PFE Report VF (ALAA ELOUAZANI DAHAK) - Copie
PFE Report VF (ALAA ELOUAZANI DAHAK) - Copie
PFE Report VF (ALAA ELOUAZANI DAHAK) - Copie
Presented
TITLE
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
BD+C v4 certification project for 'Hebergements' at
University Momamed VI Polytechnic in Rabat
and
Mr. Hicham MASTOURI
and
Mr. Taha Yassine SAMIR
The work presented here was conducted within the company Sustainway in
Casablanca.
The development of this report would not have been possible without
substantial support and assistance from several individuals:
Finally, I cannot forget the fantastic group of friends and colleagues who have
stood by my side, offering unwavering support and encouragement. Our shared
experiences and collective dedication have made this journey truly
unforgettable.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL INTRODUCTION...........................................................12
I. Context and challenges..................................................................12
II. Problem.......................................................................................13
III. Objectives and Methodology...................................................14
CHAPTER 1: PRESENTATION OF THE HOST ORGANIZATION
.............................................................................................................16
Introduction.........................................................................................16
I. Company description.....................................................................16
II. Company's activities...................................................................16
Conclusion...........................................................................................18
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND STATE OF THE ART
.............................................................................................................19
Introduction.........................................................................................19
I. Introduction on green building......................................................19
II. Historical development of tools..................................................19
III. Green building rating...............................................................20
III.1 Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)................20
III.2 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED).......................................................21
III.3 Haute Qualité Environnementale (HQE)..................................................................................22
III.4 Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiencies (EDGE)............................................................23
Figure 1.Evolution of the number of electronically filed building permit applications by category
[Rokhas, 2023]......................................................................................................................................14
Figure 2.Compliance of the Moroccan Building Stock with international certifications baselines over
the past 5 years....................................................................................................................................14
Figure 3. Summary of the activities provided by SUSTAINWAY............................................................16
Figure 4. Campus boundary Master site...............................................................................................30
Figure 5. Location of the "Hebergements"...........................................................................................30
Figure 6. LEED certification process......................................................................................................32
Figure 7. Points awarded for the first option of LTC4...........................................................................34
Figure 8. Identification of the project site using Google Earth.............................................................35
Figure 9. Presentation of Buildable and Non-Buildable Lands..............................................................35
Figure 10. Denser buildings identified within a 400-meter radius from the project boundary............36
Figure 11. Mapping walking routes to uses..........................................................................................37
Figure 12. LEED v4 User Guide Cut sheet.............................................................................................38
Figure 13. University Bus Station..........................................................................................................39
Figure 14. Bus shelter...........................................................................................................................39
Figure 15. LEED v4 User Guide Cut sheet [USGBC, 2013].....................................................................40
Figure 16. LEED v4 User Guide Cut sheet [USGBC, 2013].....................................................................41
Figure 17. Indoor Water Use Reduction calculator...............................................................................42
Figure 18. Flush rate calculation in Indoor Water Use Reduction calculator........................................42
Figure 19. Fixture information in Indoor Water Use Reduction calculator...........................................42
Figure 20. Calculator's results...............................................................................................................43
Figure 21. Water Metering Installation................................................................................................45
Figure 22. Commitment letter..............................................................................................................45
Figure 23. Climate zones as defined by ASHRAE 90.1-2010 standards.................................................48
Figure 24. 3D model of residence 4R....................................................................................................48
Figure 25. 3D model of residence 8R....................................................................................................48
Figure 26. Charts – Proposed vs Baseline – Energy Consumption (MWh/Year)- Residences 4R and 6R.
.............................................................................................................................................................49
Figure 27. Charts – Proposed vs Baseline – Energy Consumption (MWh/Year)- Residences 5R and 7R.
.............................................................................................................................................................50
Figure 28. Charts – Proposed vs Baseline – Energy Consumption (MWh/Year)- Residences 8R..........50
Figure 29. Summary.............................................................................................................................51
Figure 30. Energy metering schematic of the Hebergement................................................................53
Figure 31. Total Annual Energy Consumption of the Project’s Individual End Uses.............................54
Figure 32. Equation to calculate percentage renewable energy cost contribution according to LEED
BD+C v4................................................................................................................................................54
Figure 33. Points for renewable energy according to LEED BD+C v4....................................................55
Figure 34. Solar Irradiation Map of Morocco.......................................................................................56
Figure 35. PV feasibility study...............................................................................................................56
Figure 36. Basic ventilation rates required to dilute the emissions due to people...............................60
Figure 37. Location of permanent entryway systems on the project site.............................................61
Figure 38. CO2 sensors in densely occupied spaces.............................................................................63
Figure 39. Screenshot from LEED BD+C v4...........................................................................................64
Figure 40. Screenshot from LEED BD+C v4...........................................................................................65
Figure 41. Calculation of Flush-Out Duration Using an Excel Sheet for Hebergement 4R as an example.
