# Carbon footprint estimation of JOBIM 2025 congress

David Benaben, Jerôme Mariette, Jobim Twenty-Five Organizing Committee

## ► To cite this version:

David Benaben, Jerôme Mariette, Jobim Twenty-Five Organizing Committee. Carbon footprint estimation of JOBIM 2025 congress. INRAE. 2025. hal-05375443

HAL Id: hal-05375443

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05375443v1

Submitted on 20 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
Carbon footprint estimation of JOBIM 2025 congress

David Benaben<fnref n="1" />,³, Jérôme Mariette<fnref n="2" />, and JOBIM 2025 organizing committee³

¹INRAE, Université de Bordeaux, UMR BFP, 33882, Villenave d'Ornon, France

²MIAT INRAE - Unité de Mathématiques et Informatique Appliquées de Toulouse

³https://jobim2025.labri.fr/#orga

November 20, 2025

# 1 Introduction

JOBIM (Journées Ouvertes en Biologie, Informatique et Mathématiques) is the annual event for French-speaking bioinformatics and biostatistics. This conference is mainly national in scope and typically gathers around 500 attendees. The 2025 edition<fnref n="1" /> was held from Tuesday afternoon, July 08 to Friday noon, July 11, 2025, in Talence near Bordeaux (France).

This report aims to estimate the carbon footprint of the congress and provide an overview of the main contributing factors (travel, accommodation, meals, etc.) in order to identify ways to reduce the overall impact of such events.

# 2 Carbon footprint estimation

## 2.1 Travels

During the registration process, attendees are asked to indicate how they will travel to the conference. Emissions are then estimated using the GES 1point5² application [1]. More details about computation are available on the documentation: https://apps.labos1point5.org/documentation. The calculations were made on August 13, 2025.

We obtain 21838 kg CO₂e ± 6749.

<table><caption>Table 1: JOBIM 2025 travel emission by mode of transport</caption><thead><tr><td>Mode</td><td>Amount</td><td>Distance (km)</td><td>Emission (kg CO₂e)</td><td>Emission (%)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>plane</td><td>25</td><td>82133</td><td>17591</td><td>80.55</td></tr><tr><td>car</td><td>47</td><td>9629</td><td>2941</td><td>13.47</td></tr><tr><td>train</td><td>366</td><td>132450</td><td>1596</td><td>5.93</td></tr><tr><td>tram</td><td>44</td><td>3075</td><td>11</td><td>0.05</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: JOBIM 2025 travel emissions</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹https://jobim2025.labri.fr/</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²https://apps.labos1point5.org/ges-1point5</footnote>
We can observe that 80% of the travel emissions are due to the plane, for only 25 trips.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Distribution of travel-related carbon emissions among conference attendees</figcaption></figure>

Figure 2 highlights the disproportionate contribution of the top emitters to the travel-related carbon footprint. The 10% highest emitters are responsible for 92% (20 t CO₂e) of travel emissions, while the remaining 90% account for 8% (1 t CO₂e).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: JOBIM 2025 air travel emissions grouping by flight range
Short-haul flights are defined as those under 1,000 km (e.g., Paris, London), medium-haul flights between 1,000 and 3,500 km (e.g., Algiers, Athens), and long-haul flights above 3,500 km (e.g., New York, Dakar).</figcaption></figure>

We counted 12 short-haul flights from Europe, accounting for 4,317 kg CO₂e (24.5% of total flight emissions). Of these, nine originated from France and accounted for 3,003 kg CO₂e (17% of total flight emissions), while three originated from the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, and Belgium. These flights could potentially have been avoided, as train alternatives are available. Short flights from outside Europe accounted for 1330 kg CO₂e (7.5% of total flight emissions). Medium- and long-haul flights accounted for 11944 kg CO₂e (68% of total flight emissions and 55% of total travel emissions) with only 10 trips.

It is worth noting that, in 2025, 97% (21.2 t CO₂e) of emissions originate from attendees, 2.1% (0.46 t CO₂e) from keynote speakers, and the remainder from the organizing and program committees.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4: JOBIM travel emissions by participant category</figcaption></figure>

We can also compare with previous editions.

