Environment, Development and Sustainability

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00380-x

Water and energy consumption in schools: case studies

in Brazil

Lucas Niehuns Antunes1   · Enedir Ghisi1

Received: 15 October 2018 / Accepted: 15 May 2019

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract
Over the past decade, rising water and energy consumption in educational institutions has
become a topic of increasing attention among the scientific and policy communities. This
work assesses the potential for water and energy savings in 100 public schools in south‑
ern Brazil. There was great variation in the water consumption (0.81–35.43 l/student/day)
and also great variation in the energy consumption (0.31–66.47 kWh/student/month). Two
schools were selected for assessing the implementation of a rainwater harvesting system
and improvements in the artificial lighting system. One of the schools has high water and
energy consumption, while the other has low consumption. In the school with high con‑
sumption, the potential for potable water savings by using rainwater varied from 2996 to
5431 l/day; and the payback period ranged from 20 to 36 months. The potential for energy
savings by improving the artificial lighting system was 62%; and the payback period was
just five months. In the school with low consumption, the potential for potable water sav‑
ings by using rainwater ranged from 542 to 1574 l/day; and the payback period ranged
from 46 to 83  months. As for the improvements in the artificial lighting system, there
was an increase of 13% in the monthly energy consumption due to the current low illumi‑
nance levels in the classrooms. The results show the importance of choosing strategies for
decreasing water and energy consumption in schools. Such strategies are usually economi‑
cally and environmentally feasible, bringing significant reduction to the consumption of
water and energy.

Keywords  School building · Potable water saving · Energy saving · Rainwater · Lighting
system · Sustainability

* Lucas Niehuns Antunes

lucas_niehuns@hotmail.com
Enedir Ghisi
enedir@labeee.ufsc.br
1
Laboratory of Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Department of Civil Engineering, Federal
University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC 88040‑900, Brazil

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 L. N. Antunes, E. Ghisi

1 Introduction

The principles of sustainable development are becoming increasingly relevant to society,

where organisations and individuals have a relevant role to play in the process. Educational
institutions can act as agents in promoting these principles within society. According to
Filho et al. (2015), many educational institutions are becoming more aware of their impact
on the environment and trying to understand the environmental needs and implications of
their operations. Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar (2008) state that universities can be consid‑
ered “small cities” because of their large size, population and the many complex activities
that take place in campuses, which have direct and indirect impacts on the environment.
For this reason, there are several studies that highlight the importance of the sustainabil‑
ity and why educational institutions need to make their environments more sustainable
(Katafygiotou and Serghides 2014; Lozano et al. 2015; Rospi et al. 2017).
Due to population growth and consequent increase in water and energy demand, there is
increasing concern about the scarcity of such resources. Thus, the rational use of water and
energy in buildings is becoming increasingly necessary. One of the types of buildings with
high water and energy consumption is schools, the main focus of this work. Several studies
in the literature show water and energy consumption for educational institutions. However,
the methodology used to measure consumption varies greatly in each study, resulting in
a great variation in the consumption. Ilha et  al. (2008) compared water consumption in
several types of educational institutions in Brazil, obtained by different authors, and the
consumption varied from very low, for example, 0.51 l/person/day (Werneck 2006), to very
high, i.e. 81.1 l/person/day (Oliveira and Gonçalves 1999).
In other countries, there is also a great variation in water consumption. Cheng and Hong
(2004) obtained 60 l/person/day on average in primary schools in Taiwan. Almeida et al.
(2015) analysed the water consumption in 23 schools in Portugal and observed a great vari‑
ation, even in schools with similar characteristics, suggesting that user behaviour plays an
important role in their efficiency. Farina et  al. (2011) emphasize that water consumption
depends on the age of the students. They obtained an average equal to 48 l/student/day in
schools for students up to 6 years of age. In schools for students from 6 to 11 years of age,
they obtained 18 l/student/day. The authors state that such difference in consumption may
be due to the fact that younger children use more water on a daily basis than elementary
school students, as they need more services, such as laundries and kitchens, whereas older
students consume water mainly in restrooms.
Due to such great variation, which depends on the methodology adopted, type of build‑
ing and habits of the users, there are different actions that can contribute to the reduction
in water consumption, such as economic, social and technological actions, the latter being
the one with the greatest impact. Economic actions can be proposed through subsidies for
the acquisition of water-efficient appliances and reduction in tariffs. Social actions occur
through educational campaigns and awareness of users implying the reduction in con‑
sumption through the adequacy of procedures related to water use and individual behav‑
iour change. Technological actions include the replacement of conventional appliances
with water-efficient appliances, the use of rainwater, the reuse of graywater, among others
(Farina et al. 2011).
Another resource that shows high consumption in schools is energy. In the USA, for
example, 13% of the total energy consumed in commercial buildings is used in educa‑
tional institutions (Pérez-Lombard et  al. 2008). Dascalaki and Sermpetzoglou (2011)
found energy consumption in schools varying from 49.5 to 90.8 kWh/m2/year according to

13
Water and energy consumption in schools: case studies in Brazil

climatic zones in Greece, while Katafygiotou and Serghides (2014) found average energy
consumption equal to 62.75 kWh/m2/year in schools in Cyprus. In Taiwan, the energy con‑
sumption per floor-plan area in universities, high schools, middle schools and elementary
schools were 79, 26, 16, and 17 kWh/m2/year, respectively. The average energy consump‑
tion per person was 1855, 734, 310 and 289 kWh/person/year, respectively (Wang 2016).
Tae-Woo et al. (2012), in turn, verified energy consumption ranging from 42 to 112 kWh/
student/month in elementary schools in South Korea. Once again, there is a great variation
of consumption, which can be due to climatic conditions, habits of the users, character‑
istics of the buildings, number of working hours, age of the buildings, among others, as
shown by Khoshbakht et al. (2018) and Raatikainen et al. (2016).
In Brazil, there is also a great variation. Angeloni et al. (2014) obtained consumption
equal to 2661 kWh/month for artificial lighting system in classrooms in a school in south‑
ern Brazil. In schools studied by Pietrobon et al. (1997), the energy consumption ranged
from 95.29 to 116.60 kWh/m2/year, while Góes (2010) obtained consumption from 5.92 to
35.46 kWh/m2/year.
Considering the high water and energy consumption in schools, and also their great var‑
iation, it is becoming increasingly necessary to use strategies to reduce the consumption of
such resources. Fasola et al. (2011) evaluated the use of water-efficient appliances and the
use of rainwater in schools in Brazil and verified a potential for potable water savings equal
to 72.7%. Other significant results on potable water savings by using rainwater in schools
were reported by Marinoski and Ghisi (2008), Ghisi and Ferreira (2007), among others.
With regard to energy savings in schools, Katsaprakakis and Zidianakis (2017) found
reductions of up to 77.65% in energy consumption by improving the energy efficiency in
schools in Greece. Thewes et  al. (2014) concluded that the most energy-efficient school
buildings in Luxembourg consume 50% less primary energy than the average consumption
of all new school buildings. Considering different strategies to reduce energy consumption
in schools, the potential for energy savings ranged from 3.6 to 47.5% in Cyprus (Katafy‑
giotou and Serghides 2014), and 3.4–92.9% in southern Italy (Rospi et al. 2017). Dascalaki
and Sermpetzoglou (2011) assessed different energy conservation scenarios in schools in
Greece and obtained primary energy savings ranging from 1.6 to 69.5% and payback rang‑
ing from 2.4 to 18.1 years. Other significant results were obtained by Berardi et al. (2017),
Mora et al. (2017) and AlFaris et al. (2016).
Through the analysis of other studies, the importance of applying strategies for the
reduction in water and energy consumption in schools is noticed. Although there are sev‑
eral studies that demonstrate the efficiency of sustainable strategies to reduce water and
energy consumption, the methods used are generally different in each study, leading to het‑
erogeneous results. Thus, this study aims to present a methodology for measuring water
and energy consumption in schools, as well as to evaluate the implementation of sustain‑
able strategies (e.g. rainwater harvesting and improvements in the artificial lighting system)
in order to estimate the potential for water and energy savings. The economic feasibility of
such strategies was also assessed.

