This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Solar Energy 85 (2011) 57–71

www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Evaluation of the impact of the surrounding urban morphology

on building energy consumption
Nyuk Hien Wong a, Steve Kardinal Jusuf b,⇑, Nedyomukti Imam Syafii c, Yixing Chen a,
Norwin Hajadi a, Haripriya Sathyanarayanan a, Yamini Vidya Manickavasagam a
a
Department of Building, National University of Singapore, Singapore
b
Center for Sustainable Asian Cities, National University of Singapore, Singapore
c
Institute of High Performance Computing, Singapore

Received 14 June 2010; received in revised form 30 October 2010; accepted 1 November 2010
Available online 3 December 2010

Communicated by: Associate Editor Matheos Santamouris

Abstract

Empirical models of minimum (Tmin), average (Tavg) and maximum (Tmax) air temperature for Singapore estate have been developed
and validated based on a long-tem field measurement. There are three major urban elements, which influence the urban temperature at
the local scale. Essentially, they are buildings, greenery and pavement. Other related parameters identified for the study, such as green
plot ratio (GnPR), sky view factor (SVF), surrounding building density, the wall surface area, pavement area, albedo are also evaluated
to give a better understanding on the likely impact of the modified urban morphology on energy consumption.
The objective of this research is to assess and to compare how the air temperature variation of urban condition can affect the building
energy consumption in tropical climate of Singapore. In order to achieve this goal, a series of numerical calculation and building simulation
are utilized. A total of 32 cases, considering different urban morphologies, are identified and evaluated to give better a understanding on the
implication of urban forms, with the reference to the effect of varying density, height and greenery density. The results show that GnPR,
which related to the present of greenery, have the most significant impact on the energy consumption by reducing the temperature by up
to 2 °C. The results also strongly indicate an energy saving of 4.5% if the urban elements are addressed effectively.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Impact; Urban morphology; Building energy consumption; Energy simulation; Singapore

1. Introduction are higher than the temperature of the surrounding rural

Urbanization in the recent years has significantly
increased the necessity for the city to further develop itself
to accommodate the incoming inhabitants, in which ame-
liorate the urban microclimate. The development may lead
to the increase of urban heat island (UHI) intensity, a phe-
nomenon which air temperature in densely built urban area
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Center for Sustainable Asian Cities,
National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore
117566, Singapore. Tel.: +65 6516 4691.
E-mail address: steve.kj@nus.edu.sg (S.K. Jusuf).
area. Higher urban temperature has a serious impact on
the electricity demand for air conditioning of buildings, it
also increase the smog production, while contributing to
increased emission of pollutants from power plants, includ-
ing carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides and other
suspended particulates. UHI, however, could be found in
every town and city all over the world (Oke and Eas,
1971; Landsberg, 1981; Padmanabhamurty, 1990/1991;
Sani, 1990/1991; Eliasson, 1996; Giridharan et al., 2007).
The heat island intensity could easily reach up to 10 °C,
which has been observed in India. Furthermore, it is clear
that this increase of urban air temperature will also
increase the energy consumption by increasing the cooling

