Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101798

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Benefits of retrofitting school buildings in accordance to LEED v4

Basel Elkhapery a, *, Peiman Kianmehr b, Ryan Doczy b
a
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA
b
Department of Civil Engineering, American University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Pursuing green building certification for major renovation projects, including schools, has become common due
LEED certification to its associated resource efficiency, reduced operation cost, and enhanced indoor environmental conditions. The
Cost optimization perceived renovation costs may discourage professionals from pursuing the Leadership in Energy and Environ­
Building retrofitting
mental Design (LEED) rating systems. To attain cost-effective LEED certifications, the authors developed an
Water and energy conservation
Sustainable construction
optimization model capable of identifying practical credits then ranking them by their associated costs. A case
Indoor environmental quality study was performed using a random sample of nine constructed schools in Dubai. The model output revealed
that schools could be renovated to LEED Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum with average cost increases of
0.15%, 0.46%, 1.42%, and 4.97%, respectively. Because of the insignificant cost differences between upgrading
to LEED Certified, LEED Silver, and LEED Gold, the authors advise upgrading most school buildings to the Gold
certificate level.
Furthermore, average energy and water consumption savings at the LEED Platinum tier are estimated to be
30% and 27%, respectively. Some sample schools were built to meet the city’s mandatory green building reg­
ulations, thus allowing the model to identify the effects of local regulation. Finally, the proposed investments in
water and energy conservation could be retrieved within a maximum of seven years.

