sustainability

Article
Evaluation Model and Strategy for Selecting Carbon
Reduction Technology for Campus Buildings in
Primary and Middle Schools in the Yangtze River
Delta Region, China
Xiaoyu Luo, Cong Ma and Jian Ge *
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China;
xiaoyuluo@[Link] (X.L.); 3120104943@[Link] (C.M.)
* Correspondence: gejian1@[Link]




Received: 3 December 2019; Accepted: 7 January 2020; Published: 10 January 2020


Abstract: Cutting down global warming and reducing greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon
dioxide are important global targets. Accounting for a third of global energy consumption, the
building construction industry is an important target for carbon reduction. Campus buildings, of
which there are a large number in China, differ from other building types, as they have noteworthy
energy-use characteristics and technology selection requirements. This study identifies the carbon
reduction technologies in Chinese primary and middle schools commonly used for energy and water
conservation, and then evaluates their performance according to degrees of carbon reduction, maturity
and economic suitability. Based on these three indicators, the study creates a three-dimensional
evaluation model for the different technologies examined in order to obtain a selection ranking.
The study offers guidance for project practice in the construction of primary and middle schools and
helps to promote the development of the low-carbon campus.

Keywords: carbon reduction; maturity; economic; primary and middle schools; comprehensive
evaluation

1. Introduction
With increased urbanization, greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, have increased
substantially on a global scale, bringing about climate warming and rising sea levels. The United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), adopted in 1992 in response to the
climate crisis [1], was the first international convention to attempt to take control of greenhouse gas
emissions. With the Paris Agreement of 2015, 166 countries agreed, starting in 2020, to limit increases
in global average temperatures to within 2 ◦ C in this century but with the aspiration to further limit
global temperature rise to within 1.5 ◦ C above temperatures in the pre-industrial period [2].
In 2018, the total carbon emissions of the United States and the European Union were 8.9 billion
tons, while those of China were 10 billion [3], exceeding the total sum of United States and European
Union emissions. To speed up the pace of carbon reduction, at the 2009 United Nations Climate
Change Conference in Copenhagen, China proposed that the GDP per unit of carbon dioxide emissions
would fall by 40–45% by 2020 compared with 2005, that carbon emissions would peak by around
2030 and that China would strive to reach this peak sooner if possible. According to data from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the construction industry accounted for 32%
of global terminal energy consumption in 2010 [4]. Reducing the carbon emissions of buildings is,
therefore, an urgent requirement. It is estimated that, by the end of 2020, China will have added a
further 30 billion m2 of construction, including 13 billion m2 of urban construction. If these buildings

Sustainability 2020, 12, 534; doi:10.3390/su12020534 [Link]/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 534 2 of 16

could save 50% on current energy consumption, this would mean saving about 160 million tons of
standard coal per year [5].
With the popularization of compulsory education in China and the liberalization of the second-child
policy, the demand for campus buildings has also increased. In 2018, there were 213,800 schools
for compulsory education in China. School building areas increased by 5.5% compared with 2017,
and primary schools increased by 4.7% [6]. Campus buildings have different energy-use characteristics
compared with ordinary buildings because there is no energy use during the winter and summer
vacations. In addition, campus buildings play an important role in developing low-carbon concepts
for students. Therefore, based on the rapid growth of campus areas and their particular energy-use
characteristics, it is crucial to establish appropriate energy saving and carbon reduction technology
systems, as these may have a significant impact on future carbon reduction.
The operational use of buildings has been identified as a primary carbon source, making up around
80% [7–9] of the building’s emissions, and thus, for the existing studies regarding low-carbon buildings,
the operation stages and the corresponding technologies employed were the focus. The construction
of the enclosure and the applied materials represent the most important considerations. Dowd and
Mourshed pointed out that high carbon emissions are largely caused by heat loss through the external
surfaces of the structure [10]. Gan et al. used computer simulations to estimate the reduction in carbon
emissions associated with different materials and window standards. Windows and wall insulation
were found to be a key issue for super-tall buildings [11]. Kim, Tae and Roh applied a combination
of different wall thicknesses, window to wall ratios and materials under specific carbon reduction
rates for apartment buildings, and found the largest carbon reduction was obtained with a W/B value
of 35%, among 36 types of low-carbon durability design [12]. Saroglou studied a high rise building
with a ventilated double skin façade (DSF), and compared three parameters, including solar radiation,
total heat transfer and cooling energy loads to judge three scenarios with various DSFs, which was
used to develop strategies to measure DSF at various heights [13]. In an analysis of construction
materials, Rodrigues, Martins and Nunes compared the proportion of metal, stone and concrete in
actual buildings, and calculated their corresponding carbon emissions, which can be used in materials
selection to achieve a particular carbon reduction rate [14]. Xia and Li compared the carbon reduction
benefits of shading, internal space separation and natural ventilation in several typical plans of existing
office buildings in operation [15]. Zhang and Zhou used existing research to identify 18 possible factors
that may affect the development of low-carbon buildings in China’s urban areas, and they conducted a
survey and analyzed the data to obtain the final six proposals, providing a reference for the effective
development of urban low-carbon buildings [16].
For different types of school building, meeting the relevant low-carbon reduction criteria and
the demands associated with their high-quality indoor environment was found to be somewhat
difficult [17]. Pereira found that, based on the average energy use of schools in the United States,
47% was used for space heating and 14% was used for lighting [18]. Hence, the technologies associated
with lighting, air-conditioning and enclosures having lower rates of energy consumption were a
primary focus. Stazi reported that open windows are important for thermal comfort and energy
consumption. Consequently, he examined a classroom in an Italian primary school as a typical case
to explore the influencing factors that affect the opening of windows, which mainly included indoor
and outdoor temperature, as well as carbon concentrations in the indoor air. Among these factors,
the indoor temperature was found to be the biggest factor that had the most significant influence [19].
Zhang and Bokel considered the schoolyard and the effects of passive designs (e.g., greening and roof
design) on the thermal and wind environment to identify the relevant outdoor parameters that can
also influence the basic data associated with energy consumption used for indoor cooling. Based on
the above, the integrated design recommendations for outdoor and indoor environments can be
developed [20].
In addition to the technologies related to carbon emissions, the investment and efficiency of low
carbon technologies are also noteworthy. On one hand, the various economic strengths of investors
Sustainability 2020, 12, 534 3 of 16