2 Methodology

The study is based on two main analyses. Firstly, the water and energy consumption of
public schools (middle and high schools from the city of Florianópolis, southern Brazil)
were evaluated. There were no selection criteria. We received water consumption data for

13
 L. N. Antunes, E. Ghisi

62 schools and energy consumption data for 100 schools. Data on water and energy con‑
sumption, number of students, hours of operation, type of education and details about the
buildings were obtained through a request to the General Coordination of Education of
Santa Catarina. Santa Catarina is the State where Florianópolis is located. Although the
schools analysed are located in the same region, the methodology proposed can be used in
any region around the world.
Secondly, two schools were selected as case studies: one with high water and energy
consumption and another with low consumption. In these two schools, strategies to reduce
potable water consumption by using rainwater for non-potable purposes and strategies
to reduce the energy consumption by improving the lighting system were implemented.
Investment feasibility analyses were performed for both strategies. The reason to select two
schools was to identify the economic feasibility according to the consumption of water
and energy of each school. Figure 1 shows the flow chart with a summary of the steps per‑
formed in this work.
The potable water and energy consumption per capita, as well as the energy consump‑
tion per floor-plan area, were estimated using Eqs. 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
(1)
( )
Cwater = Cw × 1000 ∕(S × D)

(2)
( )
Cenergy = Ce × 22 ∕(S × D)

(3)
( )
Carea = Ce × 22 ∕(A × D)
where Cwater is the daily potable water consumption per capita in each school (l/student/
day); Cenergy is the monthly energy consumption per capita in each school (kWh/student/

Fig. 1  Flow chart of the method used in the study

13
Water and energy consumption in schools: case studies in Brazil

month); Carea is the monthly energy consumption per floor-plan area in each school (kWh/
m2/month); Cw is the total potable water consumption over the period analysed ­(m3); Ce is
the total energy consumption over the period analysed (kWh); S is the number of students
in each school; D is the number of school days over the period analysed; 22 is the number
of school days over a month; A is the floor-plan area in each school (­ m2).
Correlations between water and energy consumption were performed, and two schools
were selected to evaluate the implementation of strategies to reduce the consumption of
potable water and energy. Before performing the correlations, the outliers were excluded
from the data set through the Chauvenet’s criterion. The objective of this selection method
was to choose one school with high consumption and another with low consumption of
water and energy.
Sections 2.1 and 2.2 show the methodology used to reduce the potable water and energy
consumption in the two schools selected as case studies.

2.1 Strategy to reduce potable water consumption

2.1.1 Rainwater harvesting system

It was considered that rainwater would be used for non-potable uses such as toilet flushing,
urinal, cleaning external areas and garden watering. Rainwater cannot be considered pota‑
ble water since it contains pollutants such as ammonia, phosphorus, nitrite, among others.
Also, rainwater has become more acidic due to the presence of gases such as C ­ O2 and S
­ O2.
This fact confirms that rainwater is not completely pure, having pollutants resulting mainly
from burning fossil fuels in urban cities (Antunes et al. 2016).
The computer programme Netuno, version 4, was used for assessing the potential for
potable water savings (Ghisi and Cordova 2014). Input data for the computer simulations
are: daily rainfall, catchment area, total water demand, rainwater demand, number of con‑
sumers and runoff coefficient. Simulations for different tank capacities were run.
Rainfall data were obtained from HidroWeb-Hydrological Information Systems,
National Water Agency. Thus, daily rainfall over a period of 12  years ( 1 January 2002
to 31 December 2013) was used in the simulations. The total water demand was obtained
based on the water consumption in the schools.
In order to calculate the potential for potable water savings by using rainwater, some
scenarios were considered, i.e. the minimum, maximum and average water consumption in
the schools and rainwater demands equal to 60%, 70% and 80% of the total water demand.
This percentage was defined based on other studies, such as Ywashima (2005), Marinoski
and Ghisi (2008), Fasola et al. (2011) and others.
The catchment area was taken as the roof area of the schools. The runoff coefficient was
defined according to the material used in the roofs and also considering possible losses of
rainwater due to evaporation.

2.1.2 Economic analysis

The costs of a rainwater harvesting system are basically based on costs of materials and
equipment, energy costs due to the operation of the pump and costs of labour.
Costs of pipes and connections were set at 15% of the total cost of the system, as rec‑
ommended in other studies (Ghisi and Ferreira 2007; Marinoski and Ghisi 2008). Energy
costs due to pumping were calculated according to the tariffs practiced by the local energy

13
 L. N. Antunes, E. Ghisi

utility. The monthly cost of energy consumption due to the use of pumps was estimated
using Eq. 4.
Cpump = Ppump × t × N × Venergy (4)
where Cpump is the monthly energy cost due to the use of pumps (R$); Ppump is the power
of the pump (kW); t is the daily working time of the pump (h); N is the number of days per
month in which there is pumping; Venergy is the energy tariff charged by the energy utility
(R$/kWh).
The monthly financial savings due to the reduction in potable water consumption by
using rainwater were calculated using Eq. 5. The water tariff was obtained from the local
water and sanitation utility.
(5)
[ ( ) ]
Ewater = Cmonth × Psavings ∕100 × Vwater − Cpump
where Ewater is the monthly financial savings due to the reduction in potable water con‑
sumption by using rainwater (R$); Cmonth is the average monthly water consumption ­(m3);
Psavings is the potential for potable water savings by using rainwater (%); Vwater is the water
tariff charged by the water utility (R$/m3); Cpump is the monthly energy cost due to the use
of pumps (R$).

2.2 Strategy to reduce energy consumption

2.2.1 Classroom lighting levels

The evaluation of lighting levels in the classrooms was performed through measurements
using a MLM-1011 lux metre. Measurements were performed on the working surfaces
(0.75 m above the floor level) and also on the blackboard. In each school, one classroom
for each solar orientation was chosen for analysis. This evaluation followed the guidelines
of NBR ISO/CIE 8995:2013—Lighting of work places (ABNT 2013).

