Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Academic Editors: Antonio Caggiano
and Chyi Lin Lee
Received: 19 November 2024
Revised: 26 January 2025
Accepted: 26 January 2025
Published: 2 February 2025
Citation: Rauf, A.; Attoye, D.E.;
Khalfan, M.M.A.; Shafiq, M.T.
Examining the Impact of House Size
on Building Embodied Energy.
Buildings 2025,15, 467. https://
doi.org/10.3390/buildings15030467
Copyright: © 2025 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
(https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).
Article
Examining the Impact of House Size on Building
Embodied Energy
Abdul Rauf 1, * , Daniel Euroizing Attoye 2, Malik Mansoor Ali Khalfan 3and Muhammad Tariq Shafiq 4
1Architectural Engineering Department, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain P.O. Box 15551,
United Arab Emirates
2Department of Architecture, De Montfort University, Dubi P.O. Box 294345, United Arab Emirates;
daniel.attoye@dmu.ac.uk
3Department of Management Science & Engineering, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi P.O. Box 127788,
United Arab Emirates; malik.khalfan@ku.ac.ae
4School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK;
m.tariq@hw.ac.uk
*Correspondence: a.rauf@uaeu.ac.ae
Abstract: The effects of buildings on the environment can be reduced with research-based
alternative building designs. This study focuses on reducing the building space to lower the
overall size of a building as a strategy to reduce the building’s embodied energy. The aim
of this study was to investigate the initial embodied energy (IEE) of a residential building
that was systematically reduced in size. Using input–output-based hybrid analysis, the
IEE for three architecturally distinct four-bedroom residential prototypes (P1, P2, and P3)
was calculated. The IEE for P1 (525 m
2
), P2 (266 m
2
), and P3 (109 m
2
) were 3555, 2008, and
1000 GJ, respectively. This indicates a 72% reduction in embodied energy consumption
when the largest prototype (P1) was transitioned to the smallest (P3). When analyzing
IEE/m
2
and IEE/m
2
/occupant, it becomes apparent that larger spaces tend to have a
lower IEE/m
2
. However, when the occupancy increases, the IEE/m
2
/occupant decreases
by 25–33%. Therefore, considering occupant-centered design for residential buildings,
the benefits of a large house are not justifiable. These findings can help inform decisions
regarding the optimization of residential spaces to minimize environmental impacts.
Keywords: building size; initial embodied energy; input–output-based hybrid analysis; life
cycle assessment; occupants
1. Introduction
It is well-known that buildings have a significant negative effect on the environment,
accounting for 36% of all CO
2
emissions, over 40% of global energy consumption [
1
,
2
], and
28% of greenhouse gas emissions [
3
]. This challenge is compounded by the reliance on fossil
fuels as the primary source of energy production worldwide. Consequently, addressing
energy consumption within the built environment is of paramount importance. Reducing
energy demand is not only essential for mitigating environmental degradation but also
for fostering sustainable development and combating climate change. Failure to prioritize
energy efficiency in the design, construction, and operation of buildings risks exacerbating
the sector’s adverse environmental impacts. Additionally, the building sector significantly
contributes to environmental degradation through construction and demolition waste,
which in some regions accounts for 23–44% of municipal waste, with a global average of
35% [
4
,
5
], representing a substantial loss of energy embodied in building materials and
construction processes and further amplifying the sector’s environmental impact [
4
,
5
].
Buildings 2025,15, 467 https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15030467
Buildings 2025,15, 467 2 of 20
Therefore, significant research is required to investigate and resolve the environmental
consequences of building design decisions relating to both building materials and building
size or layout [
6
]. It has also been established that the impact of buildings starts from
material extraction through the various phases of product design and manufacturing
and all related aspects of building development, such as construction, operation, and
demolition [7–11].
In light of the above, there are well-established protocols aimed towards a more
sustainable building environment worldwide, with several opinions proposed for the
redevelopment of the building stock, particularly in the context of energy [
12
]. More specif-
ically, design standards and guides have been formulated to explore better approaches to
building design [
13
] relating to the optimization of fenestration design [
14
,
15
] and zero-
energy, high-performing building envelope design [
16
,
17
]. Certain general and holistic
concepts in both practice and research define the design objectives in terms of environmen-
tal impact and sustainability. The 3Rs of sustainability (“reduce, reuse, recycle”) and other
related concepts such as upscaling, design for disassembly, and remanufacturing have been
extensively studied to promote sustainability and a circular economy [
18
–
20
]. The 3Rs
demand reducing the use of resources, specifically original materials, to decrease waste
and environmental impact [
21
,
22
]; reusing materials to aid recovery, and maximizing or
exploiting their usefulness within the boundaries set by technical, ecological, and economic
possibilities at the end-of-life [
21
,
23
]. The third R covers recycling related to the conversion
of old materials for new use [
23
]. The 3Rs combined help to reduce waste and its treatment
costs, pollution-induced health issues, and negative environmental impacts [4,19].
In the broader discourse on the sustainability of the built environment, one key
approach frequently advocated is the theory of minimalism, which has influenced ar-
chitectural practice for centuries. Rooted in the core principles of Japanese architecture,
particularly in temporary dwellings, the concept of a “smaller footprint” is not merely theo-
retical but is actively applied in design as a critical strategy for reducing the environmental
impact of buildings. In this context, smaller houses can significantly reduce the embodied
energy associated with construction materials and processes. Embodied energy is crucial
to consider because it represents the total energy consumed throughout the lifecycle of
building materials, from extraction through to manufacturing, transportation, and con-
struction [
24
]. By reducing the size of buildings, the quantity of materials required can be
minimized, leading to a reduction in the overall embodied energy and, consequently, the
environmental burden [
25
]. Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) considerations
in the building sector, combined with carbon pricing mechanisms such as Emissions Trad-
ing Systems, Carbon Tax policies, and government subsidies, underscore the critical need
to reduce carbon emissions in the building sector [
26
,
27
]. This can be achieved through
the optimization and reduction of material consumption, a primary contributor to the
environmental impacts of embodied energy. Furthermore, promoting low-carbon practices,
including the design of buildings with low embodied energy, enables stakeholders to meet
regulatory requirements while mitigating financial risks associated with carbon emissions
and other environmental impacts [24].
While operational energy consumption remains an important factor in efforts to reduce
energy consumption, it has been more thoroughly explored in existing literature, with
established methodologies for optimization and improvement. In contrast, embodied
energy has received less attention, particularly in the context of the UAE, where rapid
urban development and heavy reliance on energy-intensive building materials have raised
concerns about the long-term environmental impact. This gap in research provides an
opportunity to explore how design strategies can significantly reduce the embodied energy
of buildings, contributing to more sustainable construction practices in the UAE.
Buildings 2025,15, 467 3 of 20
Reducing building size also has the potential to increase affordability by reducing the
cost, land and resources/materials used, and energy consumed [
28
]. However, with the
increase in the global population and footprint of the built environment, some studies have
reported a progressive increase in building sizes. Cerro discovered that between 1970 and
2015, there was a 79% increase in new US homes, although large family sizes (over five
persons) decreased by 11.2% and single occupancy increased by 10.9% [29].
The context of the United Arab Emirates (UAE): In 2010, the average Dubai home
area was 1578 sq. ft., but dropped by 29% in 2018. A comparison of two major cities, Dubai
and Abu Dhabi, provides additional context. In 2012, apartment sizes ranging from 500
to 1000 sq. ft. became the most prominent (31.87%), with the number of such buildings
rising by approximately 0.4% from the previous year. By contrast, the number of average
villa sizes of 3000–4000 sq. ft. increased by approximately 3%, becoming the most common.
During the same period, housing trends in Dubai were the opposite of those in Abu Dhabi.
The most common (30.28%) apartment size was 1000–1500 sq. ft., with an increase of
approximately 1.5% from the previous year. The report affirms that the number of small
apartments is lower, but that of larger apartments has increased. For villas, the average
size of 5000–7000 sq. ft. was the most common (32.18%), but the number of these types
decreased by 6.5% in 2012 yet remained the most prominent. [
30
]. Finally, as of 2018, the
size of Dubai villas decreased by 4% to 3777 sq. ft., while apartment sizes decreased by 20%
to 962 sq. ft. [31].
Currently, housing trends in the UAE are broadly divided based on client or building
typology. The clients are either UAE citizens or resident expatriates; the former have
housing loans that provide housing, whereas the latter are more often tenants in privately
constructed structures. In major cities such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi, residential buildings
are mostly villas or apartments. The villas of UAE citizens are often in neighborhoods
across the Emirates [32] and range from three to ten bedrooms [33,34].
There are several inconsistencies and lack of guidance regarding these issues. In light
of the above scenarios, attention has shifted to embracing concepts such as minimalism,
downsizing, micro-housing, and new trends in multi-, shared, or co-housing [
35
,
36
]. Ur-
banization linked with economic changes and certain demographic preferences in some
major cities worldwide has recently encouraged interest in micro-homes or smaller housing
styles [
36
–
38
]. This preference is aided by the optimization of design strategies, economic
affordability, and the ecologically friendly nature of this design approach [
37
,
39
,
40
]. This
adds to the functional advantage of using or optimizing smaller land plots in urban dis-
tricts [25,41].
As the planning landscape continues to evolve and limited land remains [
26
], there
is a need for more compact, sustainable, and ingenious housing solutions fueled by poli-
cies and urbanization [
42
]. This scenario highlights the critical need to communicate
the objective benefits of this design approach unambiguously. Stakeholder engagement
and communication among builders, designers, and clients are required to explain the
advantages of building size reduction [
28
]. Furthermore, as the UAE aims to reduce its en-
vironmental footprint, there is a pressing need to evaluate and optimize housing practices
to align with national sustainability goals and best international practices. While reduc-
ing embodied energy can play a significant role in this context, it is typically quantified
per square meter of building area. However, the relationship between building size and
embodied energy per square meter remains unclear in existing literature. Therefore, this
study aims to investigate the potential benefits of reducing building size as a strategy for
minimizing embodied energy, specifically focusing on a residential building that has been
systematically downsized.