influence the selection of technology applications, especially larger investments such as the installation
of renewable energy resources onsite (e.g., photovoltaic (PV) solar panels and heat pumps). On the
other hand, selecting the most cost-effective technology is a public concern. Wang and Chen established
a carbon reduction building model combined with income and economic development. The study
organized high-income areas, medium-income areas, and low-income areas under three scenarios
of different temperature reduction targets that included applicable low-carbon technologies and
forecasts [21]. Lindberg built a technology evaluation model based on zero-energy buildings, mainly
including PV panels, electric boilers, pellet boilers, HP and other technologies that can generate
electricity. With different percentages of energy generated by buildings, the contribution of various
technologies and the investment of each technology in various stages can be obtained [22]. Koo also
considered eight scenarios that included the application of work time, lighting, energy resources and
corresponding investment, and the scenarios all related to primary, middle and high schools in the
center of Seoul, South Korea. With different NPV (Net Present Value) and SIR (Saving–to-investment
ratio) targets, the corresponding scenarios could be used [23]. Suk, Lee and Jeong reviewed the
investment and return cycle statistics associated with low-carbon technologies from the perspective
of the investor [24]. They also conducted surveys of acceptable technology recovery cycles and
the willingness of 35 Korean companies to make certain technology investments, which provided a
reference for the formulation of relevant policies.
Stated thus, previous studies regarding carbon reduction usually employed various fixed scenarios,
which had corresponding levels of carbon reduction efficiency and investment. However, the acceptance
and difficulties in application, which also play a vital role in practical engineering, were usually
ignored. Moreover, carbon reduction in the studies was achieved by the electricity savings that occur in
a building’s operational stages, while water savings can also cut down the carbon emissions for supply
systems that also require energy. Previous studies also mainly obtained results based on comparisons
of several scenarios simulated by only one building, which is often difficult to apply to other buildings
in practice. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation model that can generate corresponding results
under various conditions and scenarios is needed.
In this study, several cases located in the Yangtze River Delta, China, were considered, along with
potentially applicable low-carbon emissions technologies. The Yangtze River Delta region is located
in the south-eastern coastal area of China, and it is one of six world-class urban agglomerations that
accounts for nearly 25% of the country’s total economic output [25]. In this region, the number of
students in primary and middle schools exceeds 13% of the total number across the country, making it
the leading region in China [26]. However, the major industries in the region include electronics and
other manufacturing industries, which are dominated by primary energy sources such as coal-fired
power plants. As a result, the energy structure in the region will not change in the short term, making
carbon reduction more difficult to achieve. Therefore, the region is typical in terms of its educational
demands and high carbon emissions as a result of economic development.
Based on the investigation of seven school buildings, this study established a multi-dimensional
evaluation model of carbon reduction technologies. Considering the carbon reduction associated with
electricity and water resource savings, the model uses the carbon reduction effect, economic investment,
and maturity of application in practice as the evaluation parameters. The average situation of each
technology applied in the seven cases provided more representative conditions, and the considered
technologies included air conditioning, enclosure construction, renewable resource use and lighting
that suit the characteristics of the school building type and meet the school indoor environmental
demands. From this, an evaluation of each technology can be conducted, and the carbon reduction
technology selection strategy can be obtained. Accordingly, this research can provide a valuable input
to make more effective technology choices in future practice.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 534 4 of 16

2. Method

2.1. Technology List

At present, building technologies related to savings in water and energy use are the main driver
of carbon reduction. According to China’s ‘Green Building Evaluation Standards GB/T50378-2014 [27]’
and the ‘Assessment Standard for Green Campus GB/T 51356-2019 [28]’, high-efficiency equipment,
the improvement of existing appliances and the use of renewable energy are the main methods of
saving water and electrical energy. The technologies commonly used in campus buildings from this
perspective are shown in Table 1, which are summarized through cases provided by Zhejiang Green
Building and Building Energy Reduction Association. There are eight of these technologies, comprising
water saving irrigation systems, rainwater recycling, water saving appliances, energy saving lamps,
high-quality enclosure (HQE), which offers thermal insulation etc., air-heat pumps, solar water heating
systems and high-efficiency air conditioning equipment (HEAE). Among these technologies, water
saving irrigation systems mainly adopt drip irrigation to reduce water waste. Water saving appliances
aim to improve manufacturing standards—for example, the use of nozzles to reduce water in sanitary
ware but with the same cleaning effect. Rainwater recycling uses rainwater for greening and road
flushing. Solar water heating systems and air-heat pumps provide heat for domestic hot water by
replacing traditional electric heating with renewable energy. Energy saving lamps, HQE and HEAE
maintain the same indoor environment with lower energy consumption by raising efficiency.

Table 1. Application of main carbon reduction technologies.