2.2.1.1  Natural and artificial lighting (daytime)  In order to determine the minimum num‑
ber of points required for the measurement of lighting levels, the room index was calculated
using Eqs. 6 and 7.

(6)
[ ]
K = (L × W)∕ Hm × (L + W)
where K is the room index (dimensionless); W is the width of the classroom (m); L is the
length of the classroom (m); Hm is the height between the work plane and the plane of the
light fixtures (m).
N = (K + 2)2 (7)
where N is the minimum number of points necessary to verify the lighting levels (dimen‑
sionless); K is the room index (dimensionless).
The classification indicated in Table 1, where EM is the average illuminance required by
NBR ISO/CIE 8995:2013, was considered to assess the lighting system.
The measurements on the blackboards were taken at three points, at a central height of
the board.

2.2.1.2  Artificial lighting (evening time)  For the calculation of the average illuminance
due only to artificial lighting, measurements were taken in the evening, with all lamps

13
Water and energy consumption in schools: case studies in Brazil

Table 1  Classification of the lighting system

Illuminance range Zone Rating
< (70% EM - 50 lux) insufficient poor
(70% EM - 50 lux) to 70% EM lower transition regular
70% EM to 130% EM sufficient good
130% EM to 2,000 lux upper transition regular
> 2,000 lux excessive poor
Source: ABNT (1992)

on. The lighting levels were measured according to the procedure recommended by NBR
5382 (ABNT 1985).

2.2.2 Improvements in the artificial lighting system

A lighting design was performed by using the lumen method. The number of lamps
needed to meet the illuminance required in the classroom was estimated using Eq. 8.

(8)
( ) ( )
N = A × EM ∕ Cut × Fd × 𝜑lumin
where N is the number of lamps needed to meet the illuminance required in the classroom;
A is the floor-plan area (­m2); EM is the illuminance required in the classroom (lux); Cut is
the coefficient of utilization of the light fixture (dimensionless); Fd is the lamp depreciation
factor (dimensionless); φlumin is the luminous flux of the lamp (lumen).
The coefficient of utilization (Cut) depends on the material and shape of the light fix‑
ture, as well as on the room index and the reflectance of the ceiling, wall and working
surface of the rooms. Such reflectances were obtained from NBR ISO/CIE 8995:2013.
The lamp depreciation factor (Fd), in turn, depends on the cleaning conditions. The Fd
used in this study was 0.8 (clean room), while Cut was obtained from Cotrim (2009).

2.2.3 Economic analysis

The monthly financial savings due to the reduction in energy consumption by improving
the lighting system were calculated using Eq. 9.

(9)
[( ) ( )]
Eenergy = ΣP1 × tuse1 − ΣP2 × tuse2 × Venergy
where Eenergy is the monthly financial savings due to the reduction in energy consumption
by improving the lighting system (kWh); ΣP1 is the total power of existing lamps (kW);
ΣP2 is the total power of the new lamps (kW); tuse1 is the current monthly time-of-use
of existing lamps (h); tuse2 is the monthly time-of-use of the new lamps, considering the
reduction in the time-of-use (h); Venergy is the energy tariff charged by the energy utility
(R$/kWh).

13
 L. N. Antunes, E. Ghisi

2.3 Investment feasibility analysis

The payback period, net present value and internal rate of return of the strategies were
calculated using Netuno. The method takes into account estimates of water consump‑
tion, increase in water and energy tariffs, monthly inflation, interest rate, lifespan of the
system, initial costs, operating costs, among other factors.
The increase in potable water and energy tariffs were obtained from the water and
energy utilities, CASAN (2017) and CELESC (2017), respectively. The monthly inflation
was considered equal to the inflation of September 2017, obtained according to the IPCA
(National Broad Consumer Price Index), calculated by the Brazilian Institute of Geography
and Statistics (IBGE 2017). An interest rate of 1% per month was adopted. The lifespan
was considered equal to 20  years for rainwater harvesting and 10  years for the lighting
system.
The payback period, the net present value and the internal rate of return were calculated
for both rainwater harvesting and improvements in the lighting system using Eqs. 10–12,
respectively.
n
∑
Bn − Cn ∕ (1 + i)n (10)
{( ) [ ]}
I0 ≤
1

where I0 is the initial investment (R$); Bn are the monthly savings (R$); Cn are the rel‑
evant monthly costs, excluding initial costs (R$); i is the interest rate; n is the time variable
which indicates the number of periods over the lifespan (months).
n
∑
Ft ∕ (1 + i)t (11)
{ [ ]}
NPV =
t=0

where NPV is the net present value (R$); Ft is the cash flow in the t period (R$); t is the nth
period in time when the money will be invested; n is the number of months; i is the interest
rate.
n
∑
Ft ∕ (1 + IRR)t = 0 (12)
{ [ ]}
t=0

where Ft is the cash flow in the t period (R$); t is the nth period in time when the money
will be invested; n is the number of months; IRR is the internal rate of return.

3 Results

3.1 Potable water consumption

Water consumption data from January 2016 to May 2017 were obtained for 62 schools.
The average water consumption per capita in high schools was 9.66 l/student/day, while
the average in middle schools was 7.94 l/student/day. Table 2 shows the average pota‑
ble water consumption and the standard deviation according to the type of school and

13
Water and energy consumption in schools: case studies in Brazil

Table 2  Average potable water consumption according to the type of school and period of operation
Characteristic Num‑ Average potable Standard devia‑ p value
ber of water consumption tion (l/student/
schools (l/student/day) day)

Type of school Only middle school 25 7.94 5.76 0.001222

Only high school 8 9.66 10.42 0.003672
Middle and high 29 9.30 6.56 0.000121
school
Total 62 8.80 6.93 1.028e−07
Period of operation Full time 33 8.41 7.12 5.889e−06
Morning and after‑ 29 9.23 6.79 0.000349
noon
Total 62 8.80 6.93 1.028e−07

