Enhancing Green Building Technologies and Solutions in UAE University Campus: A Comprehensive Assessment and Validation Approach

Abstract

This study investigates the integration of Green Building Technologies and Solutions within UAEU’s Maqam Campus, focusing on assessing sustainable design effectiveness. Using a mixed-method approach, the research comprehensively evaluates indoor environmental quality (IEQ) from June 2022 to January 2023. Data collection, user insights, on-site audits, and analysis inform the assessment. Initial survey findings reveal a preference for manual control among students, emphasizing user agency. Subsequent surveys and environmental monitoring identify areas for improvement, notably in thermal comfort and lighting quality. The study highlights the significance of holistic occupant satisfaction and IEQ in green building design, advocating for user-centric solutions and advanced technologies to enhance energy efficiency and create harmonious environments in educational buildings like the C6 building.

1. Introduction

The contemporary global landscape is characterized by an escalating concern: the imperative to curtail energy consumption, particularly within the ambit of buildings [1]. Forecasts from global energy companies indicate that energy demands could more than double by 2025 [2], warranting immediate action to mitigate these projections. The key lies in designing buildings with minimal energy consumption, necessitating the widespread adoption of energy-efficient and conservation systems. The measurement of energy usage encompasses a spectrum of statistical metrics that serve as guiding beacons to assess shifts in energy consumption patterns. A corollary to this lies in power consumption reduction, a strategy that involves diminishing energy use relative to the present status quo [3]. The construction sector stands out as the largest consumer of energy among all sectors, comprising nearly half of global energy needs [4] and contributing to over thirty percent of carbon emissions [5]. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has forecasted a potential energy loss exceeding fifty percent by 2025 [2]. Figure 1 illustrates the energy consumption across different sectors in the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) region, with residential buildings representing the highest energy consumers, followed by commercial and public service buildings, such as educational facilities.

The significance of energy conservation within buildings takes on heightened importance. It is advisable to avoid overly emphatic language; nevertheless, the challenge extends beyond energy conservation. Globally, buildings collectively consume a quarter of the world’s water and forty percent of its energy, with approximately 11% of deaths attributed to subpar indoor air quality [6]. In response, the rise of green buildings, characterized by heightened energy efficiency, reduced resource depletion, and improved human well-being, becomes prominent. Achieving sustainability in the building sector depends on minimizing energy and water consumption throughout a building’s lifecycle [7]. This context is particularly relevant in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where cooling processes consume around eighty percent of total energy, equating to roughly three hundred kWh per year [2]. Therefore, the importance of energy conservation within buildings gains additional significance.

Beyond the immediate realm of construction, the green building wave cascades into diverse industries encompassing materials, transportation, energy, waste management, and wastewater treatment. Consequently, amalgamating these sectors into a comprehensive approach holds promise for a holistic greening of the economy. The practice of green architecture not only contributes to the reduction of solid waste, energy usage, and water consumption but also does so cost-effectively, thus heralding a transformative shift in architectural paradigms [7].

“Sustainability” and “green architecture” represent intersecting domains, yet each emphasizes distinct social, environmental, and economic facets of design [8]. An authentic sustainable building encapsulates ecological soundness, human comfort, and economic viability while also considering essential factors such as the environment, economy, and equity [9]. This necessitates architectural approaches that deftly balance the idiosyncrasies of specific buildings, sites, and clients, capturing the intricate interplay of sustainability’s multifaceted dimensions. Amid this backdrop, governments have assumed a proactive stance, orchestrating initiatives and programs to propagate efficient technologies. Such endeavors have been effective, as evidenced by the widespread incorporation of energy-efficient systems in new and retrofitted buildings [10].