Carbon Reduction Types Technology Type Technologies Practice

• Drip irrigation, sprinkler irrigation,
High-performance Campus water saving
filtration irrigation
appliances irrigation
• Devices such as soil moisture sensors
• Recycling rainwater from roads and
Renewable energy use Rainwater recycling playgrounds for green irrigation and road
flushing
Water Resource Saving • The indicators meet the specific
requirements of the national water saving
domestic water appliances standards for
each appliance. For example, the flow
High-performance Secondary water saving rate of the nozzle should not be less than
appliances appliances 0.125 L per second and the flushing valve
of the toilet should not be less than 5 L.
For urinal flushing, the single flush water
volume of the valve should not be less
than 3 L, etc.
High-performance • Use of energy saving lamps (such as
Energy saving lamps
equipment LED lamps) to improve power efficiency
• The use of materials such as thermal
insulation layers ensures that the
maintenance structure of each part of the
High-performance High-quality enclosure
building meets the specified indicators in
equipment (HQE)
the ‘Design Standard for the Energy
Electricity Saving Efficiency of Public Buildings
(GB50189-2015) [29]’
• Use of air-source heat pumps to provide
Renewable energy use Air-heat pumps a certain amount of electricity or domestic
hot water heating
Solar water heating
Renewable energy use • Solar photovoltaic panels, collectors, etc.
systems
High efficiency air
High-performance • Equipment with high-energy
conditioning equipment
equipment efficiencyair conditioning units
(HEAE)
Sustainability 2020, 12, 534 5 of 16

2.2. Evaluation Model

2.2.1. Carbon Reduction Degree

A building has energy consumption and carbon emissions throughout its life cycle and this
study focuses on the operational period. The carbon reduction degree indicates the technology’s
impact on reducing CO2 emissions across the building. The average carbon reduction rate of the same
technology used in different cases represents the real-life degree of carbon reduction. Here, the carbon
reduction rate refers to the ratio of the annual carbon emission reduction of the building after using the
technology to the annual carbon emissions of the building when the technology is not used. The higher
the carbon reduction rate, the more low-carbon benefits the corresponding technology offers. Annual
water saving and energy saving can be converted into the annual carbon reduction according to the
following formula [30,31]:

Cwater = Qsupply × W 1 + Qdrain × (W 2 + C2 )

where Cwater refers to the reduced CO2 emissions due to annual water savings; Qsupply refers to the
annual water supply (the unit is m3 /a); Qdrain refers to the annual displacement (the unit is m3 /a); W 1 is
the CO2 emission generated by the power consumption of the water supply system (take 0.3 kg/m3 );
W 2 is the CO2 emission generated by the power consumption of the sewage system (take 0.25 kg/m3 );
and C2 is the CO2 emission from the conversion of the carbon source of the sewage system (0.7 kg/m3 ).

Celectric = Q × 0.7035

where Celectric refers to the reduced CO2 emissions due to annual energy saving (kg/a) and Q refers to
the annual electricity saving as a result of adopting the technology (kWh/a).
According to the formula, the amount of carbon reduction and the carbon reduction rate achieved
by each technology can be calculated for each case. The average carbon reduction rate of the technology
is used as the basis to assess the carbon reduction effect. In order to facilitate a comprehensive analysis
with other index values, the average carbon reduction rate is normalised to obtain the final carbon
reduction degree, as follows:
En = en × γ

where En indicates the degree of carbon reduction of the technology; n is 1, 2, 3...8, representing the
8 technologies to be studied; en is the average carbon reduction rate of the corresponding technology;
γ is the coefficient normalized for the data (the value takes 1/max en ); and the max en is the highest
average carbon reduction rate in the studied technologies.

2.2.2. Maturity Degree

The aturity degree is another index in the technology evaluation model. Its level reflects the
current acceptance of a technology by designers and the market. A technology with a high maturity
degree indicates that the current practical application is appropriate for promotion. The research is
based on the maturity data of the cases studied and the maturity degree is calculated as shown in
the following formula. When other indices are similar, the higher the maturity degree, the more the
technology is recommended.
In = ρn /A

where In indicates the maturity degree of the technology; n is 1, 2, 3...8, representing the 8 technologies
to be studied; ρn is the number of cases using the corresponding technology; and A is the total number
of research cases.
When assessing the maturity degree, the various examples of six technologies (rainwater recycling,
water saving irrigation, secondary water saving appliances, air heat pumps, solar water heating systems
and energy saving lamps) have relatively consistent energy saving effects in the market. Therefore,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 534 6 of 16

assessing the number of cases in which the technology is used can help assess the final maturity degree.
However, the use of HQE and HEAE is required to meet certain levels in order to be assessed as ‘high
performing’. For example, a 10% reduction in air-conditioning equipment energy consumption is
the minimum according to the ‘Green Building Evaluation Standards GB/T50378-20140 , and the heat
transfer coefficient of every part of the building must meet the ‘Design Standard for Energy Efficiency
of Public Buildings GB50189-2015 [29]’.

2.2.3. Economy Degree

Some carbon reduction technologies, such as renewable energy, involve the application of auxiliary
equipment, which leads to greater investment [32]. We should also note the phenomenon in which
the benefit of carbon reduction is not necessarily proportional to economic input. Therefore, it is
necessary to make an evaluation that identifies the best carbon reduction benefits for the particular
technology investments. The incremental cost of each technology component (yuan per m2 ) can be
obtained by synthesizing the current market price. The data can then be used as the economic degree
of the technology through normalization. Normalization, here, is used to treat the other incremental
cost data equally after the highest incremental cost (yuan per m2 ) in the technique is recorded as 1.
The economy degree is calculated as follows. The closer the value is to 1, the higher the incremental
cost is. When other index values are similar, the higher the cost, the lower the recommendation.

Tn = tn × ε

where Tn refers to the economy degree; n is 1, 2, 3...8, representing the 8 technologies to be studied;
tn refers to the incremental cost per floor area (yuan per m2 ) in market; ε is the coefficient of data
normalization, which is calculated as 1/max tn ; and max tn here is the maximum cost per floor area
among the technologies.