period of operation. It can be noticed that the standard deviation is high due to the
great variation found in the water consumption in the different schools analysed. Farina
et  al. (2011) emphasize that water consumption depends on the age of the students.
They obtained an average equal to 48 l/student/day in schools for students up to 6 years
of age. In schools for students from 6 to 11  years of age, they obtained 18 l/student/
day. The authors state that such difference in consumption may be due to the fact that
younger children need more water for laundry and cooking.
In relation to the period of operation, the average consumption in full-time schools
(morning, afternoon and evening) was 8.41 l/student/day, while schools operating only
in the morning and afternoon averaged 9.23 l/student/day.
The statistical analysis of the data was performed through the Shapiro–Wilk test, in
order to determine whether the samples follow a normal distribution or not. The level
of significance of the test (α) was considered equal to 0.05. Note that all p values found
(ranging from 1.028e−07 to 0.003672) are less than 0.05. Thus, it can be stated with a
significance level of 5% that the samples do not follow a normal distribution.
Since the samples were nonparametric by the Shapiro–Wilk test, the Kruskal–Wal‑
lis test was used to test the null hypothesis that all data sets have equal distribution
functions against the alternative hypothesis that at least two of the data sets have dif‑
ferent distribution functions. In the relation “water consumption versus type of school”,
p value is equal to 0.5883, with Chi-squared equal to 1.0612 and degrees of freedom
equal to 2. In the relation “water consumption versus period of operation”, p value is
equal to 0.3268, with Chi-squared equal to 0.96144 and degrees of freedom equal to
1. Since both p values were greater than 0.05 (higher than the significance level), it is
assumed that there are no significant differences between water consumption of schools
in relation to the type of education or period of operation.
It was observed that the consumption per capita varies from very low (0.81 l/student/
day) to very high (35.42 l/student/day). The average found for the schools was 8.80 l/
student/day. Figure 2 shows, in ascending order, the potable water consumption per cap‑
ita for the 62 schools analysed.
Such high variation can be considered normal as also reported in other studies
(Almeida et al. 2015; Farina et al. 2011; Ilha et al. 2008). For example, Meron and Meir
(2017) analysed four conventional schools and a green sustainable school in Israel and
found that the average consumption in conventional schools was 4401 m3/year (with a

13
 L. N. Antunes, E. Ghisi

Fig. 2  Potable water consumption per capita in public schools located in southern Brazil

standard deviation of 1039 m3/year), while in the green sustainable school the consump‑
tion was 3362 m3/year.

3.2 Energy consumption

The energy consumption data from January 2016 to May 2017 were obtained for 100
schools. The average was 7.15 kWh/student/month in high schools, while an average equal
to 5.30 kWh/student/month was obtained for middle schools. Table  3 shows the average
energy consumption and the standard deviation according to the type of school and the
period of operation. Once again, it can be noticed the high standard deviation due to the
great variation in the energy consumption in the schools. According to Almeida et  al.
(2015), such variation in relation to the type of education occurs mainly due to the user
behaviour and also the age of the students.
Regarding the period of operation, the average consumption was 6.89 kWh/student/
month in full-time schools and 5.13 kWh/student/month in schools operating in the morn‑
ing and afternoon. In schools operating only at night, the average energy consumption
was 9.85 kWh/student/month. This high consumption for night schools can be due to the
greater use of artificial lighting.
The consumption per capita varies from low (such as 0.31 kWh/student/month) to very
high (such as 66.47 kWh/student/month). The average energy consumption per capita con‑
sidering all schools was 6.10 kWh/student/month. Figure 3 shows, in ascending order, the
energy consumption for the 100 schools analysed. Therefore, the numbering of schools in
Figs. 2 and 3 is not the same.
As well as in the water consumption, the great variation in the energy consumption can
be also considered normal, as seen in other studies (Wang 2016; Tae-Woo et al. 2012; Das‑
calaki and Sermpetzoglou 2011). In the conventional schools analysed by Meron and Meir
(2017), the average energy consumption was 180,700 kWh/year (with standard deviation

13
 Table 3  Average energy consumption according to the type of school and period of operation
Characteristic Number of schools Average energy consumption (kWh/ Standard deviation (kWh/stu‑ p value
student/month) dent/month)

Type of school Only middle school 42 5.30 3.62 1.676e−09

Only high school 11 7.15 5.26 1.833e−05
Middle and high school 47 6.57 9.56 2.24e−12
Total 100 6.10 7.21 2.2e−16
Water and energy consumption in schools: case studies in Brazil

Period of operation Full time 47 6.89 9.48 1.954e−12

Morning and afternoon 50 5.13 3.42 3.676e−10
Only evening 3 9.85 9.43 0.4074
Total 100 6.10 7.21 2.2e−16

13
 L. N. Antunes, E. Ghisi

Fig. 3  Energy consumption per capita in public schools located in southern Brazil

equal to 26,629 kWh/year), while in green sustainable schools the average was 139,824
kWh/year (with standard deviation equal to 32,923 kWh/year).
For the Shapiro–Wilk test, it is noted that only one of the data sets (period of opera‑
tion: only evening) has normal distribution (p value equal to 0.4074). The other data sets
do not follow a normal distribution (p values between 2.2e−16 and 1.833e−05). Thus, the
Kruskal–Wallis test was used again for the statistical analysis between the data sets. In
the relation “energy consumption versus type of school”, p value is equal to 0.2293, with
Chi-squared equal to 2.9456 and degrees of freedom equal to 2. In the relation “energy
consumption versus period of operation”, p value is equal to 0.723, with Chi-squared
equal to 0.6486 and degrees of freedom equal to 2. Since both p values were greater than
0.05 (above the significance level), it is assumed that there are no significant differences
between the energy consumption of schools in relation to the type of education or period of
operation.

Fig. 4  Correlation between consumption of water and energy in the schools analysed

13
Water and energy consumption in schools: case studies in Brazil

Figure 4 shows the correlation between the consumption of potable water and energy in
the schools. The coefficient of determination is very low (R2 = 0.0913), showing that the
water and energy consumption in these buildings are little dependent on each other.
In addition to the consumption per capita, the energy consumption per floor-plan area
of 32 schools (we obtained the floor-plan area of only 32 schools) was also calculated. As
well as in the analysis of the consumption per capita, there is a great variation. It ranges
from very low (0.16 kWh/m2/month) to very high (7.20 kWh/m2/month). The average
energy consumption per floor-plan area for the 32 schools was 1.84 kWh/m2/month.
Such great variation in the energy consumption per floor-plan area was also found by
Dascalaki and Sermpetzoglou (2011) in schools in Greece. The energy consumption varied
from 49.5 to 90.8 kWh/m2/year according to climatic zones. As in our study all the schools
analysed are located in the same region (southern Brazil), such variation can be due to the
type of education and user behaviour, as in the study conducted by Wang (2016).

3.3 Selecting two schools as case studies

The two schools were selected based on their consumption per capita, being cho‑
sen a school with high consumption of water and energy, and another school with low
consumption.
The schools chosen will be called herein as Schools A and B. School A has high water
and energy consumption (17.13 l/student/day and 15.09 kWh/student/month) when com‑
pared to the others, while School B has a low water consumption (3.12 l/student/day) and
moderate energy consumption (4.80 kWh/student/month).

3.3.1 Characterization of school A

School A is composed of a ground floor with a built area equal to 5635 m2, serving 451
students in three periods (morning, afternoon and evening), offering middle and high
school to the students. About 40% of the built area is closed due to the poor structure of the
building caused by the lack of maintenance.
Regarding potable water consumption, the consumption per capita between January
2016 and May 2017 was 17.13 l/student/day. As for the energy consumption, the consump‑
tion per capita was 15.09 kWh/student/month, while the energy consumption per floor-plan
area was 1.21 kWh/m2/month.
The school has 11 bathrooms and two kitchens. In total, there are 12 toilets with flush‑
ing valve, 12 conventional lavatory taps, four sink taps, a shower and three drinking foun‑
tains located in the corridors.