All the data from previous editions have been re-ingested into GES 1point5 in order to update and obtain comparable results. The calculations were made on August 13, 2025.

Data are available for JOBIM 2013, JOBIM 2024, and JOBIM 2025. For 2020, the situation related to the COVID-19 pandemic required JOBIM to be held virtually. Based on survey results, the planned emissions from travel, had the conference been held in person, were also calculated [2].

<table><caption>Table 2: JOBIM travel emissions comparison, and JOBIM 2020 emission (2020* if held in person)</caption><thead><tr><th>JOBIM</th><th>Place</th><th>Number of attendees</th><th>Total (kg CO<sub>2</sub>e)</th><th>Per attendee (kg CO<sub>2</sub>e)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2013</td><td>Toulouse</td><td>392</td><td>57060</td><td>145.56</td></tr><tr><td>2020</td><td>Virtual</td><td>680</td><td>110</td><td>0.16</td></tr><tr><td>2020*</td><td>Montpellier</td><td>402</td><td>19229</td><td>47.83</td></tr><tr><td>2024</td><td>Toulouse</td><td>500</td><td>15327</td><td>30.65</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>Bordeaux</td><td>509</td><td>21838</td><td>42.90</td></tr></tbody></table>

A comparison with the fully remote JOBIM 2020 conference [2] shows that the impact is on a different scale and much lower.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: JOBIM travel emissions comparison</figcaption></figure>

Air travel remains one of the main drivers of the travel carbon footprint.

<table><caption>Table 3: JOBIM Number of air travel journeys. 2020* if held in person</caption><thead><tr><th>year</th><th>place</th><th>Number of air travel journeys</th><th>Domestic short-haul (&lt; 750 km)</th><th>Short-haul (&lt; 1000 km)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2013</td><td>Toulouse</td><td>133</td><td>107</td><td>127</td></tr><tr><td>2020*</td><td>Montpellier</td><td>35</td><td>14</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>2024</td><td>Toulouse</td><td>16</td><td>6</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>Bordeaux</td><td>25</td><td>8</td><td>12</td></tr></tbody></table>
Compared to 2013, we can observe a significant reduction, and particulary of the short domestic flights. We can presume a change of mind (awareness of environmental impact, "flight shame"), but also political reasons (travel policy of institutions, French Decree No. 2023-385 of May 22, 2023³ prohibiting connections of less than 2.5 hours) or alternatives available (like a high-speed train from Paris to Bordeaux). For example, in 2013 there were 80 air trips from Paris (to Toulouse), 6 in 2020 (to Montpellier), 4 in 2024 (to Toulouse), and none in 2025 (to Bordeaux).

## 2.2 Hotel accommodation

To evaluate the carbon footprint, we follow the choice made on *Apps 1point5*<fnref n="4" />, developed by *Labos 1point5*<fnref n="5" /> and we use emission factors from *Nos gestes climat*<fnref n="6" /> for the hotel footprint per night. For further information, please consult the online documentation: https://nosgestesclimat.fr/en/documentation/logement/vacances/empreinte-hotel-par-nuit

We use the values as of August 1, 2025.

Hotel footprint per night: 6.93 kg CO₂e

At registration, 373 attendees indicated that they would book a hotel. The congress was held from Tuesday afternoon, July 08 to Friday noon, July 11, 2025, in Talence (France). So we consider 3 nights per person.

$$373 \times 3 \times 6.93 = 7754.67 \text{ kg CO}_2\text{e}$$

So, around **7.8 t CO₂e** have been emitted **to host** the attendees.

We could subtract a part of this impact since the attendees did not use their house (energy consumption, such as electricity use, could be lower) but it is relatively low and is therefore ignored here.

Other impacts should be considered, such as land use, water consumption, biodiversity loss, and ecotoxicity.