2.2.4. Multi-Index Evaluation System

In this study, a comprehensive three-dimensional evaluation of the selected technologies was
designed for campus buildings. This took into account the degree of carbon reduction, maturity
and economy. First, a two-dimensional evaluation panel was constructed with evaluation panels
(Figures 1–3) for carbon reduction–maturity, carbon reduction–economy and maturity–economy.
In each two-dimensional panel, the study ranked the selected technology under the corresponding
index according to the data for each index. As for the degree of carbon reduction and maturity, this was
considered excellent where the data value was in the [2/3,1] range, good where the data value was in
the [1/3,2/3] range and ordinary where the data value was in the [0,1/3] range. However, the economy
degree was the opposite. Here, a data value of [2/3,1] was ordinary, [1/3,2/3] was good and [0,1/3]
was excellent.
The two-dimensional evaluation panel was divided into nine grids according to the data for each
index. This evaluation enabled us to rank the recommended level of each technology. As shown in
Figures 1–3, the green part (I) represents a high recommendation, the light grey part (II) represents
a moderate recommendation and the dark grey part (III) represents the poorest recommendation.
Each technology has an exact point in the two-dimensional panels according to its own index value,
and the area where the point is located represents the technical recommendation level.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 534 7 of 16

Sustainability 2020, 12, 534 7 of 16

Sustainability 2020,
Sustainability 12, 534
2020, 12, 534 7 7of
of 16
16

Figure 1. Carbon reduction–maturity evaluation panel.

Figure 1. Carbon reduction–maturity evaluation panel.

Figure 1. Carbon reduction–maturity evaluation panel.
Figure 1. Carbon reduction–maturity evaluation panel.

Figure 2. Carbon reduction–economy evaluation panel.

Figure 2. Carbon reduction–economy evaluation panel.
Figure 2. Carbon reduction–economy evaluation panel.

Figure 2. Carbon reduction–economy evaluation panel.

Figure 3. Maturity–economy evaluation panel.

Figure 3. Maturity–economy evaluation panel.
The technology recommendation level in the three two-dimensional panels may not be the same.
Figure
The final recommendation level 3. Maturity–economy
under the comprehensiveevaluation panel.
three-dimensional evaluation is obtained
according to the two-dimensional evaluation recommendation, as shown
Figure 3. Maturity–economy evaluation panel. in Table 2 below.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 534 8 of 16

Table 2. Three-dimensional evaluation method.

Recommendation Level Recommendation Level

Recommendation Level
in Carbon in Carbon Final Recommendation
in Maturity–Economy
reduction–Maturity Reduction–Economy Level
Evaluation
Evaluation Evaluation
High High High
High High Moderate
High High Poor
High Moderate High High
High Poor High
Moderate High High
Poor High High
High Moderate Poor
High Poor Moderate
Moderate High Poor
Moderate Poor High
Poor Moderate High
Poor High Moderate
High Moderate Moderate Moderate
Moderate High Moderate
Moderate Moderate High
Moderate Moderate Moderate
Moderate Moderate Poor
Moderate Poor Moderate
Poor Moderate Moderate
Poor Poor High
Poor Poor Moderate
Poor Poor Poor
Poor High Poor Poor
Poor Moderate Poor
High Poor Poor
Moderate Poor Poor

3. Case Study

3.1. Case and Technology Selected

The study focused on primary and middle school cases in the Yangtze River Delta region.
For the selected cases, some carbon emission technologies were applied so that we can analyze their
performance. Seven cases are shown in Table 3, which were provided by the Zhejiang Green Building
and Building Energy Reduction Association. These cases are all real projects, which have met certain
degrees of the Green Building Evaluation Standards GB/T50378-2014 [27], and are posted on the public
website [33]. Based on this, the evaluation system is of practical significance and is suitable for other
campus constructions which are of a similar scale, the floor areas of which are, on average, 10,000 m2 .
Sustainability 2020, 12, 534 9 of 16

Table 3. Selected cases in the Yangtze River Delta region.

Number of Teachers
Number Case Names Location Volume Rate
and Students
Haining Maqiao Central
1 Primary School Reconstruction Jiaxing 0.69 1100
Project
Hangzhou Olive Tree Foreign
2 Hangzhou 1.00 1578
Language School
3 Huzhou Binhu Primary School Huzhou 0.57 2300
New construction at Xiangyang
4 Jiaxing 0.75 1600
Primary School North Campus
Yueqing Baishi Primary School
5 Wenzhou 0.62 1600
Expansion Project
Jiashan Experimental School
6 affiliated to Shanghai Normal Jiaxing 0.8 1350
University
Taizhou Yuehu Primary School
7 Taizhou 1.6 1080
Project I

3.2. Carbon Reduction Degree

The degree of carbon reduction reflects the low-carbon effect of technologies applied in primary
and middle schools. The degree of carbon reduction, energy and water saving achieved by the
application of the eight technologies is obtained from the case data according to the definition and
calculation method for each technology in each case. The study calculated the average carbon reduction
rates in seven cases for each technology, and the normalized result is the final carbon-reduction degree,
as shown in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4. Carbon reduction rate of technologies in the selected cases.