3.3.2 Characterization of school B

School B is also a one-storey building, but its built area is equal to 1550 m2. The school has
576 students and runs in three turns (morning, afternoon and evening), offering middle and
high school to the students.
The water consumption per capita from January 2016 to May 2017 was 3.12 l/student/
day. Regarding energy consumption, the consumption per capita was 4.80 kWh/student/
month, while the energy consumption per floor-plan area was 1.78 kWh/m2/month.
There are three toilets with flushing valve, eight dual flush toilets, two toilets for wheel‑
chair users, three urinals, seven lavatory taps with timer, two conventional lavatory taps,

13
 L. N. Antunes, E. Ghisi

a shower, three sink taps, a cleaning tap, a garden tap, four taps for general uses and three
drinking fountains in the corridors.
It is notable that, among the two schools, the one with low consumption has more water-
efficient appliances, such as dual flush toilets and lavatory taps with timer. The efficiency
of water-efficient appliances is proven by several studies (Price et al. 2014; Lee and Tansel
2013; Fasola et al. 2011).
Sections 3.4 and 3.5 show the results for the two schools taken as case studies.

3.4 Rainwater harvesting

In order to determine the potential for potable water savings by using rainwater collected
from the roof in the two schools, daily rainfall was used. The average annual rainfall over
this period was 1766 mm.
The catchment area in School A was considered equal to the total roof area of the unre‑
stricted part of the school, which is equal to 3240  m2. The number of consumers is the
sum of the number of students and staff, which is equal to 532 people (451 students and 81
employees).
Different scenarios were analysed, considering the average, minimum and maximum
consumption. The average consumption during the period analysed was 14.27 l/person/
day, while the minimum and maximum consumption were 10.85 and 28.45 l/person/day,
respectively.
Figure 5 shows the potential for potable water savings by using rainwater according to
rainwater demand, water consumption and tank capacity. The black dots in the graph indi‑
cate the ideal tank capacity.

Fig. 5  Potential for potable water savings at School A

13
Water and energy consumption in schools: case studies in Brazil

Based on the simulations for the nine scenarios, ideal tank capacities ranging from
25,000 to 30,000 l were obtained. A tank with a capacity equal to 30,000 l, divided into
two fibre tanks with a capacity equal to 15,000 l each, was chosen.
The potential for potable water savings due to the use of rainwater, using a lower tank
of 30,000 l, varied from 32.68 to 62.46%. If the system was implemented, there would be
potable water savings ranging from 2996 to 5431 l/day. Marinoski and Ghisi (2008) found
a potential for potable water savings equal to 45.8% in a school located in southern Brazil,
using the same strategy, which represents savings equal to 4190 l/day. Fasola et al. (2011)
found potential for potable water savings equal to 22.91% and 42.48% by using rainwater in
two schools also located in southern Brazil.
In order to determine the potential for potable water savings obtained by using rainwater
at School B, a catchment area equal to 1550 m2 and a number of consumers equal to 628
people (576 students and 52 employees) were considered.
The average water consumption during the period analysed was 2.86 l/person/day, while
the minimum and maximum consumption were 1.45 and 3.84 l/person/day, respectively.
Figure 6 shows the potential for potable water savings obtained for the school. The black
dots in the graph indicate the ideal tank capacity.
A tank capacity equal to 15,000 l was selected, which is the capacity above the high‑
est ideal capacity indicated by Netuno that can be found in the market. The potential for
potable water savings by using rainwater, using a lower tank of 15,000 l, ranged from 53.31
to 78.14%. If the system was implemented, there would be potable water savings ranging
from 542 to 1574 l/day. Despite presenting high potential for potable water savings, the
volume of water that could be saved is low since the water consumption in this school is
low.

Fig. 6  Potential for potable water savings at School B

13
 L. N. Antunes, E. Ghisi

3.4.1 Economic analysis

The pump selected for School A had a power equal to 368 W. A daily operating time of
4 h was estimated. The number of operating days in a month was considered equal to 22.
The tariff charged by CELESC was R$ 0.549/kWh including all taxes. The monthly cost of
energy due to the use of the pump was R$ 17.78.
The monthly savings obtained in the nine scenarios were calculated. The payback
period, net present value and internal rate of return, using a minimum acceptable rate of
return equal to 1% per month, inflation equal to 0.16% per month and lifespan equal to
20 years, were calculated. The water tariff charged by CASAN was R$ 10.33 per ­m3.
The initial investment of the rainwater harvesting system for School A (tanks, pumps,
filter, pipes, connections, water break, float switch, solenoid valve, floating suction, chlo‑
rinator, level float and labour) was R$ 28,032.93, while the monthly savings varied from
R$ 910.81 to R$ 1665.89. The payback period varied from 20 to 36 months, while the net
present value ranged from R$ 65,946.20 to R$ 141,787.56 and the internal rate of return
ranged from 3.43 to 6.05% per month. The implementation of the system obtained good
economic results, since the internal rate of return is higher than the minimum acceptable
rate of return in all scenarios.
Compared to other studies, the payback period due to the implementation of the rain‑
water harvesting system (20–36  months) was really short. Marinoski and Ghisi (2008)
obtained a payback period equal to 58 months. In a study conducted in Australia, Imteaz
et al. (2011) obtained payback periods ranging from 180 to 252 months, depending on tank
size. These results show that the implementation of the rainwater harvesting system in
School A is economically feasible.
The pump selected for School B also had a power equal to 368 W. Considering the oper‑
ating time equal to 2 h per day (due to the lower consumption), it was estimated that the
monthly cost of energy due to the use of the pumps is equal to R$ 8.89.
The initial investment was R$ 18,461.04, and the monthly savings varied from R$
159.14 to R$ 479.08. For some scenarios (considering minimum water consumption), there
was no payback period. For other scenarios (average and maximum consumption), the pay‑
back period varied from 46 to 83 months. The net present value ranged from R$ − 1294.20
to R$ 31,573.72, and the internal rate of return ranged from 0.91 to 2.80% per month. The
results show that, before any implementation, it is necessary to study the consumption and
conditions of the building in order to obtain preliminary results of the efficiency of the
implementation proposed. In this case, since the current water consumption is already low,
it can be stated that there is no need for a rainwater harvesting system.

3.5 Improving the lighting system

One of the main problems observed in School A was related to the lighting system. The
corridor lamps remain lit for 24 h a day, including weekends. Even the lamps in the cor‑
ridors of the restrained part of the school remain lit all the time. There is no motion sensor
controlling the lights in the school. In classrooms and laboratories, the lamps are manually
turned off, being totally dependent on the good behaviour of the users. In addition, there is
no air conditioning in the classrooms, and therefore, it can be considered that the misuse
of artificial lighting causes the school to have one of the highest consumptions of energy
among the public schools analysed.

13
Water and energy consumption in schools: case studies in Brazil

School B, on the other hand, does not show signs of unnecessary expenses related to
artificial lighting.