Buildings 2025,15, 467 4 of 20
The novelty of this study encompasses various aspects: (a) This research fills a critical
gap in the existing literature by focusing on the impact of house size on embodied energy,
resource utilization, and urban sustainability in the unique context of the UAE. Unlike
prior studies that primarily emphasize operational energy, this study delves into embodied
energy, providing a more holistic understanding of environmental impacts influenced by
house size. (b) A notable innovation in this study is its examination of initial embodied
energy (IEE) per square meter per occupant (IEE/m
2
/occupant), providing insights into
how embodied energy utilization patterns are influenced by building size and occupancy
rates. (c) Within the prevalent and large housing designs in the UAE, this study emphasizes
the necessity of downsizing residences to reduce energy consumption and address broader
sustainability challenges such as resource conservation and urban sprawl. The study’s
findings offer actionable insights that can inform policy development, urban planning
strategies, and architectural design not only in the UAE but also in other regions facing
similar challenges.
2. Background
Several concepts and considerations have been proposed to guide and justify the need
for building size reduction or compact homes. To undertake such a relevant investigation,
it is important to briefly reflect on these factors. Some studies suggest that the use of the
origami concept in smaller space designs helps to reduce claustrophobia and feelings of
confinement [
43
]. Modularity is presented as it is generally more economical and saves
construction time [
44
], and adapting the use of sustainable materials such as bamboo
provides environmental benefits [26].
Open-plan design, which is frequently used, helps boost the multifunctionality and
adaptability of the design and optimizes it for work and living [
29
,
45
]. These connect
with other ideas, such as lean construction, which is a production management-based
project delivery system that emphasizes the reliable and speedy delivery of value [
46
].
Thus, concepts such as minimalism, modularity, adaptability, sustainability, and reliability
define design ideas that represent compact homes facilitated by building size reduction.
Other specific benefits arise from this design trend, the list of which suggests the need to
showcase these benefits in specific contexts. Generally, smaller homes are easier to maintain,
less costly to construct and purchase, more environmentally friendly, induce increased
social life and communication between occupants, increase downsizing, and are generally
accessible to more people owing to their affordability [29].
The concept of housing affordability is not new in architecture; however, modern
energy-efficient homes tend to consume more materials and increase embodied energy
costs while aiming for sustainability [
47
,
48
]. Thus, as housing development and high-
performing buildings evolve, it is necessary to reconsider their impact on other non-
technical considerations, such as cost, public perception, preferences, and opinions.
It is critical to emphasize that the building size reduction approach used in this study
aligns with the growing awareness of the environmental challenges posed by large houses.
This approach is increasingly recognized as a means of addressing housing affordability
and providing more sustainable housing solutions. This approach is increasingly viewed as
a means of reducing homelessness and providing a relatively permanent solution for those
affected [
49
]. In general, compared with other types of housing, small/compact homes
might be considered a cost-effective approach to increase access to affordable housing, thus
reducing homelessness [50–53].
Buildings 2025,15, 467 5 of 20
2.1. Life-Cycle Analysis of Residential Buildings
Life-cycle analysis (LCA) is considered the most efficient method for assessing how a
building affects its environment [
9
]. Fundamentally, it has been asserted that the results
of LCA studies can be strategically used to provide guidelines for benchmarking and can
be operationally applied in the construction industry to improve and optimize residential
buildings while also reducing negative environmental impacts [54].
Several studies have been conducted in this area, and multiple reviews have recently
been published [
55
–
58
]. To aid in a holistic understanding of LCA, various factorial
dimensions have been investigated with notable findings. For example, the impact of
construction materials can be as high as 81% of the lifecycle impact of new houses [
59
],
and residential electricity consumption and demand-side management strategies have
temporal impacts of up to 136% [
60
]. Other researchers have investigated the magnitude of
neighborhood-level embodied emissions and found that buildings are associated with up
to 56% of the total emissions [
61
] and a decrease in residential radioactive waste by up to
10% owing to the use of photovoltaic systems [62].
Several methods for performing LCA have been reviewed in detail in the
literature [63–67]
.
However, it has been reported that LCA comprises operational and embodied energy
aspects associated with a building. Operational energy (OPE) represents the in-use energy
required for activities such as space heating or cooling and the day-to-day operation of
various household appliances. In the current study, this aspect of LCA was not considered,
and a secondary analysis was used to approximate the average OPE of similar building
typologies in the studied context [34,68–70].
For every construction, both direct and indirect energy are associated with the build-
ing: the first is related to actual building construction, and the second is related to raw
material extraction and component manufacturing for the construction [
71
]. These consti-
tute the building’s “embodied energy”, which may be “initial”, meaning associated with
initial construction from material manufacture to transportation, or “recurrent”, associated
with lifespan building maintenance. The third component, “demolition and disposal”,
is associated with a building’s end-of-life [
47
,
72
]. In summary, these three provide the
life-cycle embodied energy (LCEE) [47,73–75].
Comparing LCEE and life cycle OPE, further differentiation arises in the reality that
insufficient attention has been directed to embodied energy assessment, leading to a gap in
the knowledge and understanding of its evaluation approaches [
7
,
75
]. In general, multiple
factors affect LCEE assessments [
11
]. Regardless, some authors argue that the construction
and maintenance stages of buildings may be more susceptible to impacts [
76
]. Moreover,
the impact of buildings on the environment across their lifespan is affected by factors
associated with the type of material, design, construction, use, and demolition [
9
]. Some of
these factors include the material service life [
10
,
77
,
78
], building service life [
10
,
78
], energy
source [79], and construction method [80].
In summary, LCA covers both operational and embodied aspects, with insignificant
research on the latter. The associated energy consumed by residential buildings is due
to multiple factors but is evident when considering the design and construction of the
building; consequently, the current study presents a connection between the initial objective
of building size reduction and embodied energy assessment.
2.2. Embodied Energy Assessment Methods
Researchers have employed various methods to estimate embodied energy, with the
most prevalent being process, input–output, and hybrid analyses [
25
,
72
]. These methods
differ significantly in their approaches, often resulting in variations in calculated outcomes.
The key methods and their distinguishing features are summarized below.
Buildings 2025,15, 467 6 of 20
The process analysis approach utilizes locational data to represent statistical and
data-related information about processes and products, addressing key issues such as
environmental flows and embodied energy [
11
]. This method is valuable for evaluating
sustainability practices and processes, particularly in the manufacturing sector [
10
]. How-
ever, researchers have identified several limitations. For instance, manufacturers’ databases
often contain incomplete information, making it challenging to comprehensively define
production processes and adding complexities to upstream supply chains [
25
]. Addition-
ally, this approach is time-intensive, typically focusing on major inputs, which can result in
truncation errors and uncertainties in system boundary definitions [71].
The input–output analysis method evaluates energy and financial transactions simul-
taneously across the entire supply chain to enhance completeness [
11
]. This method may
serve as an alternative to life-cycle analysis due to its integration of supply chain impact
inputs and reduced need for extensive data collection. While this approach enables the
collation and comparison of energy and economic data at a national scale, it has notable
limitations. For instance, mismatches arising from product dissimilarities during sectoral
evaluations can create a “black box” effect, undermining data quality and results [
10
].
Additionally, challenges related to homogeneity, proportionality, and economies of scale
further affect reliability. These issues, along with the unintended double counting of energy
inputs, may lead to questionable or unreliable outcomes [78].
The hybrid analysis method combines process-based and input–output approaches to
address their respective limitations, resulting in a robust and comprehensive method for
assessing embodied energy and life-cycle inventories [
11
]. This approach integrates detailed
bottom-up industrial process data with large-scale, top-down economic input–output data,
making it the most extensive embodied energy assessment technique [75].
Two variations of hybrid analysis exist: process-based hybrid analysis (PBHA) and
input–output-based hybrid analysis (IOBHA). PBHA tracks the embodied energy of materi-
als, products, or components used directly in manufacturing or construction and adds this
to energy intensity extrapolated from the input–output analysis [
78
]. IOBHA, or the path
exchange hybrid approach, seeks to overcome the limitations of process-based methods by
integrating material-level input–output data [
72
]. The lack of comprehensive databases
poses a limitation for both PBHA and IOBHA. However, the hybrid approach enhances the
reliability of system boundaries by integrating energy data from process analysis, hybrid
material energy intensities, and input–output data, ultimately producing hybrid material
energy coefficients [78].
3. Materials and Methods
As stated previously, the primary objective of this study was to investigate the quan-
tifiable benefits of reducing the size of the average Emirati villa and to project the results as
an argument for compact homes in the UAE. Although there are both design and social
dimensions of this planned design modification, this study focuses only on design aspects.
The scope of the investigation for this initial report was the initial embodied energy (IEE).
Four steps were adopted to provide comparative data and investigate the study
objective. First, three design prototypes were considered to showcase the gradual trans-
formation from a typical villa size in the UAE to a more compact design. Second, the
IEE of each prototype was calculated separately using the input–output-based hybrid
approach (IOBHA). Third, the calculated IEE is evaluated relative to the assumed number
of persons/occupants. Fourth, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to extrapolate the IEE,
IEE/m
2
, and IEE/m
2
/occupant values based on further space reduction. To provide a case
for the environmental benefits of space reduction, the embodied emission savings were also
calculated and presented, along with a sensitivity analysis in the final step. Following these
Buildings 2025,15, 467 7 of 20
comprehensive steps, the embodied energy results obtained in this study were compared
with those of previous studies for validation. The sections below report the processes
adopted in the core steps of the research: the prototype design development (PDD) and
IEE assessment.
