Sandra Huaman-Pastorelli Instituto de Investigación de la Facultad de Ciencias Administrativas y Recursos Humanos, Universidad de San Martin de Porres, , Perú.

Dirección: Jr. Las Calandrias Nº 151, Santa Anita – Lima, Perú Teléfono: 0051-1-3620064 - 3211 Correo electrónico: [email protected] ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3753-8923

Greening Peruvian Schools: Economic and social impact valuation in the transformation of elementary schools infrastructure in San Martin de Porres district, Lima -

Ecologización de las escuelas peruanas: valoración del impacto económico y social en la transformación de la infraestructura de las escuelas primarias en el distrito de San Martín de Porres, Lima-Perú

Abstract Green schools are commonly viewed as more expensive to build than conventional buildings. However, the cost to transform a school is minimal, and the impact is the highest to support the health of their habitats. Unfortunately, our educational system does not care in the climate change; in consequence, the transformation of a conventional school into a greener one, under the USGBC´s green model standards basis, one the most applied in many countries, can be applicable in Peru because this change provides a valuable social and economic impact on diverse environmental issues in an emerging state without sufficient policies, guidelines, and data about the possibility of improving the education to sustainable education. Considering this, the present study has attempted to diagnose and determine the possible solutions for the green transformation, and the economic and social impact in the green change in a pilot school. The school is located in a poor urban area of Lima Metropolitan and after a year of its diagnose and suggestions. The social impact is represented by the priority for student engagement in building design, empowerment, and students as an active member of society and problem solver. The economic impact is focused on economic and financial savings were perceived to benefit staff, students, and the community at large. In the end, discussion and implications have been discussed.

Keywords: green schools, economic impact, social impact, school profile

1

INTRODUCTION A school is more than a physical structure, the timetable or even the course readings. It springs up just when the understudies come and begin collaborating with their companions, the instructors, the curricular material and the school condition (physical, regular and socio-social). Children are regular students; however, this ability to learn can be weakened and now and again crushed in a negative situation. They spend about six to seven hours per day in school for around twelve first long stretches of their childhood. The earth of the school assumes a remarkable job in the lives of the replacements (Sharma and Pandy, 2015).

These authors explained that schools can assume a vital job in the improvement of not just information, what's more, seeing yet also in making the establishment of ecological morals among the understudies. It is notable that aptitudes, propensities, frames of mind too, values are taught from the early years in a person's life. All these activities are increased on the off chance that we have a feeling of having a place towards the school and its environment. This feeling of having a place comes when one effectively connects with the school from numerous points of view. The school condition, in this way, ought to empower, support and support understudies' developing limits as students through its green status, educational modules and instructing learning.

In conclusion, natural issues and concerns can be successfully tended to at the point when all endeavors of the staff and understudies are equipped towards receiving earth economic standards at all dimensions, from arranging and necessary leadership to their execution in the school's working as a section of the day by day schedule, for example, a Green School. Academic literature has used words like "green schools," "eco-schools" and "green building" to explain the characteristics, design, and economic and social impact of these schools. This literature review serves as a link between future research and existing studies on green building schools. The present studies the economic and social impact of green design in elementary schools in Lima-Peru. It informs the reader about various characteristics (as covered by other reviews) which determined the economic and social impact valuation in the transformation of elementary schools' infrastructure in San Martin de Porres district, Lima - Peru, by the US Green Building Council's (USGBC's) LEED rating system. This is structured as follows: The next section gives a brief review of the literature on green schools, sustainable buildings design, and economic and social impact. A description of the methodology and approach of the study follows. The section after that comprises the school profile, social and economic effects of the green implementation. Finally, conclusions and recommendations are provided.

2

LITERATURE REVIEW The last two centuries, with the deepening of industrialization, witnessed global warming and climate change caused by the discharge of greenhouse gases. For theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2018), human-induced warming influenced approximately 1°C (likely between 0.8°C and 1.2°C) above pre-industrial measures in 2017, increasing at 0.2°C per decade. Global warming is defined in this paper as an increase in combined surface air and sea surface temperatures averaged over the globe and 30 years. period (high confidence).Under the background of global warming, many extreme climates around the world have been staged, such as a blizzard, hurricanes, floods, and drought. However, humanity's use of fossil fuels not only has a warming effect on the weather but also has caused a shortage of energy. At current levels, environmental subjects and energy issues have become the focus of human beings, and “low-carbon economy, city or era” has been the main topic.

Green Schools Green school definition Latin America schools are examined for what, how it is being taught, and who is teaching in and leading our schools. Some contend that where teaching and learning occur is equally essential but has long been ignored, resulting in building conditions that negatively impact student and staff health and performance (Wu, 2002). This new awareness has resulted in a growing trend in school construction over the past decade - the development of Green Schools.