0038-092X/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.solener.2010.11.002
 Author's personal copy
58 N.H. Wong et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 57–71
load. In city of Athens, where the mean heat island inten-
sity are found exceeding 10 °C, the cooling load of building
in the urban area found to be doubled, the peak electricity
load for cooling may be tripled because of the higher ambi-
ent temperatures (Santamauris et al., 2001). Study by Kol-
okotroni et al. (2005) on London UHI found that during
typical hot week the rural reference office has 84% energy
demand for cooling as compared to a similar urban office
based in the same location. Another study utilizing mea-
sured air temperature data and building energy simulation
at 24 different locations within London UHI found that
urban cooling load is up to 25% higher than the rural load
over the year; however the annual heating load is reduced
by 22% (Kolokotroni et al., 2007). Other urban modifica-
tions, nevertheless, also have been found altering the tem-
perature in urban area and yet modify the energy
consumption. Study in USA (Akbari et al., 1992) found
that large number of trees and urban parks able to reduce
local air temperature by 0.5–5 °C. Each 1 °C drop in air
temperature could lower the peak electric demand for cool-
ing by 2–4%. Hence, urban elements such as trees or parks
have significant impact and energy consumption. Shashua-
Bar et al. (2010) studied the variables that influence the var-
iability of air temperature in urban streets that include
trees, building configuration, albedo of the surroundings
and street ventilation. Some studies also investigated the
selection of building materials which influences not only
the outdoor space but also the building energy consump-
tion (Taha, 1997; Akbari et al., 2001; Doulos et al.,
2004). These variables are in the control of the urban plan-
ners and architects. Hence, the urban air temperature can
be attenuated with a proper design and modeling.
In Singapore, with the present trend of having building
going higher and closer to one another, as well as the exten-
sive usage of air conditioning, UHI are likely to occur
(Wong and Chen, 2009; Jusuf et al., 2007). The tempera-
ture increases in urban area can lead to significant use of
air conditioning. UHI studies in Singapore shows a possi-
ble increase of urban air temperature of 1 °C. If the trend
keep on continue, within 50 year, the energy consumption
for cooling will increase in order of 33 GW h per annum
Fig. 1. Aerial view and front photo of the PIXEL building.
for the whole island (Tso, 1994). More recent study found
that outdoor air temperature determines the energy savings
of buildings. According to some studies, every 1 °C of out-
door air temperature reduction saves 5% of building energy
consumption (Chen and Wong, 2006; Wong et al., 2009).
It becomes increasingly important to study urban micro-
climatic environments and to apply these findings to
improve the people’s comfort and to decrease the energy
consumption in the urban areas. The present paper illus-
trates the result of an urban study carried out in Singapore
aiming to assess and discuss the impact of the urban mor-
phology on the energy consumption of The PIXEL at Buona
Vista. Computer simulation software, TAS and Singapore
urban air temperature prediction model, STEVE tool are
utilized to evaluate the impact of increased ambient temper-
ature on the cooling performance of building (see Fig. 1).
2. Methodologies
2.1. Object of study
The Pixel is a 3-storey air conditioned office building,
used by a leading digital media company. It is located in
the one-north estate, Singapore. The facility is also strate-
gically located in the midst of landscaped greeneries with
park opposite its main entrance.
2.2. The case studies
A base case (Fig. 2) and 32 cases (Fig. 3) were employed
to have better understanding on the impact of different sur-
rounding urban morphologies to the energy consumption
of the building. These various cases will address the opti-
mum solution between greenery, building area and building
density to address the impact of the temperature on energy
consumption of the PIXEL building. Table 1 shows the
different parameters used as the case studies.
The base-case model consists of building and greenery,
which represent the actual surrounding urban morphology
of the PIXEL building. A typical hot day condition on 21st
May 2008 was chosen as the background temperature for
 Author's personal copy
N.H. Wong et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 57–71
Fig. 2. Base Case. Note: Pavement (Pave); Green Plot Ratio (GnPR); Average Height (Avg Ht); building (BDG); sky view factor (SVF).
the STEVE tool. As mentioned, STEVE tool predicts the
air temperature of a point based on the 50 m radius. As
to cover up the area of study, four circles of 50 m radius
were developed for the STEVE model. Named as A, B, C
and D, each of these circles will have its own calculation,
see Fig. 2. The final predicted air temperature, which is
the average of four predicted air temperature (A, B, C
and D), will be used in the TAS software as the boundary
condition to develop cooling load and energy consumption
demand of the building.
Given the same methodology as the Base Case, the first
12 Cases (Case 1–Case 12) are trying to find out the role of
the individual parameter on the urban air temperature and
the building cooling load. These basic parameters are the
surrounding greenery, quantified as Green Plot Ratio –
GnPR (Case 1–Case 4), the surrounding building height
– HEIGHT (Case 5–Case 8) and surrounding building den-
sity – DENSITY (Case 9–Case 12). The next 12 cases (Case
13–Case 24) are basically the combination of two of these
parameters. Combinations are worked out based on uni-
form, random and stratum effects. Combination of
HEIGHT and DENSITY, for example, has impacts on
the greenery and sky view factors (SVF). The last eight
cases (Case 25–Case 32), are combination of three of them.
These eight cases of possible combination were having
59
similar methodology as the base case in order to have a fair
comparison.
2.3. STEVE tool
Screening Tool for Estate Environment Evaluation,
STEVE tool (Jusuf and Wong, 2009), is a web based appli-
cation that is specific to an estate and it calculates the Tmax,
Tavg and Tmin of a point interest of an estate. A set of three
equations shown in Eq. (1) gives the correlation between
the urban morphology parameters (building, pavement
and greenery) and estate air temperature. These prediction
models were based on the empirical data collected over a
period of close to 3 years as part of the development of
an assessment method to evaluate the impact of estate
development (in this case, NUS Kent Ridge Campus and
One North), which includes the assessment method of
existing greenery condition (Wong and Jusuf, 2008a) and
greenery condition for a proposed master plan in an estate
development (Wong and Jusuf, 2008b). The greenery
assessment used Green Plot Ratio (GnPR) method. The
GnPR is derived from the average of greenery on a lot,
using the leaf area index (LAI), in proportion to the total
lot area (Ong, 2003). The higher the GnPR value, the den-
ser the greenery condition in a built environment.
 Author's personal copy