This research aims to illuminate the path towards sustainable construction, particularly within the Maqam Campus of the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU). The study endeavors to identify gaps in building design regarding the incorporation of green building technologies and solutions, assessing their availability or absence. Additionally, it rigorously evaluates the alignment of green building design with local and international regulations. Through these efforts, the research seeks to contribute to the knowledge base in sustainable architecture and catalyze transformative changes in the built environment. Ultimately, the aim is to progress towards a future characterized by enhanced energy efficiency, resource conservation, and improved human well-being.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Imperative of Energy Reduction in Buildings

The pressing need for energy reduction has emerged as a paramount concern in contemporary times [1]. Projections from global energy companies indicate that energy consumption is poised to double by 2025 [2], prompting urgent action to curb this trend. Achieving such a transformation necessitates the implementation of energy-efficient features within buildings to minimize energy consumption [3]. Measurement of energy utilization involves diverse statistical measures that guide assessments of shifts in energy consumption patterns [4]. Equally pivotal is power consumption reduction, entailing energy use reduction relative to the present status quo [5]. Significantly, the construction sector is the foremost energy consumer, accounting for nearly half of the global energy requirements [6], contributing over thirty percent of carbon emissions [7]. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has even predicted a potential energy loss exceeding fifty percent by 2025 [2]. This trajectory is visually depicted in Figure 1, where building-related energy consumption is projected to surpass other sectors. As a result, a comprehensive approach is warranted to mitigate energy consumption across diverse building types [1].

2.2. The Impact on Sustainability and Health

Beyond energy, the ecological footprint of buildings extends to water consumption, energy demand, and indoor air quality. Buildings collectively consume a quarter of global water resources and forty percent of energy, while approximately 11% of deaths are attributed to substandard indoor air quality [8]. Consequently, the rise of green buildings is pivotal, embodying enhanced energy efficiency, diminished resource consumption, and improved health and well-being [9]. Ensuring a sustainable transformation within the building sector entails reducing energy and water consumption throughout a building’s lifecycle [10]. This challenge is particularly pronounced in regions like the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where cooling processes account for a substantial portion of total energy consumption [11]. The weight of energy conservation within buildings is thus amplified [12]. This momentum extends beyond construction, affecting various industries such as materials, transportation, energy, waste management, and wastewater treatment. Thus, a holistic approach to integrating these sectors is poised to reverberate across the broader economy [13].

2.3. The Intersection of Green Architecture and Sustainability

The convergence of “sustainability” and “green architecture” represents a complex interplay between environmental, social, and economic considerations within design [14]. Truly sustainable buildings aim to harmonize ecological integrity, human comfort, and economic viability, taking into account factors such as the environment, economy, and equity [15]. Achieving this balance requires architectural strategies that navigate the unique intricacies of individual buildings, sites, and clients, seeking to integrate the diverse facets of sustainability [16]. Additionally, governments have implemented initiatives and programs to promote energy-efficient technologies, leading to significant advancements in the design of both new and retrofitted buildings [17].

2.4. Challenges in Green Building

Design quality refers to how well the owner’s requirements are processed and refined into precise conformance specifications and drawings for the construction team to implement. These include ensuring that the designed building is appropriate for its purpose, has a financial return, adheres to design standards and codes, and, in the context of green buildings, meets the sustainability requirements to achieve a green certification rating [11]. Burgess [12] suggested the following essential activities assure design quality: (1) document, drawing, and specification control to ensure that specifications are up to date while supporting documents for design review reports, calculations, and notices are maintained procedurally, (2) design verification through design analysis (calculations for specifying component dimensions and performance prediction) and review (professional reassessment of the design objectives to avoid mistakes and omissions), (3) versatile systems to handle design changes and respond to non-conformances.

2.4.1. Green Building Adoption

Interest in green-building approaches is burgeoning worldwide as public awareness of environmental issues continues to escalate. This surge in interest has prompted numerous incentives aimed at encouraging the adoption of green building methods to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. A study involving 210 Malaysian firms revealed that organizational support, along with pressure from customers and regulators, exerted a positive influence on the implementation of environmentally friendly projects. This, in turn, enhanced construction companies’ capacity to undertake projects that are both environmentally and economically beneficial.

Despite the presence of various motivating factors, such as ethical considerations and a commitment to social and environmental responsibility, sustainable construction faces several obstacles. Studies indicate that one of the primary challenges is the current high cost associated with the utilization of green building technologies, coupled with a lack of government incentives to spur construction enterprises’ adoption of sustainable practices. Moreover, governmental initiatives promoting sustainability are hindered by a lack of knowledge among urban planners and decision-makers, insufficient collaboration across sectors, and inadequate efforts to integrate sustainable practices into policies. These challenges pose significant barriers to the widespread adoption of green building practices.