3.5.1 Lighting levels in classrooms

The sky was cloudy at the time of the measurements at School A. It is important to note
that the results obtained for the illuminance levels are only valid for the conditions existing
during the measurement.
Each classroom in School A has lighting power density equal to 13.17  W/m2. The
school has classrooms oriented to south and north, and therefore, two classrooms (one for
each solar orientation) were chosen for the evaluation of the lighting levels. The minimum
number of points required for the verification of daytime lighting levels was equal to 14.
However, a mesh of 25 points was chosen, divided into approximately equal areas. The
same was applied for School B. According to NBR ISO/CIE 8995:2013—Lighting of work
places, the average illuminance required for classrooms is 300 lux, while the average illu‑
minance required for boards is 500 lux.
Figure  7 shows the lighting levels measured in the south-oriented classroom at
School A and also the variation of the illuminance according to the distance measured
from the window. The colours indicate the classification of the lighting level (poor, reg‑
ular or good, according to Table 1). The grey and orange dots represent the minimum
and maximum illuminances, respectively. During daytime, the lighting levels are much

Fig. 7  Lighting levels in the south-oriented classroom at School A

13
 L. N. Antunes, E. Ghisi

higher at the desks near the window and decrease as they get away from the window.
In addition, there is much greater variation between the minimum and maximum val‑
ues near the window. This variation tends to decrease as the distance from the win‑
dow increases. It is also noted that, when lamps are off (only natural lighting), most of
the classroom remains with insufficient lighting. When lamps are on (natural + artificial
lighting), the classification varied between regular and good. These results show that
the classroom presents lighting behaviour quite similar to that predicted in the study
conducted by Yilmaz and Yener (2014). Only the boards appear with insufficient illumi‑
nance. Thus, it is possible to conclude that the lighting system in the classroom works
on a regular basis, meeting the requirements of the standard.
In the north-oriented classroom, a behaviour very similar to the south-oriented class‑
room was verified, with higher lighting levels closer to the window. The north-oriented
classroom obtained 60% insufficient lighting levels when considering only natural light,
while in the south-oriented classroom this insufficiency was 48%.
The lighting levels at School B were also measured. At the time of the measure‑
ments, the weather was rainy. The school has classrooms with east, south and north ori‑
entations. Thus, three rooms (one from each orientation) were chosen for the evaluation
of the lighting levels.
The east- and the south-oriented classrooms, due to their low lighting power den‑
sity (only 2.48 W/m2), mostly had insufficient lighting levels regardless of whether the
lamps were lit or not. The only places where regular or good illuminance levels were
obtained were at the desks near the window.
The north-facing classroom had lighting power density equal to 9.72  W/m2. When
the lamps are on, classifications of the lighting levels between regular and good in the
daytime period are reached, except for the board, which has insufficient illuminance.
Table 4 summarizes the results found for the lighting levels in the classrooms in both
schools. The lighting system in the classrooms in School A has a good performance,
meeting the standard during both day and evening. As for the lighting system at School
B, the performance is well below than that required by standard, and the lighting is
insufficient over a large part of the classrooms, during both day and evening. Thus,
changes in the lighting system in this school are extremely necessary, since insufficient
lighting levels can cause negative effects on the physiology and task performance of the
students (Huiberts et al. 2016).

Table 4  Summary of the School Classroom Area with insufficient Illuminance in

evaluation of the lighting systems orientation lighting (%) the evening (lux)
Natural Natural + arti‑
lighting ficial lighting

A North 60 0 327
South 48 0 327
B East 64 60 94
South 64 48 76
North 64 0 257

13
Water and energy consumption in schools: case studies in Brazil

3.5.2 Improvements in the artificial lighting system

In classrooms in School A, there are 40-W fluorescent tubular lamps with average lifespan
equal to 7500  h and luminous flux equal to 2600  lm (efficiency equal to 65  lm/W). The
proposal was to replace them with 20-W tubular LED lamps with average lifespan equal
to 25,000 h, luminous flux equal to 1850 lm (luminous efficiency equal to 92.5 lm/W) and
colour temperature equal to 6500 K. Therefore, the simple replacement of one lamp with
another would allow for energy savings of 50% and increase 3.3 times the lamps lifespan.
As the classroom colours are clear (white ceiling, walls and work planes in cream col‑
our), the reflectances of the ceiling, walls and work planes were considered as 0.7, 0.5 and
0.1, respectively. The minimum number of lamps needed to meet the required illuminance
was 18. However, 20 lamps (ten light fixtures with two lamps each) per classroom were
adopted to obtain better symmetry of the light fixtures. The new average illuminance for
the classrooms in School A, for the beginning of the operation of the system, was 435 lux,
meeting the requirement of 300 lux of NBR ISO/CIE 8995:2013.
For the corridors, it was proposed to replace the existing lamps with lamps of the same
luminous flux, but with less power (and therefore greater efficiency). In addition, the instal‑
lation of motion sensors was also proposed.
Table 5 summarizes the energy savings due to the improvements in the lighting system
in School A. The results show a great potential for energy savings (62%), i.e. 4121 kWh
per month, which represents monthly savings equal to R$ 2262.58. Other studies about ret‑
rofit in lighting systems in schools have been conducted. Mahlia et al. (2011), for example,
obtained potential for energy savings up to 40% by retrofitting the existing system with T5
system in the University of Malaya. Fonseca et al. (2018), in turn, achieved energy savings
equal to 20% by replacing the existing lamps with LEDs. These results show the good effi‑
ciency of LED lamps in comparison with fluorescent lamps.
For School B, improvements were also proposed for classrooms and corridors. The lamp
chosen was again the 20-W tubular LED. Once again the reflectances of the ceiling, walls
and work planes were considered equal to 0.7, 0.5 and 0.1, respectively. The minimum
number of lamps required for each classroom was equal to 18. However, again for symme‑
try reasons one considered 20 lamps per classroom (ten light fixtures with two lamps each).
The new average illuminances for the lighting system for the east-, south-, and north-
facing classrooms, respectively, were 438, 444 and 434 lux. In all cases, they comply with
NBR ISO/CIE 8995:2013.
For the corridors, there was the replacement of the 20-W compact fluorescent lamps
with 9-W compact LED lamps with the same luminous flux (810 lumens), in addition to
the use of motion sensors to decrease the use of the lamps.
Table  6 shows the energy savings due to the improvements in the lighting system in
School B. It is important to note that, even though there is an increase in consumption,
the changes proposed for the lighting system are extremely necessary since the current
illuminance levels in most classrooms are far below the level required by NBR ISO/CIE
8995:2013.