60 N.H. Wong et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 57–71

Fig. 3. 32 Study cases.

 
T min ð CÞ ¼ 4:061 þ 0:839 Ref T min ð CÞ þ 0:004 PAVE ð%Þ  0:193 GnPR  0:029 HBDG þ 1:339E  06 WALL ðm2 Þ
 
T avg ð CÞ ¼ 2:347 þ 0:904 Ref T avg ð CÞ þ 5:786E  05 SOLARtotal ðW=m2 Þ þ 0:007 PAVE ð%Þ
 0:06 GnPR  0:015 HBDG þ 1:311 E  05WALL ðm2 Þ þ 0:633 SVF
 
T max ð CÞ ¼ 7:542 þ 0:684 Ref T max ð CÞ þ 0:003 SOLARmax ðW=m2 Þ þ 0:005 PAVE ð%Þ
 0:016 HBDG þ 6:777E  06 WALL ðm2 Þ þ 1:467 SVF þ 1:466 ALB ð1Þ
 Author's personal copy

N.H. Wong et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 57–71 61

Fig. 3 (continued)

Daily minimum (Tmin), average (Tavg) and maximum
(Tmax) temperature of each point of measurements were
calculated as dependent variable of the air temperature pre-
diction model. The independent variables of the models can
be categorized into:
1. Climate predictors: daily minimum (Tmin-r), average
(Tavg-r) and maximum (Tmax-r) temperature at meteoro-
logical station; average of daily solar radiation
(SOLAR). For the SOLAR predictor, average of daily
solar radiation total (SOLARtotal) was used in Tavg
 Author's personal copy

62 N.H. Wong et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 57–71

Table 1
Study cases input values.
Study Surroundings Surroundings Surroundings Remarks
cases greenery (GnPR) buildings height buildings density
Base 1.45 Existing Existing Actual condition
Case
GnPR Case 1 1 Existing Existing
Case 2 2 Existing Existing
Case 3 3 Existing Existing
Case 4 4 Existing Existing
Height Case 5 Existing 15 m 11 blocks
Case 6 Existing 30 m 11 blocks
Case 7 Existing 45 m 11 blocks
Case 8 Existing 60 m 11 blocks
Density Case 9 Existing 15 m 11 blocks Case 9 is the same with Case 5. It is represented
for group comparison
Case 10 Existing 15 m 14 blocks
Case 11 Existing 30 m 11 blocks Case 11 is the same with Case 6. It is represented
for group comparison
Case 12 Existing 30 m 14 blocks
Height and Case 13 Existing 15 m,30 m,45 m,60 m 29 blocks
density
Case 14 Existing 15 m,30 m,45 m,60 m 29 blocks Different configuration
Case 15 Existing 60 m 29 blocks
Case 16 Existing 15 m,30 m,45 m,60 m 11 blocks
GnPR and height Case 17 4 60 m 11 blocks
Case 18 0.6 60 m 11 blocks
Case 19 4 15 m 11 blocks
Case 20 0.6 15 m 11 blocks
GnPR and Case 21 4 30 m 29
density
Case 22 0.6 30 m 29
Case 23 4 30 m 11
Case 24 0.6 30 m 11
GnPR, height Case 25 4 60 m 29
and density
Case 26 4 15 m 29
Case 27 0.6 60 m 29
Case 28 0.6 60 m 11
Case 29 4 60 m 11
Case 30 4 15 m 11
Case 31 0.6 15 m 29
Case 32 0.6 15 m 11