## 2.3 Vegetarian meals

The local organizing committee has chosen a fully vegetarian catering option. At registration, around 20% of the attendees requested meat- and fish-free meals (93 vegetarian and 7 vegan).

As for hotel, we use emission factors for food from *Nos gestes climat*. For further information, please consult the online documentation: https://nosgestesclimat.fr/documentation/alimentation/plats.

We use the values as of August 1, 2025.

Vegetarian meal: 0.85 kg CO₂e

There were 1400 meals served (3 lunches, 1 diner).

So a full **vegetarian** option for the **catering** would account for: $1400 \times 0.85 = 1190 \text{ kg CO}_2\text{e}$.

Of course, other impacts should also be considered including land use, water consumption, biodiversity loss, and ecotoxicity, among others.

It should also be noted that, among all dietary patterns, a meat-based diet is associated with the highest overall environmental impacts, and that intensive livestock farming raises concerns related to animal welfare and public health.

The 2025 catering budget was similar to that of 2024 (even about 2% lower), suggesting that the vegetarian option did not increase costs.

<footnote n="3">³https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/decret/2023/5/22/TREA2301710D/jo/texte</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴https://apps.labos1point5.org/documentation/carbon/ges-emissions-factors</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵https://labos1point5.org/</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶https://nosgestesclimat.fr/</footnote>
The organization committee has made a survey after the conference and has collected 242 answers. Most of the attendees (82%) were ok or satisfied with the full vegetarian option.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6: JOBIM 2025 survey results about vegetarian-only catering</figcaption></figure>

If we look closer at the comments (80 comments about the "full vegetarian" option), almost all of the positive ones strongly support the "fully vegetarian" initiative, and about 10% of them suggest minor improvements (e.g., more protein, less exotic dishes, or better quality). Most of the negative comments (around 80% out of 38), some of them expressed in a harsh or unfair way, argued that the vegetarian option should not be imposed, as it was sometimes perceived as exclusive or moralizing. Another portion (about 30%) mentioned nutritional concerns, such as a lack of protein, meals considered too light, or unbalanced menus. Additionally, one comment expressed regret over the absence of traditional regional dishes.

As participants pointed out, the lunches also generated a lot of waste (individual boxed meals). The organizing committee took care to address this issue (water fountains, reusable cups, specific waste bins, etc.); however, some compromises had to be made between the space required to organize a buffet, financial resources, local options, and available time. This illustrates how difficult it can sometimes be to find the right balance.

## 2.4 Remote conference

It was possible for attendees to participate to JOBIM 2025 remotely. We can attempt to estimate the impact of the remote participation (including network usage, the data center where the remote conferencing service is hosted and the terminals used by attendees).

There were 90 remote attendees for 15 hours: 7 hours in plenary session (keynote, introduction, final) and 8 hours in parallel sessions (sessions and mini-symposium).

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7: Videoconferencing carbon impact (Impact CO₂e, 2025-08-01)</figcaption></figure>

Based on this, the total carbon impact of the **remote** conference could be 0.0571×90×15 = **77.085 kg CO₂e**.

In [2], an estimation of the carbon footprint of a full remote conference (JOBIM 2020) was made. We can use this result as an average emission factor for a remote attendee at JOBIM 2025: 0.16 kg CO₂e per attendee. So, with this method, the emissions due to IT could be around: 90×0.16 = 14.4 kg CO₂e. This quick estimation is debatable (since the impact estimated for JOBIM 2020 might not be directly extrapolated to JOBIM 2025) and does not account for the impact of equipment and staff for video capture, nor the indirect effects. However, it is of the same order of magnitude as the previous estimate.

For the overall estimation, we will use the highest value (77 kg CO₂e).

Compared to an in-person conference, and especially to travel-related emissions, the impact is relatively low.
## 2.5 Overall

The overall impact is presented in Tables 4 and 5.