3.1. Prototype Design Development (PDD)
Literature on residential housing in the UAE suggests clearly that three ten-bedroom
villas are the design typology of choice for UAE citizens [
32
–
34
]. In a previous study,
we reported that out of the floor area of a UAE villa, approximately 500 m
2
could be
constructed from conventional building materials and construction systems [
77
]. Therefore,
in the current study, the developed prototypes were designed based on these references,
and the PDD process was outlined to provide opportunities for future comparative studies.
Thus, Prototype 1 was designed as a 500 m
2
apartment. The next step involved the
systematic reduction of the building size. The systematic downsizing approach began
by identifying key spaces, including living rooms, kitchens, bedrooms, and bathrooms,
while removing non-essential areas such as extra family living rooms, gyms, and study
areas. Essential spaces were then resized using standard design practices, ensuring the
functionality of each area was maintained. In some cases, spaces with overlapping func-
tions, such as the living and dining rooms, were combined into a single multifunctional
area. These steps ensured that the prototypes remained functional and efficient despite
the reduction in size. The systematic reduction approach resulted in the development of
two additional prototypes. Initially, the total floor area was reduced by approximately 50%
to create Prototype 2. A similar strategy was then applied to further decrease the size of
Prototype 2 by approximately another 50%, resulting in Prototype 3. These initial areas
were flexibly considered as the wall thicknesses, and the standard room dimensions led to
a slight variation in the final floor area when the designs were completed (Figure 1).
For comparison, all prototypes were four-bedroom villas and were designed with the
same materials and construction system. The selection of four-bedroom villas represents
a mid-sized and culturally relevant residential typology in the UAE. Villas in the region
typically range from three to ten bedrooms, with smaller villas catering to the growing
trend of single-family households and larger villas accommodating traditional joint-family
systems [
24
]. The four-bedroom villa configuration serves as an intermediate model, offer-
ing a balanced and representative example of contemporary residential developments in
the UAE. These prototype villas comprise reinforced concrete (RC) columns and beam struc-
tures with infill-plastered hollow block walls. The slab-on-ground construction included a
5 cm plain cement concrete (PCC) layer topped with a 10 cm reinforced cement concrete
(RCC) slab thickened beneath the 10 cm walls for added support. The first floor and
roof slabs were 15 cm thick RCC. The wall finishes were ceramic tiles, oils, and washable
paint. Plasterboard was used for the ceiling, and the floors were finished using marble and
ceramic tiles. Double-glazed aluminum-framed windows complemented the hardwood
doors. Table 1provides the general information regarding each prototype.
Table 1. General comparison of prototypes.
Prototype 1 (P1) Prototype 2 (P2) Prototype 3 (P3)
Building overview
Total Floor Area (m2)525 266 109
Total Interior Wall Area (m2)1078 675 327
Total Exterior Wall Area (m2)340 241 151
Buildings 2025,15, 467 8 of 20
Buildings 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21
3.1. Prototype Design Development (PDD)
Literature on residential housing in the UAE suggests clearly that three ten-bedroom
villas are the design typology of choice for UAE citizens [32–34]. In a previous study, we
reported that out of the floor area of a UAE villa, approximately 500 m2 could be con-
structed from conventional building materials and construction systems [77]. Therefore,
in the current study, the developed prototypes were designed based on these references,
and the PDD process was outlined to provide opportunities for future comparative stud-
ies.
Thus, Prototype 1 was designed as a 500 m2 apartment. The next step involved the
systematic reduction of the building size. The systematic downsizing approach began by
identifying key spaces, including living rooms, kitchens, bedrooms, and bathrooms, while
removing non-essential areas such as extra family living rooms, gyms, and study areas.
Essential spaces were then resized using standard design practices, ensuring the function-
ality of each area was maintained. In some cases, spaces with overlapping functions, such
as the living and dining rooms, were combined into a single multifunctional area. These
steps ensured that the prototypes remained functional and efficient despite the reduction
in size. The systematic reduction approach resulted in the development of two additional
prototypes. Initially, the total floor area was reduced by approximately 50% to create Pro-
totype 2. A similar strategy was then applied to further decrease the size of Prototype 2
by approximately another 50%, resulting in Prototype 3. These initial areas were flexibly
considered as the wall thicknesses, and the standard room dimensions led to a slight var-
iation in the final floor area when the designs were completed (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Prototype floor plans used in the study.
3.2. Initial Embodied Energy (IEE) Assessment
In previous studies, we described various commonly used embodied energy assess-
ment methods [
10
,
77
,
78
]. Therefore, hybrid assessment methods provide the most balanced
approaches. Based on the literature, IOBHA provides the most comprehensive approach,
covering aspects of rigor, reliability, and completeness in conducting embodied energy
assessments [
10
,
81
]. The procedure for IOBHA has been detailed in previous studies; the
steps of the process are listed below.
1.
Architectural drawings of the case study buildings: in the current study, concept
design sketches were created by the authors, followed by the modeling of the design
in Autodesk Revit;
2.
Quantities of each material and component (by kg, m
2
, or LM): the quantities of
materials were extracted from the Autodesk Revit model;
3.
Choice of material database: owing to the unavailability of a construction material
database regarding embodied energy in the UAE, a validated literature-referenced
database called the Environmental Performance in Construction (EPIC) database
was selected;
4.
Extract energy intensity per unit of material/component: information sourced from
the database;
5.
Select the embodied energy assessment approach: decisions are made based on a
summary of the literature and previous studies;
6. Calculate the IEE for each item on the bill of quantities;
Buildings 2025,15, 467 9 of 20
7. Sum up all the IEEs to quantify the IEE for the villa.
The aforementioned steps were repeated for each prototype. Figure 2depicts a
flowchart describing the sequence of steps adopted in IOBHA, exhibiting the importance of
material information and database extraction. This highlights the need for energy intensity
and environmental flow values for each building material or component in the case study
villa under review.
Buildings 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21
The aforementioned steps were repeated for each prototype. Figure 2 depicts a
flowchart describing the sequence of steps adopted in IOBHA, exhibiting the importance
of material information and database extraction. This highlights the need for energy in-
tensity and environmental flow values for each building material or component in the
case study villa under review.
Figure 2. Flowchart representation of the embodied energy assessment procedure.
3.3. Additional Calculation Metrics
In general, there are several layers of inputs and outputs in the assessment consider-
ations, as well as the vast differences within’ a case study (materials with different EE and
EUI) and differences across’ multiple case studies (designs with different floor areas and
volume). These unique situations demand a comparison based on the relative constructs
that support the normalized comparative rationalization of the results in the previous sec-
tion.
In terms of the two metrics, the current study adds to the literature by addressing
these issues. The first is the IEE relative to floor area (IEE/m
2
), and the second is the IEE
relative to the number of occupants (IEE/person and IEE/m
2
/occupant). Both relative met-
rics are transformed into comparative metrics to understand how building size reduction
not only enhances our understanding of embodied energy but also provides reasonable
guidance for future decision-making. Notably, the embodied energy coefficients used in
this study, sourced from the EPIC database, quantify the embodied energy of the proto-
types in terms of primary energy, encompassing the entire energy supply chain.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Initial Embodied Energy of the Design Prototypes
In this section, three separate but interacting aspects of the analysis are presented and
discussed. First, the IEE results for each prototype are presented, with an emphasis on the
proportion by percentage and associated embodied energy magnitude (in GJ) of the foun-
dation, envelope, assemblies (doors and windows), and finishes. The second is the break-
down of the components comprising the largest contributor to the IEE for each prototype.
Third, a comparative assessment of the three prototypes was conducted, emphasizing the
Figure 2. Flowchart representation of the embodied energy assessment procedure.
3.3. Additional Calculation Metrics
In general, there are several layers of inputs and outputs in the assessment consid-
erations, as well as the vast ‘differences within’ a case study (materials with different
EE and EUI) and ‘differences across’ multiple case studies (designs with different floor
areas and volume). These unique situations demand a comparison based on the relative
constructs that support the normalized comparative rationalization of the results in the
previous section.
In terms of the two metrics, the current study adds to the literature by addressing these
issues. The first is the IEE relative to floor area (IEE/m
2
), and the second is the IEE relative
to the number of occupants (IEE/person and IEE/m
2
/occupant). Both relative metrics are
transformed into comparative metrics to understand how building size reduction not only
enhances our understanding of embodied energy but also provides reasonable guidance
for future decision-making. Notably, the embodied energy coefficients used in this study,
sourced from the EPIC database, quantify the embodied energy of the prototypes in terms
of primary energy, encompassing the entire energy supply chain.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Initial Embodied Energy of the Design Prototypes
In this section, three separate but interacting aspects of the analysis are presented
and discussed. First, the IEE results for each prototype are presented, with an emphasis
on the proportion by percentage and associated embodied energy magnitude (in GJ) of
the foundation, envelope, assemblies (doors and windows), and finishes. The second
is the breakdown of the components comprising the largest contributor to the IEE for
Buildings 2025,15, 467 10 of 20
each prototype. Third, a comparative assessment of the three prototypes was conducted,
emphasizing the differences in IEE proportions and two key metrics that define new
considerations: IEE/m
2
and IEE/person. As previously stated, an analysis was conducted
for each material and component listed in the bill of quantities. However, the Results section
presents a summary focusing on the foundation, envelope, finishes, and assemblies (doors
and windows) to provide a succinct representation of the data and assessment protocol.