models, while average of solar radiation maximum of University of Singapore (NUS) meteorological station,
the day (SOLARmax) was used in the Tmax model. located at the rooftop of Faculty of Engineering, about
SOLAR predictor is not applicable for Tmin model. 2 km from the Pixel building, with details as follow:
2. Urban morphology predictors: percentage of pavement
a. Tmin-r = 27.24 °C.
area over R 50 m surface area (PAVE), average height
b. Tavg-r = 28.97 °C.
to building area ratio (HBDG), total wall surface area
c. Tmax-r = 31.14 °C.
(WALL), Green Plot Ratio (GnPR), sky view factor
d. SOLARtotal = 5058.39 W/m2.
(SVF) and average surface albedo (ALB).
e. SOLARmax = 764 W/m2.
Each set point covers a surface area within a radius of
50 m. Interpolation is carried out to obtain the estate air
temperature distribution of the estate. By changing the 2.4. TAS simulation
urban morphology parameters, STEVE tool can provide
the urban ambient temperatures to TAS software as the TAS (www.edsl.net) has the capability of performing
boundary conditions. dynamic thermal and it allows the designers to accurately
For the Climate Predictors, this simulation study is predict the energy consumption. Based on the boundary
using the weather data on 21st May 2008 from National conditions calculated by STEVE tool, TAS software are
 Author's personal copy

N.H. Wong et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 57–71 63

able to generate cooling load and energy consumption pre- air temperature measured at NUS meteorological station
diction of the PIXEL building. (Met Data) and calculated data from STEVE tool (Base
The building materials that are used to develop the Case). The deviations are mainly due to the urban mor-
PIXEL model are as follows: phology condition surrounding the Pixel. On the same
day, with the result from the STEVE tool, total cooling
1. External wall: brick 200 mm. load of 4133 kW h was derived from TAS software.
2. Internal wall: brick 100 mm.
3. Ceiling/floor: concrete 250 mm. 3.1. Varying the GnPR values
4. Ground: concrete 175 mm and soil 1000 mm.
5. Window: single blue glass 8 mm. Fig. 4 shows comparison between the base case and the
6. Door: wood 40 mm. first four cases. With GnPR ranging from 1 to 4, the Met
data is found to have the lowest temperature during the
The boundary conditions used in this TAS simulation day and the hottest temperature during the night compare
for all of the case studies are as follows: to the other cases. However, the calculated data from
STEVE tool are likely found the opposite. The base case
1. Air conditioning is on from 08.00 to 22.00 h (extended calculated data (Base Case) is found to be warmer as com-
office hours). pared to the cases with more GnPR value (Cases 2, 3, 4).
2. Thermostat setting: The temperature differences are found to be up to 1.3 °C
a. Temperature upper limit: 24 °C and lower limit: during the daytime. Furthermore, the calculated result also
21 °C. shows that there is a likely reduction of around 0.20 °C on
b. RH upper limit: 70% and lower limit: 60%. the Tmin with the increase of GnPR of 1. A high GnPR
3. Infiltration: 0.3ACH. means there are more greenery around the vicinity. The
4. Internal heat load was omitted to get the energy saving greenery provides cooling effect not only from its evapo-
that considering the air temperature heat load. transpiration process but also from its shading. On every
GnPR increase of 1, it reduces the SVF value by 0.2 which
in turn, it reduces the Tmax by 0.29 °C, see Fig. 5 (Wong
3. Result and discussion and Jusuf, 2010).

The result data from the STEVE tool and TAS software
have been examined in order to assess the ambient air tem-
perature around the PIXEL building and its energy con-
sumption based on given different urban morphologies.
Table 2 shows the predicted Tmax, Tavg and Tmin of the
base-case model, which are deviate from the background
Table 2
Predicted air temperature and weather data.
Predicted Tmax, Tavg and Tmin of Weather data on 21st
base-case model in the pixel (°C) May 2008 (°C)
Tmax 32.83 31.14
Tavg 29.56 28.97
Tmin 26.79 27.24 Fig. 5. Tmax, Tavg and Tmin of Case 1–Case 4.

Fig. 4. Diurnal temperature distributions Case 1–Case 4.