Cases Name
Technology Haining Hangzhou Huzhou Xiang Yueqing Taizhou Average
Jiashan
Maqiao Olive Tree Binhu Yang Baishi Yuehu
Water saving Carbon
0.03% 0.20% 0 0.08% 0.07% 0.22% 0 0.12%
irrigation reduction rate
Rainwater Carbon
0.82% 1.70% 0.26% 0.11% 0.15% 0.52% 0.71% 0.59%
recycling reduction rate
Water saving Carbon
0.20% 1.26% 0.13% 0.27% 0.22% 1.27% 0.51% 0.56%
appliances reduction rate
Solar water Carbon
5.97% 0 2.19% 4.26% 0 8.62% 5.33% 5.26%
heating systems reduction rate
Energy saving Carbon
0.62% 1.63% 1.27% 1.20% 0.74% 3.36% 1.42% 1.47%
lamps reduction rate
Carbon
Air-heat pumps 0 24.27% 0 12.00% 9.16% 0 15.14% 15.14%
reduction rate
High quality Carbon
0.91% 0.26% 0.15% 0.03% 1.66% 0.43% 0.88% 0.62%
enclosure (HQE) reduction rate
High efficiency
air conditioning Carbon
7.34% 17.50% 16.88% 12.40% 11.16% 17.20% 9.56% 13.15%
equipment reduction rate
(HEAE)

Table 5. Carbon reduction degree of the technologies.

Water Water Solar water Energy

Rainwater Air-Heat
Technology Saving Saving Heating Saving HQE HEAE
Recycling Pump
Irrigation Appliance System Lamp
Average of carbon
0.12% 0.59% 0.56% 5.26% 1.47% 15.14% 0.62% 13.15%
reduction rates
Carbon reduction
0.79% 3.90% 3.70% 34.74% 9.71% 100% 4.10% 86.86%
degree
Sustainability 2020, 12, 534 10 of 16

Based on actual application status, it is clear that air-heat pumps and HEAE are excellent at
reducing carbon emissions. The reason for this is that the air-heat pumps can reduce electric energy
consumption by converting air heat into energy at a high efficiency. Although there is no energy use
during the summer and winter vacations, schools have higher requirements for thermal environments
at other times. In addition, air conditioning is often used throughout school hours on working days,
leading to a large amount of electricity consumption. Therefore, improving the efficiency of air
conditioners leads to a significant carbon reduction effect for the whole building. Solar water heating
systems have a moderate influence on carbon reduction because the total consumption of hot water
for handwashing is not high. As a result, this technology has fewer low-carbon effects for the whole
building compared with its high efficiency in solar energy collection.
Energy saving lamps, water saving appliances and irrigation, rainwater recycling and high-quality
insulation have the lowest influence on carbon reduction among the eight technologies. As for the
degree of carbon reduction in these five technologies, energy saving lamps and HEAE behave better
than the other three. Substantial requirements for light and for a thermally insulated environment lead
to high electricity consumption. As a result, the performance of lamps for lighting and walls providing
thermal insulation can directly reduce energy use. In general, technologies applied in the water saving
area have less effect than those in electricity saving. This is because the coefficient of conversion from
water reduction to carbon reduction is lower, and the practical application of water resource saving in
this market has technical limits at present.

3.3. Maturity Degree

The results in Table 6 assess how the technologies are applied in the seven selected cases, according
to the method used to calculate the maturity degree above.

Table 6. Maturity degree of technologies.

Application in Cases

Technology Hangzhou
Haining Huzhou Xiang Yueqing Taizhou Maturity
Olive Jiashan
Maqiao Binhu Yang Baishi Yuehu Degree
Tree
Water saving √ √ √ √ √
71%
irrigation √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Rainwater recycling 100%
Water saving √ √ √ √ √ √ √
100%
appliances
Solar water heating √ √ √ √ √
71%
systems
Energy saving √ √ √ √ √ √ √
100%
lamps √ √ √ √
Air-heat pumps 57%
√ √ √
HQE 43%
√ √ √
HEAE 43%

The eight technologies all have an acceptable basis. It appears that rainwater recycling, water
saving appliances, and energy saving lamps are widely accepted. This is related to the attributes of
campus buildings. Specifically, rooves and squares in campuses are often used to recycle rainwater
for greening, which is cleaner and does not need further filtration. Water saving appliances are easy
to install and have direct effects when used in lavatories. Energy saving lamps are necessary in
classrooms for teaching, drawing and reading, which consume large amounts of energy. So, these three
technologies are particularly appropriate for campus buildings and are the most used.
Air-heat pumps, HEAE and HQE are used less in real-life situations, mainly because of high costs
and complicated construction processes.
 Sustainability 2020, 12, 534 11 of 16

3.4. Economy Degree

After summing up all the cost data from several companies, checked by other experts, the
incremental costs of the eight technologies are shown in Table 7, which calculates the economy degree
of each corresponding technology.

Table 7. Economy degree of technologies.

Market Price Incremental Cost

Technology Economy Degree
Unit Price (Yuan) Unit (Yuan/m2 of Floor Area)

Water saving Yuan/m2 of green

35 3 5%
irrigation area
Rainwater
100,000 Yuan/Set 6.7 11%
recycling
Water saving Yuan/m2 of
50 12.5 19.5%
appliances lavatory
Solar water heating Yuan/m2 of solar
1000 25 39%
systems photovoltaic panels
Energy saving Yuan/m2 of floor
8 8 12.5%
lamps area
Air-heat pumps 300,000 Yuan/Set 20 31%
Yuan/m2 of
HQE 10,000 61 95%
enclosure area
HEAE 1000 Yuan/Set 64 100%

From the data above, we can see that the investment required for HQE and HEAE is much higher
and has a longer recovery cycle than for other technologies, whereas water saving irrigation, rainwater
recycling and energy saving lamps are more affordable. Solar water heating systems and air-heat
pumps are cost effective because they provide a good balance between cost and carbon reduction,
and they are more appropriate for future promotion in campus projects.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Results of Three-Dimensional Evaluation

According to the three indices, each technology has an exact point in the two-dimensional
panels. These are shown in Figures 4–6 and the area in which the point is located represents the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 534 12 of 16
recommended level.