Gordon (2010) defines Green Schools as the results of the planning, designing, and construction process that: “takes into account a building’s performance over its entire 50-60 year live cycle” (p. 1) with a focus on creating an environment that is optimal for learning. Green Schools create this optimal environment by providing fresh air, a comfortable temperature range, with plenty of natural lighting, and minimizes distractions from nearby noises “while also maximizing resource efficiency, minimizing pollution, and teaching students the importance of innovation in the built environment” (p. 1).

Worldwide the United States of America is the country to most widely carry out green school campaign with the necessary depth and the most abundant practical experience, so green schools in the United States has important significance for other regions. According to statistics, there are 133,000 primary and secondary schools (K-12 Schools), 4300 Colleges or Universities in the United States, about 25% of the population go to school every day. Nowadays, in 20 of the largest school community, 80% of them promise to build a green school, 94% of them promise to do this nearly every five years (Kats, Braman, & James, 2010).

According to Baker & Bernstein (2012)., ‘‘Green schools" is school building or facilities that create a healthy environment that is conducive to learning as well as saving energy, resources, and money. While this definition is just a simple description of the green school, its long-term meaning is far more than that. According to Zhao, He, and Meng (2015), the green school, also known as Eco-Schools, is an international environmental education program, environmental management system and award scheme that promotes and acknowledges long-term, whole school action for the environment.

3

Unlike a one-off project, it is a long-term program that introduces participants (students, teachers, parents, and the wider community) to the concept of an environmental management system (Zhao, et al., 2015). However, green schools are far more than just an environmental management system. As shown in figure 1, in any case as a green building, the basic requirements of green school are energy efficiency, resources efficiency, and CO2 emissions reduction. Students must have an excellent environment to learn in; so it must create an indoor environment that provides good indoor air quality, thermal comfort, acoustic and daylighting.

Green schools are more than green buildings; in the long term, the most important thing is to ensure the environment education significance of green schools. These schools are a fusion of a physical place, an educational program, and an organizational culture.

Figura 1. The whole-school sustainability framework Fuente: Gutter (2014)

To sum up, Sharma and Pandy (2015) defined a “Green School” which those elements and practices inculcate an environmental sensitivity and promote ecological sustainability through various environment-friendly means that encourage careful identified use of resources. It also caters to the physical, mental and emotional needs of a child by ensuring a school environment that is physically safe, emotionally secure and psychologically enabling.

Green school characteristics To develop and to build the green school design, the Centre of Green School (2010) had emphasized the general attributes of green school:  Conserve energy and natural resources  Improve indoor air quality  Remove toxic materials from places where children learn and play  Employ daylighting strategies and improves classroom acoustics  Decrease the burden on municipal water and wastewater treatment  Encourage waste management efforts to benefit the local community and region  Conserve fresh drinking water and helps manage stormwater runoff

4

 Encourage recycling  Promote habitats protection  Reduced demand on local landfills

For an architect or staff, the above requirements can be seen or can be quantified. However, for a green school with full education meaning, many elements and characteristics are intangible (Nifa, Nawi, and Rahim (2014)).

Sustainable school design With the development of the green campus activities, many countries launched a green campus rating system based on the actual situation. To promote the green school, USGBC (2017) launched LEED for Schools rating system in 2006 based on the LEED green building system. With gradual improvement, USGBC launched The LEED 2009 Green Building Rating System for Schools New Construction and Major Renovations, which address seven topics: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality, Innovation in Design and Regional Priority (See Appendix 1).

Principles and Guidelines of Sustainable Design There are different classification forms in these standards, some use a grade rating system, such as LEED for School, BREEAM Education 2008 and Green Star Education v1, and some adopt a complete degree rating system, such as DGNB, CASBEE, and CSUS/GBC. However, for all of these standards are an invariably reflect the sustainable development requirements of environmental protection and ‘‘four savings pillars" (land saving, energy saving, water saving, and material saving). Besides, all the elements run through the planning and design, construction, operation and management in the whole life cycle USGBC (2017).

All data and methods in these evaluation systems are open to the public, so everyone in different Countries could adopt them. Due to this development, LEED for School has been more adopted by Canada, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and China principally. Besides, one aspect reflecting the sustainable development of a green school is that these evaluation systems are continuously updated and developed. A green school is a complex and continuous developing building system, each issue or category is repeatable and adaptable, so it will respond promptly to change uncertain performances.

According to the USGBC (2017), it is vital to highlight the quality of educators and curriculum are the most critical factors in a student's academic performance, but the variety of school facilities – where students learn – is often overlooked. School buildings can enhance a student's ability to learn by keeping them healthy, attentive and present.