.............................................................................................................................................................65
Figure 42. Calculation of Flush-Out Duration Using an Excel Sheet for Hebergement 8R.....................65
Figure 43. Cut sheet of the Interior lighting calculator - Ground floor example...................................67
Figure 44. Summary of Light Fixtures Used in This Project - Cut Sheet from the Interior Lighting
Calculator.............................................................................................................................................67
Figure 45. Screenshot of quality views calculator................................................................................69
Figure 46. Regularly Occupied Spaces Identification............................................................................69
Figure 47. Screenshot showing access to view type 1 in Ground Floor Dining Room...........................70
Figure 48. Screenshot from Master Plan Showing Access of Hebergement 4R to View Type 2 - Objects
.............................................................................................................................................................70
Figure 49. Screenshot from Master Plan Showing Access of Hebergement 4R to View Type 2 -
Movement............................................................................................................................................71
Figure 50. Screenshot from Master Plan Showing Access of Hebergement 4R to View Type 2 - Objects.
.............................................................................................................................................................71
Figure 51. Screenshot from quality views calculator............................................................................72
TABLES LIST
In response to evolving societal diversity and technological advances over the past decade,
college campuses have witnessed significant transformations in student housing. These
changes have posed a challenge for institutions of higher education, necessitating the creation
of residential facilities that not only offer a healthy and comfortable living environment but
also serve as catalysts for academic success.
This report presents the LEED certification process for UM6P Rabat's "Hebergements"
building, showcasing sustainable construction practices across key categories: Location and
Transportation, Indoor Environmental Quality, Energy and Atmosphere, and Water
Efficiency. The study underscores the advantages of green building certification, including
resource conservation, emissions reduction, and occupant well-being, while addressing
implementation challenges. The project successfully secured 58 LEED points, 17 of which
resulted from campus approach, and is poised to attain Silver certification. Notable
accomplishments encompass a 47.43% reduction in water use, a remarkable 56.8% decrease
in energy consumption and associated costs through renewable energy sources, and a
significant 27% reduction in energy costs (excluding on-site renewables). These outcomes
underscore the project's unwavering commitment to sustainability and demonstrate how
sustainable building practices can align with the evolving landscape of student housing to
create healthier and academically conducive living environments on college campuses.
RESUME
II. Problem
Buildings exert a significant environmental impact throughout their life cycle,
encompassing design, construction, occupation, and demolition. In general, as mentioned by
Bribian et al. (2011) manufacturing activities represent 60% of raw non-renewable
consumption [Assadiki et al, 2022]. Each year, construction accumulates 16% of the total iron
and steel production, while the steel industry is responsible for about 6.7% of global carbon
emissions [Assadiki et al, 2022]. These statistics underscore the construction sector as a major
consumer of non-renewable resources, leading to waste generation, air and water pollution,
and a reduction in available land area.
In Morocco, the construction sector, recovered in 2021, registered an estimated growth of
10.6% in real terms [MCM, 2022]. Furthermore, Data analysis reveals that the number of
construction permits issued has been increasing steadily over the years. The chart below (see
figure 1) displays the evolution of the number of building permit applications filed
electronically, categorized by the size of the projects, from 2019 to 2023. In 2019, there were
2446 applications for large projects and 7373 applications for small projects. The following
year, the number of applications for large projects doubled to reach 4512, while the number of
applications for small projects tripled, reaching 21623. In 2021, there was a sharp increase in
both categories of projects, with 11426 applications for large projects and 59067 applications
for small projects. This trend continued in 2022, with 16098 applications for large projects
and 67217 applications for small projects. In 2023, with 8988 applications for large projects
and 28834 applications for small projects in almost a trimester confirms the exponential
growth of the construction sector. Overall, the chart depicts a dynamic trend in the number of
building permit applications filed electronically over the five-year period.
There are 116 assets in Morocco that are certified or ongoing the certification process,
where 55 of them are associated with HQE, 53 LEED, 3 BREEAM and 5 EDGE.