Figure 4. Recommendations in carbon reduction-maturity degree evaluation.

Figure 4. Recommendations in carbon reduction-maturity degree evaluation.
In the carbon reduction–maturity degree panel, air-heat pumps, HEAE and solar water heating
In the carbon
systems reduction–maturity
all have degree
a high recommendation. panel,air-heat
Of these, air-heat pumps,
pumps andHEAE
HEAE and solar better
are much waterthan
heating
systems all have a high recommendation. Of these, air-heat pumps and HEAE are much better than
solar water heating systems at carbon reduction. This is shown by the large amount of existing energy
consumption. However, solar water heating systems are more convenient to install and so are more
widely accepted in real life situations.
 Figure 4. Recommendations in carbon reduction-maturity degree evaluation.

Figure 4. Recommendations in carbon reduction-maturity degree evaluation.

In the carbon reduction–maturity degree panel, air-heat pumps, HEAE and solar water heating
systems all have
Sustainability a 12,
2020, high
534 recommendation. Of these, air-heat pumps and HEAE are much better 12 of 16than
In the carbon reduction–maturity degree panel, air-heat pumps, HEAE and solar water heating
solar water heating systems at carbon reduction. This is shown by the large amount of existing energy
systems all have a high recommendation. Of these, air-heat pumps and HEAE are much better than
consumption. However, solar water heating systems are more convenient to install and so are more
solarsolar
water heating
water systems
heating systems at at
carbon
carbonreduction.
reduction. This is shown
This is shownbybythe
thelarge
large amount
amount of existing
of existing energy
energy
widely accepted inHowever,real life situations.
consumption.
consumption. However, solar water
solar waterheating
heatingsystems are more
systems are moreconvenient
convenient to to install
install andand so more
so are are more
widely
widely accepted
accepted in real
in real lifelife situations.
situations.

Figure 5. Recommendations in carbon reduction–economy degree evaluation.

Figure 5. Recommendations in carbon reduction–economy degree evaluation.
Figure 5. Recommendations in carbon reduction–economy degree evaluation.
In the carbon reduction–economy degree panel, only the air-heat pump has a high
In the carbon reduction–economy degree panel, only the air-heat pump has a high recommendation.
recommendation.
Although Althoughcost
the incremental theis incremental
high per set, cost
one is high
or two permeet
sets can set,the
one or two sets
requirements of a can meet the
campus
In the carbon reduction–economy degree panel, only the air-heat pump has a athigh
requirements
the averageoffloor
a campus at the
area, which averageforfloor area, which is affordable for the whole project.
recommendation. Although theis affordable
incremental the
costwhole project.
is high per Therefore,
set, one air-heat
or two pumps are meet
sets can good the
Therefore, air-heat
both for carbon pumps are good both for carbon reduction and from the economy perspective.
requirements of a reduction
campus and
at thefrom the economy
average floor perspective.
area, which is affordable for the whole project.
Therefore, air-heat pumps are good both for carbon reduction and from the economy perspective.

Figure 6. Recommendation in maturity–economy degree evaluation.

Figure 6. Recommendation in maturity–economy degree evaluation.
In the maturity–economy degree panel, HEAE and HQE have a poor recommendation because of
[Link]
their high cost, which Recommendation in maturity–economy
of the reasons for low utilization. degree evaluation.

4.2. Optimisation Strategy of Eight Technologies

As shown in Table 8, the results of the two-dimensional evaluations were combined to obtain the
final recommendation level for each technology.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 534 13 of 16

Table 8. Three-dimensional evaluation method.

Recommendation Recommendation Recommendation

Final
Level in Carbon Level in Carbon Level in
Technology Recommendation
Reduction–Maturity Reduction–Economy Maturity–Economy
Level
Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation
Air-heat pumps High High High High
Solar water heating
High Moderate High High
systems
HEAE High Moderate Poor Moderate
Energy saving
Moderate Moderate High Moderate
lamps
Rainwater
Moderate Moderate High Moderate
recycling
Water saving
Moderate Moderate High Moderate
appliances
Water saving
Moderate Moderate High Moderate
irrigation
HQE Poor Poor Poor Poor

Air-heat pumps and solar water heating systems are given a high recommendation in the
three-dimensional evaluation. The air-heat pump, in particular, is the most suitable for campus
buildings compared with the others, because of its high-efficiency energy conversion, low economic
investment and existing market acceptance. Solar water heating systems are not as good as air-heat
pumps. This is mostly because of limited hot water consumption when determining the maximum
carbon reduction. In addition, as the cost of photovoltaic panel installation is high, air-heat pumps are
highly recommended.
HEAE, energy saving lamps, rainwater recycling, water saving appliances and water saving
irrigation have a moderate recommendation level. In terms of selection strategy, HEAE has a significant
advantage in carbon reduction for large existing electricity consumption, which is more in line with
the overall goal. With the quick pace of technical development, market costs will fall in the future.
As a result, this technology is the most highly recommended in the moderate band.
Although the maturity of energy saving lamps and rainwater recycling is the same as for water
saving appliances, the economy and carbon reduction degree of water saving appliances are lower
than the other two. Although they need greater investment in the early stages, compared with water
saving irrigation, the extra cost is not too high. In particular, energy saving lamps play a key role in the
indoor environment and are among the top two technologies in terms of the carbon reduction degree,
which makes them appropriate for campus buildings. As for the application of water saving appliances
and irrigation, water saving appliances have superior acceptance levels and better low-carbon effects,
whereas irrigation systems have the lowest cost among all the technologies studied. Considering that
the leading economic advantage is limited, water saving appliances are more highly recommended than
irrigation systems. Technologies at the moderate recommendation level are ranked as follows: HEAE,
energy saving lamps, rainwater recycling, water saving appliances and water saving irrigation systems.
Only HQE falls into the poor recommendation category, with the three indicators all judged as
ordinary. The main reason for this is that the window ratio of campus buildings is high, and the
materials used, like glass and aluminum, lead to poor thermal insulation performance compared with
uninterrupted walls. High requirements for thermal comfort lead to higher requirements for thermal
enclosure, meaning large investments for complicated structural practices. Meanwhile, direct carbon
reduction effects cannot be promised.
The applied strategy for the eight technologies was obtained from the three-dimensional evaluation.
Air-heat pumps and solar water heating systems are highly recommended. HEAE, energy saving
lamps, rainwater recycling, water saving appliances and water saving irrigation have a moderate
recommendation, whereas HQE has a poor recommendation. It is clear that technologies for renewable
Sustainability 2020, 12, 534 14 of 16