There are several components of Green Schools that are recommendable to improve student and staff health and performance. These components are enhanced indoor air quality, acoustics, thermal comfort, and increased daylighting. Each of these components and other elements can be utilized in the implementation of environmental education. Green Schools, by improving indoor air quality, can improve the overall health of staff and students and thus additionally reduce absenteeism related to illnesses (USGBC, 2017; Bryk, and Schneider, 2002).

5

The daylighting use in Green Schools is highly valuable and helps reduce to reduce energy costs, but the USGBC also stated that increases in natural daylighting could help improve student and staff alertness (Tanner, 2009; Heschong, Wright, and Okura, 2002). The acoustics in Green Schools gives an added attention to acoustical ceiling tiles and lined ductwork and HVAC systems with consideration to vent placement, which assists in creating an environment that minimizes distractions caused by background noise (USGBC, 2017). In consequence, the transformation of a conventional school into a greener one, under the USGBC´s green model standards basis, one the most applied in many countries, can be applicable in Peru because this change provides a valuable social and economic impact on diverse environmental issues in an emerging state without sufficient policies, guidelines, and data about the possibility of improving the education to sustainable education (Eilam and Trop, 2011).

For that reason, this new wave has not started completely in Peru either in Latin America yet. The knowledge is emerging in these matters; however, the necessity to involve in the world's educational and climate change issues is highly essential, overall Peru because this country has several varieties of resources to use enough for instance clean water and energy and also without excessive greenhouse gases emission throughout all the nation.

Leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) was developed in 2000 by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC, 2017). The LEED certification is provided through third-party, independent verification. This certification supports that a building was designed and built using techniques focused on achieving high performance in areas of human and environmental health. These areas include sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials sections and indoor environmental quality (USGBC, 2017). This research uses this specific design to process the green transformation.

LEED measures several aspects of the construction process and the building's overall performance as it relates to sustainability specifically in the following key areas (See Appendix 1):  Sustainable Sites - This pertains to the site selection as it relates to the construction and the building's impact on the surrounding environment. (this is not used in this study)  Water Efficiency - This area aims to reduce the use of water both inside and outside of the building.  Energy & Atmosphere – This category encourages a wide variety of energy-saving strategies, to include some of the following methods: energy use monitoring; efficient design and construction; use of efficient appliances, energy efficient systems and lighting; the use of renewable and clean sources of energy, and use of electricity generated on-site or off-site (USGBC, 2012b).  Materials & Resources - This category's focus aims to reduce the amount of waste produced during construction while promoting the selection of articles that support sustainable practices.  Indoor Environmental Quality - This category promotes the improved indoor air quality, increased use of natural daylight, and improve acoustics. 6

 Locations & Linkages - This category relates to the building's position relative to public transportation and other community resources, such as outdoor parks, while reducing the building's visual impact within the community.  Awareness & Education - This area encourages the building to be used as an educational tool to provide information and resources regarding sustainable practices used throughout the building's design and construction process.  Innovation in Design - This area promotes the use of change and awards points in areas that are not otherwise credited through the LEED process, but support the overall theme of sustainable design  Innovation – This section also includes criteria for utilizing the building as a teaching tool. This criterion specifically consists of the following guidelines: The sustainable features and the curriculum (the relationship between human ecology, natural ecology, and the building) of the school become part of the school educational mission.

During the construction or transformation process, specific criteria (mentioned above) must be met, and points are awarded based on the related design features of the facility. Buildings earn various levels of LEED certifications based on the number of points made for design and construction. The total number of points available is 100 with 10 additional bonus points for innovation in design and regional priority. Building certification is as follows: 40-49 points - Certified status, 50-59 points – Silver, 60-79 – Gold, and 80 points and above – Platinum (USGBC, 2017).

Green School Design The design of school facilities has remained relatively unchanged in the last 200 years. In Peruvian school, facilities are built to comply with health, safety, and welfare codes, but inadequately support teaching missions due to the design‘s poor alignment with pedagogy. Cost is a significant barrier to school districts improving their facilities, and these continue to degrade, it is more critical now than ever before to recognize the opportunity to rebuild or transform sustainably.

Research has shown that the quality of school facilities is associated with student and staff health, attendance, and performance. Besides research is needed to investigate the impact of LEED building design on outcomes such as social and economic. The studies examined in this review all attempt to build a foundation of empirical evidence that supports the benefits of Green Schools regarding improved student achievement and integrates: changes in school operations, incorporating sustainability content in the curriculum and building links with local communities; aiming that sustainability becomes the students' thoughts and the school's organizational culture (Goldman, Ayalon, Baum, & Weiss, 2018; Tucker, & Izadpanahi, 2017).