4.1.1. Prototype 1
Figure 3a shows that the total IEE for P1 was 3555 GJ. This comprised 353 GJ for
the foundation (10%), 1576 GJ for the envelope (44%), 104 GJ for the assemblies (3%) and
1522 GJ
for the finishes (43%). It is also worth noting that the area covered by the wall
was 1419 m
2
, whereas the area of P1 was 525 m
2
. In Figure 3b, the finishes used for P1
were the largest contributors to the IEE, which was 324 GJ (21%); wall finishes contributed
952 GJ
(63%), and roof finishes contributed 246 GJ (16%). This indicates that the embodied
energy of the wall finishes was more significant than the combined IEE of the floor and
roof finishes.
Buildings 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21
differences in IEE proportions and two key metrics that define new considerations: IEE/m2
and IEE/person. As previously stated, an analysis was conducted for each material and
component listed in the bill of quantities. However, the Results section presents a sum-
mary focusing on the foundation, envelope, finishes, and assemblies (doors and windows)
to provide a succinct representation of the data and assessment protocol.
4.1.1. Prototype 1
Figure 3a shows that the total IEE for P1 was 3555 GJ. This comprised 353 GJ for the
foundation (10%), 1576 GJ for the envelope (44%), 104 GJ for the assemblies (3%) and 1522
GJ for the finishes (43%). It is also worth noting that the area covered by the wall was 1419
m2, whereas the area of P1 was 525 m2. In Figure 3b, the finishes used for P1 were the
largest contributors to the IEE, which was 324 GJ (21%); wall finishes contributed 952 GJ
(63%), and roof finishes contributed 246 GJ (16%). This indicates that the embodied energy
of the wall finishes was more significant than the combined IEE of the floor and roof fin-
ishes.
Figure 3. IEE proportions for P1. (a) Whole building and (b) finishes only.
4.1.2. Prototype 2
Figure 4a shows that the total IEE for P2 was 2008 GJ. This comprised 161 GJ for the
foundation (8%), 875 GJ for the envelope (44%), 58 GJ for the assemblies (3%), and 914 GJ
for the finishes (45%). It is also worth noting that the area covered by the wall finish was
914 m2, whereas the area of P2 was 266 m2. As shown in Figure 4b, the finishes used for
P2 were the largest contributors to the IEE; the floor finish was 160 GJ (18%), the wall
finish was 623 GJ (68%), and the roof finish was 132 GJ (14%). This indicates that the em-
bodied energy of the wall finishes for P2 was more significant than that of the combined
floor and roof finishes.
Figure 3. IEE proportions for P1. (a) Whole building and (b) finishes only.
4.1.2. Prototype 2
Figure 4a shows that the total IEE for P2 was 2008 GJ. This comprised 161 GJ for the
foundation (8%), 875 GJ for the envelope (44%), 58 GJ for the assemblies (3%), and 914 GJ
for the finishes (45%). It is also worth noting that the area covered by the wall finish was
914 m
2
, whereas the area of P2 was 266 m
2
. As shown in Figure 4b, the finishes used for P2
were the largest contributors to the IEE; the floor finish was 160 GJ (18%), the wall finish
was 623 GJ (68%), and the roof finish was 132 GJ (14%). This indicates that the embodied
energy of the wall finishes for P2 was more significant than that of the combined floor and
roof finishes.
Buildings 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21
differences in IEE proportions and two key metrics that define new considerations: IEE/m2
and IEE/person. As previously stated, an analysis was conducted for each material and
component listed in the bill of quantities. However, the Results section presents a sum-
mary focusing on the foundation, envelope, finishes, and assemblies (doors and windows)
to provide a succinct representation of the data and assessment protocol.
4.1.1. Prototype 1
Figure 3a shows that the total IEE for P1 was 3555 GJ. This comprised 353 GJ for the
foundation (10%), 1576 GJ for the envelope (44%), 104 GJ for the assemblies (3%) and 1522
GJ for the finishes (43%). It is also worth noting that the area covered by the wall was 1419
m2, whereas the area of P1 was 525 m2. In Figure 3b, the finishes used for P1 were the
largest contributors to the IEE, which was 324 GJ (21%); wall finishes contributed 952 GJ
(63%), and roof finishes contributed 246 GJ (16%). This indicates that the embodied energy
of the wall finishes was more significant than the combined IEE of the floor and roof fin-
ishes.
Figure 3. IEE proportions for P1. (a) Whole building and (b) finishes only.
4.1.2. Prototype 2
Figure 4a shows that the total IEE for P2 was 2008 GJ. This comprised 161 GJ for the
foundation (8%), 875 GJ for the envelope (44%), 58 GJ for the assemblies (3%), and 914 GJ
for the finishes (45%). It is also worth noting that the area covered by the wall finish was
914 m2, whereas the area of P2 was 266 m2. As shown in Figure 4b, the finishes used for
P2 were the largest contributors to the IEE; the floor finish was 160 GJ (18%), the wall
finish was 623 GJ (68%), and the roof finish was 132 GJ (14%). This indicates that the em-
bodied energy of the wall finishes for P2 was more significant than that of the combined
floor and roof finishes.
Figure 4. IEE proportions for P2. (a) Whole building and (b) finishes only.
Buildings 2025,15, 467 11 of 20
4.1.3. Prototype 3
Figure 5a shows that the total IEE for P3 was 1000 GJ. It comprised 104 GJ for the
foundation (10%), 411 GJ for the envelope (41%), 35 GJ for the assemblies (4%), and
450 GJ
for the finishes (45%). Notably, the area covered by the wall finishes was 477 m
2
, whereas
that of P3 was 109 m
2
. In Figure 5b, the finishes used for P3 were also the largest contributors
to the IEE; the floor finish was 64 GJ (14%), the wall finish was 335 GJ (75%), and the roof
finish was 51 GJ (11%). Similar to P1 and P2, the embodied energy of the wall finishes for
P3 was significantly higher than that of the combined floor and roof finishes. This also
shows that with a decrease in dwelling size, the proportion of IEE for walls increases. This
is owing to the increase in the wall-area-to-floor area ratio with a decrease in building size.
Buildings 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 25
Figure 4. IEE proportions for P2. (a) Whole building and (b) finishes only.
4.1.3. Prototype 3
Figure 5a shows that the total IEE for P3 was 1000 GJ. It comprised 104 GJ for the foundation (10%), 411 GJ for
the envelope (41%), 35 GJ for the assemblies (4%), and 450 GJ for the finishes (45%). Notably, the area covered by
the wall finishes was 477 m2, whereas that of P3 was 109 m2. In Figure 5b, the finishes used for P3 were also the
largest contributors to the IEE; the floor finish was 64 GJ (14%), the wall finish was 335 GJ (75%), and the roof
finish was 51 GJ (11%). Similar to P1 and P2, the embodied energy of the wall finishes for P3 was significantly
higher than that of the combined floor and roof finishes. This also shows that with a decrease in dwelling size, the
proportion of IEE for walls increases. This is owing to the increase in the wall-area-to-floor area ratio with a
decrease in building size.
Figure 5. IEE proportions for P3. (a) Whole building and (b) finishes only.
4.2. Comparison 1: Initial Embodied Energy Across the Three Prototypes
In this section, the initial embodied energy associated with the three prototypes is compared, while also conducting
a deeper assessment of the importance of these findings. The analysis of the three prototypes reveals minimal
variation in the proportional distribution of initial embodied energy (IEE) among the building components. The
foundation consistently accounts for a substantial share, ranging from 43% to 45% across the prototypes, indicating
that its material and energy demands remain relatively unaffected by changes in building size. Similarly, the
envelope contributes between 41% and 44% of the total IEE, with only slight differences observed among the
prototypes, suggesting limited variation in its proportional energy demands. Assemblies consistently account for
3% to 4% of the IEE, reflecting their relatively minor contribution to the overall energy profile regardless of
building size. Finishes also show little proportional difference, ranging from 8% to 10%, indicating that while they
are slightly more adaptable, their impact remains relatively consistent. Overall, the proportional differences in IEE
across the three prototypes are modest, demonstrating that while building size adjustments may influence absolute
energy values, the relative distribution among components remains largely stable.
Figure 6 shows a comparison of the prototypes in terms of foundations, structures, doors, window assemblies, and
finishes. The figure shows the increase in the IEE for each work aspect of each prototype, from which the
percentage variation can be deduced.
Figure 5. IEE proportions for P3. (a) Whole building and (b) finishes only.
4.2. Comparison 1: Initial Embodied Energy Across the Three Prototypes
In this section, the initial embodied energy associated with the three prototypes is
compared, while also conducting a deeper assessment of the importance of these findings.
The analysis of the three prototypes reveals minimal variation in the proportional distri-
bution of initial embodied energy (IEE) among the building components. The foundation
consistently accounts for a substantial share, ranging from 43% to 45% across the proto-
types, indicating that its material and energy demands remain relatively unaffected by
changes in building size. Similarly, the envelope contributes between 41% and 44% of the
total IEE, with only slight differences observed among the prototypes, suggesting limited
variation in its proportional energy demands. Assemblies consistently account for 3% to
4% of the IEE, reflecting their relatively minor contribution to the overall energy profile
regardless of building size. Finishes also show little proportional difference, ranging from
8% to 10%, indicating that while they are slightly more adaptable, their impact remains
relatively consistent. Overall, the proportional differences in IEE across the three prototypes
are modest, demonstrating that while building size adjustments may influence absolute
energy values, the relative distribution among components remains largely stable.
Figure 6shows a comparison of the prototypes in terms of foundations, structures,
doors, window assemblies, and finishes. The figure shows the increase in the IEE for each
work aspect of each prototype, from which the percentage variation can be deduced.