Hence, out of the 227,766 assets built or in the process of construction or design over the past
five years (2019-2023) only 0.05% have demonstrated adherence to the baselines dictated by
green building certification schemes, which is quite a negligible portion, whereas the vast
13
majority of buildings solely meet the local regulation requirements (RTCM), as illustrated by
the graph (see figure 2).
Figure 1.Evolution of the number of electronically filed building permit applications by category [Rokhas, 2023]
Figure 2.Compliance of
the Moroccan
Building Stock with
international
certifications
baselines over
the past 5 years.
T he
Moroccan
government
has
implemented local incentives to promote sustainable buildings, encouraging energy efficiency
and environmental certifications. For example, the Casablanca urban agency offers a 5%
bonus in constructability for projects with energy-saving techniques and certifications like
HQE or LEED.
Additionally, the EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development) has
established a 90 million euros credit line called the Green Value Chain, supporting energy and
resource efficiency. Sustainable building projects can receive financial support and grants by
demonstrating a 20% reduction in energy or carbon emissions.
These incentives have boosted Morocco's construction industry, driving adoption of
sustainable practices and reducing the country's carbon footprint.
14
sustainability in a university context. In summary, this study plays a vital role in advancing
sustainability efforts and creating a more sustainable future.
15
Introduction
I. Company description
Eco-design/Eco-
construction
Audit and
Training
Measurement
CSR
a) Eco-design/Eco-construction
Sustainway assists its clients in achieving Carbon Neutrality by guiding them in life cycle
analysis of their products, materials, buildings, and services. It also offers support for
integrating eco-energy and environmental design practices, implementing green construction
sites to minimize disturbances, and promoting integrated design approaches through
collaborative processes supported by Building Information Modeling (BIM) for a smooth
energy transition.
16
The company believes that the best way to analyse documentary evidence and on-site
installations is to conduct simulations under real conditions. Following performance
measurements and white audits, Sustainway's experts help clients develop action plans to
improve the environmental, health, and energy quality of their spaces. This prepares them for
future audits. Auditors and performance agents provide recommendations and objectives,
which can be verified during subsequent assessments.
c) Certification
Sustainway aims to support its clients in their Environmental and Social Responsibility
initiatives by offering a range of services, including:
Assisting in the implementation of CSR strategies and preparing annual reports
Certification of practices in accordance with ISO 26000 (social responsibility),
ISO 9001 (quality management system), ISO 50001 (energy management), and
ISO 14001 (environmental management) standards.
e) Green Finance
The company supports its clients in socially responsible investments through various
services:
ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) extra-financial analysis and support
for company and project reporting.
Assistance in financing the energy transition and analysis of Green Bonds and
Green and Environmental Funds.
Support in integrating rating criteria for the Casablanca ESG 10 index.
f) Training
With its specialized knowledge and pedagogical approach, Sustainway provides training
on eco-design, eco-construction, regulations, health-safety-environment (HSE),
environmental certifications, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and carbon footprint to
17
its clients' teams. The company also shares its professional experience by presenting various
evaluation tools and lessons learned from previous projects.
Conclusion
The rapid growth of urbanization has led to heightened public and societal awareness of
environmental and energy concerns. As a result, the adoption of the green building concept
has emerged as a central focus in modern construction practices. Green buildings are
perceived as promoting health, safety, comfort, and environmental friendliness in order to
address these pressing issues. Due to different levels of economic development, geographical
surroundings, resource availability and other factors, there has been no mutual definition of
green buildings in the literature [Ding et al, 2018]. For example, the World Green Building
Council (WGBC) defines a green building as one that can reduce or eliminate negative
impacts, and create positive impacts on our climate and natural environment in the process of
design, construction or operation [ Lai et al, 2023]. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) defines (also known as green construction or sustainable building as follows: the
practice of creating structures and using processes that are environmentally responsible and
resource-efficient throughout a building's life-cycle from siting to design, construction,
operation, maintenance, renovation and deconstruction. This practice expands and
complements the classical building design concerns of economy, utility, durability, and
comfort [Latif et al, 2018]. The concept of Green building has been continually revised and its
definition is commonly accepted as “providing people with healthy, applicable, efficient space
and natural harmonious architecture with the maximum savings on resources (energy, land,
water, materials), protection for the environment and reduced pollution throughout its whole
lifecycle” [Doan et al, 2017].
After establishing the green building concept, there was a need to develop a framework to
evaluate the implementation and performance of green buildings. Therefore, in 1990, the
Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) was
developed, evaluating buildings in a more detailed and broader perspective [Ding et al, 2018].