Schools are often an uninspiring series of empty boxes with the primary objective to adequately accommodate a maximum number of students, pushing students through an assembly line of state-approved curricula with little room for students to develop a sense of ownership or involvement in their learning environment. However, teachers are directed to achieve competencies for state-mandated testing, requiring students be tied to textbooks, minimizing opportunities for students to learn concepts that are challenging to quantify by multiple-choice examination such as community values, social responsibility, and environmental stewardship which represented their social impact.

7

Unfortunately, the Peruvian educational system does not sufficiently aware of climate change adaptation. For this reason, my primary goal will be to determine the economic and social impact valuation for the transformation of elementary schools' infrastructure in San Martin de Porres district, Lima - Peru, under the US Green Building Council's (USGBC's) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system. There are several reasons to choose a green building construction or transformation of a school, but the most important one is that its implementation generates benefits implicating many stakeholders like students, teachers, parents, the community, and central authorities, using fewer resources and improving the health and productivity of these individuals.

Economic Impact assessment A green school is a school building or facility that creates a healthy environment conducive to learning while saving energy, resources, and money. Green schools are supportive and efficient spaces, which inspire the next generation of leaders to value their environments. Green schools help lower operational costs and reduce waste, while also encouraging the active involvement of occupants in these conservation efforts, teaching them to be responsible stewards (Center of Ecoliteracy, 2010).

The perception that green building increases costs often dissuades organizations from building green; however, articles such as ―Greening America‘s schools: Costs and benefits by Kats (2006) show that energy savings and benefits to occupants far outweigh any cost of green building. These benefits to occupants stem from a healthier indoor environment and result in improved health, performance and attitude.

Disproving the myth that green building is more expensive is the first step to the adoption of green building techniques. Often, merely using the term ―green implies costly, and thus dissuades school boards from adopting these practices.

Additionally, Kats (2006) findings showed green schools average a 3% increase in cost, but have a financial return of 20 times that amount. Besides, benefits accumulate through lower water and energy use, increased teacher retention and lower health costs (Kats, 2006). Another additional benefit, not measurable in dollars, is the increased competitiveness of the school. As parents are provided greater choice and freedom about where to send their children to school, the benefit of green building will become even more valuable. Researches on the healthy indoor environment present in green buildings demonstrate benefits beyond cost-effectiveness into the realm of social responsibility (USGBC, 2017; Kats, 2006).

In conclusion, students and teachers spend an average of 40-50 hours a week in a school facility; therefore, about 75% of their time is spent in other environments such as their home or neighborhood playground. The validity of measuring the effects of green building on students is questionable. Within a school, there are many interrelated systems affecting student performance besides the physical environment. (e.g., curriculum delivery, teacher competencies, socio-demographics, and national policies).

Social Impact assessment Social impact assessment (SIA) is now conceived as being the process of managing the social issues of development. There is consensus on what ‘good' SIA practice is – it is

8

participatory; it supports affected peoples, proponents, and regulatory agencies; it increases understanding of change and capacities to respond to change; it seeks to avoid and mitigate negative impacts and to enhance positive benefits across the life cycle of developments; and it emphasizes strengthening the lives of vulnerable and disadvantaged people (Esteves, Franks, & Vanclay, 2012). For elementary schools have been the primary focus of many studies comparing facility design to student performance (Kats, Braman, and James, 2010). Students of this age primarily remain in the same classroom with the same teacher for the majority of their school day. This allows fewer variables to influence the student, allowing the influence of their physical environment to be explored.

The most widely studied variables of indoor environmental attributes are daylight and indoor air quality. The presence of sunlight has dramatically affected the productivity and performance of building occupants. An increase in student performance in well- designed or green schools may be attributable to increased student pride in their school facility. This pride may stem from green schools often receiving attention from the media and support from the surrounding community (Geneletti, & Edward, 2016).

Allen (2017), found students who moved into a newly designed and constructed school reported a 30% increase in feelings of safety, a 34% increase in school pride, and an 11% increase in the overall enjoyment of their school experience. A significant decrease in bullying, lower rates of student and teacher absenteeism, and a decrease in staff turnover were also identified. New or renovated facilities attempting to meet green standards may also benefit from revitalized perceptions of the learning environment.

Often, improved productivity, performance, and happiness are merely by-products of overall improvement in health. The main contributors to improved health are better daylighting and indoor air quality, making it difficult to analyze whether increased student performance is due to overall building design or these variables alone. Also, students‘ visual access to the natural environment, whether through windows or indoor plantings, decreased stress and improved cognitive function (Wells, 2000).