2.4.2. Lack of Awareness

The conventional notion of how a building must be constructed exists, but many builders do not want to engage in sustainable construction because of the perceived risks [13]. Environmental auditing adoption—a beneficial, sustainable building practice—is mostly not done because of a lack of understanding [14]. There is also inadequate public education concerning the advantages of sustainable construction because of the paucity of sustainability studies, specifically on issues concerning indoor environmental conditions, productivity, and the health of occupants. Opoku et al. suggested that this lack of awareness is a significant challenge associated with sustainable building processes.

2.4.3. Regulation

RSPRS is an internationally recognized rating system, such as LEED and BREEAM. Overall, it was found that the RSPRS uses a more straightforward approach, compared with the other rating systems, with specific considerations around the region’s cultural aspects. In addition, it has been observed that the implementation of RSPRS to date has mainly focused on energy, water, and comfort.

2.4.4. Equipment and Products

In reality, many of today’s residential structures consume a lot of energy and are made of polluting materials that damage both the external and internal environment, with severe implications for human health. This has resulted in a new consciousness of social responsibility and sustainability. Green building is a green alternative to traditional architecture that promotes natural building materials, technologies, and design methods with low environmental impact with full respect for sustainable development and the landscape context. Green building materials are essential in the construction of an eco-sustainable building. However, to speak of an organic home, its use alone is insufficient: raw materials must originate from certified production, and the entire production process must always follow sustainability and environmental care principles. Stone, cork, raw earth, straw, bamboo, linen, coconut fiber, and cellulose wool are some of the most commonly used materials in the green building industry, with wood, steel, and aluminum at the top.

3. Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Measurement Parameters

In sustainable building practices, Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) plays a pivotal role, encompassing factors that significantly impact occupants’ well-being and comfort. These parameters serve as vital indicators of a building’s ability to offer a healthy indoor environment. This section explores the key measurement parameters of IEQ that collectively contribute to the overall quality of indoor spaces.

3.1. Air Quality

Air quality constitutes a pivotal aspect of IEQ, directly impacting occupant health and comfort. Parameters such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels are commonly measured to assess indoor air quality. VOCs, arising from various materials and furnishings, can lead to adverse health effects, prompting the need for rigorous monitoring [18]. Similarly, PM levels reflect the concentration of fine particles that can exacerbate respiratory issues [19]. CO₂ levels, an indicator of ventilation efficiency, influence cognitive function and well-being [20].

3.2. Thermal Comfort

Thermal comfort is another essential aspect of Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), significantly impacting occupant satisfaction and productivity. Parameters such as indoor temperature, relative humidity, and radiant temperature contribute to the assessment of thermal comfort [21]. Maintaining optimal temperature and humidity levels is crucial to prevent discomfort and potential health issues associated with excessively hot or cold conditions.

3.3. Lighting Quality

Lighting quality has a profound impact on occupant visual comfort and overall well-being. Parameters including illuminance, color rendering index (CRI), and glare index are key to evaluating lighting quality [22]. Adequate illuminance levels promote visual clarity, while CRI ensures accurate color perception. Managing glare is essential to prevent discomfort and visual strain.

3.4. Acoustic Comfort

Acoustic comfort significantly influences occupants’ ability to concentrate and communicate effectively. Sound pressure levels, background noise, and speech intelligibility are key parameters in acoustic comfort assessment [23]. Maintaining appropriate noise levels and optimizing speech clarity contribute to a conducive indoor soundscape.

3.5. Odor and Indoor Pollutants

Maintaining optimal indoor air quality requires rigorous measures for odor control and the reduction of indoor pollutants. It is critical to monitor various parameters associated with specific pollutants such as formaldehyde and radon to ensure occupant safety and overall well-being in indoor environments [15].

4. Materials and Methods

The research employs a mixed-method approach, combining quantitative and qualitative methods to comprehensively assess the selected case study building’s indoor environmental quality (IEQ). The proposed methodology encompasses four distinct stages, as depicted in Figure 2. This study spanned the timeframe from June 2022 to January 2023, during which subjective and objective assessment methods were applied.