The figure shows that for the foundation, P2 was 54% less than P1, P3 was 35% less
than P2, whereas for the envelope, P2 was 45% less than P1, and P3 was 53%. For the
assemblies, P2 was 44% less than P1, P3 was 40% less than P2, P2 was 41% less than P1, and
P1 was 52% smaller than P2. The findings above have two implications. First, the highest
average drop in the associated embodied energy due to the building size reduction was
observed in the envelope (49%), which is due to a significant decrease in both building
perimeters. Conversely, the lowest effect was observed for the assemblies (46%). This
Buildings 2025,15, 467 12 of 20
is because the same number of bedrooms in the house requires approximately the same
number of doors.
Buildings 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21
Figure 6. IEE comparison of prototypes for all work aspects.
The figure shows that for the foundation, P2 was 54% less than P1, P3 was 35% less
than P2, whereas for the envelope, P2 was 45% less than P1, and P3 was 53%. For the
assemblies, P2 was 44% less than P1, P3 was 40% less than P2, P2 was 41% less than P1,
and P1 was 52% smaller than P2. The findings above have two implications. First, the
highest average drop in the associated embodied energy due to the building size reduc-
tion was observed in the envelope (49%), which is due to a significant decrease in both
building perimeters. Conversely, the lowest effect was observed for the assemblies (46%).
This is because the same number of bedrooms in the house requires approximately the
same number of doors.
The findings also indicate that when the building area is reduced by approximately
50% (P1 to P2), the total IEE is reduced by 44%; however, when the building area is re-
duced by over 75% (P1 to P3), the total IEE is reduced by approximately 72%. These find-
ings can be further extrapolated to investigate the continued impact of building size re-
duction on a building’s embodied energy. This is particularly beneficial for predicting po-
tential areas for calculated savings in energy associated with a building during the plan-
ning process. It is important to remember that as the building size reduces, its ecological
and economic impact also decreases due to the reduction in materials used for the build-
ing and ancillary services such as electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and hard landscaping,
both inside and outside the building. These results suggest that buildings with smaller
areas tend to have a lower embodied energy footprint. This highlights the potential for
designing and constructing buildings with smaller footprints to achieve a more efficient
use of resources and lower environmental impact in terms of embodied energy.
4.3. Comparison 2: IEE/m
2
Across the Three Prototypes
Considering that the building size in terms of both the building area and volume
differed across all three prototypes, an additional aempt was made to compare the IEE
as a function of the building area. This metric, IEE/m
2
, provides a more accurate represen-
tation of IEE for comparative purposes. Table 2 below shows the IEE/m
2
for the proto-
types: P1 (7.18 GJ/m
2
), P2 (7.97 GJ/m
2
), and P3 (9.52 GJ/m
2
).
Figure 6. IEE comparison of prototypes for all work aspects.
The findings also indicate that when the building area is reduced by approximately
50% (P1 to P2), the total IEE is reduced by 44%; however, when the building area is reduced
by over 75% (P1 to P3), the total IEE is reduced by approximately 72%. These findings can
be further extrapolated to investigate the continued impact of building size reduction on a
building’s embodied energy. This is particularly beneficial for predicting potential areas for
calculated savings in energy associated with a building during the planning process. It is
important to remember that as the building size reduces, its ecological and economic impact
also decreases due to the reduction in materials used for the building and ancillary services
such as electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and hard landscaping, both inside and outside
the building. These results suggest that buildings with smaller areas tend to have a lower
embodied energy footprint. This highlights the potential for designing and constructing
buildings with smaller footprints to achieve a more efficient use of resources and lower
environmental impact in terms of embodied energy.
4.3. Comparison 2: IEE/m2Across the Three Prototypes
Considering that the building size in terms of both the building area and volume
differed across all three prototypes, an additional attempt was made to compare the IEE as a
function of the building area. This metric, IEE/m
2
, provides a more accurate representation
of IEE for comparative purposes. Table 2below shows the IEE/m
2
for the prototypes: P1
(7.18 GJ/m2), P2 (7.97 GJ/m2), and P3 (9.52 GJ/m2).
Table 2. Comparison of IEE across three prototypes.
Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3
BUILDING AREA (m2)525 266 109
TOTAL IEE (GJ) 3555 2008 1000
IEE/unit area (GJ/m2)6.77 7.55 9.14
As the building area reduces, the initial embodied energy decreases, but the IEE/m
2
increases. This is due to the increase in the wall area ratio compared to the floor area with a
Buildings 2025,15, 467 13 of 20
decrease in building size. Figure 7further shows the consideration of the IEE/m
2
of the IEE
for all work aspects reviewed in the previous section. This new figure reflects the gradual
increase in IEE/m
2
, clearly showing that an understanding of the impact of building size is
critical for conducting a balanced review of the embodied energy impacts associated with
the proposed development.
Buildings 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21
Table 2. Comparison of IEE across three prototypes.
Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3
BUILDING AREA (m
2
) 525 266 109
TOTAL IEE (GJ) 3555 2008 1000
IEE/unit area (GJ/m
2
) 6.77 7.55 9.14
As the building area reduces, the initial embodied energy decreases, but the IEE/m
2
increases. This is due to the increase in the wall area ratio compared to the floor area with
a decrease in building size. Figure 7 further shows the consideration of the IEE/m
2
of the
IEE for all work aspects reviewed in the previous section. This new figure reflects the
gradual increase in IEE/m
2
, clearly showing that an understanding of the impact of build-
ing size is critical for conducting a balanced review of the embodied energy impacts asso-
ciated with the proposed development.
Figure 7. IEE/m
2
comparison of Prototypes for all work aspects.
The figure shows that the percentage increase in IEE/m
2
relative to the building size
reduction from P1 to P3 across all work aspects listed was as follows: foundation (41%),
envelope (25%), assemblies (60%), and finishes (36%). These comparative data are vital
and suggest that the cost and environmental impacts of various work aspects and the
building as a whole can be significantly reduced.
4.4. Comparison 3: IEE/m
2
/Occupants Across the Three Prototypes
A third-level comparison was conducted to evaluate the embodied energy relative to
the number of persons (N) living in the house. This metric serves as a means of providing
an occupant-centric consciousness of design decisions in relation to material-specific
building design and embodied energy assessment in general. On average, an Emirati fam-
ily in the UAE now has three children, according to the report titled ’Fertility Rates among
Emiratis in Dubai: Challenges, Policies, and the Way Forward. Driven by economic and
social reasons, the UAE aims to sustain its fertility rate and preserve its identity. In this
context, there are three hypotheses. However, logical scenarios are considered for the
number of occupants in a four-bedroom residence:
- Scenario 1 (N = four): two parents and two children;
- Scenario 2 (N = six): two parents and four children;
Figure 7. IEE/m2comparison of Prototypes for all work aspects.
The figure shows that the percentage increase in IEE/m
2
relative to the building size
reduction from P1 to P3 across all work aspects listed was as follows: foundation (41%),
envelope (25%), assemblies (60%), and finishes (36%). These comparative data are vital and
suggest that the cost and environmental impacts of various work aspects and the building
as a whole can be significantly reduced.
4.4. Comparison 3: IEE/m2/Occupants Across the Three Prototypes
A third-level comparison was conducted to evaluate the embodied energy relative to
the number of persons (N) living in the house. This metric serves as a means of providing an
occupant-centric consciousness of design decisions in relation to material-specific building
design and embodied energy assessment in general. On average, an Emirati family in the
UAE now has three children, according to the report titled ’Fertility Rates among Emiratis
in Dubai: Challenges, Policies, and the Way Forward. Driven by economic and social
reasons, the UAE aims to sustain its fertility rate and preserve its identity. In this context,
there are three hypotheses. However, logical scenarios are considered for the number of
occupants in a four-bedroom residence:
- Scenario 1 (N = four): two parents and two children;
- Scenario 2 (N = six): two parents and four children;
- Scenario 3 (N = eight): two parents, five children, and one maid.
These scenarios provide a variation of plus or minus 50% or a gradual increase in
building occupancy by 50%. Either way, it allows IEE/m
2
to be projected sensibly to ac-
commodate an increase in family size, change in social settings, or other future occurrences.
Figure 8shows how the breakdown of the IEE per work aspect was updated when this
new metric was considered across different occupancy scenarios.
Buildings 2025,15, 467 14 of 20
Buildings 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21
- Scenario 3 (N = eight): two parents, five children, and one maid.
These scenarios provide a variation of plus or minus 50% or a gradual increase in
building occupancy by 50%. Either way, it allows IEE/m
2
to be projected sensibly to ac-
commodate an increase in family size, change in social seings, or other future occur-
rences. Figure 8 shows how the breakdown of the IEE per work aspect was updated when
this new metric was considered across different occupancy scenarios.
Figure 8. IEE/m
2
/occupant comparison of prototypes for all work aspects.
The figure shows the IEE/m
2
values for each of the prototypes as a function of the
number of occupants. For Prototype 1 (6.77 GJ/m
2
), the figure shows that when the num-
ber of occupants is four, IEE/m
2
/occupants is 1.69 GJ/m
2
, when it is six occupants, it is 1.13
GJ/m
2
, and when it is eight occupants, it is 0.85 GJ/m
2
. Similarly, for Prototype 2 (7.55
GJ/m
2
), the figure shows that when the number of occupants is four, IEE/m
2
/occupants is
1.89 GJ/m
2
, when it is six occupants it is 1.26 GJ/m
2
, and when it is eight occupants it is
0.94 GJ/m
2
. Finally, for Prototype 3 (9.14 GJ/m
2
), the figure shows that when the number
of occupants is four, IEE/m
2
/occupants is 2.28 GJ/m
2
; when it is six occupants, it is 1.52
GJ/m
2
, and when it is eight occupants, it is 1.14 GJ/m
2
.