energy perform better under the more comprehensive evaluation, especially those for converting
renewable energy to electricity. Renewable energy uses clean energy and significantly reduces carbon
emissions. In terms of application efficiency, the results are not as expected because there is currently a
technical market limit in deciding the total amount of energy saved. However, low application costs
make the corresponding technologies widely acceptable.
In a study of low-carbon technologies for public buildings, Xiao analyzed the application of
green technology to offices and shopping malls, paying most attention to HEAE and lighting systems,
and less attention to renewable energy such as solar water heating systems and air-heat pumps [34].
The similarities and differences between the conclusions of the two studies arise from the differences
in the type of architecture examined. Both campus and office buildings rely on high-quality indoor
environments, so air conditioning and lighting are necessities. Office buildings are not suitable
for renewable energy technologies partly because available space is limited compared to campus
sites. The related equipment (such as rainwater recycling cisterns, sufficient roof area for laying
photovoltaic panels, etc.) is difficult to construct. Meanwhile, Asdrubali pointed out, the payback
times for technologies in a primary school, including envelope insulation, heat pumps, PV panels,
solar collectors, and LEDs. Comparing this result with the economy degree, it is the same, in that
the lighting application is the most cost-effective, then the PV and heat pump, and the enclosure
insulation is the last [35]. Therefore, technology products must be applicable for the energy use and
the architectural characteristics of particular building types.

5. Conclusions
The construction industry offers a target for carbon reduction, which is a major global goal. With
the high pace in the construction of primary and middle schools in China, choosing appropriate
technologies is important to assist with the construction of the low-carbon campus. This study is based
on actual cases in the Yangtze River Delta region and focuses on eight common carbon reduction
technologies. It makes a comprehensive analysis based on the three indices of carbon reduction degree,
economy degree and maturity degree.
First, the paper defines the measurement method for these three indicators and carries out
two-dimensional analysis. Air-heat pumps, HEAE and solar water heating systems are judged as
the top recommendations in terms of the carbon reduction–maturity degree. However, in terms of
the carbon reduction–economy degree, only air-heat pump systems are recommended as a priority
technology that is cost-effective at meeting carbon reduction goals. Rainwater recycling, energy saving
lamps, water saving irrigation, water saving appliances, air-heat pumps and solar water heating
systems are also recommended as priority technologies that can be widely used in campus buildings.
After the two-dimensional analysis, three-dimensional analysis of the selection strategies of
the eight technologies was obtained. Here, air-heat pumps and solar water heating systems have
a high recommendation, whereas HEAE, energy saving lamps, rainwater recycling, water saving
appliances and water saving irrigation have a moderate recommendation. HQE is assessed as a
low recommendation. This selection ranking takes into account the benefits of carbon reduction,
the convenience of promotion, and the economic investment. Future projects could be based on
the results of the three-dimensional analysis of technology selection but should also be based on
each project’s particular characteristics using two-dimensions or a single indicator of the technology
recommendation order.
A limitation in this study is the number of cases. More cases and data would improve the selection
ranking and strategy. This evaluation method is of practical significance as it is based on technology
selected from existing projects. The study’s use of campus buildings is of educational significance for
the whole of society in order to promote carbon reduction and environmental protection.

Author Contributions: Data and cases information, J.G.; Funding acquisition, J.G.; Methodology, C.M. and X.L.;
writing-original draft, C.M. and X.L.; writing-review and editing, C.M., X.L., and J.G. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 534 15 of 16