 Author's personal copy

64 N.H. Wong et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 57–71

The increase in GnPR has notable impact in cooling load
as shown on Fig. 6. There is a reduction of 2–6% in terms of
cooling load between the simulated cases based on varying
the GnPR, with GnPR value of 4 have the highest cooling
load reduction of 6% (267 kW h) when compared to base
case. It also can be said that the introduction of more green-
ery results in a lower cooling load.
3.2. Varying the surrounding building height values
As shown in Fig. 7, compared to the Met data, the tem-
peratures become warmer when new building blocks are
added around the PIXEL building. During the day, the
temperature difference could easily reach 0.84 °C. Interest-
ingly, the Base Case shows a different result. During the
hottest hour of the day, additional building tends to lower
the temperature. Furthermore, as illustrated in Fig. 8, the
“highest surrounding buildings” case (Case 8) is having
the lowest temperature as compared to the other case.
One possible reason is the increase of surrounding building
height reduces the SVF, which provides more shading to its
surrounding environment (Wong and Jusuf, 2010). If only
building height is being considered, a taller building seems
gives more benefit to its surrounding environment.
In terms of total load (Fig. 9), the surrounding building
height seems has positive impact on cooling load reduction.
There is a reduction of cooling load up to 4.70% in Max
Height (60 m) when compared to the Base Case. Interestingly,
there is a small difference between 60 m and 45 m (0.2% in
cooling load). A likely reason is once effective shading has
been achieved through particular surrounding height, the fur-
ther increase in height only contributes to increased wall sur-
face area. Thus, only slightly increase the air temperature,
which in turn have almost the same total cooling load.
3.3. Varying the surrounding building density
To further understand the impact of surrounding build-
ing on the local air temperature condition, Case 9–Case 12
are being developed and assessed. Similar to the finding on
previous cases study (Cases 5–8), by changing the sur-
rounding building condition by mean of increasing its den-
sity, the temperatures around the PIXEL are significantly
higher during the day as compared to the Met data but

4500
4133
4031 3970 3913 3866
4000

3500

3000

2500
KWh

total load
total load reduction
2000

1500

1000

500 220 267

82 163
0
base case case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4

Fig. 6. Total load and total load reduction of Case 1–Case 4.

Fig. 7. Diurnal temperature distributions Case 5–Case 8.

 Author's personal copy

N.H. Wong et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 57–71 65

(Case 9 and Case 11) has the lowest temperature (Tmax,

Fig. 8. Tmax, Tavg and Tmin of Case 5–Case 8.
lower as compared to the Base Case, as shown in Fig. 10.
The temperature differences are found in the range of
1.1–1.6 °C if compared to Met data and up to 0.6 °C as
compared to the Base Case. However, during the night,
the presence of new additional buildings tends to raise
the temperature by increasing the pavement surface area
and reducing the greenery area, in which increases the ther-
mal capacity (Chen and Wong, 2006). Although, the
increase was found not to significant if only the surround-
ing building density are considered. Case with less density
Tavg and Tmin) as compared to the other cases with more
density combinations. It is clear that increasing the sur-
rounding buildings density reduces GnPR and likely show
a negative impact to the air temperature, but there is a
trend where a lower surrounding building density results
in a lower air temperature (Fig. 11).
Case with less surrounding building density (additional
11 units of surroundings buildings – Case 9 and Case 11)
has positive impact on the cooling load up to 2.7%
(112 kW h) as compared to the Base Case, in terms of cool-
ing load reduction, as shown in Fig. 12. The figure also
illustrates that more density (additional 14 units of sur-
rounding buildings – Cases 10 and 12) has lesser impact
on the cooling load in terms of reduction. The negative
value, however, shows that at more density condition (Case
10), the cooling load is higher than the Base Case. The
notable increase, nonetheless, is only 0.6% (29 kW h) as
compared to the Base Case. Only after the surrounding
buildings heights are increased, the benefit of surrounding
buildings can be spotted. As found on earlier cases, sur-
rounding buildings help reducing the cooling load by
increasing the wall and surface area (PAVE) and decreas-
ing the SVF, thus increasing the shadowing effect.

4500
4133 4066 4021 3947 3939
4000

3500

3000

2500
total load
KWh

total load reduction

2000

1500

1000

500
186 194
67 112
0
base case case 5 case 6 case 7 case 8

Fig. 9. Total load and total load reduction of Case 5–Case 8.