1. Introduction
The term sustainable (or green) construction can lead decision-
makers to think of resource-efficient structures that require additional
capital to construct. While they may be seen as superior to typical
construction in the long run, clients may shy away from proposals that
require additional funding, particularly when the alternative design may
have variable costs and difficult to measure benefits (e.g., healthcare
and productivity improvements). For those decision-makers involved in
the construction of kindergarten to 12th grade (K-12) schools, they must
consider these benefits not only as direct cost savings but also as im­
provements in the students’ ability to learn and solve problems. The
retrofitting and greening of existing schools is influential on society as
such institutions have been able to inspire and guide their students, as
the upcoming leaders and members of the public, to be committed to
sustainability principles [1]. Furthermore, several studies substantiated
the ability of green schools to positively impact students’ physical, so­
cial, mental, and spiritual health [2]. Green schools nurture students by
providing learning environments with superior acoustics, lower con­
centrations of harmful airborne contaminants that would otherwise
negatively affect their productivity and wellbeing, and also educate
them to be more aware of environmental sustainability.
Despite these improvements to the learning environment, decision-
makers may still have reservations over the total cost of “greening”
the building (e.g., pursuing Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) certification) and will look at how they can obtain this
goal while minimizing costs to taxpayers. Consideration must also be
given to the environment in which the school is being constructed and
how that will play a role in how the project pursues sustainability. This
will especially be apparent in countries and regions that employ pre-
existing green building regulations and/or green building rating sys­
tems. The decision-maker must understand how the various systems or
regulations compare in terms of their sustainability goals and associated
costs. This information notifies the decision-maker of which tier of
certification better meets their financial needs (both in terms of total
costs and benefit/cost ratios) and the project’s sustainability goals. This
study will focus on the United Arab Emirates’ building regulations and
overarching vision relating to sustainability; however, the framework
proposed in this paper can be applied to other regions.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bkhapery@udel.edu (B. Elkhapery).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101798
Received 13 April 2020; Received in revised form 3 September 2020; Accepted 4 September 2020
Available online 24 September 2020
2352-7102/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Elkhapery et al.
2. Literature review
UAE vision 2021 accentuates on providing a first-rate education
system and creating a sustainable environment and infrastructure that
produces less waste and is more water and energy efficient. Discussing
the present state of schools in Dubai, Charles Blaschke, a corporate
partner of Emirates Green Building Coalition (EGBC), highlights that
there is an immense opportunity for retrofitting schools to become eco-
friendly and sustainable [3]. Since estimates put the percentage of total
energy consumed by the education sector in USA, Spain, and UK to be
13%, 4%, and 10% respectively [4], it becomes more important that
education systems begin adopting sustainable practices. Several studies
suggest that most of the energy consumption exhibited in school
buildings relates to the achievement of desired thermal comfort rather
than lighting or powering other electrical appliances [4]. While some
studies have attempted to establish a benchmark for school building
energy consumption, this has proved difficult since existing literature
shows that energy consumption varies based on the building location,
climate, and the required level of thermal comfort [4].
Benefits of greening schools include energy and water conservation
via reduced utility (water and electricity) bills, the use of sustainable
building materials, and renewable resources [5].
Further research suggested that schools designed according to green
standards, such as LEED, have an additional cost of almost 2% (addi­
tional 3 $/ft2) when compared to traditional schools [6]. Nevertheless,
an estimated savings of 12 $/ft2 is accumulated yearly due to reduced
energy consumption of around 33% and water consumption of around
32% [3]. Given that buildings in the UAE are estimated to account for
80% of all electricity consumption [7], green building system provides a
necessary strategy to allow the nation to attain its vision 2021 goals.
Although the country has taken the necessary precautions by enforcing
green building regulations on new construction, the regulations do not
consider existing construction. Standards for the retrofitting of existing
structures have not been developed by most countries, and measures to
improve building energy efficiency are moving at a relatively slow pace.
Retrofitting of existing buildings and schools provides significant
benefits for the reduction of global energy consumption, which subse­
quently reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore,
buildings that have undergone energy retrofits typically present better
thermal comfort than traditional buildings. A study on energy retrofit­
ting a sample of school buildings in Germany determined that class­
rooms remain thermally comfortable even on hot summer days; where at
a recorded outdoor air temperature of 35 ◦ C, the indoor temperature
inside renovated school buildings did not exceed 27 ◦ C [8]. A major
retrofitting plan could result in up to 50% savings in energy consump­
tion and CO2 emissions [7]. Nevertheless, the implementation of green
technologies and their economic feasibility have remained challenging
for the professionals in this field [9].
2.1. Defining green schools
Schools have a much higher occupancy rate than any other buildings.
The number of occupants per unit of area is four times the number of
occupants per unit area in office buildings. Indoor air quality is a major
concern since children spend almost 12% of their time in classrooms,
which is higher than any other building, except their home [10]. Recent
studies have shown that schools have significant indoor environmental
problems, where CO2 and ventilation levels are both detected outside
the recommended standards [10–12]. This justifies the need for green
retrofitting measures to enhance the educational institutes for public
health.
While low electricity and water bills are good metrics for defining
how green a school is, it is the precautions taken and the systems
installed that provide the most direct measure. Characteristics of green
schools can be generalized into three main attributes [13]:
2
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101798
1) Healthy environment for its occupants.
2) Reduced environmental impact.
3) Promotion of green advancement to occupants and development of
their knowledge on sustainability.
Primarily, children exposed to CO2 concentration levels of 1000 ppm
exhibited greater chance for dry cough and rhinitis [11]. A European
Union-funded Health Effects of School Environment (HESE) study
documented that respiratory diseases and nasal patency were predom­
inant in children predominately due to inadequate classroom ventilation
systems [11]. found that indoor particulate matter significantly impacts
children’s respiratory health and supports existing school building ret­
rofitting schemes, especially ventilation improvements. It should be
noted that LEED code prerequisites and credits address most of the in­
door environmental quality attributes, which in turn help school
buildings to encompass green principles.
Adoption of green principles enables school leaders to improve their
triple bottom line “financially, environmentally, and socially” [4,14].
Greening schools would impact student’s and staff’s wellbeing and
health. As reported in Khalij Times, Jackie Schemeanuer, a sustainable
coordinator at the Swiss International Scientific School in Dubai,
mentioned that poor air quality affects student health, focus, and di­
minishes their overall learning experience [15]. According to Saeed Al
Abbar from EGBC, students generally spend over 1300 h a year in
classrooms [3]. Maintaining high building operation standards is
considered essential for preserving the health, wellbeing, and happiness
of the occupants. A study carried out by the U.S. Environmental Pro­
tection Agency (2011) identified that schools with poor indoor envi­
ronmental quality can create respiratory irritants for students that could
result in asthma, headaches, irritation and other health degrading
symptoms [16]. Additionally, warm classrooms result in headaches,
reduced student’s productivity, and stimulates disease transmission (e.
g., influenza). These factors affect the overall learning experience of
students in schools, lead to absenteeism, and drop learning standards.
According to research conducted in 2015 by the Center of Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), the primary cause of student absenteeism