The mixed-method approach adopted in this research amalgamates quantitative empirical data with qualitative insights, enriching the overall understanding of indoor environmental quality. By intertwining objective measurements with occupants’ perspectives, this methodology aims to provide a holistic evaluation that captures the measurable attributes and the experiential dimension of IEQ within Building C6.

This approach offers several advantages. Firstly, it allows for a comprehensive examination of various aspects of IEQ, including both quantitative metrics and qualitative feedback from occupants. Secondly, it facilitates a deeper understanding of the interplay between physical environmental conditions and occupants’ subjective experiences, shedding light on potential discrepancies between objective measurements and perceived comfort. Lastly, the mixed-method approach enables triangulation of data from multiple sources, enhancing the reliability and validity of the findings.

4.1. Stage 1: Case Selection

The initial step involved meticulously selecting a suitable case study building to represent the investigation’s context. For this study, Building C6, situated within the premises of the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) in Al Ain, UAE, was identified as the focal point.

4.2. Stage 2: Objective Assessment of IEQ Factors

From December 2022 to January 2023, the selected case study building (C6) underwent a rigorous evaluation concerning various indoor environmental quality factors. These encompassed air quality, thermal comfort, lighting quality, acoustic conditions, and potential indoor pollutants. Objective measurement tools were employed, including instruments for quantifying airborne pollutants, temperature, humidity, illuminance, and noise levels. This stage generated quantitative data, offering an empirical foundation for the assessment.

4.3. Stage 3: Subjective Assessment through Questionnaires

Simultaneously, subjective assessments were undertaken to capture occupants’ perceptions and experiences of the indoor environment. To achieve this, tailored questionnaires were designed and administered to occupants of the workspaces within Building C6. These questionnaires solicited feedback on occupants’ satisfaction levels with IEQ factors and inquired about any health-related symptoms experienced. The responses garnered from the questionnaires provided qualitative insights into occupants’ perspectives.

4.4. Stage 4: Data Integration and Analysis

The final stage involved integrating and analyzing the collected data from objective measurements and subjective questionnaires. The quantitative data from objective assessments were analyzed using statistical tools to derive key metrics and patterns. Concurrently, qualitative data from the questionnaires were subjected to thematic analysis to identify recurring themes, occupant perceptions, and concerns regarding IEQ Integrating these data streams enabled a comprehensive overview of the indoor environment’s quality within Building C6.

The Delphi method is a forecasting process framework based on the results of multiple rounds of questionnaires sent to a panel of experts. It aims to integrate a wide range of points of view to reach a realistic ideal compromise. Data will be collected anonymously to allow participants to offer their opinions in an unrestrained manner [14].

The Delphi approach has been employed in numerous projects of varying sizes to gather and summarize the perspectives of stakeholders and decision-makers on future energy usage [15]. A key advantage often cited for using the Delphi method is its ability to inform policy-making and decision guidelines by incorporating a wide range of viewpoints in a rapidly evolving field [16]. However, it is common for the Delphi approach to be integrated with another method, as observed in our case study, particularly in scenario structuring and future strategies related to green buildings in the energy sector [17]. This combined approach enables the authors to identify significant gaps and issues comprehensively, facilitating the development of key guidelines to be followed, as demonstrated in our local case study for UAEU.

5. Building Selection and Description

The case study building selected for this research is nestled within the vibrant campus of the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) in Al Ain, UAE Al Ain’s climate characterizes itself as a hot and arid desert climate, typified by extended, scorching summers with an average temperature of 38 °C, and mild, temperate winters averaging around 18 °C. The relative humidity, averaging 60% [15,24], further defines the region’s unique climate. Figure 3 illustrates the yearly temperature and solar radiation trends, delineating the sharp contrast between the searing summers and the relatively temperate winters.

The chosen building, named Building C6, embodies academia’s progress within the UAEU campus. Designed to cater to female students pursuing studies in engineering, science, and food systems, Building C6 spans two floors. Its versatile spaces accommodate lecture rooms, laboratories, and various facilities, as shown in Figure 4.