From this point, additional green building rating tools were developed, including the
Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design Leadership (LEED) [Ding et al, 2018], and
High Environmental Quality (HQE) in France around 1998. Many countries see these evaluation
tools as a means to reduce the environmental impact of buildings. Each country develops its own
method, based on an existing tool that undergoes adaptations to fit their local specificities. This is
why, in general, most sustainable certification tools are similar in essence but emphasize different
elements.
The interest of these methods lies in considering multiple criteria. They go beyond
prescribing performance limits for energy consumption and CO2 emissions, also focusing on
water consumption limitation, appropriate material usage, health and environmental impact
assessments, and often conducting life cycle assessments. An important characteristic of these
tools is the performance gradient: the minimum level always corresponds to legal or normal
requirements. Certification, therefore, signifies a level of performance above existing
19
standards. The political component comes into play through the establishment of more or less
binding laws that align with market realities.
In the development of these methods, the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) and the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) have defined standardized
requirements that different sustainable building certification methods must meet (CEN 2005,
2007; ISO 2000, 2006a, 2006b) [S. GHIEZEN, 2014].
The use of these tools increasingly contributes to decision-making assistance, as their
manipulation and understanding of the provided results do not require highly specialized
resources. This is not the case with other methods such as multi-criteria/multi-objective tools,
which determine the best solution based on defined criteria using algorithms [S. GHIEZEN,
2014]. The ambition to use sustainable certification tools as aids in design and decision-
making is reinforced by the impact of choices made during design on the future performance
of the building. Evaluating different scenarios based on environmental, social, technical, and
economic performance should enable project authors to make the best decisions.
20
Table 1. BREEAM certification overview.
21
LEED v4 offers increased clarity, ease of understanding and implementation, and
enhanced functionality. Notably, it places greater emphasis on material and product
transparency, introducing innovations that leverage technology's role in sustainable building
practices.
Thus, LEED lays a foundation for its future versions and seems to progressively continue its
leadership throughout the world despite the efforts of various countries to develop national
certification systems [Latif et al, 2018]. Similar to BREEAM, LEED predominantly evaluates
environmental factors including Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere,
Material and Resources, and Indoor Environment Quality categories. All of the building's
lifecycle could be evaluated based on the criteria from Building Design and Construction,
Interior Design and Construction, Building Operations and Maintenance, Neighborhood
Development manuals [Doan et al, 2017]. The table 2 provides a concise overview of LEED
certification.
22
et Technique du Bâtiment’ (CSTB) in France, as noted by Vazquez et al. in 2011 [Gustavo,
2020].
The HQE Certification, a product of these efforts, centers around four fundamental
categories: Energy, Environment, Health, and comfort. These categories are further
subdivided into a total of 14 criteria. The certification process involves considerations related
to selecting construction materials and products. This includes the utilization of
environmental product declarations, which encompass Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) data, as
discussed by Giama and Papadopoulos in 2012 [Gustavo, 2020].
One distinctive characteristic of HQE Certification is its substantial emphasis on the
health category, constituting more than half of the overall importance weight [Gustavo, 2020].
This particular weighting distribution suggests that HQE places less focus on the economic
dimension of sustainability, as highlighted by Jensen and Birgisdottir in 2018 [Gustavo,
2020]. Table 3 presents a brief outline of HQE certification.
24
locally and internationally, increasing energy expenses, corporate social responsibility, and
the motivation to enhance marketing and branding.
[Zhang et al. 2011a] uncovered significant drivers in the Chinese construction industry,
which encompassed building a green reputation and positive image, gaining a competitive
edge, committing to corporate social responsibility, reducing construction costs, developing
unique green products, and decreasing operation and maintenance expenses. Meanwhile,
[Serpell et al. 2013] emphasized corporate image, cost reduction, and market differentiation as
the primary drivers for sustainable construction in Chile.
In the UK, [Edwards, 2006] revealed that green offices contributed to a 2-3% increase in
employee productivity due to the improved workplace environment, subsequently reducing
employee absenteeism. Furthermore, numerous studies in different countries, such as South
Africa [Windapo, 2014]; [Windapo and Goulding, 2015], Turkey [Aktas and Ozorhon, 2015],
and India [Arif et al., 2009], have delved into the drivers behind the implementation of green
building practices and technologies.
In the Moroccan context, the dynamics surrounding the adoption of Green Building
Technologies (GBTs) exhibit unique drivers and considerations. While some drivers may
align with those found in other regions, Morocco's specific circumstances also play a
significant role.