in the U.S. is “childhood asthma” contributing to 13.8 million missed
school days per year [17]. Green school retrofitting practices need to
consider the following while assessing the decision to transform an
existing school building to be green [3]:
1) Every school has the potential to be a green school, regardless of the
age of the building
2) Students who attend green schools are de-facto change agents for the
future
3) Environmental and social impact must go beyond the school enve­
lope boundary; to address community impact
2.2. Key factors for existing buildings retrofits
School buildings typically have higher heating loads than a standard
building, which rationalizes the importance of developing exploratory
schemes to reduce heating energy and thus reduced overall building
energy demand [18]. Daylighting measures are valued to save around 30
to 70% of lighting and cooling energy expenses as a result of the proper
diffusion of natural sunlight reducing lighting and heating demands
[19]. Daylighting adjustments are considered fundamental, especially
when proposed for school buildings. According to a study carried by the
U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), students exposed to daylighting
portrayed 26% improved problem-solving capabilities when compared
to students receiving little to no daylighting [20].
Although various technologies are readily available to retrofit
existing buildings, cost implications associated with the retrofit are
considerably high. Hence, there is still a need to develop strategies that
can effectively green existing buildings using the most cost-effective
retrofit measures for particular projects [21]. Various studies have
B. Elkhapery et al.
identified certain factors that affect the practices and technologies for
existing building retrofitting. The main challenges encountered are the
uncertainties that arise throughout the process such as building specific
characteristics, architectural features, climate change, services change,
human behavior variations, government policy enhancement, and other
uncertainty factors, all of which directly affect the selection of retrofit
technologies and hence the success of a retrofit project [21]. Moreover,
as buildings’ subsystems are highly interactive, the selection of one
retrofitting technology for a subsystem may directly affect another. The
key generic factors to be taken into consideration for the selection of a
green retrofitting strategy are as follows [22]:
1) The Occupants’ Behavior: The occupants’ behavior can largely
determine the comfort zone requirement.
2) Methods of Applications: The application of energy conservation
systems varies depending on the adapted solutions. A detailed cost
assessment is needed to identify the most applicable methods, which
depend on the project’s requirements and constraints.
3) Government Support: The government’s financial support to build­
ing owners and developers can incentivize energy renovations for the
existing buildings.
4) Property Owners’ Intent: The property owners must be willing to
invest in the retrofitting exercise, and this can only be achieved if the
payback period and long-term benefits are communicated to the
owners.
5) Building Design Criteria: Understand the building design incorpo­
rated i.e., building orientation, energy-saving appliances, etc.
6) Other Factors: These factors are relative to particular projects such as
specific building characteristics, budget available, project target,
building services types, and efficiency.
2.3. Global schools retrofitting practices
Newly constructed sustainable school buildings provide lower envi­
ronmental impacts [4]. Feasible retrofitting schemes usually do not
require any major structural renovations and rather enhances estab­
lished Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) with reduced time and
resource utilization. Three main qualities that considerably impact the
IEQ of school buildings are IAQ, energy efficiency, and thermal comfort
[4]. LEED code addresses such qualities with the largest portion of points
in its credit point system, with almost 55 points (50% of LEED possible
credits) allotted under two LEED categories: Energy and Atmosphere
(EA) and IEQ. Although LEED code provides particular envelope retro­
fitting strategies, it yet accepts innovative measures that can be inte­
grated, contingent that these measures positively address IEQ and
targets the specified standards and criteria. An investigation conducted
on the various envelope retrofitting strategies for school buildings in
Jordan, has rendered precise attention to the prominence of retrofitting
structures in comparison to the construction of new sustainable build­
ings. Explored envelope retrofitting strategies included external walls
insulation, roof insulation, roof reflectance paint, window film modifi­
cation, window replacement, window frames upgrades, and solar heat
gain control systems installation, for school buildings in Jordan. The
study concludes that applying envelope retrofitting strategies to school
buildings in hot climate regions (i.e., Jordan and UAE) can generate up
to 54% of energy savings in a relatively short payback period of 5.5 years
[4].
One vital benefit of greening existing schools is their ability to
nurture society to become sustainable and be more productive and
healthier. Consequently, there is a need for a protocol to retrofit existing
schools according to a specific standard. An analytical review of the
typical retrofitting schemes implemented locally is needed to identify
how these strategies impact energy consumption. A building envelope
integrated with an optimized Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
(HVAC) system and efficient lighting are currently the main retrofitting
measures incorporated in the UAE [7]. The rest of this section presents
3
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101798
several case studies of existing school retrofitting schemes and corre­
sponding pertained benefits in terms of energy conservation and other
resources preservation.
A building energy analysis conducted at the campus of Melbourne
University in Australia, shows lighting fixtures at the university
contribute to almost 30% of the costs associated with energy con­
sumption. Depending on the electronic and magnetic ballasts fixtures
arrangement, the reported reduction for lighting energy consumption
ranged between 14% and 65% [22].
Retrofitting schemes employed at Egypt’s Cairo University, produced
substantial energy savings and reduced CO2 emissions. The methodol­
ogy incorporated comprised of the following five phases: Identifying the
desired retrofitting scope, exercising energy audits, identifying retro­
fitting schemes and finally the implementation of the selected schemes.
The primary retrofitting schemes applied and simulated for this project
included daylighting assessment, glazing, external wall thermal insu­
lation, and green roof. As a result, the savings on energy consumption
was noted to be approximately 15% [23].
According to Haggag et al., most of building energy consumption
(83%) is dedicated to HVAC and lighting systems [24]. Therefore,
building façade and other incorporated architectural features have a
significant impact on building energy performance. A cost-benefit
analysis of living wall systems (LWS) on buildings facades in hot
climate regions, was conducted on Al Ain International school, UAE.
Accordingly, installation of LWS on school buildings façade is estimated
to save 18% of the building’s cooling load yearly when compared to
traditional façade systems. Nevertheless, given either the current local
unsubsidized energy cost in UAE or the international levelized energy
costs, the estimated payback period of such a retrofitting approach was
found not feasible with estimated payback periods of 17 and 13 years,
respectively [24].
It should be noted that the above-mentioned retrofitting schemes are
already implemented in several countries. Nevertheless, appropriate
schemes are typically selected based on the building structure, location
and exhibited weather conditions.
2.4. Building age
Age is considered an important parameter in the region since the
Dubai Municipality (DM) regulations have become mandated and
enforced only in recent years for newly developed construction. Previ­
ous research lacks statistical studies on the number of schools built in
accordance to green building regulations and what LEED rating they
would attain before any retrofitting scheme. Unless green building
regulations are enforced and enacted by law/state through mandated
building codes, they will not be effective [25]. Dubai developed Dubai
Green Building Regulation and Specification (DGBRS), which was only
mandated for public or governmental schools starting 2010 [26]. Con­
struction in other sectors, including private schools, was only mandated
to follow DGBRS starting in 2014, thus creating a milestone for data
comparison purposes and schools’ standards upgrades. Therefore, it can
be fairly assumed that all new schools built in Dubai (after 2014) are
qualified as green buildings to an extent, with respect to the codes that
they are mandated to have followed, such as DGBRS. Accordingly, cat­
egorizing buildings built “before 2014” and “after 2014”, interchange­
ably called “Old” and “New” buildings, will be beneficial to identify the
contribution of implementing local green building regulation in facili­