Fig. 10. Diurnal temperature distributions Case 9–Case 12.

 Author's personal copy

66 N.H. Wong et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 57–71

tion of two parameters related to the surrounding buildings

Fig. 11. Tmax, Tavg and Tmin of Case 9–Case 12.
3.4. Varying combination of surrounding building height and
density
The first combination case being studied is the combina-
tion of surrounding building height and density. Buildings
have always related to increase in wall area, pavement area
(PAVE) and decrease in SVF. As expected, the combina-
4500
4133
4066
4000
is found warmer than the Met data and cooler than the cal-
culated data (Base Case) during the day (Fig. 13). Com-
pared to Base Case, the temperature different are in the
range of 0.7–0.9 °C. Looking at Fig. 14, even though the
difference is not too obvious, the graphs suggest that the
combination of max HEIGHT and max DENSITY has
the lowest Tmax and Tavg, which is likely to happen during
the day. Possible reason is that there is a decrease in the
SVF, which means, it increases the shading area.
As shown in Fig. 15, the surrounding building height
and density have positive impact on the cooling load in
terms of total load reduction. The graph also shows that
there is a reduction of cooling load up to 4.76% in Height
of 15–60 M + Max Density (Case 14) as compared to the
base case.
3.5. Varying greenery density (GnPR) and surrounding
building height (HEIGHT)
Figs. 16 and 17 show the temperature distribution based
on the combination of modified GnPR and surrounding
4162 4085
4021

3500

3000

2500
total load
KWh

2000 total load reduction

1500

1000

500
112
67 48
-29
0
base case case 9 case 10 case 11 case 12
-500

Fig. 12. Total load and total load reduction of Case 9–Case 12.

Fig. 13. Diurnal temperature distributions Case 13–Case 16.

 Author's personal copy

N.H. Wong et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 57–71 67

Between the Case 17 and Case 19, where the GnPR is at

Fig. 14. Tmax, Tavg and Tmin of Case 13–Case 16.
building height. The graph shows that the combination of
max GnPR and max HEIGHT have the lowest Tmax and
Tmin. However, the lowest Tavg is found at the case with
the combination of max GnPR and min HEIGHT. The tem-
perature differences, compared to the Base Case, are found
up to 1.2 °C. The possible reason is the increase of building
height reduces the SVF (shading effect). Once the canyon is
completely shaded by the surrounded buildings, increasing
the HEIGHT will not give any positive impact. The Tavg
starts to increase due to the increase of Wall areas. The high
GnPR, however, helps to balance the negative impact.
4500
4133
3936
4000
the maximum and the HEIGHT varies from maximum to
minimum, there is no significant change in all the temper-
atures. Hence, it can be said that the main governing factor
for the reduction of temperature is still the greenery
(GnPR).
Fig. 18 shows the total load of combination of GnPR
and HEIGHT. Basically, the graph suggests that GnPR
tends to give a positive impact and HEIGHT gives a neg-
ative impact in terms of total cooling reduction. Regardless
the HEIGTH variation, Case 17 and Case 19, which have
max GnPR, show slightly more than 10% (428 kW h and
443 kW h respectively) total cooling load reduction. How-
ever, further investigation shows that max HEIGHT seems
to have more benefit than min HEIGHT as shown in Case
18 and Case 20.
3.6. Varying greenery density (GnPR) and surrounding
building density (DENSITY)
Figs. 19 and 20 show the diurnal temperature, the max,
average and min temperature based on modifying GnPR
and DENSITY values, the temperature distribution seems
to have similar trend to the previous cases when the GnPR
3971 4005 3962

3500

3000

2500
total load
KWh

total load reduction

2000

1500

1000

500
197 162 128 171

0
base case case 13 case 14 case 15 case 16

Fig. 15. Total load and total load reduction of Case 13–Case 16.

Fig. 16. Diurnal temperature distributions Case 17–Case 20.