Morocco's drive to adopt GBTs is influenced by several factors. First and foremost is the
nation's commitment to environmental sustainability and reducing its carbon footprint. As a
country that experiences water scarcity and environmental challenges, there is a growing
emphasis on sustainable practices in construction to mitigate these issues. Additionally,
Morocco's involvement in international climate agreements and its desire to meet renewable
energy targets further propel the adoption of green technologies in the construction sector.
Economic considerations are also pivotal in Morocco's context. The government recognizes
that sustainable construction practices can lead to cost savings over the long term. Reduced
energy consumption and lower maintenance costs are particularly appealing in a country
aiming to bolster its economic stability. Moreover, the tourism sector is vital to Morocco's
economy, and the integration of green technologies can enhance its global appeal, attracting
environmentally-conscious tourists.
Local regulations and incentives provided by the Moroccan government play a crucial role.
They encourage compliance with evolving environmental regulations and building codes,
further motivating the integration of sustainable practices.
Although green buildings are attractive, environmentally friendly, and have a major role
to play in reducing GHG emissions and protecting the environment, there are several
challenges to increasing the adoption of green buildings [Azhgaliyeva and Rahut, 2022]. This
latter issue faces numerous barriers, as extensively researched by various experts across
different countries. These barriers have been investigated by a number of green building
researchers and practitioners. Prior studies have shown that barriers to GBTs and practices
adoption exist in both developed and developing countries [Albert et al, 2018]. In terms of
developed countries, Ahn and its coworkers [Ahn et al. 2013] identified the top five barriers
to green building in the US: first cost premium, long payback periods, tendency to maintain
current practices, limited subcontractor’s knowledge and skills, and higher costs of green
products and materials. [Chan et al. 2016] found resistance to change, higher costs of green
25
building technologies (GBTs), lack of knowledge and awareness, lack of expertise, and lack
of government incentives as the most critical barriers affecting GBTs adoption in the US.
[Hwang and Tan, 2012] and [Hwang and Ng, 2013] studied the barriers faced during green
building projects management in Singapore. They identified the following as crucial barriers:
higher costs of green equipment and materials, lack of interest and communication amongst
project team members, lack of research, lack of interest from clients and market demand,
lengthy preconstruction process, and uncertainty with green equipment and materials.
In Kong Hong, [Lam et al. 2009] showed that extra costs and delays caused by green
requirements, limited availability of reliable green suppliers, and limited knowledge were the
most dominant barriers to integrating green specifications in construction. Lack of
government incentives and promotion and high maintenance costs were identified by [Zhang
et al. 2012] as the top barriers to adopting extensive green roof systems in Hong Kong.
Regarding studies on green building barriers in developing countries such as Malaysia and
China, the identified barriers include a lack of knowledge and expertise, limited demand, and
inadequate regulations [Bin Esa et al., 2011]; [Zhang et al., 2011a, b, c]. In contrast, India,
Turkey, and Ghana encounter barriers associated with cost, education, and awareness [Aktas
and Ozorhon, 2015]; [Djokoto et al., 2014].
While there is a lack of research on the specific barriers to Green Building Technologies
(GBTs) adoption in Morocco, it's essential to note that the barriers that prevent the spread of
green building vary from country to country. Factors that are more important in one place can
be less critical in a different place due to country-specific characteristics, such as economy,
socio-political factors, and environment [Assadiki et al. 2022]. This discrepancy arises from
reconsidering and readjusting existing green building practices to the needs and capabilities of
the country [Assadiki et al. 2022]. Therefore, it's essential for Morocco, like other countries,
to assess its unique context and identify the specific barriers to GBT adoption within its
borders. Tailored strategies, including regulatory reforms, educational initiatives, financial
incentives, and industry collaboration, can then be developed to address these barriers and
promote sustainable construction practices in the country. Additionally, international best
practices and experiences from other countries with similar contexts can be leveraged to
inform Morocco's efforts in promoting green building technologies and practices.
Years Actions
26
Zenata
27
maintenance, insurance, management, and security [Amiri et al. 2019]. Additionally, it is
noteworthy that certain building features can be incorporated at the design phase without
incurring extra expenses [Amiri et al. 2019]. For instance, designing buildings with an east–
west orientation can maximize the utilization of natural sunlight [Jones, 2007].
- What are the advantages, energy efficiency implications, and strategies for universities
striving to transition into green campuses through LEED certification?
- What are the key barriers that have hindered the assessment and adoption of LEED
certification within university environments?