tating building certification and more importantly in building sustain­
ability. Furthermore, since the selected project samples are of varying
sizes and complexities, careful assessment of the LEED code was fol­
lowed to identify the adequacy operation of the physical structure and
required areas of improvement. Distinct improvement in the
resource-efficiency and performance of new buildings, examined in the
context of LEED rating system, would affirm the effectiveness of the
partial implementation of green building measures via local regulations.
B. Elkhapery et al.
2.5. Building location
In LEED rating systems, the density of the building’s surrounding
area has been seen as an influential parameter both on building acces­
sibility using public transportation and on building access to useful
amenities. Almost 14% (15 credit points) of the LEED v4 are present to
specifically consider the value and importance of such accessibility and
connection. The location of the school, regardless of other properties of
the building, qualifies it to attain some points without any modification
and additional costs. Location is classified for each project in accordance
to the area population and is described qualitatively in density form
(High-density areas and low-density areas). For the purposes of this
research, areas populated with over 3000 people/Km2 were considered
high-density areas, whereas areas lower than 3000 people/Km2 were
considered low-density areas. School location densities were classified
using the Dubai Statistics Center report published in 2017 with popu­
lation figures for areas in the Emirate of Dubai [27].
3. Research methodology
The study required the involvement of school principals and owners
Fig. 1. Research flow diagram.
4
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101798
to assist in data collection and conducting physical assessments of the
schools. The assessment depicts the current operational status of each
school and can be utilized to identify green retrofitting requirements.
Such data is typically difficult to collect without the proprietor support
in sharing their data and allowing surveys to be conducted. The main
barrier to effective retrofitting of existing buildings relates to the
absence of a detailed methodology highlighting the process targets and
limited investment budgets [28]. Accordingly, it is essential to configure
the decision-making process to match the aims and priorities defined by
the stakeholders. The flow diagram of the methodology employed in this
study to evaluate the selected sample schools is presented in Fig. 1.
In the process of sustainably retrofitting all schools in a certain re­
gion, it is impractical to study all schools and identify the best practical
and cost-efficient modifications for LEED certification. Certain obstacles
are associated with such exercise, including data collection and time
limitations. A sample size of 9 schools is chosen to comply with the time
frame set for this research. However, to cover different school cate­
gories, each sample group includes at least two schools from the iden­
tified parameters; in order to generalize the estimated likelihood cost of
each category and summarize a conclusion. Studied school categories in
this research are depicted in Fig. 2.
B. Elkhapery et al.
Fig. 2. Sample organization.
3.1. LEED model development
This research employs the LEED green building rating system to
assess the sustainability of a school’s design or retrofit. Since the
research focuses on retrofitting existing schools, LEED v4 O + M for
Schools is seen as the most relevant rating system. LEED credits provide
a school with defined sustainability objectives; however, any decisions
made when retrofitting a school must also consider the capital costs
required for the retrofits required to attain the credit. As such, a well-
structured procedure needs to be established to recognize the average,
estimated costs required to transform schools to each level of LEED
certification.
A model, including a questionnaire with 55 questions, is developed
based on the experts’ responses to the questionnaire to characterize
buildings properties. The model identifies the cost of practical modifi­
cations required to attain each LEED credit. The developed model
questionnaire is presented in the Appendix. Additional information
regarding the detailed survey findings and model analysis can be found
in the thesis report [29]. Sample questions falling under Material and
Resources (MR) credit category include:
1) Does the school have a waste contract with an organization?
2) What are the schools’ total quantity of lights and the percentage of
LED lights?
3) What is the monthly budget of ongoing consumables?
4) Is the school planning on replacing or upgrading its furniture?
5) Does the school’s plan on doing renovation work?
6) Does the school have a food composting bin?
7) Is there a ventilated area that can be dedicated to the food com­
posting bin?
Responses to these questions are used to determine which credits are
initially achieved by the assessed project. These credits will not require
any retrofits (or any additional costs) and will be counted towards the
project’s total LEED credits earned. Those credits that can be feasibly
earned via retrofitting will have their costs estimated based on price
quotations, expert consultation, and published articles.
Microsoft Excel’s “Solver” function was employed to optimize the
number of credits earned (to achieve the four different levels of certi­
fication) at the lowest possible cost. The objective value function for
each “solver” is set to minimize the total cost of all required applicable
credits by selecting the most cost-effective credits. To attain the lowest
cost possible, the model is given the flexibility to include some addi­
tional credits beyond the minimum required number of credits for each
tier of LEED (40, 50, 60, and 80 credits for Certified, Silver, Gold, and
Platinum tiers, respectively).
5
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101798
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Cost vs. LEED certification
The upgrade cost percentage for each school project at every LEED
tier has been estimated with respect to the initial building cost, as por­
trayed in Fig. 3. Given that every project is unique and has its own
characteristics, the type of LEED credits attempted, and their associated
costs highly vary. The estimated interval cost percentage required to
retrofit school buildings projects across all LEED tiers (Certified through
Gold) are listed respectively [0.03%–0.42%], [0.03%–1.25%], [0.07%–
4.31%] and [0.71%–13.19%]. As portrayed, the general cost approach
of the upgrade increases when pursuing higher tiers of LEED. This is
expected, as higher tiers demand more modifications and points to meet
these criteria. Some schools in the study had a very low occupant rate
with respect to their size; therefore, certain credit upgrades are attained
using low-cost measures.
Although the arithmetic average of cost in this study could represent
inaccurate cost intervals, due to the data set containing some extreme
values, the average cost percentage for each LEED tier was estimated to
measure the central data tendency and understand the general trend
present between LEED certificate upgrades. Fig. 4 shows the average
cost of projects upgrade to each individual tier of certification. Although
the selected project samples are considerably undersized with variable
sizes and project complexities, the established results are consistent with
literature findings derived by the KEMA study, with a slightly higher
cost percentage to upgrade through Platinum certification [30]. The
results reveal that the cost to upgrade to the next tier increases in an
exponential behavior. As expected, the higher the attempted LEED tier,
the stricter the exponential increase in retrofitting costs associated with
higher tiers of LEED. This might be due to the substantially higher costs
of achieving remaining credits.
Testing for significant differences between the costs required to
obtain the various levels of LEED certification was performed utilizing
MATLAB’s one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) function. Tests per­
formed at confidence intervals (CI) of 95%, found a significant differ­
ence present between the groups mean. Accordingly, two sample T-tests
(95% CI), assuming equal variances, were deducted to highlight the
significance between each certificate upgrade.
T-test results, shown in Table 1, concluded that the only inter-group
significant differences were (LEED Certified vs LEED Platinum) and
(LEED Silver vs. LEED Platinum). This is due to the model’s preferences
for pursuing no or low-cost LEED credits when attaining the preliminary
LEED certifications (i.e., LEED Certified and LEED Silver). This implies
that, with respect to the sample studied, the costs required to upgrade
between LEED Certified and LEED Gold are insignificant. Therefore, the
model typically finds that upgrading schools to LEED Gold is most
practical. Given the significant differences in costs required to upgrade
to LEED Platinum, it may not be a reasonable decision, particularly for
relatively older buildings not constructed according to local green
building regulation.
B. Elkhapery et al. Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101798

