embroiled in a global problem, the coronavirus pandemic, which has direct implications regarding daily transportation. Nowadays, people generally create overprotective measures to prevent themselves from becoming infected with the virus, and hence solo transport and private vehicles have increased in number while normal and public means of transport have decreased [57]. Furthermore, in public vehicles, such as the bus or the metro, the mandatory use of masks and a safe distance should be maintained at all times, which leads to fewer people allowed on buses. However, if before the pandemic the buses were full at peak times to the point that it would be necessary to increase the fleet, it will now be necessary to calculate whether this fleet should be increased, since fewer people fit on the bus, while at the same time, there are fewer people travelling by public transport. This in turn will affect the emission factor of buses during the pandemic, since there will be fewer people inside them, and therefore more pollutant load will be distributed per person. Another type of mobility that is more in demand every year is that of vehicle-sharing systems: public bicycles, rental electric scooters, and rental electric motorbikes. However, it is a difficult period for these types of companies due to the fact that people have become more distrustful of car-sharing systems. The current paradigm is undergoing a changing process; no one knows with certainty what will happen with the type of mobility that we are going to have, but it is believed that the trend towards sustainability will continue to grow. In order to study the type of student mobility, one major requirement involves ascertaining whether university students consider sustainability to be relevant regarding their transportation. When answering whether they could change to a more sustainable means of transport, the majority (44.34%) without any doubt answered yes, another large part (27.30%) had doubts and answered that perhaps they would, and another large part (28.35%) stated that they would not change. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 9348 19 of 26 In this work, we have studied the feelings that these means of transport transmit to the university students surveyed. The electric car conveys sustainability and comfort; the bicycle, on the other hand, conveys freedom and sportsmanship; the metro triggers feelings of speed, sustainability, comfort, and boredom; the electric motorcycle signifies freedom and speed; and the scooter conveys freedom and comfort. In order to analyse the user, an initial study of age, gender, and the most frequent degrees and masters, among others, has been carried out. Various classes of user are distinguished by carrying out a user test, thereby obtaining clusters or groups of users. Seven user profiles have been obtained from a cluster analysis, and profiles have been generated according to the data obtained. Regarding the results of the ecological footprint caused by the university student, two relevant results are extracted. First, the mode or means of transportation used by the engineering student is discussed. More than one in four students decide to travel by private car to make the journey, while more than one in four students choose to catch the bus. These two are the most commonly used means of transport, respectively. On the other hand, combining walking with cycling also accounts for just over a quarter of the total, and it even exceeds the proportion travelling by bus. Second, the results obtained after their analysis are examined. As expected, more kg of CO 2 are emitted per week per person in the HTSE than in the HPS: 10.54 compared to 8.36. In addition, the HTSE has more students than the HPS, and hence, in terms of final emissions, it is normal for them to be higher than 1896.91 tons compared to 702.44. Currently, the two centres together emit 2600 tons of CO 2 , which is a major figure to take into account, since only students and their transport are being counted. In comparison with other Spanish universities, the tons emitted are similar; it can be compared, for example, with the Campus Vegazana of the University of Le ó n, which, in 2006, polluted 1425.26 tons of CO 2 through cars [ 55 ], with around 10,000 students. Approximately, the HTSE and the HPS account for 30% of the total by car, which would be 780 tons of CO 2 . In addition, knowing that the total number of students is 8800, it can be seen that it is a somewhat lower figure than that of the Vegazana Campus, so it can be said that the result is optimal. On the other hand, if the university is observed in its entirety, in 2007, the University of Santiago de Compostela emitted 5749.80 tons of CO 2 [ 10 ] with 30,200 students, and in 2011, the University of Valencia emitted 32,562.10 tons of CO2with more than 60,000 people [58]. As can be observed, the transfer of the Higher Polytechnic School will incur 25.9% more impact on CO 2 when comparing the two locations, since it will increase from 702.44 tons of CO 2 /year to 885.22. This is what will be assumed in the transfer of the