3.5.3 Economic analysis

The total costs for the initial investment at School A (lamps, light fixtures, motion sen‑
sors, flexible cables, conduits, electrical boxes, switches, circuit breakers, switchboards and

13


13
Table 5  Potential for energy savings in School A
Place Existing Installed power after Current monthly Monthly usage time Monthly reduction in Monthly Potential for energy savings (%)
installed power the changes (W) usage time (h) after changes (h) consumption (kWh) savings (R$)
(W)

Classrooms 7680 4800 330 330 950 521.77 62

Corridors 3065 1800 720 352 1573 863.69
Restrained area 2219 2219 720 0 1598 877.13
Total 4121 2262.58
L. N. Antunes, E. Ghisi
 Table 6  Potential for energy savings in School B
Place Existing Installed power Current monthly Monthly usage Monthly reduction in Monthly savings (R$) Potential for energy savings (%)
installed power after the changes usage time (h) time after changes consumption (kWh)
(W) (W) (h)

Classrooms 2762 4800 330 330 − 673* − 369.22* − 13*

Water and energy consumption in schools: case studies in Brazil

Corridors 580 261 720 352 326 178.82

Total − 347* − 190.40*

*The negative sign indicates an increase in the consumption of energy

13
 L. N. Antunes, E. Ghisi

labour) were R$ 9818.09. The monthly savings were estimated as R$ 2262.43; therefore,
the payback period was only 5 months. The net present value was equal to R$ 10,504.30,
and the internal rate of return was 4.91% per month. Therefore, it is possible to notice that
the improvements proposed, besides being necessary, are also economically feasible and
result in a short payback period. In the retrofit study conducted by Mahlia et al. (2011) in
the University of Malaya, for example, the payback period ranged from 9 to 28  months.
In the energy conservation scenarios assessed by Dascalaki and Sermpetzoglou (2011) in
schools in Greece, the payback period ranged from 29 to 218 months.
The total costs for the initial investment at School B were R$ 11,498.03. Because there
is an increase in energy consumption and consequently an increase in monthly costs after
the improvements, there is no payback.

3.6 Final remarks

The strategies proposed for School A are extremely necessary and economically feasi‑
ble, mainly due to the high potable water and energy consumption. On the other hand, the
improvements proposed for School B do not bring good financial returns, being economi‑
cally unfeasible for some scenarios. This is due to the fact that the school has low water
and energy consumption. However, the improvements in the lighting system, even with an
increase in consumption, are necessary in order to adjust the lighting levels in the class‑
rooms to the requirements of NBR ISO/CIE 8995:2013.
According to Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar (2008), educational institutions should be
challenged to re-think and re-build their environmental policies and practices in order to
contribute to sustainable development at local, national and international levels. Thus, the
results of this study show that the implementation of strategies to reduce water and energy
consumption can be economically and environmentally feasible and a potential contributor
to sustainable policies and practices in educational institutions.
Bertone et al. (2018), by analysing public buildings in Australia, concluded that financ‑
ing schemes lead to water and energy savings. Therefore, Brazilian government should pro‑
mote water and energy retrofits in schools as this would lead to significant savings.

4 Conclusion

The analysis of water and energy issues is becoming increasingly important for Brazil‑
ian scientific and political communities, mainly due to high public spending on water and
energy consumption in public buildings. Thus, several studies have been developed in
order to propose strategies that help reduce the consumption of such resources. Although
this paper presents case studies, the methodology adopted can be used in any region around
the world. The results of this study serve as a stimulus for the implementation of sus‑
tainable strategies that bring savings to public coffers. Rainwater harvesting system and
improvements in the artificial lighting system were assessed as strategies, but other water-
and energy-saving approaches could also be considered, such as water/energy conserva‑
tion (educating students to use less water and energy) and using water-/energy-efficient
appliances.
Through the results shown, it was possible to notice that some schools have great poten‑
tial for water and energy savings. However, before any retrofit, it is necessary to thoroughly
study the consumption and conditions of buildings in order to obtain preliminary results of

13
Water and energy consumption in schools: case studies in Brazil

the efficiency of the improvements proposed. In this study, it was noticed that the changes
proposed for School A proved to be much more economically feasible than those for
School B.
Based on a preliminary analysis of the school building, it is possible to obtain a sig‑
nificant reduction in the water and energy consumption. Thus, such type of building has a
great potential for contributing to the environmental and economical scope, bringing sig‑
nificant savings to public coffers. By means of sustainable strategies, they can help in the
fight against the shortage of water resources and also significantly reduce the impacts gen‑
erated in the process of generation of energy used in artificial lighting.

Acknowledgements  This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards 

Conflict of interest  The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References
ABNT (1985). Verification of interior lighting. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. NBR 5382:1985.
(in Portuguese).
ABNT (1992). Interior lighting—Specification. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. NBR
5413:1992. (in Portuguese).
ABNT (2013). Lighting of work places Part 1: Indoor. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. NBR
ISO/CIE 8995-1:2013. (in Portuguese).
AlFaris, F., Juaidi, A., & Manzano-Agugliaro, F. (2016). Improvement of efficiency through an energy man‑
agement program as a sustainable practice in schools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 794–805.
Almeida, R. M. S. F., Ramos, N. M. M., Simões, M. L., & Freitas, V. P. (2015). Energy and water consump‑
tion variability in school buildings: review and application of clustering techniques. Journal of Perfor-
mance of Constructed Facilities, 29, 04014165.
Alshuwaikhat, H. M., & Abubakar, I. (2008). An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability:
assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion, 16, 1777–1785.
Angeloni, J. L., Serafim, E. S., Michels, L. B., & Sturm, W. (2014). Eficiência energética nas escolas públi‑
cas na Região do Vale Araranguá. XXXI Seminário de Extensão Universitária da Região Sul. Available
at: https​://repos​itori​o.ufsc.br/handl​e/12345​6789/11691​4. Accessed 15 April 2018. (In Portuguese).
Antunes, L. N., Thives, L. P., & Ghisi, E. (2016). Potential for potable water savings in buildings by using
stormwater harvested from porous pavements. Water, 8, 110.
Berardi, U., Manca, M., Casaldaliga, P., & Pich-Aguilera, F. (2017). From high-energy demands to nZEB:
The retrofit of a school in Catalonia, Spain. Energy Procedia, 140, 141–150.
Bertone, E., Sahin, O., Stewart, R. A., Zou, P. X. W., Alam, M., Hampson, K., et al. (2018). Role of finan‑
cial mechanisms for accelerating the rate of water and energy efficiency retrofits in Australian public
buildings: Hybrid Bayesian network and system dynamics modelling approach. Applied Energy, 210,
409–419.
CASAN (2017). Companhia Catarinense de Águas e Saneamento. Available at: http://www.casan​.com.br.
Accessed 12 September 2017. (in Portuguese).
CELESC (2017). Centrais Elétricas de Santa Catarina. Available at: http://www.celes​c.com.br. Accessed 12
September 2017. (in Portuguese).
Cheng, C. L., & Hong, Y. T. (2004). Evaluating water utilization in primary schools. Building and Environ-
ment, 39, 837–845.
Cotrim, A. A. M. B. (2009). Instalações elétricas (6th ed.). São Paulo: Pearson Prentice Hall. (in
Portuguese).
Dascalaki, E. G., & Sermpetzoglou, V. G. (2011). Energy performance and indoor environmental quality in
Hellenic schools. Energy and Buildings, 43, 718–727.