Fig. 3. Projects Detail Cost % vs. LEED Certification Tier.

different LEED tiers.

Newer buildings typically use modern technology that, in most cases,
are more sustainable and efficient. Nonetheless, further statistical
assessment is required to analyze if there is a significant cost established
between both groups for different tier levels.
Two-tail T-tests (95% CI) established that none of the LEED tiers had
a significant difference in cost between both age groups despite the
established trend in Fig. 5. Computed standard error bars show the ac­
curacy of the obtained average estimates from all sample schools to be
similar, and therefore more representative of the true mean. The
established standard error at LEED Platinum varies between ±2%,
possibly due to differences in building properties (e.g., differences in size
and specifications).
Fig. 4. Average Cost % vs. LEED Certification. To further explore this, credit categories attained at the initial
assessment stage (credits achieved without any retrofitting) have been
presented in Fig. 6. It can be deduced that, for most projects built after
Table 1 2014, costly credit requirements have already been satisfied, and credits
T-test results for upgrade cost %. are readily achievable without requiring further investment (i.e., credits
Comparison P (T ≤ t) Significance point at Significance check of the Energy and Atmosphere category). School projects built before
group two-tail 95% confidence 2014 (i.e., S3, S5, S6, and S8) require additional consideration and in­
Certified vs. 0.0567 0.0125 No significant vestment to earn LEED points, which elevates their certification costs.
Silver difference Average readily achievable LEED scores at initial assessment shown
Certified vs. Gold 0.0216 0.0125 No significant in Fig. 7, reveals that the average initial assessment scores are 13% and
difference about 4 credits higher for newer buildings. Thus, additional costs need to
Certified vs. 0.0062 0.0125 Significant
Platinum difference
be incurred by older buildings with respect to newer buildings.
Silver vs. 0.0097 0.0125 Significant Nevertheless, with further post-analysis, the T-test significance check
Platinum difference established that the difference in initial assessment scores between both
Gold vs. 0.0425 0.0125 No significant age groups is insignificant.
Platinum difference