 Author's personal copy

68 N.H. Wong et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 57–71

GnPR. The increase of building density mainly contributes

Fig. 17. Tmax, Tavg and Tmin of Case 17–Case 20.
to the Tmax. The results further suggest that GnPR is still
the main governing factor to moderate the temperature.
In terms of total load and energy consumption, the com-
bination of GnPR and DENSITY study shows a reduction
on the cooling load (Fig. 21). There is a reduction of cool-
ing load up to 10.74% in Max GnPR and Min Density as
compared to the base case. The graph also shows that
GnPR has the most influence in terms of cooling load
reduction as compared to DENSITY. The min DENSITY,
however, is found giving more positive impact than the
max DENSITY.

and HEIGHT are combined. The lowest temperatures are
found when max GnPR is combined with min DENSITY,
with temperature difference up to 1.2 °C compared to the
Base Case, during daytime. The result supports earlier find-
ing that greenery give positive impact to the environment
due to its shading and DENSITY, which related to build-
ing pavement area, gives negative impact due to increase
of wall surface area and pavement.
Similar to the HEIGHT, the change in DENSITY seems
to show a negative impact. But, it is balanced by the
4500
4133
3972
4000
3705
3.7. Varying all three variable together; GnPR, HEIGHT
and DENSITY
Fig. 22 shows the possible combination of varying
GnPR, HEIGHT and DENSITY. Examining the diurnal
graph, almost all combination cases have a similar pattern.
With the modification of the surrounding condition, which
is governed by the combination of different variables, tends
to give a negative impact to the environment. As found
from the other combination cases, as compared to the
4142
3690

3500

3000

2500

total load
KWh

2000
total load reduction
1500

1000

428 443
500
161
0
base case case 17 case 18 case 19 case 20 -9
-500

Fig. 18. Total load and total load reduction of Case 17–Case 20.

Fig. 19. Diurnal temperature distributions Case 21–Case 24.

 Author's personal copy

N.H. Wong et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 57–71 69

27–30), with other possible combinations, do not show

Fig. 20. Tmax, Tavg and Tmin of Case 21–Case 24.
Met data, all of the comparison cases are found slightly
warmer during the day and cooler during the night. How-
ever, as compared to the Base Case, most of the cases are
found cooler up to 1.1 °C during daytime. However, cases
with dense greenery (max GnPR) and surrounded by more
building (max DENSITY) – Case 25 and Case 26; tend to
have a lower temperature during the day and warmer dur-
ing the night as compared to the other cases. Both of these
parameters likely have the most impact on the diurnal
temperature distribution. Interestingly, other cases (Cases
any differences on the graph. Even, Case with max GnPR
combined with min DENSITY and max HEIGHT (Case
29) or max GnPR, min DENSITY and min HEIGHT
(Case 30) show a similar diurnal trend as compared to
cases with min GnPR (Cases 27, 28, 31 and 32).
Fig. 23 shows the daily average of each case in term of
Tmax, Tavg and Tmin. The graph illustrates that cases with
dense greenery (Cases 25, 26, 29 and 30) tend to have a lower
temperature as compared to other cases. In some extent, sur-
rounding building density and height might have positive
impact to the ambient temperature due its shading effect,
but this effect is very limited and not too obvious. Case 32
with sparse greenery and surrounded by high-density build-
ings are found to be the hottest among all. Interestingly,
when dense greenery is introduced (Case 25), the ambient
temperature found to be lower. This result confirms the find-
ing by Chen and Wong (2006) that greenery can help miti-
gate the temperature in urban area. Fig. 20 also illustrates
that the relationship between the variables shows the tem-
perature is strongly influenced by the GnPR as compared
to other two parameters (HEIGTH + DENSITY).

4500
4133 4118 4069
4000
3725 3689

3500

3000

2500
total load
KWh

total load reduction

2000

1500

1000

408 444
500
15 64
0
base case case 21 case 22 case 23 case 24

Fig. 21. Total load and total load reduction of Case 21–Case 24.

Fig. 22. Diurnal temperature distributions Case 25–Case 32.

 Author's personal copy

70 N.H. Wong et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 57–71

Fig. 23. Tmax, Tavg and Tmin of Case 25–Case 32.

4500
4233 4146
4133 4061 4029
4000
3776 3693 3707 3692

3500

3000

2500
KWh

total load
2000
total load reduction

1500

1000

357 440 426 441

500
72 104
-100 -13
0
base case 25 case 26 case 27 case 28 case 29 case 30 case 31 case 32
-500 case

Fig. 24. Total load and total load reduction of Case 25–Case 32.