Another common health risk in today‘s buildings is poor indoor air quality. Individuals spend 80-90% of their time indoors (USGBC, 2017); however, poor air quality is often unnoticed by occupants but reflected in the number of sick days and employee complaints. In schools, poor air quality can have pronounced effects on asthma and allergies, increasing sick days taken by students and teachers (Kats, 2006). Because nearly 25% of our nation‘s schools are considered below standard, designed with the minimum required performance for lowest cost, with air quality and ventilation rarely regulated by the state, these poor air quality conditions will most likely continue in years to come (Kats, 2006).

On the other hand, the impact evaluation is an accurate kind of assessment that seeks to answer correctly: What is the impact (or causal effect) of a social program in people? The impact evaluation estimates the benefit and effectiveness side; in contrast, the cost analysis provides only the cost information. For this concern, I propose the use of three phases for this study: Literature analysis, the school profile diagnose and determine the possible solutions for the green transformation and the economic and social impact in the green change of a pilot school.

9

METHODOLOGY Amid a first phase of the venture, an examination on current researches, accreditation conventions, and similar case studies have been done, to diagram the entire arrangement of measurements and criteria that can be found in writing to evaluate the transformation possibility in Peruvian schools.

A second phase comprised to diagnose the school profile under the US Green Building Council’s (USGBC’s) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system which exists in a typical elementary Peruvian school and to determine the economic and social investment to find the transformation requires.

Finally, the third phase showed the analysis of the economic and social impact after a year of the green transformation of a typical elementary school in Lima (capital of Peru).

Procedure

1st phase: School profile and diagnose In Lima, the capital of Peru, principally in the most deprived socio-economic zones (as the district of San Martin de Porres), the necessary regular education infrastructure is not prepared for the green design model under the US Green Building Council's (USGBC's) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system and to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

The data and information collected in the assessment stage will facilitate the transformation of existing school buildings in sustainable school facilities. These buildings have the great potential to be more than healthy, high-performing facilities since they held the capacity to teach students and community members about sustainability.

The pilot study was developed in Carmelitas School located in San Martin de Porres district, belonging to Lima, the capital of Peru. The building has normal imprinting of the time 90’s architecture: it’s a linear construction with a central hallway, and all classrooms are facing East and West. The structure of the building is made of a concrete prefabricated frame of pillars, beams, and slabs. Classes are all located at 1st, 2nd and 3rd floor. They are continuously occupied Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 2 p.m. The first analysis was based on the investigation of the classrooms’ characteristics in terms of daylighting and electric lighting systems to define which are the most representative of the overall regularly occupied area. At each floor, they were divided according to their features in terms of orientation, external obstruction, dimensions, window area, room depth, shading devices, reflectance properties and view to the outside.

2nd phase: Economic impact after a year of a school diagnose In this phase, this study developed net-present-value (NPV) and simple paybacks models to compare life-cycle benefits (including water savings, emission reductions, and increases in health and productivity).

This economic appraisal is divided into three options, comparing the school's buildings costs options for my thesis proposal as follows : (See Appendix 1)

10

 Option 1: provides revenues from conventional building construction and use. Most of the LEED-certificated buildings tackle a model based on energy, water, and maintenance costs. Here, I did not consider the savings because they do not happen if the green features are not present.  Option 2: current building transformed into the green. I considered some uncertainties in the model by the respective occurrence. For all the items, except for Green premium after incentives and grants (50%), and a cost of additional green features (50%), the probability of occurring is 100%.  Option 3: provides revenues from the transformation of a conventional building into a green building and its use. This option is similar to Option 2; the only addition is the item related to the cost of additional green features ($/m2). This item has the same probability of the green premium after incentives and grants (50%).

This benefit modeling develops the net-present-value (NPV) and simple payback models to associate the life-cycle benefits of : 1. Energy costs and savings 2. Water costs and savings 3. Maintenance costs and savings

In consequence, I will compare the prices of conventional building construction and use versus the future flow of benefits if this is built or transformed by Green standards. The Present Net Value transforms future costs in present costs in a time horizon of 1 year. For this research, I will use the initial discount rate of 10% (entered as 0.10) up to 29%, which is the historical borrowed money rate by Peruvian financial entities.

Assumptions: • NPV calculation allows green premium costs. • Building benefits will be calculated in a 10-year time horizon. • The Peruvian market discount rate fluctuates between 10% and 29%. • The items will be calculated in terms of US dollars (converted to the current Peruvian currency exchange rate), and in square meters (m2) per year. • The Peruvian inflation rate for 2017 is 2% per month.