Funding: The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China No. 51908490.
Acknowledgments: The study has been supported by the China National Key R&D Program “Research on the
energy efficiency and health performance improvement of building operations based on lifecycle carbon emissions
reduction (Grant No. 2018YFE0106100), National Natural Science Foundation of China No. 51908490, and the
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities No. 2019QNA4033.
Conflicts of Interest: This manuscript has not been published and is not under consideration for publication
elsewhere. We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References
1. Huang, W.M.; Lee, G.W.M. Feasibility analysis of GHG reduction target: Lessons from Taiwan’s energy
policy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 2621–2628. [CrossRef]
2. Kuramochi, T.; Wakiyama, T.; Kuriyama, A. Assessment of national greenhouse gas mitigation targets for
2030 through meta-analysis of bottom-up energy and emission scenarios: A case of Japan. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2017, 77, 924–944. [CrossRef]
3. Carbon Brief Research Institute. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 11 October
2019).
4. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Available online: [Link]
uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_frontmatter.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2019).
5. Wu, Y.; Liang, J. China’s Energy Development Strategy and Building Energy Conservation. Chongqing Arch.
2006, 3, 6–19. (In Chinese)
6. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Available online: [Link] (accessed
on 11 October 2019).
7. Zhang, X.Y.; Wang, F.L. Life-cycle assessment and control measures for carbon emissions of typical buildings
in China. Build. Environ. 2015, 86, 89–97. [CrossRef]
8. Ramesh, T.; Prakash, R.; Shukla, K.K. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview. Energy Build.
2010, 42, 1592–1600. [CrossRef]
9. Cabeza, L.F.; Rincón, L.; Vilariño, V.; Pérez, G.; Castell, A. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy
analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 394–416.
[CrossRef]
10. Dowd, R.M.; Mourshed, M. Low carbon buildings: Sensitivity of thermal properties of opaque envelope
construction and glazing. Energy Procedia 2015, 75, 1284–1289. [CrossRef]
11. Vincent, J.L.G.; Deng, M.; Tse, K.T.; ChanIrene, C.M.; LoJack, M.C.; Cheng, C.P. Holistic BIM framework for
sustainable low carbon design of high-rise buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 1091–1104.
12. Kim, R.; Tae, S.; Roh, S. Development of low carbon durability design for green apartment buildings in South
Korea. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 77, 263–272. [CrossRef]
13. Saroglou, T.; Theodosiou, T.; Givoni, B.; Meir, I.A. A study of different envelope scenarios towards low
carbon high-rise buildings in the Mediterranean climate—Can DSF be part of the solution? Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2019, 113, 109237. [CrossRef]
14. Rodrigues, V.; Martins, A.A.; Nunes, M.I.; Quintas, A.; Mata, T.M.; Caetano, N.S. LCA of constructing an
industrial building: Focus on embodied carbon and energy. Energy Procedia 2018, 153, 420–425. [CrossRef]
15. Xia, B.; Li, X. Analysis and comparison on the potential of low-carbon architectural design strategies. Sustain.
Comput. Inform. Syst. 2019, 21, 204–211. [CrossRef]
16. Zhang, L.Y.; Li, Q.; Zhou, J.L. Critical factors of low-carbon building development in China’s urban area.
J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 3075–3082. [CrossRef]
17. Jenkins, D.P.; Peacock, A.D.; Banfill, P.F.G. Will future low-carbon schools in the UK have an overheating
problem? Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 490–501. [CrossRef]
18. Pereira, L.D.; Raimondo, D.; Corgnati, S.P.; da Silva, M.G. Energy consumption in schools—A review paper.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 40, 911–922. [CrossRef]
19. Stazi, F.; Naspi, F.; Dorazio, M. Modelling window status in school classrooms. Results from a case study in
Italy. Build. Environ. 2017, 111, 24–32. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 534 16 of 16

20. Zhang, A.; Bokel, R.; Dobbelsteen, A.V.D.; Sun, Y.; Huang, Q.; Zhang, Q. An integrated school and schoolyard
design method for summer thermal comfort and energy efficiency in Northern China. Build. Environ. 2017,
124, 369–387. [CrossRef]
21. Wang, H.; Chen, W. Modeling of energy transformation pathways under current policies, NDCs and enhanced
NDCs to achieve 2-degree target. Appl. Energy 2019, 250, 549–557. [CrossRef]
22. Lindberg, K.B.; Doorman, G.; Fischer, D.; Korpås, M.; Ånestad, A.; Sartori, I. Methodology for optimal energy
system design of Zero Energy Buildings using mixed-integer linear programming. Energy Build. 2016, 127,
194–205. [CrossRef]
23. Koo, C.; Kim, H.; Hong, T. Framework for the analysis of the low-carbon scenario 2020 to achieve the
national carbon Emissions reduction target: Focused on educational facilities. Energy Policy 2014, 73, 356–367.
[CrossRef]
24. Suk, S.; Lee, S.Y.; Jeong, Y.S. A survey on the impediments to low carbon technology investment of the
petrochemical industry in Korea. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 133, 576–588. [CrossRef]
25. Pei, A.; Xin, H. Written on the Occasion of the Promulgation of the Outline of the Development Plan for
Regional Integration in the Yangtze River Delta. Xinhua News Agency. 2 December 2019. Available online:
[Link] (accessed on 15 December 2019).
26. National Bureau of Education of Statistics. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 11 October
2019).
27. Green Building Evaluation Standards GB/T50378-2014. Available online: [Link]
2018/1006/[Link] (accessed on 11 October 2019).
28. Assessment Standard for Green Campus GB/T 51356-2019. Available online: [Link]
webarbs/book/138896/[Link] (accessed on 11 October 2019).
29. Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of Public Buildings (GB50189-2015). Available online: [Link]
[Link]/[Link] (accessed on 11 October 2019).
30. Ge, J.; Luo, X.Y.; Lu, J. Evaluation system and case study for carbon emission of villages in Yangtze River
Delta region of China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 220–229. [CrossRef]
31. The Report of China Building Energy Research by China Association of Building Energy Efficiency. Available
online: [Link] (accessed on 11 October 2019).
32. Zhang, M.M.; Wang, Q.W.; Zhou, D.; Ding, H. Evaluating uncertain investment decisions in low-carbon
transition toward renewable energy. Appl. Energy 2019, 240, 1049–1060. [CrossRef]
33. The Public Post of Cases (Used in the Research). Available online: [Link] (accessed on 4 January
2020).
34. Xiao, J. Study on Post Occupancy Evaluation of Green Public Buildings. Master’s Thesis, Tsinghua University,
Beijing, China, 2013.
35. Asdrubali, F.; Ballarini, I.; Corrado, V.; Evangelisti, L.; Grazieschi, G.; Guattari, C. Energy and environmental
payback times for an NZEB retrofit. Build. Environ. 2019, 147, 461–472. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license ([Link]