Conclusion
In conclusion, this chapter has provided a thorough overview of sustainable construction
and green building certifications, emphasizing their relevance and application within the
context of Morocco. It has discussed the global landscape of sustainable construction,
examined key certifications, highlighted drivers and barriers, and showcased case studies.
The next chapter, Chapter 3, will delve into a specific case study focused on the LEED
certification process for UM6P Rabat Accommodations. This case study will offer a detailed
analysis of the application of LEED principles in a real-world context, providing valuable
insights into the challenges and successes of pursuing green building certification in Morocco.
28
REFERENCES
1. [McGUINN et al. 2020] J. McGUINN, E.FRIES-TERSCH, M. JONES , C.CREPALDI,
M. MASSO, I.KADARIK, M.SAMEK, S. DRUFUCA, M. GANCHEVA , B.GENY:
Concepts and Benchmarks, European Parliament L-2929 - Luxembourg, April2020.
3. [M.Pacetti et al.2012]. M. Pacetti, G. Passerini, C.A. Brebbia & G. Latini, The Sustainable
City VII: Urban regeneration and sustainability, WIT Library in volume 155 of WIT
Transactions on Ecology and the Environment (ISSN 1743-3541), 2012.
4. [S.GHIEZEN, 2014] Outils de certification durable des bâtiments: le cas des stades à
partir de l'étude sur la Ghelamco Arena,
5. [Richard et al, 2009] Richard Reed, Anita Bilos, Sara Wilkinson, and Karl-Werner
Schulte, International Comparison of Sustainable Rating Tools, JOSRE, Vol. 1, No.1,
2009.
6. [Guadaoui et al, 2021] Guadaoui et al, Preserving the Environment and Establishing
Sustainable Development: An Overview on the Moroccan Model, 2021.
7. [Jamea, 2017] Dr. El Mostafa Jamea, Country Analysis Paper Morocco, November 2017.
8. [STNEE, 2020] STRATÉGIE NATIONALE DE L’EFFICACITÉ ÉNERGÉTIQUE 2030,
aout 2020.
9. [Merini et al, 2020] Merini et al, Analysis and Comparison of Energy Efficiency Code
Requirements for Buildings: A Morocco–Spain Case Study, Energies 2020, 13, 5979;
doi:10.3390, 2020.
10. [Assadiki et al, 2022] Redouan Assadiki et Fouzi Belmir, Current Situation of Green
Building Development in Morocco: Standards and Certification Systems, Digital
Technologies and Applications, LNNS, volume 454,pp 563–572,2022.
11. [MCM, 2022] Morocco Construction Market Size, Trends and Forecasts 2022-2026:
Commercial, Industrial, Infrastructure, Energy and Utilities, Institutional and Residential
29
MarketAnalysis,https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220421005522/en/
Morocco-Construction-Market-Size-Trends-and-Forecasts-2022-2026-Commercial-
Industrial-Infrastructure-Energy-and-Utilities-Institutional-and-Residential-Market-
Analysis---ResearchAndMarkets.com, Accessed in July 2023.
14. [ Lai et al, 2023] Lai et al, Green building technologies in Southeast Asia: A review,
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, vol 55, 102946, February 2023.
15. [Latif et al, 2018] Latif et al, An examination of the LEED green building certification
system in terms of construction costs, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol
81, 1476–1483, 2018.
16. [Doan et al, 2017] Dat Tien Doan et al, a critical comparison of green building rating
systems, Building and Environment, vol 123, pp 243-260, 2017.
19. [Gustavo, 2020]. Gustavo Henrique Bruno Polli, A Comparison about European
Environmental Sustainability Rating Systems: BREEAM UK, DGNB, LiderA, ITACA
and HQE, U.Porto Journal of Engineering, Vol 6:2,PP 46-58, 2020.
20. [EDGE User Guide V3, 2021]. EDGE User Guide V3, International Finance Corporation,
2021
21. [Azhgaliyeva and Rahut, 2022]. Dina Azhgaliyeva and Dil B. Rahut, PROMOTING
GREEN BUILDINGS: BARRIERS, SOLUTIONS, AND POLICIES; ADBI Working
Paper 1331, 2022.
22. [Albert et al, 2018]. Albert Ping Chuen Chan, Amos Darko, Ayokunle Olubunmi
Olanipekun and Ernest Effah Ameyaw, Critical barriers to green building technologies
adoption in developing countries: The case of Ghana, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol
172, PP 1067-1079, 2018.