3rd phase: Social impact after a year of a school diagnose

11

RESULTS School Profile and diagnose Carmelitas de Los Olivos School. Located in the District of San Martin de Porres, in Lima-Peru, shows the results of the evaluation made to all project documents received and collected in the process of visits that are within the scope of the LEED Certification System v4 for Existing Building Operations and Maintenance of the US Green Building Council, taking as reference all the standards that this certification implies. This private school serves 138 students, in elementary and primary grades, employs 16 faculty members and two support staff. The area surrounding this school is suburban, located northwest Lima .

Carmelitas de Los Olivos School is located in a land area of 240.00 m² (Leed Project Boundary), with a building footprint of 170.67 m², a roof area of 610.00 m², a free space of 69.32 m², a green area of 2.00 m², and a hardscape area of 67.32 m².

According to LEED Reference Guide for Building Design and Construction, there are seven categories have been analyzed as follow: 1. In the location and transportation category is considered that more than 70% of students and staff use different means of alternative transportation (on foot, by bicycle, public transport, motorcycle taxis, etc.) to reach the school. The school does not have bicycle racks. 2. The sustainable sites category analysis showed that there are not maintenance policies for site management such as warehouse protocols and cleaning product management, organic waste management and safety booklets. The school does not have green areas for that reason nor does it have protocols for erosion control or measures for the management of green areas and the equipment for the maintenance of the school is of manual type. 3. For the water efficiency category, the school does not have technical sheets of the appliances and taps used in the project. However, it has been observed that they do not have urinals and that the existing toilets are 1.6 gpf mostly, 1 of 1.28 gpf and three cannot determine their consumption. Regarding the lavatory taps, it was observed that they use garden faucets, with an approximate expenditure of 1.5 gpm. It is recommended to Reduce the water consumption of indoor plumbing fixtures and fittings so that it is equal to or less than the baseline established by LEED. This is realized through the installation of efficient faucets and sanitary appliances to achieve a minimum reduction of at least 25%. 4. In the energy and atmosphere category, we had obtained more than 12 electricity receipts, and we have chosen to enter the project in the Energy Star Portfolio Manager. A score of 100 has been achieved, with the minimum required to pass the 75-point pre-requisite. It is recommended to have a good practice of the use of energy, such as switching off the lights in places where they are not used, and the installation of presence sensors for the luminaires. The replacement of incandescent luminaires is recommended since they consume up to 5 times more than a cost- saving bulb and up to 10 times more than a LED luminaire. 5. For the materials and resources category, the Carmelitas School does not present a sustainable purchasing policy and no established policy on the proper segregation, storage, and disposal of waste. A purchasing and waste management policy for works and new implementations must be implemented that meets the LEED requirements of the prerequisite. It is essential to recognize the percentage of waste that can be recycled or reused, and above all to know a responsible company that

12

correctly derives waste that continues its life cycle. Also, a program for the safe disposal of mercury-containing lamps and a plan for the destruction of batteries or hazardous materials should be implemented. 6. In the indoor environmental quality category, The project does not have mechanical ventilation; So their office environments and classrooms located inside have natural ventilation; Besides, most of its spaces are constituted by operable exterior windows as requested by Standard ASHRAE 62.1-2010. It is recommended to change the installed windows, for those that have sound insulation and are easy to maneuver. During the analysis of the different environments of the facilities, a room was found that lacks proper internal ventilation, so the following points are recommended: Modify the design of the entrance door to the study environment. This must have two divisions (upper and lower) which allow for easy maneuverability when operating them. With this modification, we achieve cross ventilation and greater control of the air flow into the interior. Change the current windows by those of the tilting type; their moons must have acoustic isolation. Finally, the signage increase with the prohibition of smoking in open areas (courtyards) and the classrooms. You can use different types of signage. In conclusion, the necessary implementations are identified as a summary achieve certification at the Silver level (See table 1) :

Table 1. Minimum implementation required to transform a conventional school in green Categories Implementation for Silver level Credits Points Replace all toilets with others of lower consumption. Replace Water faucets of teachers and install aerators to reduce their flow. WEc2 5 Replace faucets of students with taps with timers. Energy and Purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates EAc5 4 atmosphere

Electric Electric submeters for all systems EAc3 2

Maintenance Painted ceiling with high SRI paint and periodic maintenance SSc3 1

Correct management of solid waste from maintenance and Waste MRc2.2 2 renovation works

Economic Impact assessment Financial and environmental stewardship Acting as good stewards of funds in the initial design of the school facility, and in continuing operations was cited as an essential responsibility of school leadership. A building operating at the highest efficiency lessens negative impacts on operational budgets. Economic savings were perceived to benefit staff, students, and the community at large. Stewardship, expressed as resource efficiency, was described by this member of the support staff: [we] designed a green school…to make better use of our resources.