4.3. LEED certification cost vs. location density

4.2. LEED certification cost vs. age
The project’s samples are divided into two categories, projects
completed between 2000 and 2014 and projects completed after 2014.
This decision was made to determine the effects of the recently imple­
mented (after 2014) Dubai Municipality’s Green Building Regulation
and Specifications on the cost-effectiveness of upgrading the schools. As
illustrated with the established trend in Fig. 5, the Green Building
Regulation in Dubai does have an impact on the cost of upgrading to
Using published population data by Dubai Statistics Center [27], in
addition to direct area measurement using google earth, the density for
the assessed school projects are estimated and presented in Table 2.
To investigate the relation between the location density and ex­
penses associated with convenient usage of alternative transportation
systems at sample schools, a graphical representation of the high-density
and low-density school projects versus total LEED certification costs are
depicted. As presented in Fig. 8, a higher percentage cost trend is

6
B. Elkhapery et al.
Fig. 5. Age effect on certification cost %.
Fig. 6. Initial assessment (achievable credits without retrofitting).
depicted for low-density location schools in comparison to those in high-
density locations. There are no effective public transportation services in
low-density areas; suitably, parents consider enrolling for school bus
services. This representation is unlike the trend depicted for typical
buildings in low-density areas, which usually have a high carbon foot­
print due to the lack of public transportation systems. The observed
average lower costs associated with certifying the schools in high den­
sity areas was expected as some credits such as “Alternative trans­
portation credit” are attained without requiring any modifications and
investments. Such readily achievable points are not available for
buildings in low density areas since they are too far from public trans­
portation systems to meet LEED’s criteria (400 or 800 m, depending on
the transportation system). Hence, other available costly credits should
be targeted for buildings in low density areas and attaining such costly
credits at the absence of readily achievable transportation credits is the
reason for observed distinction among average costs.
Reported findings by Vlad-Andrei et al. on the impact of the building
location on LEED certification cost, suggest that an additional cost is
required to certify buildings located farther from the city center [31].
This is supported with the documented findings in this report where
schools located in low density areas require an additional 0.5%–2% to
achieve the appropriate certification.
7
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101798
Nevertheless, some schools are considered outliers to this conclusion
due to schools charging high bus transportation fees (with 10,000 AED/
year (2723 $/year) for each student regardless of the location). Part of
the transportation credit initiative requires the development of a
transportation survey to highlight the modes of transport frequently
used by building occupants. Results from the carried survey indicated
that most parents do not allow their children to use public transportation
and either arrange to pick up their children or enroll in the school bus
service. The inability of low-density schools to attain these low or no-
cost transportation credits means that they must pay higher retrofit­
ting costs to earn additional credits needed to attain their desired level of
LEED certification.
Furthermore, two-tail T-tests (95% CI) established that none of the
LEED tiers had a significant difference in cost between both density
groups despite the established trend in Fig. 8.
4.4. Energy consumption reduction vs. LEED certification
Almost 30% of LEED credit points are allocated to enhance building
energy consumption reduction. Forecasted energy consumption reduc­
tion percentage for each project across all LEED tier upgrades is pre­
sented in Fig. 9. Projects’ electricity savings tend to exhibit different
B. Elkhapery et al. Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101798

consumption reduction, a presumed error range of 0.5% is allocated to

allow for the increase or decrease in lighting operating hours for the
project. Lighting retrofit upgrade results present an average projected
reduction of nearly 5% from the buildings’ yearly energy consumption.
The estimated mean electricity savings experienced at each LEED tier
is presented in Fig. 10. Projected electricity savings percentage across all
LEED tier upgrades (Certified through Platinum) are 3%, 7%, 13%, and
30%, respectively. Estimated energy consumption savings at LEED
Platinum tier supports the reported reduction in electricity consumption
of 33% in the literature [32].
Two-tail T-tests (95% CI) established that the only comparison group
without significance difference is between the upgrade of (LEED Certi­
fied vs. LEED Silver). This is due to the high expenses associated with an
energy efficiency upgrade. Therefore, energy efficiency credits are
typically attempted in tiers succeeding Silver certificate in most projects.

4.5. Energy consumption vs. age

A comparative analysis is conducted to identify the trend of energy

consumption between modern schools, built according to local green
building regulations, and older schools. The actual yearly energy con­
sumption for the two established school categories and the expected
reductions in consumption by pursuing different LEED certification are
Fig. 7. Average readily achievable LEED scores at initial assessment.
presented in Fig. 11. As seen in the graph, the reduction only becomes
noticeable when pursuing LEED Platinum. This might be due to utilizing
trends when pursuing higher LEED certification tiers (i.e., staying the more efficient electrical appliances in modern buildings, which makes
same, increase linearly, or increase exponentially). As shown in Fig. 9, it further electricity savings more complex and expensive at initial LEED
is apparent that the projects are equally divided into linear and expo­ certification stages. The same explanation might be valid for the trend
nential reductions in electricity consumption. Variables recognized to that appears for modern schools, where they consume less electricity.
impact the relative electricity-saving percentage exhibited when Nevertheless, the result for LEED Gold and LEED Platinum is not ex­
attempting LEED certification across projects include the number of pected since energy consumption for modern schools is higher than in
occupants, project size, and project specification. Deviations in any of older schools. LEED building energy efficiency credit points are earned
the variables listed will change the optimization model decision on
attempting certain credits relative to building energy efficiency and the
associated cost.
The reduction in energy consumption is calculated based on the
expected rate of reduction from the performed ASHRAE audit in addi­
tion to the projected LED light retrofitting and solar savings. As pre­
sented in Table 3, LEED feasible retrofitting measures are determined for
all projects to calculate their percentage reduction of electricity con­
sumption for each tier. It should be noted that only the schools that have
been subjected to light retrofitting in accordance to the model analysis
are presented in Table 3. The other four schools that are not included in
the lighting retrofit plan, already have 100% LED lights installed and
thereby did not require any upgrade in the assessment.
The percentage of LED and fluorescent lights in each school, with
their appropriate specifications, was estimated in order to identify the
consumption for each lighting system. Each building’s electricity con­
sumption for lighting was estimated using monthly electricity bills.
Lastly, the estimated new light consumption percentage was estimated
based on the theoretical estimated savings difference of replacing the
fluorescent light fixtures to be LED.
To accommodate for the error in the estimated lighting energy Fig. 8. Location density effect on certification percentage cost.