Further insights into the building’s architectural and service specifics are provided below:

• Use: Office spaces, laboratories, and lecture rooms.
• Cooling System: Integrated with campus district cooling
• Air Handling Units: 13 AHUs elegantly integrated into the roof
• Air Handling Control: Responsive variable air volume (VAV) approach
• Lighting System: Illuminated with energy-efficient T5 fluorescent lamps (office spaces)
• Lighting Control: User-friendly wall switches for convenient on/off functionality

6. Surveys and Interviews

This step will help researchers gather information from the building users (faculty, students, and others), regarding their satisfaction or comfort, health and safety benefits, and awareness of green building technology, solutions, and products present in Maqam Campus Buildings.

6.1. First Survey: Occupants’ Awareness of Green Building Practice

The survey was structured into four parts. First, participants provided basic information such as age, gender, and education. Following that, the survey assessed participants’ awareness of eco-friendly building practices. Moving forward, the survey delved into participants’ opinions about the building’s environment. This section aimed at understanding their feelings about their surroundings. Subsequently, the survey looked ahead, inquiring whether participants were interested in buying, living in, or spending time in a green building, as outlined in Appendix A. The survey gathered information about the participants, their knowledge of eco-building, their sentiments about the environment, and their future preferences.

6.2. Second Survey: C6 ‘Users’ Satisfaction

A second survey, designated as “C6 ‘Users’ Satisfaction Assessment”, was also implemented. It sought to gauge the perceptions and sentiments of the building’s occupants, scrutinizing their experiences, preferences, and perspectives. The aim of the survey was to discern how effectively the architectural and functional attributes of the structure contributed to overall user satisfaction.

The survey, outlined in Appendix B, provided a deeper and more nuanced comprehension of the users’ perceptions. Its rigorous methodology demonstrated the interplay between the architecture, functionality, and user satisfaction in relation to the premises.

7. IEQ Monitoring

A consistent monitoring approach was used to methodically evaluate the building’s indoor environmental quality (IEQ). This involved ongoing air temperature (°C) and relative humidity (RH in %) measurements. These quantitative assessments were conducted to objectively understand the building’s environmental conditions.

From December 2022 to January 2023, the monitoring efforts extended to encompass specific zones within the building. Light was also incorporated into the evaluation process using dedicated data loggers. A visual representation and detailed description of the employed data logger can be found in Figure 5.

Strategically spanning the expanse of the first floor within the C6 building, a network of 15 HOBO devices was meticulously deployed. This arrangement facilitated data analysis, ensuring that a comprehensive perspective could be garnered, and meaningful comparisons drawn. The height at which the HOBO was placed corresponds to the midpoint of the wall, which is approximately 2.5 m above the floor level. This positioning strategy was chosen to provide representative measurements of indoor environmental conditions, while minimizing potential interference from the building’s HVAC system.

The analysis efforts were focused on specific functional zones, such as classrooms, corridors, and office spaces, guided by the specific requirements of the assessment. These zones were chosen because they are essential in capturing a representative cross section of the building’s daily activities and human interactions. All the devices were attached near the ceiling, positioned in the opposite direction of any potential windows in the rooms. The architectural blueprint depicted in Figure 6 illustrates the intricate layout of the first floor’s spatial distribution and the strategic placement of each HOBO device. This shows the precise positioning of each monitoring device within the various zones, thereby enhancing the integrity and reliability of the subsequent analysis.

8. Results and Discussions

8.1. Survey Analysis

The initial survey primarily drew participation from students, who constituted 98% of the respondents. Within this student demographic, the age range of 18 to 25 was significantly represented, accounting for 96% of the participants. This suggests that the survey resonated more strongly with younger individuals pursuing their Bachelor’s degrees.

Transitioning to the second phase of the survey, which focused on the participants’ comprehension of green building concepts, it became evident that a noteworthy portion of respondents, 67%, claimed to possess a fundamental understanding of the concepts associated with green buildings. This indicates a moderate level of awareness within the surveyed group, suggesting that a majority have a baseline familiarity with the subject. A minority, 2%, admitted to being entirely unfamiliar with green building concepts. On the other hand, 33% indicated a strong familiarity with the subject, signifying a relatively well-informed segment of respondents. The majority of participants, however, fall between these two extremes, with varying degrees of familiarity, ranging from slightly to moderately familiar. When participants were prompted to articulate their perception of what constitutes a green building, a substantial portion, 63%, associated green buildings with advanced technology to conserve energy, water, and electricity. This response aligns with the common understanding that green buildings increase sustainability through innovative technological solutions. Figure 7 shows the participants’ answers to the first and second sections of the first survey.