location of the polytechnic from its present location in Los Remedios to the new premises in Cartuja. However, as there are fewer students than in the Higher Technical School of Engineers, it remains less polluted than the latter. In our case, most of the CO 2 emissions are due to the use of the ICE car, which is why we should encourage the use of less polluting vehicles and mainly means of transport with zero real emissions (bicycle and walking). Although the electric vehicle does not directly emit CO 2 , the CO 2 needed to produce the electricity it consumes should be taken into consideration. There are some experiences of promoting sustainable transport in universities in the context of the process of transformation towards the so-called green campuses [ 27 , 59 ]. In this respect, the University of Florence provided students with a card for public transport at a reduced price [ 27 ]. This same university joined national and international networks for the promotion of sustainable mobility [ 27 ] such as the European Network for Sustainable Mobility at Universities [ 60 ]. This network is the result of a project co-financed by the European Union that is being developed in the 2016–2021 timeframe and seeks to promote sustainable modes of transport in the context of European universities [60]. In the case of Qatar university, Azzali and Abdel Sabour (2018) provide several proposals for the improvement of mobility: improve bus lines for students, create bus lines for staffliving in the same compound, promote transportation of a more sustainable nature among the university community, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 9348 20 of 26 increase teleworking, and create public transportation infrastructure, such as metros and railroads [ 1 ]. Chulalongkorn University proposed several actions that include the creation of a parking system that reduces the use of the car within the campus, by promoting collective means of transport, the electric vehicle, and also the bicycle and travelling on foot [ 2 ]. Previous work has found barriers to the use of sustainable means of transport such as bicycles, including perceived safety, the need for helmets, low awareness, and physical fitness [18]. The reasons most often given in student responses for making a change in modes of transportation are speed, sustainability, and economics. Therefore, means of transport that include these three characteristics should be encouraged. Given the circumstances brought about by the current COVID-19 pandemic, light vehicles, such as bicycles and scooters, should probably be considered. 5. Conclusions Universities play a crucial role in promoting sustainability and achieving SDGs. Higher education institutions can contribute towards these objectives through all their functions (teaching, research, transfer) and even through their operation, thereby contributing to the construction of a better society. The interurban mobility of engineering students from two centres of the University of Seville has been studied. Students from each of the study centres use various means of transportation. Three constructs could be found to describe the motivation for choosing the means of transport. The first of these includes factors such as speed, ease of access, freedom, and comfort. The second is related to sustainability and the price of the means of transport. The last of these factors is safety. In general, students are satisfied with the most frequently used means of transportation. Users give lower marks to collective means of transport (train, bus, and metro). Students who use transportation of a more polluting character show a desire to switch to another means of transportation. A greater fidelity to the chosen means of transport was found among the students who use low-emission means of transport. The most frequently chosen alternative means of transportation was the electric car followed by the bicycle. Based on the students’ answers, seven student profiles have been found through the application of clustering. These groups of students would allow the design of specific actions according to each of the profiles. Regarding CO 2 emissions, the average values of the two university centres differ. Most of the emissions are due to the use of ICE cars. This shows a direction in which to work towards reducing emissions in urban mobility among these students. The conclusions of this study cover both the emotions that the modes and means of transport produce in engineering students and the calculation of CO 2 emissions that they produce due to their displacement. Specifically, the conclusions are established in four areas: 1. Each mode or means of transport conveys a different emotion. 2. There is a difference in the type of mobility depending on the location of the university centre. 3. The transfer of the HPS to Cartuja will incur an increase in CO2emissions. 