Table 2
School area estimated density and classification.
S# Location Population Estimate Population % Area (m2) Density (people/km2) Classification

1 Al Qouz 4 17,251 0.58 2,375,553 7262 High-density

2 Al Warqa 1 16,776 0.56 2,040,430 8222 High-density
3 Ned Al Sheba 3 3633 0.12 6,077,048 598 Low-density
4 Al Jaddaf 1053 0.44 6,406,800 164 Low-density
5 Green Comm. Village 33,788 1.14 5,468,206 6179 High-density
6 Motor city 12,380 0.42 3,725,869 3323 High-density
7 Al Khail Road Barsha 2784 0.09 3,767,135 739 Low-density
8 Al Barsha Third 11,680 0.39 4,672,137 2500 Low-density
9 Al Barsha South 4410 0.15 1,911,057 2308 Low-density

8
B. Elkhapery et al. Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101798

Fig. 9. Electricity Saving vs. LEED Certification.

consumption nor any of the LEED tiers had a significant difference in

Table 3
energy consumption between both age groups, despite the established
LED light saving calculations.
trend.
School Current Light Assessment LED retrofit To provide insight into the effect of age on electricity savings, a
#
LED Light New Light % Light % reduction graphical representation of the attained credit categories points for
Lights % consumption % consumption from total bill schools at the Platinum certification stage, are portrayed in Fig. 12. It
1 24% 24% 19% 5.2 ± 0.5 should be noted that some school projects were not able to attain the
3 1% 15% 11% 4.2 ± 0.5 credit scores required to upgrade through the LEED Platinum tier,
5 0% 21% 15% 5.9 ± 0.5 induced by their EA category scores. Furthermore, most of the old
6 0% 15% 10% 4.1 ± 0.5
8 20% 9% 7% 2.1 ± 0.5
schools presented almost double consumption over the chosen bench­
mark of 134 kWh/m2/year, representing the median consumption
exhibited for selected schools in the region [3]. Since the identified
benchmark is the central parameter considered when attempting to
receive EA credit points, it can be difficult for older schools to earn these
points via energy efficiency upgrades.
According to Umberto, the energy performance category is consid­
ered the most important criterion in building sustainability assessment.
Nevertheless, performed analysis portrayed that credits in this category
are attempted in very low percentages; reasoned behind high investment
cost associated with the upgrades and low maturity of energy saving
systems in the construction sector [33]. As presented in Fig. 12, schools
built after 2014 could better achieve credits associated with the EA
category.

4.6. Water consumption reduction vs. LEED certification

Since changing the fixtures in the toilets is relatively inexpensive, it

Fig. 10. Average Electricity Savings % vs. LEED Certification.
based on the established reduction percentage from the defined
benchmark, which instinctively exhibits an exponential increase in cost
as upgrading through achieving better energy efficiency. Accordingly,
modern schools will typically have other, less costly alternatives to earn
credit points.
The estimated mean electricity consumption experienced at each
LEED tier between both age groups is presented in Fig. 11. The repre­
sentative sample of schools’ actual electricity consumption varies be­
tween a minimum consumption of 840 kWh/occupant.year and a
maximum consumption of 3760 kWh/occupant.year. The range high­
lights the significance of project sizes and justifies the substantial
observed variances for the age classified groups.
Two-tail T-tests (95% CI) established that neither the actual energy
is opted for most of the projects even for initial LEED certification tiers.
As shown in Fig. 13, all projects changed the water fixtures and achieved
the required water saving at LEED Silver and higher tiers.
The water consumption reduction is estimated in accordance to the
indoor area upgrade only. To represent the average water-saving per­
centage for every LEED tier, the mean presumed savings percentage for
every school at the allocated tier is estimated. Fig. 14 shows the esti­
mated mean savings for every LEED tier upgrade. The trend established
by the study concludes that most percentage savings are attempted at
initial LEED Certified tier and is capped at its maximum by LEED Silver
certificate. Based on Fig. 14, the estimated water consumption savings at
LEED Silver and higher tiers is 27%.
Water efficiency credits are considered very low-cost measures and
are mostly attempted in initial tiers preceding to the Silver certificate in
most projects. T-test results imply that there is no significant difference