The results showed that for each prototype, as the number of occupants increased,
the IEE/m
2
/occupant decreased from 1.69, 1.89, and 2.28 to 0.85, 0.94, and 1.14, respec-
tively. However, across the prototypes, as the building size increased, although the num-
ber of occupants was constant, the IEE/m
2
/occupant ratio increased. For example, for the
four occupants, the IEE/m
2
/occupant values were 1.69 (Prototype 1), 1.89 (Prototype 2),
and 2.28 (Prototype 3). These results indicate that when the IEE is fixed, a comparatively
higher number of occupants is more efficient. When the number of occupants is fixed,
smaller spaces would have a higher initial embodied energy per square meter. This con-
versation between occupants and embodied energy becomes more important as we con-
sider that while building materials are generally finite, the human population and result-
ing density continue to increase. To ensure equilibrium, one strategy based on the findings
of this study was to match lower household sizes with the maximum number of occupants
where possible.
Figure 8. IEE/m2/occupant comparison of prototypes for all work aspects.
The figure shows the IEE/m
2
values for each of the prototypes as a function of
the number of occupants. For Prototype 1 (6.77 GJ/m
2
), the figure shows that when
the number of occupants is four, IEE/m
2
/occupants is 1.69 GJ/m
2
, when it is six occu-
pants, it is
1.13 GJ/m2
, and when it is eight occupants, it is 0.85 GJ/m
2
. Similarly, for
Prototype 2 (
7.55 GJ/m2
), the figure shows that when the number of occupants is four,
IEE/m
2
/occupants is 1.89 GJ/m
2
, when it is six occupants it is 1.26 GJ/m
2
, and when it is
eight occupants it is 0.94 GJ/m
2
. Finally, for Prototype 3 (9.14 GJ/m
2
), the figure shows
that when the number of occupants is four, IEE/m
2
/occupants is 2.28 GJ/m
2
; when it is six
occupants, it is 1.52 GJ/m2, and when it is eight occupants, it is 1.14 GJ/m2.
The results showed that for each prototype, as the number of occupants increased, the
IEE/m
2
/occupant decreased from 1.69, 1.89, and 2.28 to 0.85, 0.94, and 1.14, respectively.
However, across the prototypes, as the building size increased, although the number of
occupants was constant, the IEE/m
2
/occupant ratio increased. For example, for the four
occupants, the IEE/m
2
/occupant values were 1.69 (Prototype 1), 1.89 (Prototype 2), and
2.28 (Prototype 3). These results indicate that when the IEE is fixed, a comparatively higher
number of occupants is more efficient. When the number of occupants is fixed, smaller
spaces would have a higher initial embodied energy per square meter. This conversation
between occupants and embodied energy becomes more important as we consider that
while building materials are generally finite, the human population and resulting density
continue to increase. To ensure equilibrium, one strategy based on the findings of this
study was to match lower household sizes with the maximum number of occupants
where possible.
4.5. Comparing the Results with Other Studies
In this study, the investigation of embodied energy reveals results that exhibit a close
correspondence with particular studies while also outlining disparities observed in relation
to other studies, thereby offering valuable contextual insights into the observed disparities.
This study revealed that the embodied energy for houses of varying sizes ranged from
6.7 GJ/m
2
to 9.14 GJ/m
2
, with the largest house exhibiting the lowest embodied energy
figure per unit area. These findings align with the range of 8–10 GJ/m
2
reported in a study
of multifamily steel-reinforced concrete houses in urban India [
82
]. Suzuki et al. (1995)
found that multi-story family houses in Japan with steel and RC construction have an
Buildings 2025,15, 467 15 of 20
embodied energy of 8–10 GJ/m
2
, while wooden single-family houses are lower at approxi-
mately 3 GJ/m
2
, and lightweight steel structure single-family houses are approximately
4.5 GJ/m2[83].
Citing various studies, Stephan and Crawford (2016) reported a range of 10–19 GJ/m
2
,
reflecting a diverse spectrum of energy intensities within residential construction [
84
].
Further diversity is observed in compiled data for low-rise Indian affordable housing, with
values spanning from 1.6 to 5.0 GJ/m
2
of plinth area [
85
]. The diverse objectives of these
studies have posed challenges to establishing a direct correlation between house size and
embodied energy values. These variations can be attributed to differences in embodied
energy quantification methods, inclusion or exclusion of various building elements in the
study scope, regional disparities, construction techniques and materials, and evolving
building standards. These factors underscore the importance of contextual factors in
interpreting the embodied energy results.
5. Impact and Future Research
The findings of this study generate new thinking patterns in design development that
are valuable both within and beyond the study context. If the building size is significantly
reduced, the IEE decreases by approximately the same percentage, leading to major reduc-
tions in the environmental impact of the building. Consequently, regulating the building
size in residential development has a definitive impact on both the site and the extraction
of natural materials in other locations. Second, although smaller spaces tend to have a
higher IEE/m
2
for the same number of people, this may suggest that IEE per square meter
is more efficiently utilized, particularly in contexts with a larger number of occupants.
Another consideration arises if the IEE for residential development is fixed and in-
creasing occupancy helps to reduce IEE/m
2
/occupant is beneficial. What new strategies
can be used to achieve this without compromising occupant comfort? Multi-use space-
saving furniture could revolutionize the design of large multi-unit residential buildings or
apartment buildings. Moreover, smaller homes may leave less space for innovative energy
technologies, such as solar PV integration on roofs; however, there is less energy demand
and possibly less need for such technologies. This leads to economic and environmental
savings, particularly towards affordable housing initiatives.
Future research is required to examine the impact of these results in a more generaliz-
able manner. For example, exploring different building typologies in different geographical
contexts would provide a deeper understanding of how regional differences in climate,
materials, and construction practices influence the relationship between building size and
embodied energy. Operational energy, a critical component of a building’s life cycle energy,
requires further investigation to understand how design choices related to size and con-
figuration impact long-term operational energy consumption. From the social dimension,
a decrease in family size over time impacts the use of household space, and the use of
alternative building materials based on clients’ preferences in renovations may differently
impact the relationship between space reduction and embodied energy. Deconstruction
energy required to dismantle and process building components at the end of their life is
another key area for future exploration, particularly within the framework of sustainable
construction and circular economy principles. Future research is also required to investi-
gate the role of material reuse, recycling, and waste minimization strategies in reducing
embodied energy and emissions, particularly for varying building scales and types. Ad-
dressing these research gaps will provide valuable insights for developing informed design
strategies, policy frameworks, and industry initiatives that promote energy efficiency and
environmentally sustainable construction practices.
Buildings 2025,15, 467 16 of 20
6. Conclusions
This study focused on the IEE of three prototype residential buildings to investigate
the impact of reducing the building size. Based on the literature on embodied energy
assessment, an input–output-based hybrid approach was used to calculate the IEE for P1
(525 m
2
), P2 (266 m
2
), and P3 (109 m
2
). The results were 3555 GJ, 2008 GJ, and 1000 GJ,
respectively. Further calculations of the IEE/m
2
were recorded as 6.77 GJ/m
2
, 7.55 GJ/m
2
,
and 9.14 GJ/m
2
, respectively. Additional attention was given to the IEE/m
2
/occupants
to consider changes in household occupancy in view of the rising population and rapid
urbanization. The results showed that larger buildings have a smaller IEE/m
2
relative to
the use of materials per square meter. As the population and occupancy increase from four
to six persons, the IEE/m
2
/occupant for P1 compared to P2 is relatively the same (1.12 and
1.26). This shows the significant benefit of space reduction; reducing the building size by
approximately 50% does not have a major effect on the area available to occupants. This
implies that optimized building designs are more efficient than larger designs.
In the context of large houses in the UAE, this study demonstrates the need to reduce
house sizes. Such a measure will not only contribute to reducing energy consumption
in the housing sector but also address other issues, such as the reduced use of depleting
natural resources and urban sprawl. There is a need to devise strategies that help achieve
design optimization and reduce the size of houses without compromising functionality
and comfort. Collaborative efforts involving users, design and construction professionals,
and policymakers could actively contribute to this objective.
Limitations
This study focuses on the IEE of buildings, neglecting the embodied energy associated
with the maintenance and replacement of materials throughout the life of a building. This
recurrent embodied energy can be significant and should be included in a comprehensive
analysis of the overall embodied energy demands of buildings. Another significant limi-
tation of this study is the exclusion of operational energy. Operational energy can have a
substantial impact on the energy demand of a building over its lifespan, and the inclusion
of this aspect of energy can help comprehend the complete energy profile of buildings.
These considerations are highlighted for future research (Section 4).
Another limitation of the current study is the use of a non-local database (EPIC
database) for the embodied energy data of different materials. This is due to the unavail-
ability of local databases. While the EPIC database provides robust and widely recognized
embodied energy coefficients, it is important to acknowledge that regional variations in
manufacturing processes, energy sources, and transportation distances could lead to dis-
crepancies when applying these values to the UAE context. Although these discrepancies
may affect the absolute embodied energy values, the comparative nature of this study
ensures the validity of its relative trends and conclusions. This limitation underscores the
critical need to develop a localized database tailored to the UAE’s unique conditions, which
would enhance the accuracy and reliability of future assessments.
Additionally, the analyses in this study are based on only three building prototypes.
While these serve as illustrative examples, the limited sample size may impact the reliability
and generalizability of the findings. Future research should expand to include a broader
range of building types and scales to enhance the robustness of the results and conclusions.
Lastly, the study did not consider expressing IEE in relation to building volume rather
than building floor area. This approach could provide additional insights, particularly
when comparing buildings with varying heights or spatial configurations. Future research
should explore this aspect to deepen the understanding of how building size and design
affect embodied energy.