4. Despite the differences between the centres and their mobility style, both HPS and HTSE students measure each emotion in a similar way, except regarding sustainability and economy. The university student considers it crucial that the ideal mode or means of transport should be a fast and comfortable vehicle, which grants a feeling of freedom, that is, one that feels free at the time of use and that removes any type of burden such as that caused by heavy traffic or the lack of convenient parking spaces. Furthermore, it must also be a sustainable and economical mode or means of transport. In general terms, no priority is placed on the safety or quietness of the vehicle, nor is autonomy a requirement, as long as the means is sufficient to travel from home to school and vice versa. The best-valued modes and means of transport are light, among which are both the bicycle and the scooter. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 9348 21 of 26 The three ideal vehicles for engineering university students are the bicycle, the scooter, and the motorcycle, since they are economical vehicles, fast in the city, comfortable both when moving around and avoiding traffic jams and when parking quickly; they offer a feeling of freedom, and they are relatively sustainable (the bicycle being more sustainable than the motorcycle). However, for students who feel that they need a safer vehicle, they are likely to choose other means, such as the car or walking. In addition, there are students who live far from the school and travel by public transport or by car, but they take it as the only option, not as the one that best meets their needs. Possible future work is proposed both in the field of sustainability and for Industrial Design and Product Development. In the line of sustainability, it is proposed to continue this line of reasoning and find the ecological footprint of the University of Seville. The electric scooter and the subway are the means of transport that the students consider that they will be more used in the future. This is the reason why a comparative study has been carried out between these two means of transport using Kansei Engineering. On the other hand, more than one-third of those surveyed use the car individually, which is the most polluting means of transport. The possibility of modeling an interuniversity Carsharing APP or web page is proposed to help reduce emissions. Finally, a line that is closer to marketing could involve the creation of a communication strategy to make university youth aware of the importance of using transport of a more sustainable nature. Based on the results obtained, the recommendations for policymakers and a reflection on the impact of COVID-19 on university mobility are set out below. 5.1. Recommendations for Policymakers Considering the results of the work, the following recommendations could be proposed to policymakers. 1. Institutions of higher education should be evaluated using instruments that go beyond their research activity [ 10 ]. The activity of universities is oriented towards the position and impact on the rankings [ 61 ]. In this respect, it is fundamental that parameters of sustainability and compliance with the SDGs begin to appear in these rankings [ 7 , 61 ], and they should be considered for the financing of the universities [ 16 ]. The creation of rankings that evaluate the role of higher education institutions in achieving the SDGs, such as “The Impact Ranking” [ 62 ], is an opportunity for higher education institutions [7]. In the second edition of this ranking, 768 universities from 85 countries were evaluated, and the results were measured in three areas: research, outreach, and stewardship [62]. 2. The role of sustainability offices or green offices needs to be strengthened to promote change in universities [14,63]. Recent work has pointed out the lack of funds, the lack of support from the administration [ 63 ], and the lack of interest from students and staffas possible barriers for these institutions. In this respect, the incorporation of green offices that are led by students will promote the construction of a more sustainable university. In this way, the role of students remains highly significant, and their opinions must be taken into account as a starting point for future policies and investments in the university [18]. 3. In order to promote sustainable means of transport, it is essential to create an ecosystem that makes transport comfortable, fast, and safe. In this respect, initiatives such as bike sharing [ 2 , 59 ] and a cycle path system can contribute towards the promotion of these means of transport among university students. It is also interesting to promote these means of transport through the use of subsidies and the improvement of collective means of transport [27,28]. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 9348 22 of 26 5.2. Universities in the Post-COVID Era The surveys were applied before the first pandemic lockdown. One of the future lines of work will be to study the variation in student opinion due to the presence of a disease, such as COVID-19, which is transforming the way classes are taught [ 64 – 66 ] and altering mobility patterns in our cities [ 67 ]. In post-pandemic conditions, the perception of public transportation as unhealthy can gain ground and remain. It is necessary to restore the capacity of public transport systems to fulfill their social role [ 68 ]. Before the pandemic, transport policy was focused on demand management, “smart” technology interventions, and sustainable mobility. The situation resulting from the pandemic presents an opportunity to reconfigure future transportation policies and practices, with an environmental perspective, both from a global point of view and by individual citizens. This public health crisis has required a new vision of transportation and its role in economic recovery [69]. Many cities have chosen to promote collective transport to reduce pollution [ 2 , 59 ]. However, the existence of an illness that requires an increase in social distancing can make these means of transport more unsafe. In this regard, it is necessary to take extreme measures to make public transport a safe place, one that allows social distancing to be maintained, in order not to harm its users [ 57 ]. The results presented in this work should be contrasted with future research regarding the opinions of users who are aware of the risk of the disease. UniversityeducationintheaftermathoftheCOVID-19pandemicwillneedtobeevenmorefocused on the development of student skills towards active learning [ 64 ]. In the current context, there is a trend towards the digitalisation of universities and teleworking [ 65 , 66 ]. Obviously, these circumstances will exert a positive effect on mobility, and therefore, in turn, its effect on the ecological footprint of the university should be studied. Azzali and Abdel Sabour proposed telecommuting as a tool to improve the mobility of the University of Qatar in 2018 [1]. Although the work was developed prior to the pandemic containment, it provides a baseline for measuring future changes in student mobility behaviour. Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, J.C.-R. and F.Z.-P.; methodology, J.C.-R. and F.Z.-P.; formal analysis, J.C.-R. and F.Z.-P.; writing—original draft preparation, J.C.-R., F.Z.-P., A.L.-S. and A.d.l.H.; writing—review and editing, J.C.-R., F.Z.-P., A.L.-S. and A.d.l.H.; supervision, F.Z.-P.; project administration, A.L.-S.; funding acquisition, A.L.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This work has been supported by the Telefónica Chair “Intelligence in Networks” of the University of Seville (Spain), through project “SIDI”. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Appendix A Table A1. Questionnaire. Question Number Question Text Variable Type Options Q1 Gender Categorical Male Female Prefer not to say Q2 Age Quantitative Q3 Type of academic programme Categorical Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree Q4 Name of the degree Open Q5 Habitual home address Open Q6 Most commonly used means of transport Categorical Walking Bicycle Scooter/skateboard Metro Bus Motorcycle Car Other Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 9348 23 of 26 Table A1. Cont. Question Number Question Text Variable Type Options Q6.1 Type of bicycle (If Q6 =Bicycle) Categorical Public Electric bicycle Conventional Q6.2 Type of scooter/skateboard (If Q6 =scooter/skateboard) Categorical Private electric scooter Private conventional scooter Rental scooter Electric skateboard Conventional skateboard Q6.3 Number of bus (if Q6 =bus) Open Q6.4.1 Type of motorcycle (if Q6 =motorcycle) Categorical Private electric motorcycle Private ICE motorcycle Rental electric motorcycle Rental ICE motorcycle Q6.4.2 Do you share the motorcycle? (if Q6 =motorcycle) Categorical Yes Usually Rarely No Q6.5.1 Type of car (if Q6 =car) Categorical Private electric car Private ICE car Private hybrid car Rental electric car Rental ICE car Rental hybrid car Q6.5.2 Do you share the car? (if Q6 =car) Categorical Yes Maybe No Q6.5.3 Number of passengers Quantitative Indicate Your Degree of Agreement/Disagreement About the Most Frequently Used Means of Transport (Q7–Q16) Q7 This means of transport is fast. Ordinal Likert scale (1–5) 1 Q8 I can easily access my most usual means of transport. Ordinal Likert scale (1–5) 1 Q9 This means of transport makes me feel free. Ordinal Likert scale (1–5) 1 Q10 This means of transport is comfortable. Ordinal Likert scale (1–5) 1 Q11 This means of transport is sustainable. Ordinal Likert scale (1–5) 1 Q12 This means of transport is cheap. Ordinal Likert scale (1–5) 1 Q13 This means of transport does not pollute. Ordinal Likert scale (1–5) 1 Q14 This means of transport is safe. Ordinal Likert scale (1–5) 1 Q15 My degree of satisfaction with this means of transport is . . . Ordinal Likert scale (1–5) 2 Q16 In the future, this means of transport will be used more than at present. Ordinal Likert scale (1–5) 1 Q17 Would you change your means of transport to a more sustainable one? Categorical Yes Maybe No Q18 To which one? Categorical Walking Bicycle Scooter/skateboard Metro Bus Electric motorcycle Electric car Other: Q19.1 What does the chosen means of transport do to you emotionally? (if Q17 =Yes) Open Q19.2 What should the new means of transport be like in order to bring about change? What feeling would it convey? (If Q17 =Maybe) Open 1(1) Strongly disagree, (5) Strongly agree. 