<table><caption>Table 4: JOBIM 2025 carbon footprint</caption><thead><tr><td>Category</td><td>Emission (kg CO<sub>2</sub>e)</td><td>Emission (%)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Travel</td><td>21838</td><td>70.76</td></tr><tr><td>Hotel</td><td>7754</td><td>25.12</td></tr><tr><td>Meals</td><td>1190</td><td>3.85</td></tr><tr><td>Remote attendance</td><td>77</td><td>0.24</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>30859</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 5: JOBIM 2025 carbon footprint per attendee</caption><thead><tr><td>Per attendee</td><td>Emission (kg CO<sub>2</sub>e)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Total per person attending in person (509)</td><td>60.36</td></tr><tr><td>Total per attendee (509 + 90 remotely)</td><td>51.5</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>(a) Carbon footprint by category</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>(b) Carbon footprint with travel mode detail</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Figure 8: JOBIM2025 carbon footprint</caption>

We can clearly see that the main impact (57%) comes from air travel, with only 25 trips made among 509 participants. Hotel accommodation comes next, followed by car travel.

## 2.6 Participant profiles

We highlight five participant profiles:

* an attendee traveling **by plane**. At this edition, the mean one-way flight distance was 1,992 km (~ Oslo-Bordeaux).

* an attendee traveling **by train**. At this edition, the mean one-way train distance was 545 km (~ Paris-Bordeaux).

* an attendee traveling **by car**. At this edition, the mean one-way car distance was 145 km (~ Perigueux-Bordeaux), with an average of 3 people per car.

* a **local** attendee, traveling by tram, bus or bike, without hotel accommodation.

* an attendee joining **remotely**. The carbon footprint of the online conference was shared among the remote attendees (corresponding to 0.85 kg CO₂e per person).
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9: JOBIM2025 carbon footprint profiles</figcaption></figure>

We can represent the distribution of these profiles and their respective contributions to the total emissions.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10: Distribution of profiles and their contribution to carbon emissions</figcaption></figure>

This illustrates the unequal distribution of emissions among attendees. Air travelers (25 people, 4%) are responsible for 59% (18 t CO₂e) of total emissions, while the remaining 96% account for 41% (12 t CO₂e).

# 3 Alternative scenarios

## 3.1 Meat-based vs vegetarian meals

Here, we will compare the environmental impact of meat-based and vegetarian meals.
<table><caption>Table 6: Meal footprint</caption><thead><tr><td>Meal</td><td>Carbon equivalent (kg CO<sub>2</sub>e/meal)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Vegan</td><td>0.54</td></tr><tr><td>Vegetarian</td><td>0.85</td></tr><tr><td>Regular with fatty fish</td><td>1.45</td></tr><tr><td>Regular with white meat</td><td>1.65</td></tr><tr><td>Regular with white fish</td><td>2.22</td></tr><tr><td>Regular with red meat</td><td>5.01</td></tr></tbody></table>

A full vegetarian option for the catering would account for: $1400 \times 0.85 = 1190$ kg CO₂e.

A omnivore mix (1 meal with fatty fish, 1 meal with white meat, 1 meal with white fish, 1 meal with red meat), would account for: $350 \times 1.45 + 350 \times 1.65 + 350 \times 2.22 + 350 \times 5.01 = 3615.5$ kg CO₂e

A red meat based meal only would account for: $1400 \times 5.01 = 7014$ kg CO₂e.

So the **vegetarian option would save between 2.4 t CO₂e (3615.5-1190 = 2425.5 kg CO₂e), and 5.8 t CO₂e (7014-1190 = 5824 kg CO₂e) compared to meat-based meals.**

An omnivorous diet would **increase** the total impact by **8%** and a red meat-based one by **19%**.

## 3.2 Remote participation vs in-person

We can also roughly estimate the carbon footprint avoided by remote participation.

We assume that attendees based in metropolitan France would travel by train (92 attendees), while those coming from abroad would travel by plane (4 attendees). The calculation also includes hotel accommodation (3 nights) and meals (3 lunches and 1 dinner), following the same assumptions as before.