Economic savings High performing school facilities were believed to be models for future school design and laboratories for innovative solutions to integrated building design. Financial savings of these high-performing facilities, as observed by a school‘s monitoring systems, positively affected district and school operating budgets. Data from the monitoring systems were displayed on interactive touch screens and used in the classroom. Data 13

were used to inform future building projects and made available to the community at large.

Social Impact Priority for student engagement and health. Creating a healthy learning environment where students could engage directly in nature was noted as a guiding principle of each school. Responses cited the building‘s indoor environmental quality and access to outdoor spaces as direct contributions to the health and well-being of students.

The priority for student engagement in building design was mentioned by these building professionals from Carmelitas de Los Olivos School, respectively: [building and site] tools where the students engage directly to the facility daily [are valuable].

Being able to provide a school with a building that is continually teaching the students about sustainability was an opportunity that couldn't be passed by. The kids that are learning science in the new green building will grow up thinking that things like net- zero energy and water are not only attainable but normal!

Empowerment Respondents described students as empowered individuals knowledgeable and proud of their space(s), leading to increased knowledge, and evidence of sharing experience with others. A building professional from Carmelitas de Los Olivos School remarked on student empowerment: The more the students are engaged in both the design process and the proper functioning of the building, the more ownership they feel for space, and the more they know and then learn about how the building works. Students were described as empowered to change their environment outside of school, specifically in their home environment.

Students as active members of society Respondents described their school programs as preparing students to be active members of society, positively affecting their communities and the environment.

Student as a problem solver The use of sustainability principles, integrated topics, and systems thinking requiring higher-order thought and discernment supports the broader development of students‘ problem-solving skills.

Carmelitas de Los Olivos students are taught from a very young age that just learning about a problem is just the first step. Figuring out how to solve, and then implement change is the ultimate reward. Children are asked to be problem solvers. They are asked to look at a problem, whether personal or not and come up with solutions.

Student connection to place The process of engaging students with their surrounding environment was described as helping form a connection to place, which includes the physical and natural space, as well as the history and culture of the surrounding community. Schools were described as playing important roles within their communities. Faculty used service-

14

learning projects and other outreach and engagement activities to connect students to their place and to strengthen the school to community relations.

Awareness Increased awareness of the environment and environmental issues was noted as an objective of the participating school‘s educational programs focused on environmental education. Deepening the level of student awareness was believed to influence students outside their school environment and throughout their lives. Recognition was also discussed emphasizing the development of interest and curiosity in students.

CONCLUSIONS Outside of the referenced research, there is still little empirical research related to Green Schools. Presently, no educational research examines Green Schools as a teaching tool for environmental education or how this might affect student performance. As the popularity of Green Schools continues to grow, it is essential that the educational components of these facilities also grow to increase student, staff, and community understanding of the energy performance features and learning outcomes that are offered within these buildings. Students spend many years inside school facilities, as school divisions move forward with new construction, it is vital that these facilities also serve to supplement the curricula and engage students, staff, and the community about environmental education and sustainable practices.

The implementation of the green audit is an essential step toward making existing buildings more sustainable since it establishes a feedback process that allows to continuously improving their current conditions. It highlights the inefficiencies and proposes measures to overcome them. Further development of the research consists in:  Going more rooted in the analysis of economic performance aspects;  Checking the consistency of the occupant survey methodology against physical measurements;  Identifying quantitative indicators or qualitative judgments for each sustainability aspects

Also, Cost is significant for building managers. Some tools help in providing economic and environmental savings. Many green building rating systems make an extreme emphasis on energy efficiency and environmental responsibility. For example, LEED assigns points based on compliance with a checklist of green features, most of them aiming to reduce waste, energy and water consumption. This causes lower ventilation rates which combined with increased “outgassing” from green (insulation) building materials, increase chemical exposures to humans.