2(1) Very low, (5) Very high. References 1. Azzali, S.; Sabour, E.A. A framework for improving sustainable mobility in higher education campuses: The case study of Qatar University. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2018,6, 603–612. [CrossRef] 2. Pinthong, J.; Limsuwan, K.; Stitmannaithum, B. Green transportation system to promote sustainable lifestyle in Chulalongkorn University. E3S Web Conf. 2018,48, 07001. [CrossRef] 3. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Urbanization Prospects. The 2018 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/420); United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 9348 24 of 26 4. General Assembly of United Nations Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. Available online: http://www.un.org/ ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E(accessed on 21 September 2020). 5. Sachs, J.D. From Millennium Development Goals to Sustainable Development Goals. Lancet 2012 ,379, 2206–2211. [CrossRef] 6. Dlouh á , J.; Posp í šilov á , M. Education for Sustainable Development Goals in public debate: The importance of participatory research in reflecting and supporting the consultation process in developing a vision for Czech education. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,172, 4314–4327. [CrossRef] 7. Zamora-Polo, F.; S á nchez-Mart í n, J.; Corrales-Serrano, M.; Espejo-Ant ú nez, L. What Do University Students Know about Sustainable Development Goals? A Realistic Approach to the Reception of this UN Program Amongst the Youth Population. Sustainability 2019,11, 3533. [CrossRef] 8. Zamora-Polo, F.; S á nchez-Mart í n, J. Teaching for a Better World. Sustainability and Sustainable Development Goals in the Construction of a Change-Maker University. Sustainability 2019,11, 4224. 9. Gonz á lez-Dom í nguez, J.; S á nchez-Barroso, G.; Zamora-Polo, F.; Garc í a-Sanz-Calcedo, J. Application of Circular Economy Techniques for Design and Development of Products through Collaborative Project-Based Learning for Industrial Engineer Teaching. Sustainability 2020,12, 4368. [CrossRef] 10. Boni, A.; Lopez-Fogues, A.; Walker, M. Higher education and the post-2015 agenda: A contribution from the human development approach. J. Glob. Ethics 2016,12, 17–28. [CrossRef] 11. Gusm ã o Caiado, R.G.; Leal Filho, W.; Quelhas, O.L.G.; Luiz de Mattos Nascimento, D.; Á vila, L.V. A literature-based review on potentials and constraints in the implementation of the sustainable development goals. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,198, 1276–1288. [CrossRef] 12. Owens, T.L. Higher education in the sustainable development goals framework. Eur. J. Educ. 2017 ,52, 414–420. [CrossRef] 13. Leal Filho, W.; Shiel, C.; Paço, A.; Mifsud, M.; Á vila, L.V.; Brandli, L.L.; Molthan-Hill, P.; Pace, P.; Azeiteiro, U.M.; Vargas, V.R.; et al. Sustainable Development Goals and sustainability teaching at universities: Falling behind or getting ahead of the pack? J. Clean. Prod. 2019,232, 285–294. [CrossRef] 14. Á vila, L.V.; Leal Filho, W.; Brandli, L.; Macgregor, C.J.; Molthan-Hill, P.; Özuyar, P.G.; Moreira, R.M. Barriers to innovation and sustainability at universities around the world. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 ,164, 1268–1278. [CrossRef] 15. Nejati, M.; Nejati, M. Assessment of sustainable university factors from the perspective of university students. J. Clean. Prod. 2013,48, 101–107. [CrossRef] 16. Larr á n Jorge, M.; Herrera Madueño, J.; Calzado Cejas, M.Y.; Andrades Peña, F.J. An approach to the implementation of sustainability practices in Spanish universities. J. Clean. Prod. 2015 ,106, 34–44. [CrossRef] 17. Luque, A.; De Las Heras, A.; Á vila-Guti é rrez, M.J.; Zamora-Polo, F. ADAPTS: An Intelligent Sustainable Conceptual Framework for Engineering Projects. Sensors 2020,20, 1553. [CrossRef] 18. Mateo-Babiano, I.; Tiglao, N.M.C.; Mayuga, K.A.; Mercado, M.A.; Abis, R.C. How can universities in emerging economies support a more thriving cycling culture? Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020 ,86, 102444. [CrossRef] 19. Lo-Iacono-Ferreira, V.G.; Torregrosa-L ó pez, J.I.; Capuz-Rizo, S.F. Use of Life Cycle Assessment methodology in the analysis of Ecological Footprint Assessment results to evaluate the environmental performance of universities. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,133, 43–53. [CrossRef] 20. Pardal, A.; Romeira, T.; Dur ã o, A. Eco Green Campus: Challenges and Opportunities. The Study Case of Polytechnic Institute of Beja. E3S Web Conf. 2020,171, 01010. [CrossRef] 21. P é rez-Foguet, A.; Lazzarini, B.; Gin é , R.; Velo, E.; Boni, A.; Sierra, M.; Zolezzi, G.; Trimingham, R. Promoting sustainable human development in engineering: Assessment of online courses within continuing professional development strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,172, 4286–4302. [CrossRef] 22. Clifford, K.L.; Zaman, M.H. Engineering, global health, and inclusive innovation: Focus on partnership, system strengthening, and local impact for SDGs. Glob. Health Action 2016,9, 30175. [CrossRef] 23. Cattaneo, M.; Malighetti, P.; Morlotti, C.; Paleari, S. Students’ mobility attitudes and sustainable transport mode choice. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2018,19, 942–962. [CrossRef] 24. Ramakreshnan, L.; Fong, C.S.; Sulaiman, N.M.; Aghamohammadi, N. Motivations and built environment factors associated with campus walkability in the tropical settings. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 ,749, 141457. [CrossRef] Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 9348 25 of 26 25. Pitsiava-Latinopoulou, M.; Basbas, S.; Gavanas, N. Implementation of alternative transport networks in university campuses. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2013,14, 310–323. [CrossRef] 26. de las Heras-Rosas, C.J.; Herrera, J. Towards Sustainable Mobility through a Change in Values. Evidence in 12 European Countries. Sustainability 2019,11, 4274. [CrossRef] 27. Fissi, S.; Romolini, A.; Gori, E.; Contri, M. The path toward a sustainable green university: The case of the University of Florence. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,279, 123655. [CrossRef] 28. Zhou, J. Proactive sustainable university transportation: Marginal effects, intrinsic values, and university students’ mode choice. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2016,10, 815–824. [CrossRef] 29. Lo-Iacono-Ferreira, V.G.; Capuz-Rizo, S.F.; Torregrosa-L ó pez, J.I. Key Performance Indicators to optimize the environmental performance of Higher Education Institutions with environmental management system—A case study of Universitat Politècnica de València. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,178, 846–865. [CrossRef] 30. CRUE-Comisi ó n de Sosteniblidad Sustainability Comission Web Page. Available online: http://www.crue. org/SitePages/Sostenibilidad.aspx (accessed on 29 September 2020). 31. University of Seville. University of Sevilly Web Page. Available online: www.us.es (accessed on 25 September 2020). 32. Alphabet Inc Google Maps. Available online: https://www.google.es/maps/(accessed on 4 December 2020). 33. Ayuntamiento de Sevilla Urban Maps. Available online: https://sig.urbanismosevilla.org/Mapas.aspx (accessed on 4 December 2020). 34. Subdirecci ó n General de Actividad Universitaria Investigadora de la Secretar í a General de Universidades. Data and Figures of the Spanish University System. Publication 2019–2010; Universities Ministry: Madrid, Spain, 2020. 35. Zamora-Polo, F.; Mart í nez S á nchez-Cort é s, M.; Reyes-Rodr í guez, A.M.; Garc í a Sanz-Calcedo, J. Developing Project Managers’ Transversal Competences Using Building Information Modeling. Appl. Sci. 2019 ,9, 4006. [CrossRef] 36. Ortega-S á nchez, D.; G ó mez-Trigueros, I. Massive Open Online Courses in the Initial Training of Social Science Teachers: Experiences, Methodological Conceptions, and Technological Use for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2019,11, 578. [CrossRef] 37. Ferrandiz, J.; Fonseca, D.; Banawi, A. Mixed method assessment for BIM implementation in the AEC curriculum. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics); Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016. 38. IBM. SPSS 26.0. Developer’s Guide; IBM: Chicago, IL, USA, 2019. 39. Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951 ,16, 297–334. [CrossRef] 40. L ó pez Á lvarez, N.; Blanco Heras, D. Metodolog í a para el C á lculo de la huella ecol ó gica en universidades. In Proceedings of the Congresso Nacional del Medio ambiente, Cumbre del Desarrollo Sostenible, Madrid, Spain, 1–5 December 2008; pp. 1–24. 41. Generalitat de Catalunya. Gu í a Pr á ctica Para el C á lculo de Emisiones de Gases de Efecto Invernadero; Generalitat de Catalunya: Barcelona, Spain, 2010. 42. Green Moto Does an Electric Motorcycle Consume Little? Available online: https://www.greenmoto.es/blog/ consumo-moto-electrica/(accessed on 8 October 2020). 43. Ministry for Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge. Emission Factors Carbon Footprint Registration, Offset and Adsorption Projects of Carbon Dioxide; Ministry for Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge: Madrid, Spain, 2020. 44. Nergiza How Much Does an Electric Scooter Consume? Available online: https://nergiza.com/cuantoconsume-un-patinete-electrico/(accessed on 8 October 2020). 45. World Health Organization. Timeline of WHO’s Response to COVID-19. Available online: https://www.who. int/news-room/detail/29-06-2020-covidtimeline (accessed on 9 October 2020). 46. Kaiser, H.F. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 1974,39, 31–36. [CrossRef] 47. Melero Garc í a, L.; Hern á ndez Fern á ndez, A.; P é rez Nav í o, E. Sport and Its Relationship with Oncology in Future Primary Education Teachers. Educ. Sci. 2020,10, 167. [CrossRef] 48. Lai, H.-M.; Hsiao, Y.-L.; Hsieh, P.-J. The role of motivation, ability, and opportunity in university teachers’ continuance use intention for flipped teaching. Comput. Educ. 2018,124, 37–50. [CrossRef] 49. Podani, J.; Schmera, D. On dendrogram-based measures of functional diversity. Oikos 2006 ,115, 179–185. [CrossRef]