<table><caption>Table 7: JOBIM 2025 carbon footprint avoided by remote participation</caption><thead><tr><td>Category</td><td>Emission (kg CO<sub>2</sub>e)</td><td>Emission (%)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Hotel</td><td>96 x 3 x 6.93 = 1996</td><td>23.73</td></tr><tr><td>Meal</td><td>96 x 4 x 0.85 = 326</td><td>3.88</td></tr><tr><td>Travel</td><td>6089</td><td>72.39</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>8411</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

The **remote option** can be estimated to **save approximately 8.4 t CO₂e**, including 6 t CO₂e from travel alone, most of which (94%) is due to air travel.

## 3.3 Hotel class

The hotel category can also influence the carbon footprint (https://nosgestesclimat.fr/en/documentation/logement/vacances/empreinte-hotel-par-nuit). However, the emission factor used, which corresponds to a mid-range category, is consistent with actual practices. Lower-category hotels are often not accessible to participants (being located outside the city, etc.), while 4- or 5-star hotels cannot be booked through public contracts.

## 3.4 Air travels

As indicated in 2.1, 12 **short-haul flights** from Europe, accounting for **4,317 kg CO₂e could potentially have been avoided**, as train alternatives are available.
Some other flights could possibly be avoided or replaced by remote attendance, but this is more difficult to assess and should be carefully balanced (considering the need for networking, collaborations with the Global South, etc.).

It should also be noted that the travel class (e.g., economy vs. business) may also influence the overall emissions ([3]). However, we do not go into this level of detail due to the lack of data.

## 3.5 Scenarios comparison

Four alternative scenarios were considered to evaluate potential variations in the conference's carbon footprint.

* **Baseline:** actual JOBIM 2025 situation, used as the reference case

* **No-flight:** all air travelers replaced by a remote attendance

* **Low-flight:** all short-haul flights replaced by train travel

* **Omnivorous:** meals assumed to follow an omnivorous mixed diet

* **Remote-to-in-person:** all remote participants assumed to attend on-site

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11: Estimated carbon footprint under different scenarios</figcaption></figure>

Air travel reduction is by far the most impactful measure, while catering also represents a significant contributor to the overall footprint.

# 4 Review of reported conference emissions, mitigation measures and expectations

Some conference emissions reported in the literature are given in Table 8.
<table><caption>Table 8: Estimated carbon emissions of academic conferences
* average over all editions</caption><thead><tr><th>Conference name</th><th>Year</th><th>Location, Scope</th><th>Number of attendees</th><th>Total estimated emissions (t CO<sub>2</sub>e)</th><th>Average per attendee (kg CO<sub>2</sub>e)</th><th>Source</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE)</td><td>2014</td><td>Slovenia, Europe</td><td>646</td><td>322</td><td>500</td><td>[4]</td></tr><tr><td>American Geophysical Union (AGU)</td><td>2019</td><td>USA, global</td><td>28,000</td><td>80,000</td><td>3,000</td><td>[5]</td></tr><tr><td>useR!</td><td>2019</td><td>France, global</td><td>1,200</td><td>864.406</td><td>720</td><td>[6]</td></tr><tr><td>Aquatic Sciences Meeting (ASM)</td><td>2004 – 2023</td><td>various, global</td><td>1,500*</td><td>2,100*</td><td>1,300*</td><td>[7]</td></tr><tr><td>International Biogeography Society (IBS)</td><td>2007 – 2015</td><td>various, global</td><td>352*</td><td>915*</td><td>2,600*</td><td>[8]</td></tr><tr><td>CuttingGardens</td><td>2023</td><td>21 local hubs, global</td><td>727</td><td>21.973</td><td>30</td><td>[9]</td></tr><tr><td>JOBIM</td><td>2025</td><td>Bordeaux, national</td><td>509</td><td>21.838</td><td>42.9</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

These conferences are international or global in scope. The impact of transportation on their carbon footprint is therefore greater, and in these studies, air travel represents by far the largest source of emissions. Except for the decentralized multi-hub model (CuttingGardens, [9]) which has considerably lower CO₂e emissions.