The third section of the survey delved into participants’ opinions concerning controlling lighting and air conditioning (AC) temperature within the C6 building. The focus was on whether participants preferred these controls to be manual or automatic. Among the respondents, a noteworthy pattern emerged. More than half of the participants, indicating a substantial majority, preferred having direct control over lighting and CAC temperature settings. This preference for manual control implies that participants desire the autonomy to adjust lighting and CAC temperature settings based on their comfort levels and specific needs. The inclination towards manual control might be influenced by personal comfort preferences, energy conservation awareness, or the desire for immediate adjustments, as shown in Figure 8.

The fourth and concluding section of the survey focused on participants’ attitudes towards residing, purchasing, and spending extended periods in a green building environment. A critical aspect of this section was a question regarding participants’ willingness to allocate additional funds for living in a green building. The responses to this question revealed that more than 30% of the participants were comfortable spending extra money to reside in a green building. This suggests that a notable portion of the surveyed group values the benefits of sustainable and eco-friendly living, as evidenced by their willingness to invest financially in such an environment.

Interestingly, 30% of the participants expressed a conditional stance. They said that they would consider living in a green building, provided that the cost did not exceed 20% of the typical price of conventional home construction. This response showcases a pragmatic approach, where participants are open to green building options if the financial implications remain within a specific range. Conversely, a relatively small percentage of participants, 5%, stated that they do not envision incorporating green building practices into their future homes, as shown in Figure 9. This response could stem from various factors, such as a lack of awareness, differing priorities, or a preference for conventional living arrangements.

The second survey focused on participants’ satisfaction levels in relation to the C6 building. By involving the same participants, this survey facilitated a comparative analysis of their opinions on the building’s attributes and overall contentment. Aimed at gathering insights into various facets of the building’s design and functionality, this follow-up survey contributed to the participants’ satisfaction. It covered a range of aspects including architectural elements, spatial arrangements, and environmental features.

The satisfaction data were divided into two groups for analysis. The first group assessed participants’ ratings of different building design elements, providing insights into their satisfaction with the layout, ease of navigation, and impact on productivity. Figure 10 illustrates the distribution of participants’ responses, visually representing their satisfaction levels with these aspects of the building.

In the survey’s second segment, the questions were designed to gather insights about the various functional elements that contribute to the comfort and well-being of the building’s occupants. Figure 11 shows the percentage of participant satisfaction across diverse variables such as temperature, ventilation, lighting, classroom space, overall cleanliness, noise levels, and more.

Figure 11 demonstrates substantial levels of satisfaction among participants across various aspects, except for thermal comfort and indoor temperature in classrooms and offices, which participants were divided on. The aspects relating to perceived thermal conditions had a nearly equal distribution of participants expressing satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

To conclude, the surveys yielded valuable insights into participants’ attitudes and perceptions around green building concepts, and their satisfaction with the C6 building. The findings, summarized in

Table 1. Survey results summary: Attitudes and perceptions towards green building concepts and C6 building satisfaction.

Survey Section	Key Findings
Demographics	- 98% of respondents were students. - 96% of participants were age 18 to 25.
Comprehension of Green Building Concepts	- 67% claimed to have a fundamental understanding of green building concepts. - 33% indicated a strong familiarity with green building concepts.
Perception of Green Buildings	- 63% associated green buildings with advanced technology for sustainability. - 2% admitted to being entirely unfamiliar with green building concepts.
Lighting and AC Control Preferences	- Over 50% preferred manual control over lighting and AC temperature settings.
Attitudes towards Green Buildings	- More than 30% were comfortable spending extra money to reside in a green building. - 30% expressed conditional willingness.

, highlight aspects such as demographics, comprehension of green building concepts, preferences for lighting and AC control, and attitudes towards green buildings. These results provide a comprehensive understanding of the participants’ perspectives, facilitating informed decision-making for future building designs and sustainability initiatives.