Buildings 2025,15, 467 17 of 20
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.R. and D.E.A.; methodology, A.R. and D.E.A.; soft-
ware, A.R. and D.E.A.; formal analysis, A.R. and D.E.A.; investigation, A.R. and D.E.A.; resources,
A.R. and D.E.A.; data curation, D.E.A.; writing—original draft preparation, D.E.A.; project results
writing—review
and editing, A.R., D.E.A., M.M.A.K. and M.T.S.; visualization, D.E.A.; supervi-
sion, A.R.; funding acquisition, A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: The authors wish to appreciate and acknowledge that this work was supported by the
United Arab Emirates University SURE Plus (G00004075).
Data Availability Statement: The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made
available by the authors on request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Cao, X.; Dai, X.; Liu, J. Building energy-consumption status worldwide and the state-of-the-art technologies for zero-energy
buildings during the past decade. Energy Build. 2016,128, 198–213. [CrossRef]
2.
World Energy Council (WEC). World Energy Issues Monitor 2020: Decoding New Signals Of Change; World Energy Council: London,
UK, 2020; pp. 1–179.
3.
International Energy Agency (IEA). United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2018 Global Status Report: Towards a Zero-
Emission, Efficient, and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2018; pp. 1–73.
4.
Huang, B.; Wang, X.; Kua, H.; Geng, Y.; Bleischwitz, R.; Ren, J. Construction and Demolition Waste Management in China through
the 3R Principle. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018,129, 36–44. [CrossRef]
5.
Kabirifar, K.; Mojtahedi, M.; Changxin Wang, C.; Vivian, W.Y.T. A Conceptual Foundation for Effective Construction and
Demolition Waste Management. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2020,1, 100019. [CrossRef]
6.
Allan, K.; Phillips, A.R. Comparative Cradle-to-Grave Life Cycle Assessment of Low and Mid-Rise Mass Timber Buildings with
Equivalent Structural Steel Alternatives. Sustainability 2021,13, 3401. [CrossRef]
7.
Dixit, M.K. Life Cycle Embodied Energy Analysis of Residential Buildings: A Review of Literature to Investigate Embodied
Energy Parameters. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017,79, 390–413. [CrossRef]
8.
Janjua, S. Sustainability Implication of Residential Building Materials Considering Service Life Variability. Ph.D. Thesis, Curtin
University, Bentley, Australia, 2021.
9.
Moazzen, N.; Karagüler, M.E.; Ashrafian, T. Comprehensive Parameters for the Definition of Nearly Zero Energy and Cost
Optimal Levels Considering the Life Cycle Energy and Thermal Comfort of School Buildings. Energy Build. 2021,253, 111487.
[CrossRef]
10.
Rauf, A.; Crawford, R.H. The Effect of Building and Material service Life on the Life Cycle Embodied Energy of an Apartment
Building. In Proceedings of the 49th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association, Melbourne, Australia, 2–4
December 2015.
11.
Rauf, A.; Attoye, D.E.; Crawford, R. Embodied and Operational Energy of a Case Study Villa in UAE with Sensitivity Analysis.
Buildings 2022,12, 1469. [CrossRef]
12.
Ascione, F.; Bianco, N.; Iovane, T.; Mastellone, M.; Mauro, G.M. The Evolution of Building Energy Retrofit via Double-Skin and
Responsive Façades: A Review. Sol. Energy 2021,224, 703–717. [CrossRef]
13.
Gensler 6 Strategies Developers Can Use to Improve Building Performance and Lower Carbon Emissions. Available online:
https://www.gensler.com/blog/6-strategies-developers-can-use-to-improve-building (accessed on 24 December 2022).
14.
Abdou, Y.; Kim, Y.K.; Abdou, A.; Anabtawi, R. Energy Optimization for Fenestration Design: Evidence-Based Retrofitting
Solution for Office Buildings in the UAE. Buildings 2022,12, 1541. [CrossRef]
15.
Hee, W.J.; Alghoul, M.A.; Bakhtyar, B.; Elayeb, O.; Shameri, M.A.; Alrubaih, M.S.; Sopian, K. The Role of Window Glazing on
Daylighting and Energy Saving in Buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015,42, 323–343. [CrossRef]
16.
Li, H.; Li, Y.; Wang, Z.; Shao, S.; Deng, G.; Xue, H.; Xu, Z.; Yang, Y. Integrated Building Envelope Performance Evaluation Method
towards Nearly Zero Energy Buildings Based on Operation Data. Energy Build. 2022,268, 112219. [CrossRef]
17.
Zhou, Y.; Herr, C.M. A Review of Advanced Façade System Technologies to Support Net-Zero Carbon High-Rise Building Design
in Subtropical China. Sustainability 2023,15, 2913. [CrossRef]
18.
Fayyad, T.; Abdalqader, A. Demountable Reinforced Concrete Structures: A Review and Future Directions. In Proceedings of the
Civil Engineering Research in Ireland, Cork, Ireland, 27 August 2020.
19.
Foster, G. Circular Economy Strategies for Adaptive Reuse of Cultural Heritage Buildings to Reduce Environmental Impacts.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020,152, 104507. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2025,15, 467 18 of 20
20.
Tleuken, A.; Torgautov, B.; Zhanabayev, A.; Turkyilmaz, A.; Mustafa, M.; Karaca, F. Design for Deconstruction and Disassembly:
Barriers, Opportunities, and Practices in Developing Economies of Central Asia. Procedia CIRP 2022,106, 15–20. [CrossRef]
21.
Dui´c, N.; Urbaniec, K.; Huisingh, D. Components and Structures of the Pillars of Sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2015,88, 1–12.
[CrossRef]
22. Gomathi, S.; Pradeep, T. Application of 3R Principles in Construction Project—A Review. J. Ind. Eng. Adv. 2019,2, 1–3.
23.
David, A.; Thangavel, Y.D.; Sankriti, R. Recover, Recycle and Reuse: An Efficient Way to Reduce the Waste. Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng.
Res. Dev. 2019,9, 31–42.
24. Rauf, A.; Attoye, D.E.; Crawford, R.H. Evaluating the impact of material service life on embodied energy of residential villas in
the United Arab Emirates. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2024,31, 244–270. [CrossRef]
25.
Lobaccaro, G.; Wiberg, A.H.; Ceci, G.; Manni, M.; Lolli, N.; Berardi, U. Parametric design to minimize the embodied GHG
emissions in a ZEB. Energy Build. 2018,167, 106–123. [CrossRef]
26.
Lee, C.L.; Liang, J. The effect of carbon regulation initiatives on corporate ESG performance in real estate sector: International
evidence. J. Clean. Prod. 2024,453, 142188. [CrossRef]
27.
Zhang, F.; Liu, B.; An, G. Do Government Subsidies Induce Green Transition of Construction Industry? Evidence from Listed
Firms in China. Buildings 2024,14, 1261. [CrossRef]
28.
Wilson, A.; Boehland, J. Small Is Beautiful, U.S. House Size, Resource Use, and the Environment. J. Ind. Ecol. 2005,9, 277–287.
[CrossRef]
29. Cerro, C. The Future of Dwelling: Density; WIT Press: Valencia, Spain, 2019; pp. 3–12.
30.
Reiden. How Big Is Your House?—The UAE Case. How Big Is Your House? 2012. Available online: https://web.archive.org/
web/20230329193440/https://blog.reidin.com/how-big-is-your-house- the-uae- case/ (accessed on 29 January 2025).
31.
Nag, E. Dubai’s Homes Could Be Getting Smaller|Property—Gulf News. Available online: https://gulfnews.com/business/
property/dubais-homes-could-be-getting-smaller-1.62006605 (accessed on 23 January 2023).
32.
Galal Ahmed, K.; Alipour, S.M.H. More Dense but Less Walkable: The Impact of Macroscale Walkability Indicators on Recent
Designs of Emirati Neighborhoods. City Territ. Archit. 2021,8, 12. [CrossRef]
33.
Abuimara, T.; Tabet Aoul, A. Window Thermal Performance Optimization in Governmental Emirati Housing Prototype in Abu
Dhabi, UAE. In Proceedings of the Sustainable Buildings 2013 Conference Series, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 28–30 October
2013; pp. 8–10.
34.
Giusti, L.; Almoosawi, M. Impact of Building Characteristics and Occupants’ Behaviour on the Electricity Consumption of
Households in Abu Dhabi (UAE). Energy Build. 2017,151, 534–547. [CrossRef]
35.
Al-Ruwashedi, M.; Mohad Tazilan, A.; Kosman, K. Housing Affordability Design Policies in Malaysia and Jordan: Environmental,
Functional, Social, Political, and Economic Challenges. J. Adv. Res. Dyn. Control Syst. 2019,11, 44–54.
36.
Ford, J.; Gomez-Lanier, L. Are Tiny Homes Here to Stay? A Review of Literature on the Tiny House Movement. Fam. Consum. Sci.
Res. J. 2017,45, 394–405. [CrossRef]
37.
Boeckermann, L.M.; Kaczynski, A.T.; King, S.B. Dreaming Big and Living Small: Examining Motivations and Satisfaction in Tiny
House Living. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2019,34, 61–71. [CrossRef]
38.
Shearer, H. Tiny Houses: Planning for Affordability and Inclusion. In Proceedings of the 2018 Joint Asia-Pacific Network for
Housing Research and Australasian Housing Researchers Conference, Southport, Australia, 6–8 June 2018.
39.
Gabbe, C.J. Looking through the Lens of Size: Land Use Regulations and Micro-Apartments in San Francisco. Cityscape 2015,17,
223–238. [CrossRef]
40. Shearer, H.; Burton, P. Towards a Typology of Tiny Houses. Hous. Theory Soc. 2019,36, 298–318. [CrossRef]
41.
Al-Ruwashedi, M.; Mohad Tazilan, A.; Kosman, K.; Sharaf, F. Towards A Classification Framework for Micro-Homes Typologies:
Jordanian Vernacular Homes as A Case Study. GIS-Bus. 2020,15, 452–466.