13
 L. N. Antunes, E. Ghisi

Farina, M., Maglionico, M., Pollastri, M., & Stojkov, I. (2011). Water consumption in public schools. Pro-
cedia Engineering, 21, 929–938.
Fasola, G. B., Ghisi, E., Marinoski, A. K., & Borinelli, J. B. (2011). Potencial de economia de água em duas
escolas em Florianópolis, SC. Ambiente Construído, 11, 65–78. https​://doi.org/10.1590/S1678​-86212​
01100​04000​06. (in Portuguese).
Filho, W. L., Shiel, C., & Paço, A. (2015). Integrative approaches to environmental sustainability at uni‑
versities: an overview of challenges and priorities. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 12,
1–14.
Fonseca, P., Moura, P., Jorge, H., & Almeida, A. (2018). Sustainability in university campus: options for
achieving nearly zero energy goals. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19,
790–816.
Ghisi, E., & Cordova, M. M. (2014). Netuno 4. Programa computacional. Department of Civil Engineer‑
ing, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil. Available at: http://www.labee​e.ufsc.
br. Accessed 20 April 2018. (in Portuguese).
Ghisi, E., & Ferreira, D. F. (2007). Potential for potable water savings by using rainwater and greywater in a
multi-storey residential building in southern Brazil. Building and Environment, 42, 2512–2522.
Góes, C. A. O. (2010). Escolas municipais cariocas: potencial de sustentabilidade. XIII Encontro Nacional
de Tecnologia do Ambiente Construído. Available at: http://www.infoh​ab.org.br/entac​2014/2010/arqui​
vos/518.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2018. (in Portuguese).
Huiberts, L. M., Smolders, K. C. H. J., & de Kort, Y. A. W. (2016). Non-image forming effects of illumi‑
nance level: Exploring parallel effects on physiological arousal and task performance. Physiology &
Behavior, 164, 129–139.
IBGE (2017). Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Available at: http://www.ibge.com.br/.
Accessed September 2017. (in Portuguese).
Ilha, M. S. O., Pedroso, P. L., & Ywashima, L. A. (2008). Indicadores de consumo de água em escolas.
XII Encontro Nacional de Tecnologia do Ambiente Contruído. Available at: http://www.infoh​ab.org.
br/entac​2014/2008/artig​os/A1875​.pdf. Accessed 22 April 2018. (in Portuguese).
Imteaz, M. A., Shanableh, A., Rahman, A., & Ahsan, A. (2011). Optimisation of rainwater tank design
from large roofs: A case study in Melbourne, Australia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55,
1022–1029.
Katafygiotou, M. C., & Serghides, D. K. (2014). Analysis of structural elements and energy consumption of
school building stock in Cyprus: Energy simulations and upgrade scenarios of a typical school. Energy
and Buildings, 72, 8–16.
Katsaprakakis, D. A., & Zidianakis, G. (2017). Upgrading energy efficiency for school buildings in Greece.
Procedia Environmental Sciences, 38, 248–255.
Khoshbakht, M., Gou, Z., & Dupre, K. (2018). Energy use characteristics and benchmarking for higher edu‑
cation buildings. Energy and Buildings, 164, 61–76.
Lee, M., & Tansel, B. (2013). Water conservation quantities vs customer opinion and satisfaction with water
efficient appliances in Miami, Florida. Journal of Environmental Management, 128, 683–689.
Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Alonso-Almeida, M., Huisingh, D., Lozano, F. J., Waas, T., et  al. (2015). A
review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: Results
from a worldwide survey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 1–18.
Mahlia, T. M. I., Razak, H. A., & Nursahida, M. A. (2011). Life cycle cost analysis and payback period
of lighting retrofit ate the University of Malaya. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15,
1125–1132.
Marinoski, A. K., & Ghisi, E. (2008). Aproveitamento de água pluvial para usos não potáveis em instituição
de ensino: estudo de caso em Florianópolis–SC. Ambiente Construído, 8, 67–84. (in Portuguese).
Meron, N., & Meir, I. A. (2017). Building green schools in Israel. Costs, economic benefits and teacher sat‑
isfaction. Energy and Buildings, 154, 12–18.
Mora, T. D., Righi, A., Peron, F., & Romagnoni, P. (2017). Cost-Optimal measures for renovation of exist‑
ing school buildings towards nZEB. Energy Procedia, 140, 288–302.
Oliveira, L. H., & Gonçalves, O. M. (1999). Metodologia para a implantação de programa de uso racional da
água em edifícios. Available at: http://www.sef.usp.br/wp-conte​nt/uploa​ds/sites​/52/2015/08/PUERH​
E_%C3%81gua​-BT_Olive​ira.pdf. Accessed 25 April 2018. (in Portuguese).
Pérez-Lombard, L., Ortiz, J., & Pout, C. (2008). A review on buildings energy consumption information.
Energy and Buildings, 40, 394–398.
Pietrobon, C. E., Lamberts, R., & Pereira, F. O. R. (1997). Simulação computacional do consumo elétrico
final em edifícios escolares climatizados e suas variações com elementos arquitetônicos e paisagís‑
ticos de proteção solar. Encontro Nacional de Conforto no Ambiente Construído, 4, 364–370. (in
Portuguese).

13
Water and energy consumption in schools: case studies in Brazil

Price, J. I., Chermak, J. M., & Felardo, J. (2014). Low-flow appliances and household water demand: An
evaluation of demand-side management policy in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Journal of Environmen-
tal Management, 133, 37–44.
Raatikainen, M., Skön, J. P., Leiviskä, K., & Kolehmainen, M. (2016). Intelligent analysis of energy con‑
sumption in school buildings. Applied Energy, 165, 416–429.
Rospi, G., Cardinale, N., Intini, F., & Negro, E. (2017). Analysis of the energy performance strategies of
school buildings site in the Mediterranean climate: A case study the schools of Matera city. Energy
and Buildings, 152, 52–60.
Tae-Woo, K., Kang-Guk, L., & Won-Hwa, H. (2012). Energy consumption characteristics of the elementary
schools in South Korea. Energy and Buildings, 54, 480–489.
Thewes, A., Maas, S., Scholzen, F., Waldmann, D., & Zürbes, A. (2014). Field study on the energy con‑
sumption of school buildings in Luxembourg. Energy and Buildings, 68, 460–470.
Wang, J. C. (2016). A study on the energy performance of school buildings in Taiwan. Energy and Build-
ings, 133, 810–822.
Werneck, G. A. M. (2006). Sistemas de utilização da água de chuva nas edificações: o estudo de caso da
aplicação em escola de Barra do Piraí, RJ. Masters dissertation, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro,
Rio de Janeiro. (in Portuguese).
Yilmaz, F. S., & Yener, A. K. (2014). Lighting energy performance determination for Turkey. Lighting
Research & Technology, 47, 740–759.
Ywashima, L. A. (2005). Avaliação do uso de água em edifícios escolares públicos e análise de viabilidade
econômica da instalação de tecnologias economizadoras nos pontos de consumo. Masters dissertation,
University of Campinas, Campinas. (in Portuguese).

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13