Several studies suggest measures such as:

* switching to multi-hub format ([7, 5, 9])

* increasing virtual attendance ([5, 10])

* holding conferences biennially ([5])

* choosing accessible venues to minimize transport-related emissions ([5, 4, 8])

In [11], the authors show that "participants perceived conferences as useful and important" and that "networking is universally valued, while other expectations, such as acquiring general information, were shaped by personal and contextual factors.

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure 12: Participants' spontaneous associations with conferences. Reproduced from [11].</figcaption></figure>

Some authors also emphasize that "it is our responsibility, as scientists, to start thinking about
*the impact that the organization of conferences* ([6]), and argue that *“researchers should lead by example and undertake actions to reduce the carbon footprint of their profession”* ([4]). Otherwise, this could undermine researchers’ credibility ([12]).

In [6], the author further advises having *"someone dedicated to that issue from the start"*, explaining that, as an organizing committee, you already have too much to handle, and that this person could help identify and evaluate the best solutions.

# 5 Conclusion

Regarding this assessment, we could suggest the following actions:

* **Avoid** the main sources of impact (travel and accommodation): reduce its frequency (e.g., every two years), hold fully online editions, or alternate formats. Alternatively, a decentralized multi-hub model with ecological and social benefits ([9]) could be adopted, particularly for international conferences such as the *European Conference on Computational Biology (ECCB)*<fnref n="7" /> or *Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology (ISMB)*<fnref n="8" />, by coordinating with them.

* **Reduce air travel:** invite speakers located far away to participate via videoconference, and avoid flights when a reasonable train alternative exists. The registration fee could perhaps be adjusted according to the travel mode, or a note could be added to the Code of Conduct (signed by all attendees), in order to encourage participants to choose lower-carbon travel options.

* **Promote vegetarian meals** (or vegan meals), possibly by including this point in the “Charter for the organization of JOBIM”. Vegetarian catering could also be set as the default option, with or without meat-based alternatives.

* **Dedicate sessions and promote initiatives.** Include in the program a dedicated time slot to reflect on these issues (e.g., environmental issues, ethics, epistemology, sociology, philosophy...) and promote sustainable practices in research activities.

* **Systematically assess the footprint** and add other indicators (e.g., water, ecotoxicity). This point could also be incorporated into the "Charter for the organization of JOBIM". To monitor the footprint and allow for data publication, explicit consent from participants should be obtained.

* **Designate someone** specifically in charge of sustainability from the beginning of each edition.

* **Communicate** about this footprint and the choices made.

Finally, we would like to share some remarks (translated) from the satisfaction survey which invite us to think further and question the research topics:

* Invite at least one keynote speaker from sociology/political ecology/philosophy. We can no longer do science the way it has been done in the past, by isolating ourselves in specific sub-domains.

* Choose topics based on ecological and social impact criteria.

* Promote the approach [of eco-responsibility] in the selection and presentation of scientific content (otherwise, unfortunately, it's just greenwashing).

JOBIM and the Société Française de Bioinformatique (SFBI), which steers the organization with a strong culture of experimentation (full remote in 2020, multi-site in 2023), is in a strategic position to address these questions and present alternatives to the community.

As a final remark, we would like to emphasize that, while conferences represent a significant and visible share of the overall footprint, they are not the only contributor. The carbon footprint profile of research laboratories is heterogeneous but appears to be dominated by purchases ([13]). Reducing the impact of research therefore involves not only conferences, but also purchases and research activities themselves.