15

REFERENCES Allen, J. G. (2017). Foundations for Student Success: How School Buildings Influence Student Health, Thinking and Performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health. Harvard Center for Health and the Global Environment. http://schools. for health. org. Baker, L., & Bernstein, H. (2012). The impact of school buildings on student health and performance: A call for research. The Center for Green Schools and McGraw-Hill Research Foundation. Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation. Center of Ecoliteracy (2010). What is a green School?. Retrieved from https://www.ecoliteracy.org/sites/default/files/CEL-What-is-a-Green-School.pdf Geneletti, D., & Edward Elgar Publishing. (2016). Handbook on biodiversity and ecosystem services in impact assessment (Research handbooks on impact assessment). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Incorporated. Eilam, E., & Trop, T. (2011). ESD pedagogy: A guide for the perplexed. The Journal of Environmental Education, 42(1), 43-64. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/751269977?accountid=14747 Esteves, A., Franks, D., & Vanclay, F. (2012). Social impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 34-42. Goldman, Ayalon, Baum, & Weiss. (2018). Influence of ‘green school certification’ on students' environmental literacy and adoption of sustainable practice by schools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183, 1300-1313. Gordon, D., (2010) Green Schools as High Performance, Learning Facilities. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Washington, DC 20005-4950 888-552- 0624. Gutter R. (2016). Etymology of a movement: Center for Green Schools and Global Impact Investment Network. Conference presented at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Heschong, L., Wright, R. L., & Okura, S. (2002). Daylighting impacts on human performance in school. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 31(2), 101- 114. IPCC (2018). Global Warming of 1.5 ºC. Special Report. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ Kats, G. (2006). Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits. U.S.A.: A Capital E Report. Retrieved on April 5, 2012, from http://www.usgbc.org Katz, A. (2008). LEED for schools: Roi for the next generation. Environmental Design & Construction, 11(7), s30-s32. http://search.ebscohost.com.gatekeeper.lindenwood.edu Kats, G., Braman, J., and James, M. (2010). Greening our built environment: costs, benefits, and strategies. Washington, DC: Island Press. Sharma K., and Pandy M. (2015). Towards a Green School on Education for Sustainable Development for Elementary Schools. Retrieved from http://www.ncert.nic.in/departments/nie/dee/publication/pdf/Towards%20A%20gre en%20School.pdf Nifa, F., Nawi, M., & Rahim, S. (2014). An IPD framework for sustainable design in UUM campus development. In 2014 International Symposium on Technology Management and Emerging Technologies (pp. 291-295). IEEE.

16

Pellegrino, A., Cammarano, S., & Savio, V. (2015). Daylighting for Green schools: A resource for indoor quality and energy efficiency in educational environments. Energy Procedia, 78, 3162-3167. Tanner, C. K. (2009). Effects of school design on student outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(3), 381-399. United Nations Development Programme – UNDP (2015) Sustainable development goals. Retrieved from https://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/brochure/SDGs_Booklet _Web_En.pdf U.S. Green Building Council - USGBC (2017) LEED v4 for Building design and construction: Schools. Retrieved from https://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-v4- building-design-and-construction-current-version Wu, Z. (2002). Green schools in China. The Journal of Environmental Education, 34(1), 21-25. Zhao, D., He, B., & Meng, F. (2015). The green school project: A means of speeding up sustainable development?. Geoforum, 65, 310-313.

17

Appendix 1: LEED Green Building Rating Systems. (USGBC, 2017).

1. Location and Transportation 5. Materials and Resources Credit LEED for Neighborhood Development Location Prereq Storage and Collection of Recyclables Credit Sensitive Land Protection Prereq Construction and Demolition Waste Management Planning Credit High Priority Site Credit Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction Credit Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses Building Product Disclosure and Optimization - Environmental Credit Credit Access to Quality Transit Product Declarations Credit Bicycle Facilities Building Product Disclosure and Optimization - Sourcing of Raw Credit Credit Reduced Parking Footprint Materials Credit Green Vehicles Credit Building Product Disclosure and Optimization - Material Ingredients 2. Sustainable Sites Credit Construction and Demolition Waste Management Prereq Construction Activity Pollution Prevention 6. Indoor Environmental Quality Prereq Environmental Site Assessment Prereq Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Credit Site Assessment Prereq Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control Credit Site Development - Protect or Restore Habitat Prereq Minimum Acoustic Performance Credit Open Space Credit Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Strategies Credit Rainw ater Management Credit Low -Emitting Materials Credit Heat Island Reduction Credit Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan Credit Light Pollution Reduction Credit Indoor Air Quality Assessment Credit Site Master Plan Credit Thermal Comfort Credit Joint Use of Facilities Credit Interior Lighting 3. Water Efficiency Credit Daylight Prereq Outdoor Water Use Reduction Credit Quality View s Prereq Indoor Water Use Reduction Credit Acoustic Performance Prereq Building-Level Water Metering 7. Innovation Credit Outdoor Water Use Reduction Credit Innovation Credit Indoor Water Use Reduction Credit LEED Accredited Professional Credit Cooling Tow er Water Use Credit Water Metering 4. Energy and Atmosphere Prereq Fundamental Commissioning and Verification Prereq Minimum Energy Performance Prereq Building-Level Energy Metering Prereq Fundamental Refrigerant Management Credit Enhanced Commissioning Credit Optimize Energy Performance Credit Advanced Energy Metering Credit Demand Response Credit Renew able Energy Production Credit Enhanced Refrigerant Management Credit Green Pow er and Carbon Offsets

18