The survey provided valuable insights into participant attitudes towards green building concepts, as well as understanding preferences for manual or automatic control over lighting and AC systems. Moreover, by gauging participants’ satisfaction with various aspects of the C6 building, the survey provided feedback on its design, functionality, and environmental features. These insights can inform decision-making processes for future building designs, renovations, and sustainability initiatives, ensuring alignment with occupants’ needs and preferences. Additionally, areas of dissatisfaction highlighted in the survey can be targeted for improvement, enhancing occupant comfort, well-being, and overall satisfaction with the built environment.

8.2. E.Q. Monitoring Data

Comprehensive environmental monitoring was conducted across selected open study zones in reference to the factors influencing occupant satisfaction and indoor environmental quality (IEQ). A comparison between the recorded parameters and established international standards was carried out to discern prevailing statistical trends.

8.2.1. Thermal Comfort

Given the building’s occupancy patterns, which peak during typical working hours, it is important to note that natural temperature fluctuations occur. Our measurements reveal that despite these fluctuations, all assessed zones consistently exhibited temperatures below the recommended range of 24 °C to 26 °C, as specified by ASHRAE 55 standards [25]. This indicates a potential discrepancy between the actual indoor temperatures and the comfort range outlined by industry guidelines, which may lead to occupant discomfort and dissatisfaction with thermal conditions.

In terms of relative humidity (RH), our assessments align closely with ASHRAE 55 guidelines, which recommend RH levels between 30% and 60% for optimal comfort. The observed RH percentages across the assessed zones ranged from 48% to 62%, with an average of 55.8%, as depicted in Figure 12. These data highlight the building’s ability to maintain appropriate humidity levels within the recommended range for occupant comfort.

Furthermore, it is important to note that our monitoring efforts also considered the operational status of the building’s cooling system. We observed that the cooling system remained active even during weekends, contributing to continuous indoor climate control. However, this extended operation may lead to heightened energy consumption and warrants further consideration in terms of sustainability and energy-efficiency measures. Overall, these findings underscore the importance of ongoing monitoring and maintenance of indoor environmental conditions to ensure occupant comfort and well-being. Additionally, they emphasize the need for strategic energy management practices to optimize building performance while minimizing energy consumption.

8.2.2. Lighting Quality

The collective average illumination registered stands at 697 lux, surpassing the recommended 300–500 lux range advocated by the WELL building standard [26], as depicted in Figure 13, which encompasses data from four loggers. Variability in measurements arises due to the variety of window dimensions across classrooms and corridors, leading to significant fluctuations.

It is worth noting that none of the assessed rooms achieved the prescribed lux level. This can be attributed to the artificial lighting, typically from T5 fluorescent lamps, in combination with the natural daylight from windows. Having both artificial and natural light resulted in excess light, causing potentially uncomfortable conditions.

In terms of boundary conditions, the measurements were taken under normal operating conditions within the building, accounting for typical occupancy and usage patterns. The accuracy of each lux measurement was verified using calibrated equipment, ensuring precise and reliable data collection. Additionally, the results were validated through repeated measurements and comparisons with established lighting standards, such as the WELL building standard. A potential solution is to introduce enhanced control mechanisms to the artificial lighting system. This could encompass features such as light dimming or selective fixture activation, aimed at achieving a more balanced and comfortable lighting environment. Adopting such measures could not only improve occupant comfort but also lead to additional annual energy savings and corresponding cost reductions.

9. Conclusions

The multifaceted approach undertaken in this study, integrating both survey responses and meticulous environmental monitoring, has yielded invaluable insights into occupant satisfaction and Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) within the C6 building. The survey analysis revealed significant trends among participants, with a substantial majority expressing preferences for manual control over lighting and air conditioning (AC) temperature settings. Specifically, 62% of participants favored manual control, indicating a strong desire for autonomy in adjusting environmental factors to suit their comfort levels. This underscores the importance of user agency in promoting occupant comfort and satisfaction.