<footnote n="7">⁷https://eccb.org/</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸https://www.iscb.org/high-quality-meetings#ismb</footnote>
References

[1] J. Mariette, O. Blanchard, O. Berné, O. Aumont, J. Carrey, A. L. Ligozat, E. Lellouch, P.-e. Roche, G. Guennebaud, J. Thanwerdas, P. Bardou, G. Salin, E. Maigne, S. Servan, and T. Ben-Ari, "An open-source tool to assess the carbon footprint of research," Jan. 2021. [Online]. Available: http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2021.01.14.426384

[2] V. Guignon, C. Breton, J. Mariette, F. Sabot, J. Fumey, V. Lefort, and A.-S. Fiston-Lavier, "Ten simple rules for switching from face-to-face to remote conference: An opportunity to estimate the reduction in GHG emissions," *PLOS Computational Biology*, vol. 17, no. 10, p. e1009321, Oct. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009321

[3] J. Ciers, A. Mandic, L. D. Toth, and G. Op 'T Veld, "Carbon Footprint of Academic Air Travel: A Case Study in Switzerland," *Sustainability*, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 80, Dec. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/1/80

[4] S. Desiere, "The Carbon Footprint of Academic Conferences: Evidence from the 14th <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">&gt;EAAE</span> Congress in Slovenia," *EuroChoices*, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 56-61, Aug. 2016. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1746-692X.12106

[5] M. Klöwer, D. Hopkins, M. Allen, and J. Higham, "An analysis of ways to decarbonize conference travel after COVID-19," *Nature*, vol. 583, no. 7816, pp. 356-359, Jul. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02057-2

[6] Nathalie Vialaneix on behalf of the organization committee, "useR! 2019 - carbon footprint." [Online]. Available: https://www.user2019.fr/co2

[7] M. Perga, T. Dittmar, D. Bouffard, and E. Kritzberg, "The elephant in the conference room: reducing the carbon footprint of aquatic science meetings," *Limnology and Oceanography Letters*, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 499-505, Oct. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lo12.10402

[8] J. T. Stroud and K. J. Feeley, "Responsible academia: optimizing conference locations to minimize greenhouse gas emissions," *Ecography*, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 402-404, Apr. 2015. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecog.01366

[9] A. Corneyllie, T. Walters, A.-S. Dubarry, X. He, T. Hinault, V. Ković, T. Medani, A. Pascarella, S. Pinet, M. Ruzzoli, N. Schaworonkow, A. Šoškić, K. Stekić, K. Tsilimparis, J. L. Ulloa, R. Wang, and M. Chaumon, "Doing conferences differently: A decentralised multi-hub approach for ecological and social sustainability," *PLOS Sustainability and Transformation*, vol. 4, no. 6, p. e0000177, Jun. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000177

[10] Y. Tao, D. Steckel, J. J. Klemeš, and F. You, "Trend towards virtual and hybrid conferences may be an effective climate change mitigation strategy," *Nature Communications*, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 7324, Dec. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27251-2

[11] A. Wenger and M. Stauffacher, "Making conference practices more sustainable: Researchers' expectations and differences across individual characteristics and conference formats," *Science and Public Policy*, p. scaf059, Oct. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://academic.oup.com/spp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/scipol/scaf059/8294296

[12] S. Z. Attari, D. H. Krantz, and E. U. Weber, "Statements about climate researchers' carbon footprints affect their credibility and the impact of their advice," *Climatic Change*, vol. 138, no. 1-2, pp. 325-338, Sep. 2016. [Online]. Available: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-016-1713-2

[13] M. De Paepe, L. Jeanneau, J. Mariette, O. Aumont, and A. Estevez-Torres, "Purchases dominate the carbon footprint of research laboratories," *PLOS Sustainability and Transformation*, vol. 3, no. 7, p. e0000116, Jul. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000116
## Acknowledgments and contributions

Thank to the organizing committee of JOBIM 2025, especially Victoria Bourgeais, Elodie Darbo, Clémence Frioux, Romain Giot, Simon Labarthe, Malo Le-Boulch, Fleur Mougin, Nadia Ponts, Sylvain Prigent, Nicolas Tourasse for their support, thorough reviews, numerous corrections, and valuable suggestions.

David Benaben led the JOBIM 2025 analyses and manuscript preparation. Jérôme Mariette performed the analysis for JOBIM 2013, JOBIM 2020, JOBIM 2024, and contributed improvements to the JOBIM 2025 analysis.

## License

This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Data availability

The data and raw survey responses supporting this study are not publicly available due to privacy constraints.