23. [Ahn et al, 2013] Ahn, Y.H., Pearce, A.R., Wang, Y., Wang, G. Drivers and barriers of
sustainable design and construction: the perception of green building experience. Int. J.
24. Sustain. Build. Technol. Urban Dev. 4 (1), 35-45, 2013.
25. [Chan et al. 2016] Chan, A.P.C., Darko, A., Ameyaw, E.E., Owusu-Manu, D.G. Barriers
affecting the adoption of green building technologies. J. Manag. Eng. 33, 2016.
30
26. [Hwang and Tan, 2012] Hwang, B.G., Tan, J.S. Green building project management:
obstacles and solutions for sustainable development. Sustain. Dev. 20 (5), 335-349, 2012.
27. [Hwang and Ng, 2013] Hwang, B.G., Ng, W.J. Project management knowledge and skills
for green construction: overcoming challenges. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (2), 272-284, 2013.
28. [Lam et al. 2009] Lam, P.T., Chan, E.H., Chau, C.K., Poon, C.S., Chun, K.P. Integrating
green specifications in construction and overcoming barriers in their use. J. Prof. Issues
Eng. Educ. Pract. 135 (4), 142-152, 2009.
29. [Zhang et al. 2012] Zhang, X., Shen, L., Tam, V.W., Lee, W.W.Y. Barriers to implement
extensive green roof systems: a Hong Kong study. Renew. Sustain. energy Rev. 16 , pp
314-319, 2012.
30. [Bin Esa et al., 2011]; Bin Esa, M.R., Marhani, M.A., Yaman, R., Noor, A.A.H.N.H.,
Rashid, H.A. Obstacles in implementing green building projects in Malaysia. Aust. J.
Basic Appl.Sci. 5 (12), 1806-1812, 2011.
31. [Zhang et al., 2011a] Zhang, X., Platten, A., Shen, L. Green property development
practice in China: costs and barriers. Build. Environ. 46 (11), 2153-2160, 2011a.
32. [Zhang et al., 2011b] Zhang, X., Shen, L., Wu, Y. Green strategy for gaining competitive
advantage in housing development: a China study. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (2), 157-167, 2011b.
33. [Zhang et al., 2011c] Zhang, X., Shen, L., Wu, Y., Qi, G. Barriers to implement green
strategy in the process of developing real estate projects. Open Waste Manag. J. 4, 33-37.,
2011c.
34. [Aktas and Ozorhon, 2015] Aktas, B., Ozorhon, B. Green building certification process of
existing buildings in developing countries: cases from Turkey. J. Manag. Eng. 31 (6)
https://
35. doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000358, 2015.
36. [Djokoto et al., 2014]. Djokoto, S.D., Dadzie, J., Ohemeng-Ababio, E. Barriers to
sustainable construction in the Ghanaian construction industry: consultants' perspectives.
J. Sustain. Dev. 7 (1), 134-143, 2014.
37. [Assadiki et al. 2022] Redouan Assadiki, Gérard Merlin, Hervé Boileau, Catherine Buhé
and Fouzi Belmir, Status and Prospects of Green Building in the Middle East and North
Africa (MENA) Region with a Focus on the Moroccan Context, Sustainability 2022, 14,
12594. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912594, 2022.
38. [Love et al. 2012] Love, P.E., Niedzweicki, M., Bullen, P.A., Edwards, D.J. Achieving the
green building council of Australia's world leadership rating in an office building in Perth.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 138 (5), 652-660, 2012.
39. [Low et al. 2014] Low, S.P., Gao, S., Tay, W.L. Comparative study of project
management and critical success factors of greening new and existing buildings in
Singapore. Struct. Surv. 32 (5), 413-433, 2014.
31
40. [Serpell et al. 2013] Serpell, A., Kort, J., Vera, S. Awareness, actions, drivers and barriers
of sustainable construction in Chile. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 19 (2), 272-288, 2013.
41. [Edwards, 2006] Edwards, B. Benefits of green offices in the UK: analysis from examples
built in the 1990s. Sustain. Dev. 14 (3), 190-204, 2006.
42. [Windapo, 2014] Windapo, A.O. Examination of green building drivers in the South
African construction industry: economics versus ecology. Sustainability 6 (9), 6088-6106,
2014.
43. [Windapo and Goulding, 2015]), Windapo, A.O., Goulding, J.S. Understanding the gap
between green building practice and legislation requirements in South Africa. Smart
Sustain. Built Environ.4 (1), 67-96, 2015.