Additionally, participants exhibited a notable level of awareness and understanding of green building concepts, with many associating them with innovative technology to conserve energy and promote sustainability. Over two-thirds (67%) of respondents claimed to have a fundamental understanding of green building concepts, indicating a moderate level of awareness within the surveyed group. Moreover, when prompted to articulate their perception of green buildings, 63% associated them with advanced technology for energy, water, and electricity conservation. This alignment with sustainable principles underscores the importance of incorporating green building features to meet occupants’ expectations and promote environmental stewardship.

Complementing the survey findings, the environmental monitoring data provided critical insights into the conditions within the building. The analysis of thermal comfort revealed a discrepancy between the observed indoor temperatures and recommended ranges, suggesting a potential source of discomfort for occupants. Specifically, the indoor temperatures ranged from 22 °C to 24 °C, falling slightly below the recommended range of 24 °C to 26 °C outlined by ASHRAE 55. Similarly, while lighting quality exceeded recommended levels, with a collective average illumination of 697 lux, the data indicated a need for optimized lighting balance to mitigate fluctuations and enhance overall comfort.

These findings underscore the importance of holistic approaches to building design, encompassing both architectural and functional elements, to create environments that prioritize occupant well-being and sustainability. By embracing user-centric solutions and leveraging advanced technologies, future educational buildings can aspire to create enriching environments that cater to the evolving needs of occupants while promoting environmental stewardship.

Creating educational spaces that optimize functionality and user experience requires a holistic approach. A key recommendation to enhance the design of educational buildings, focusing on improving occupant comfort, sustainability, and adaptability, has been outlined. From thermal comfort to dynamic lighting solutions, these strategies aim to create environments that nurture learning, collaboration, and well-being while aligning with future-forward sustainability goals, as follows:

• Thermal Comfort Optimization: Our research highlights the importance of addressing thermal comfort discrepancies within educational buildings. Implementing responsive HVAC systems that can adapt to varying occupancy and external conditions, including zone-based temperature control and scheduling adjustments, is crucial to maintaining a comfortable learning environment throughout the day.
• User-Centric Control Systems: Based on our findings, it is essential to introduce advanced control mechanisms that empower occupants to personalize their environment while optimizing energy consumption. Incorporating smart sensors and controls allows users to fine-tune lighting and temperature settings within their spaces, enhancing comfort and sustainability.
• Dynamic Lighting Solutions: Our research underscores the significance of implementing dynamic lighting systems that balance natural daylighting with artificial illumination. By incorporating sensors that adjust lighting levels based on the availability of natural light, buildings can promote comfort while minimizing energy wastage, aligning with our sustainability goals.
• Thorough User Consultation: Engaging occupants and users early in the design phase is critical to aligning building features with their needs and preferences. Our research emphasizes the importance of gathering insights into user expectations to foster a stronger sense of ownership and satisfaction with the educational environment.
• Flexible Spatial Design: Developing flexible layouts that adapt to evolving educational needs is essential for creating versatile and long-lasting educational spaces. Modular furniture and adaptable partitions allow spaces to be easily reconfigured for different purposes, enhancing functionality and accommodating diverse learning activities.
• Enhanced Thermal Zoning: Our research highlights the benefits of dividing buildings into distinct thermal zones to cater to specific occupancy patterns and comfort requirements. This ensures that energy is allocated efficiently based on actual usage, contributing to both occupant comfort and sustainability objectives.
• Natural Ventilation Strategies: Designing spaces that facilitate natural ventilation is essential for promoting fresh air circulation and enhancing indoor air quality. Incorporating operable windows, stack ventilation principles, and strategic building orientation aligns with our sustainability goals and contributes to occupant well-being.
• Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Conducting regular post-occupancy evaluations is crucial for gathering continuous feedback from occupants and refining building operations and design based on real-world experiences. This iterative process enables ongoing improvements that enhance both user satisfaction and sustainability performance.
• Education on Sustainable Living: Integrating educational initiatives within the building raises awareness about sustainable practices among occupants. Interactive displays, workshops, and information hubs engage occupants in environmentally conscious behaviors, fostering a culture of sustainability within the educational environment.
• Collaborative Spaces: Designing communal spaces that foster collaboration and interdisciplinary learning enhances the overall educational experience. These spaces encourage knowledge exchange and engagement, aligning with our research findings on the importance of creating enriching environments that nurture learning and collaboration.