9
B. Elkhapery et al.
Fig. 11. Age effect on energy consumption (kWh/occupant.year).
Fig. 12. Platinum assessment LEED scores.
in the savings percentage among the LEED Silver tier.
4.7. Water consumption versus age
Like the statistical comparison conducted for the electricity con­
sumption of modern and older schools, a similar comparison is con­
ducted for water consumption. The existing average daily water
consumption for the two established school categories, as well as the
expected water consumption of retrofitted schools, are presented in
Fig. 15. The graph shows that older schools consume substantially more
water as compared to newer buildings. Older schools target water effi­
ciency credits by the LEED Certified tier, while new schools typically
focus on them by the LEED Silver or later. Since the water retrofits are
relatively inexpensive on a cost per credit basis, the basic water effi­
ciency upgrades can be achieved by old schools at early certification
levels.
The estimated mean water consumption experienced at each LEED
10
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101798
tier between both age groups is presented in Fig. 15. Viewing the
average yearly water consumption of those schools built after 2014, it
can be concluded that their existing water fixtures are more efficient
than older schools. This was expected as the mandated Green Building
regulation requires efficient fixtures installations for buildings since
2014.
Similar to the reasoning constructed behind energy consumption vs.
age in regard to the substantial variances portrayed, the representative
sample of schools’ actual water consumption was in the range of 159 and
37,700 IG/occupant.year, with an average of 6940 IG/occupant.year
and standard deviation of 11,816 IG/occupant.year. According to re­
ported findings by Alborz and Berardi, a post occupancy evaluation
deducted for comparison between LEED and Non-LEED higher educa­
tion residence halls; signified that implemented technologies (i.e. high-
tech fixtures), are not the primary factor to water consumption reduc­
tion and that green educational efforts and increasing awareness can
result in higher savings [34].
B. Elkhapery et al.
Fig. 13. Water Consumption Reduction Percentage vs. LEED Certification.
Fig. 14. Average Water Savings vs. LEED Certification.
Fig. 15. Age effect on average water consumption (IG/occupant.year).
Two-tail T-tests (95% CI) established that neither the actual water
consumption nor any of the LEED tiers had a significance difference in
water consumption between both age groups, despite the established
trend in Fig. 15. Such a conclusion is mainly due to the presence of an
outlier sample with an average consumption of 37,700 IG per occupant/
year. This confirms earlier declaration of the significance of high-tech
fixtures adoption in the contrary to green educational efforts.
11
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101798
4.8. Financial attractiveness
To build a legitimate business case for investment in water conser­
vation, energy retrofit, and solar system installation, the net profit re­
turn is presumed to be accumulated within 5–10 years. Accordingly, the
economic feasibility of retrofitting is investigated by exploring the
financial attractiveness for each project at each attempted certificate
level. This assessment incorporates the examination of the payback
period using the Net Present Value (NPV) for each period in the
cashflow.
The payback period is computed using equation (1), where the
calculated NPV of the investment made, and the revenue from the in­
vestment is computed for each cashflow period. Accordingly, the
payback period is defined by the time when the capital investment
initially made is recovered. It should be noted that the presumed interest
or discount rate used to compute the payback period is 2.25%.
Rt
NetPresentValue = (Equation 1)
(1 + i)t
Where:
Rt net cash flow
i discount rate
t time of the cash flow
The return projected for the indoor water fixtures is compiled based
on the projected savings estimated using the LEED calculator, which
estimates exhibited savings with respect to the actual building yearly
baseline consumption. On the other hand, the return for electricity is
estimated based on the state of the school, which includes the type of
fixtures used and other strategies implemented (operational hours of the
facility, automated light fixtures, etc.). Additionally, the percentage of
computed savings from LED light retrofitting is added to represent the
final percentage reduction.
Fig. 16 shows payback period in years. Established payback esti­
mates for indoor water and energy retrofitting are considered a feasible
investment as they are recovered within 1–2 years. Solar investment can
potentially be considered a feasible investment with a recovery payback
rate of 6 years and eight months.
4.9. Lasting contribution
Nowadays most metropolitan areas e.g. Dubai, have their own
enforced local green building codes. This research attempts to identify
areas covered by enforced regulation and report the additional efforts
and investments required beyond the local minimum codes to certify a
building according to any optional rating system. The authors believe
B. Elkhapery et al.
Fig. 16. Payback in years for system upgrade.
that a majority of schools in cities are already dealing with partially
enforced green building codes. In other words, upgrading buildings will
be more about enhancing sustainability of a school by applying some
basic measures, rather than starting from scratch.
Additionally, the paper proves the applicability of the developed
model and its questionnaire for a certain city, to facilitate an initial
financial analysis, and estimate the corresponding rate of return for the
desired upgrade. The developed linear cost optimization model can be
utilized by municipalities and education ministries as a smart and semi-
automated tool requiring just filling a questionnaire to quickly assess the
feasibility of upgrading schools. The model can resolve the aversion of
the property owners regarding the additional expenses associated with
the process and help school owners realize the cost-benefit of greening
their schools. Moreover, the computed rate of return for upgrading
existing facilities to become green signifies that investments can be
retrieved within a period that does not exceed seven years, which can
further promote the interest of various stakeholders.
Furthermore, the model will open the podium for further discussions
regarding the applicability of models and decision analysis tools work­
ing based of artificial intelligence, neural networks that are capable of
including climate, labor wages, availability of materials, energy ex­
penses, etc. Nevertheless, there should be considerable potentials for
expanding the capability and intelligence of such a model in the future.
Lastly, this analysis considered the effect of the surrounding density
and public transportation systems on the additional percentage cost for
upgrading schools in the studied region to achieve LEED certification.
Accordingly, the dependency of upgrading cost to the density of the
development is realized and can be informative for new project owners;
when selecting an appropriate project location.
5. Conclusion
The research evaluated schools in a municipality with its own
enforced primary green building regulation. Special attention was paid
to the financial benefits of upgrading schools and their associated
electricity and water conservation, where there has been a noticeable
lack of detailed financial studies or statistical assessments. The study is
performed on a random sample of 9 schools in Dubai to conduct a fair
assessment of the state of schools in the region, dependent on the
categorized groups of school samples. Quantitative data collected from
the school samples are interpreted by the developed optimization
model, to identify cost-effective credits and modifications, and to esti­
mate the associated costs of each identified feasible upgrade. The
additional cost of retrofitting schools is mainly reported as a percentage
of additional cost with respect to the initial building cost.
The investigation of the relationship between cost percentage and
12
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101798
the attempted LEED certification highlighted the lack of a significance
difference in cost between upgrading to LEED Certified, LEED Silver, and
LEED Gold. Nevertheless, upgrading to Platinum tier may not be prac­
tical, particularly for relatively older buildings not constructed accord­
ing to the local green building regulations.
The average energy and water consumption savings at the LEED
Platinum tier are estimated to be 30% and 27%, respectively. The pro­
posed retrofits needed to upgrade from LEED Certified to LEED Silver
results in gradual energy conservation. In addition, no significant dif­
ference in water savings was attained beyond the LEED Silver tier as
most of low-cost water conservation techniques were opted at this tier.
In the analysis of location density’s effect on certification cost per­
centage, trends show that higher costs are correlated with low-density
location schools. This is because more costly credits are required to
replace those unattained transportation credits in order for the building
to attain a superior LEED certification level.
A trend of high upgrade certification costs for old buildings, when
compared to modern buildings, was also observed. This might be due to
the inability of those projects to pursue several credits (13% additional
readily achievable LEED credits) that require little to no additional in­
vestment or modification for old buildings. Statistical tests showed that
none of the LEED tiers had a significant difference in cost, energy, or
water consumption between both age groups. Accordingly, building
operation management appears to be more dominant than age. Model
output emphasized performing energy system retrofits, particularly
when pursuing LEED Gold and Platinum certification for schools built
before 2014. Whereas for schools built after 2014, energy retrofits are
performed only when pursuing LEED Platinum. Older schools upgraded
water fixtures beginning with the LEED Certified tier, whereas modern
schools only started these retrofits at LEED Silver and subsequent tiers.
In support of the mandated Green Building regulations, modern schools’
average yearly energy and water consumption per occupant showed that
their fixtures are more efficient than those found in older schools.
Finally, the detailed assessment of financial investments required to
green existing school facilities proves that water conservation, energy
retrofit, and solar systems installation investments can be retrieved
within a period that does not exceed seven years. This entails that in­
vestments in greening schools can promote the interest of various
stakeholders since project profits are retrieved in a relatively short
period of time.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Basel Elkhapery: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal anal­
ysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Validation,
Visualization, Roles, Writing - original draft. Peiman Kianmehr:
B. Elkhapery et al.
Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology,
Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing -
review & editing. Ryan Doczy: Investigation, Resources, Validation,
Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101798.
References
[1] C.B. Laura, The Teaching Green School Building: a framework for linking
architecture and environmental education, Environ. Educ. Res. 20 (6) (2014)
836–857, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.833586.
[2] B.C. Anne, D.E. Janet, February). Grounds for health: the intersection of green
school grounds and health-promoting schools, Environ. Educ. Res. 14 (1) (2008)
77–90, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701843426.
[3] S. Khan, J. John, The State of Our Schools, Emirates Green Building Council, Dubai,
2017.
[4] A. Hikmat, H. Rifqa, Envelope retrofitting strategies for public school buildings in
Jordan, J. Build. Eng. 25 (2019, September) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2019.100819.
[5] New and Retrofit Green Schools-The Cost Benefits and Influence of a Green School
on its Occupants, McGraw-Hill Construction, 2013.
[6] G.H. Kats, Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits. United States: Massachusetts
Technology Collaborative, 2003.
[7] E. Alkhateeb, B. Abu Hijleh, E. Rengasamy, S. Muhammed, Building refurbishment
strategies and their impact on saving energy in the United Arab Emirates,
Proceedings of SBE16 (2016) 1–8. Dubai.
[8] R. Johann, Energy retrofitting of school buildings to achieve plus energy and 3-litre
building standards, Energy Procedia 48 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2014.02.170, 1503-1511.
[9] Dubai chamber of commerce and industry, Retrieved from USGBC, 2015. https://
www.usgbc.org/projects/dubai-chamber-commerce-and-industry.
[10] M. Santamouris, M. Asssimakopoulos, A. Synnefa, I. Livada, K. Pavlou,
M. Papaglastra, V. Assimakopoulos, Experimental investigation of the air flow and
indoor carbon dioxide concentration in classrooms with intermittent natural
ventilation, Energy and Buildings, Energy Build. 40 (2008) 1833–1843.
[11] M. Simoni, I. Annesi-Maesano, T. Sigsgaard, D. Norback, G. Wieslander, W. Nystad,
G. Viegi, School air quality related to dry cough, rhinitis and nasal patency in
children, Eur. Respir. J. 35 (4) (2010, April) 742–749, https://doi.org/10.1183/
09031936.00016309.
[12] J. Trompetter, M. Boulic, T. Ancelet, J.C. Garcia-Ramirez, P.K. Davy, Y. Wang,
R. Phipps, The effect of ventilation on air particulate matter in school classrooms,
J. Build. Eng. (2018).
13
Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101798
[13] H. Anisa, What Is a Green School? Retrieved May 2019, from USGBC, 2017 July 30.
https://www.usgbc.org/articles/what-green-school.
[14] C.M. Shannon, T.C. J, Enhancing Building Performance and Environmental
Learning: A Case Study of virginia Beach City Public Schools, 2014.
[15] S. Nasir, White Paper to Evaluate Schools’ Green Efforts. Retrieved from Khaleej
Times: Dubai, 2017, November. www.khaleejtimes.com/nation/dubai/white-pape
r-to-evaluate-schools-green-efforts.
[16] Indoor Air Quality for Schools Case Studies, Retrieved from U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency:, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/iaq-schools/indoor-air-quality-s
chools-case-studies.
[17] Asthma-related Missed School Days among Children aged 5–17 Years, Retrieved
from Centers for Disease control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/a
sthma_stats/missing_days.htm, 2015, October.
[18] D. Giuliano, B. Elisa, P. Angela, Improvement of the sustainability of existing
school buildings according to the leadership in energy and environmental design
(LEED)(R) protocol: a case study in Italy, Energies (2013, December) 6487–6507,
https://doi.org/10.3390/en6126487.
[19] O.L. Stephen, K. Shana, The Impact of Sustainable Buildings on Educational
Achievements in K-12 Schools, Leonardo Academy Inc, 2003, November.
[20] J.D. Priscilla, K.A. William, Greener schools, greater learning, and the LEED value,
National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research 7 (1)
(2010) 8.
[21] M. Zhenjun, C. Paul, D. Daniel, L. Laia, Existing building retrofits: methodology
and state-of-the-art, Energy Build. 55 (2012, December) 889–902, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.08.018.
[22] L.C.-M. Ben, Greening existing buildings [GEB] strategies, Energy Rep. 4 (2018,
November) 159–206, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2018.01.003.
[23] A. Mohsen, M. Mohamed, Sustainability of higher educational buildings -
retrofitting approach to improve energy performance and mitigate CO2 emissions
in hot climates, Renew. Energy Environ. Sustain. 1 (2016, June) 8, https://doi.org/
10.1051/rees/2016016.
[24] H. M, A. Hassan, Cost-benefit analysis of living wall systems on school building
skins in a hot climate, Energy Sustain. V: Special Contributions (2015) 3–11,
https://doi.org/10.2495/ESS140011 (WIT Transactions on Ecology and The
Environment).
[25] E. Vaughan, J. Turner, The Value and Impact of Building Codes, International Code
Council. Environmental and Energy Study Institute, 2013.
[26] Green Building Certification, Retrieved from Dubai Municipality - Government of
Dubai, 2016. https://www.dm.gov.ae/en/Business/DubaiCentralLaboratory/Pro
ductCertificationServices/Pages/Green-Building-Certification.aspx.
[27] Population Bulletin: Emirate of Dubai, Dubai statistics center, Dubai, 2018.
[28] T.D. Stefano, B. Massimiliano, D. Laura, N. Raffaella, Buildings for Education A
Multidisciplinary Overview of the Design of School Buildings, Springer Open,
2020.
[29] B. Elkhapery, P. Kianmehr, R. Desokres, Feasibility Study of Retrofitting Schools
Using Green Building Rating Systems, American University in Dubai, Civil
Engineering, Dubai, 2019 (American University in Dubai).
[30] G. Syphers, M. Baum, D. Bouton, W. Sullens, Managing the Cost of Green Buildings,
KEMA, 2003.
[31] V.-A. Porumb, G. Maier, I. Anghel, The Impact of Building Location on Green
Certification Price Premiums: Evidence Fromthree European Countries, 2020.
[32] G.H. Kats, Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits, Capital E, 2006.
[33] U. Berardi, Sustainability Assessment in the Construction Sector: Rating Systems
and Rated Buildings, 2012.
[34] N. Alborz, U. Berardi, A post occupancy evaluation framework for LEED certified
U.S. higher education residence halls, Proc. Eng. 118 (2015) 19–27, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.399.