42.
Sandberg, N.H.; Sartori, I.; Brattebø, H. Using a Dynamic Segmented Model to Examine Future Renovation Activities in the
Norwegian Dwelling Stock. Energy Build. 2014,82, 287–295. [CrossRef]
43.
Chan, J.H.; Selimin, M.A.; Sidek, A.A.S. Modern Study Table for Small Houses Inspired by Origami. Res. Manag. Technol. Bus.
2022,3, 275–284.
44.
Harvey, E. Micro-Homes: Why Are Properties in the UK Shrinking? Available online: https://www.buyassociation.co.uk/2018
/04/10/micro-homes-why-are-properties-in-the-uk-shrinking/ (accessed on 3 November 2022).
45.
Alfirevic, D.; Simonovic-Alfirevic, S. Open-plan in housing architecture: Origin, development and design approaches for spatial
integration. Arhit. I Urban. 2016,43, 45–60. [CrossRef]
46.
Selvaprasanth, P.; Ranjitha, S.; Tharanyalakshmi, R. Implementation of lean construction in residential building projects. Int. J.
Pure Appl. Math. 2020,119, 957–967.
47.
Azari, R.; Abbasabadi, N. Embodied Energy of Buildings: A Review of Data, Methods, Challenges, and Research Trends. Energy
Build. 2018,168, 225–235. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2025,15, 467 19 of 20
48.
Thormark, C. Energy and Resources, Material Choice and Recycling Potential in Low Energy Buildings; IOS Press: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2007; Volume 7.
49.
Evans, K. Tackling Homelessness with Tiny Houses: An Inventory of Tiny House Villages in the United States. Prof. Geogr. 2020,
72, 360–370. [CrossRef]
50.
Evans, K. An Examination of Perceptions and Preferences for Tiny House Villages for the Homeless in Missouri. Int. J. Hous.
Policy 2022,23, 543–564. [CrossRef]
51. Fowler, F. Tiny Homes in a Big City; Cass Community Publishing House: Detroit, MI, USA, 2018.
52. Segel, G. Tiny Houses: A Permanent Supportive Housing Model; Community Frameworks: Bremerton, WA, USA, 2015.
53.
Turner, C. It Takes a Village: Designating Tiny House Villages as Transitional Housing Campgrounds. Univ. Mich. J. Law Reform
2016,50, 931. [CrossRef]
54.
Kamali, M.; Hewage, K.; Sadiq, R. Conventional versus Modular Construction Methods: A Comparative Cradle-to-Gate LCA for
Residential Buildings. Energy Build. 2019,204, 109479. [CrossRef]
55.
Atmaca, A.; Atmaca, N. Carbon Footprint Assessment of Residential Buildings, a Review and a Case Study in Turkey. J. Clean.
Prod. 2022,340, 130691. [CrossRef]
56.
Chandrasekaran, V.; Dvarionien
˙
e, J. A Review of the Environmental Impact of Buildings with an Emphasis on Performance
Assessment Tools and Their Incorporation of LCA. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2022,2022, 9947920. [CrossRef]
57.
Dong, Y.; Liu, P. Evaluation of the Completeness of LCA Studies for Residential Buildings. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2022,24,
229–250. [CrossRef]
58.
Teng, Y.; Xu, J.; Pan, W.; Zhang, Y. A Systematic Review of the Integration of Building Information Modeling into Life Cycle
Assessment. Build. Environ. 2022,221, 109260. [CrossRef]
59.
Monteiro, H.; Freire, F.; Fernández, J.E. Life-Cycle Assessment of Alternative Envelope Construction for a New House in
South-Western Europe: Embodied and Operational Magnitude. Energies 2020,13, 4145. [CrossRef]
60.
Walzberg, J.; Dandres, T.; Merveille, N.; Cheriet, M.; Samson, R. Accounting for Fluctuating Demand in the Life Cycle Assessments
of Residential Electricity Consumption and Demand-Side Management Strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,240, 118251. [CrossRef]
61.
Lausselet, C.; Borgnes, V.; Brattebø, H. LCA Modelling for Zero Emission Neighbourhoods in Early Stage Planning. Build. Environ.
2019,149, 379–389. [CrossRef]
62.
Nematchoua, M.K.; Orosa, J.A. Life Cycle Assessment of Radioactive Materials from a Residential Neighbourhood. Sustain. Mater.
Technol. 2022,33, e00468. [CrossRef]
63. Björklund, A.E. Survey of Approaches to Improve Reliability in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2002,7, 64–72. [CrossRef]
64.
Feng, H.; Sadiq, R.; Hewage, K. Exploring the Current Challenges and Emerging Approaches in Whole Building Life Cycle
Assessment. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2022,49, 149–158. [CrossRef]
65.
Finnveden, G.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Ekvall, T.; Guinée, J.; Heijungs, R.; Hellweg, S.; Koehler, A.; Pennington, D.; Suh, S. Recent
Developments in Life Cycle Assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 2009,91, 1–21. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66.
Heijungs, R.; Huijbregts, M.A. A Review of Approaches to Treat Uncertainty in LCA. In Proceedings of the Transactions of the
2nd Biennial Meeting of the International Environmental Modelling and Software Society, Osnabrück, Germany, 14–17 June 2004.
67.
Pieragostini, C.; Mussati, M.C.; Aguirre, P. On Process Optimization Considering LCA Methodology. J. Environ. Manag. 2012,96,
43–54. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
68.
Abu-Hijleh, B.; Jaheen, N. Energy and Economic Impact of the New Dubai Municipality Green Building Regulations and Potential
Upgrades of the Regulations. Energy Strategy Rev. 2019,24, 51–67. [CrossRef]
69.
AlQubaisi, A.; Al-Alili, A. Efficient Residential Buildings in Hot and Humid Regions: The Case of Abu Dhabi, UAE. Int. J. Therm.
Environ. Eng. 2018,17, 29–40.
70.
Bande, L.; Cabrera, A.G.; Kim, Y.K.; Afshari, A.; Ragusini, M.F.; Cooke, M.G. A Building Retrofit and Sensitivity Analysis in
an Automatically Calibrated Model Considering the Urban Heat Island Effect in Abu Dhabi, UAE. Sustainability 2019,11, 6905.
[CrossRef]
71.
Dixit, M.; Kumar, P.P. Analyzing Temporal Changes in Initial and Recurrent Embodied Energy Using an Input-Output-based Hybrid
Method. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2023.
72.
Dixit, M.K. Life Cycle Recurrent Embodied Energy Calculation of Buildings: A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,209, 731–754.
[CrossRef]
73.
Rauf, A.; Shafiq, M.T.; Khalfan, M.M.A.; Ulhaq, I. Sustainable water management in construction: Life-cycle embodied water
assessment of residential buildings. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2024,14, 682–695. [CrossRef]
74.
Cottafava, D.; Ritzen, M. Circularity Indicator for Residentials Buildings: Addressing the Gap between Embodied Impacts and
Design Aspects. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021,164, 105120. [CrossRef]
75.
Rauf, A.; Crawford, R.H. The Effect of Material Service Life on the Life Cycle Energy of Residential Buildings. In Proceedings
of the ASA2012: The 46th Annual Conference of the Architectural Science Association (formerly ANZAScA)–Building on
Knowledge: Theory and Practice, Southport, Australia, 14–16 November 2012.
Buildings 2025,15, 467 20 of 20
76.
Islam, H.; Jollands, M.; Setunge, S. Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Implication of Residential Buildings—A Review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015,42, 129–140. [CrossRef]
77.
Rauf, A.; Attoye, D.E.; Crawford, R.H. Life Cycle Energy Analysis of a House in UAE. In Proceedings of the ZEMCH 2021
International Conference, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 26–28 October 2021; ZEMCH Network: Dubai, United Arab Emirates,
2021; pp. 13–23.
78.
Rauf, A.; Crawford, R.H. Building Service Life and Its Effect on the Life Cycle Embodied Energy of Buildings. Energy 2015,79,
140–148. [CrossRef]
79.
Ajayi, S.O.; Oyedele, L.O.; Ilori, O.M. Changing Significance of Embodied Energy: A Comparative Study of Material Specifications
and Building Energy Sources. J. Build. Eng. 2019,23, 324–333. [CrossRef]
80.
Wen, T.J.; Siong, H.C.; Noor, Z.Z. Assessment of Embodied Energy and Global Warming Potential of Building Construction
Using Life Cycle Analysis Approach: Case Studies of Residential Buildings in Iskandar Malaysia. Energy Build. 2015,93, 295–302.
[CrossRef]
81.
Dixit, M.K. Embodied Energy Analysis of Building Materials: An Improved IO-Based Hybrid Method Using Sectoral Disaggrega-
tion. Energy 2017,124, 46–58. [CrossRef]
82.
Bardhan, S. Embodied Energy Analysis of Multi Storied Residential Buildings in Urban India. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2011,143,
411–421.
83.
Suzuki, M.; Oka, T.; Okada, K. The Estimation of Energy Consumption and CO
2
Emission Due to Housing Construction in Japan.
Energy Build. 1995,22, 165–169. [CrossRef]
84.
Stephan, A.; Crawford, R.H. The Relationship between House Size and Life Cycle Energy Demand: Implications for Energy
Efficiency Regulations for Buildings. Energy 2016,116, 1158–1171. [CrossRef]
85.
Bansal, D.; Minocha, V.K.; Kaur, A.; Dakwale, V.A.; Ralegaonkar, R.V. Reduction of Embodied Energy and Construction Cost of
Affordable Houses through Efficient Architectural Design: A Case Study in Indian Scenario. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021,2021, 5693101.
[CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