44. [Aktas and Ozorhon, 2015], Aktas, B., Ozorhon, B. Green building certification process of
existing buildings in developing countries: cases from Turkey. J. Manag. Eng. 31 (6),
05015002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000358, 2015.
45. [Arif et al., 2009] Arif, M., Egbu, C., Haleem, A., Kulonda, D., Khalfan, M., State of
green construction in India: drivers and challenges. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 7 (2), 223-234,
2009.
46. [Darko et al.2017]. Amos Darko, Albert P.C. Chan, De-Graft Owusu-Manu, Ernest E.
Ameyaw, Drivers for implementing green building technologies: An international survey
of experts, Journal of Cleaner Production 145, 386-394, 2017.
47. [Amiri et al. 2019]. Ali Amiri, Juudit Ottelin and Jaana Sorvar, Are LEED-Certified
Buildings Energy-Efficient in Practice?, Sustainability 2019, 11, 1672.
48. [Wu et al. 2017] Wu, P.; Song, Y.; Shou, W.; Chi, H.; Chong, H.; Sutrisna, M. A
comprehensive analysis of the credits obtained by LEED 2009 certified green buildings.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 370–379.
49. [Uğur and Leblebici, 2018] Ugur, L.O.; Leblebici, N. An examination of the LEED green
building certification system in terms of construction costs. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2018, 81, 1476–1483.
50. [Jones, 2007]. Jones, M.K. McQuay® Frictionless chillers save 58 percent on energy
costs, Johnson County, Kansas goes “green” to Win Leed Gold. Cost Eng. 2007, 49, 26.
32
53. [LEED, 2022] LEED rating system. LEED rating system | U.S. Green Building Council.
(n.d.). Retrieved March 21, 2022, from https://www.usgbc.org/leed.
54. [USGBC, 2013] USGBC, LEED V4 user guide, Washington DC. USA: U.S. Green
Building Council, 2013.
55. [Dobias et al.2014] Jiri Dobias and Daniel Macek, Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) and its impact on building operational expenditures,
Procedia Engineering 85 (2014) 132-139.
56. [Gurgun et al. 2016] Asli Pelin Gurgun et al. , Performance of LEED energy credit
requirements in European countries, Procedia Engineering 164 ( 2016 ) 432 – 438.
57. [Turner and Frankel, 2008] C. Turner, M. Frankel, Energy Performance of LEED ® for
New Construction Buildings, New Build. Inst., 2008.
58. [Hu, 2019] M. Hu, 2019 energy benchmarking data for LEED-certified buildings in
Washington, D.C.: simulation and reality, J. Build. Eng. 42 (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102475.
59. [Akhtyrska and Fuerst, 2021] Y. Akhtyrska, F. Fuerst, People or systems: does
productivity enhancement matter more than energy management in LEED certified
buildings? Sustain. Times 13 (24) (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413863.
60. [Baylon and Storm, 2008] D. Baylon, P. Storm, Comparison of Commercial LEED
Buildings and Non-LEED Buildings within the 2002-2004 Pacific Northwest Commercial
Building Stock, ACEEE Summer Study Energy Effic. Build., 2008.
61. [Daisey et al., 2003] J.M. Daisey, W.J. Angell, M.G. Apte Indoor air quality, ventilation
and health symptoms in schools: an analysis of existing information Indoor
Air, 13 (1) (2003), pp. 53-64.
62. [Brager and Borgeson, 2010] G. Brager, S. Borgeson Comfort Standards and Variation in
Exceedance for Mixed-Mode Buildings ,Center for the Built Environment (2010).
63. [Veitch, 2001]. J.A. Veitch, Psychological processes influencing lighting quality, J. Illum.
Eng. Soc., 30 (1) (2001), pp. 124-140.
64. [Chang and Chen, 2005] C. Chang, P. Chen, Human response to window views and
indoor plants in the workplace, HortScience, 40 (5) (2005), pp. 1354-1359.
65. [Mujan et al,2019] Influence of indoor environmental quality on human health and
productivity - A review, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol 217, 20 April 2019, Pages
646-657.
66. [Luo et al, 2021] Kaifang Luo , John H. Scofield , Yueming (Lucy), Water savings of
LEED-certified buildings, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol 175, December
2021, 105-856.
33
APPENDICES
Apendix 1: use types and categories
34
Appendix 4: Thermal balance- Excerpt from the Ventilation Sizing
Note of this Project.
35
Appendix 6: Densely occupied spaces
36
Appendix 7: Flush-Out Report
37