Fig. 24 shows the cooling load and the potential of savings
of each combination of GnPR, DENSITY and HEIGT
cases as compared to the base case. Interestingly, cases with
max GnPR (Cases 25, 26, 29 and 30) tend to have a lower
cooling load. As compared to the base case, cases with
max GnPR are able to reduce the total load from 3.60%
(357 kW h) up to 4.40% (441 kW h). The next governing var-
iable that is likely has a positive impact in lowering the cool-
ing load is HEIGHT. Case 27 and Case 28, which have
similar max HEIGHT, are able to reduce the cooling load
up to 0.50% (72 kW h) and 0.77% (104 kW h) respectively.
Looking at the other cases, which have similar max
HEIGHT (Case 25 and Case 29), the combination with
max GnPR shows more positive impacts in terms of savings.
However, the max GnPR cases will have the highest reduc-
tion in terms of total cooling load, if the HEIGHT is at the
minimum (Case 26 and Case 30). The graph also illustrates
that, DENSITY has the least significant impact in lowering
the total cooling load. The DENSITY, however, further
increases the cooling load due to the increase of its value.
4. Conclusions
Urban areas have a large variety of forms and surface
characteristic. Basically, the microclimate of these areas is
influenced by several urban elements, such as the urban
geometry, the greenery, and the properties of surfaces. It
is clear that urban area without a proper use of these ele-
ments is likely contributed to discomfort and inconve-
nience to the people.
Based on the study, the paper conclude a few essential
things, as follows:
1. UHI is a growing concern globally, requiring immediate
address at all levels (macro and micro).
2. Urban morphology has a strong role in determining the
variations that you can have in the temperature at the
micro level (microclimate).
3. Variables such as GnPR, HEIGHT and DENSITY
show a high degree of impact in altering the temperature
or microclimate of any location.
4. The degree of impact on the air temperature can be up
0.9–1.2 °C
5. Each of the identified variables has a varying degree of
impact. The highest impact is GnPR due to shading
effect of trees followed by HEIGHT and DENSITY.
6. The effect of GnPR overrides the effect of the other vari-
ables – height and density in all the identified cases,
proving the importance of greenery in altering the
microclimate condition.
7. The cooling load reduction due to the impact of the vari-
ables is in the range of 5–10% if addressed effectively
8. These savings are achieved by only altering the urban
morphology.
 Author's personal copy
N.H. Wong et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 57–71
9. The savings can be further improved by addressing the
issue of heat gain at building level. This can be done
through the adoption of effective facßade systems and
shading devices for the envelope coupled with other
energy saving technologies in the building system espe-
cially the mechanical system.
Although 5% may seem a small percentage of energy
saving, a note should be taken that this saving is only from
one building. This energy saving can be compounded when
we see it at the macro level with all of the buildings have
the potential to save energy by 5% due to only by a proper
master plan design. When the building design aspect is also
addressed, we can expect to get a higher energy saving
potential.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge World Future
Foundation for supporting this research.
References
Akbari, H., Davis, S., Dorsano, S., Huang, J., Winnett, S., (Eds.), 1992.
Cooling Our Communities: A Guidebook on Tree Planting and Light
Colored Surfacing. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Policy Analysis, Climate Change Division. Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory Report No. LBL-31587.
Akbari, H., Pomerantz, M., Taha, H., 2001. Cool surfaces and shade trees
to reduce energy use and improve air quality in urban areas. Solar
Energy 70, 295–310.
Chen, Y., Wong, N.H., 2006. Thermal benefits of city parks. Energy and
Buildings 38, 105–120.
Doulos, L., Santamouris, M., Livada, I., 2004. Passive cooling of outdoor
urban spaces. The role of materials. Solar Energy 77, 231–249.
Eliasson, I., 1996. Urban nocturnal temperatures, street geometry and
land use. Atmospheric Environment 30, 379–392.
Giridharan, R., Lau, S.S.Y., Ganesan, S., Givoni, B., 2007. Urban design
factor influencing heat island intensity in high rise high density
environment of Hong Kong. Building and Environment 42, 3669–
3684.
Jusuf, S.K., Wong, N.H., 2009. Development of empirical models for an
estate level air temperature prediction in Singapore. In: Proceeding of
71
Second International Conference on Countermeasures to Urban Heat
Islands. Barkley, California, USA. <http://heatisland2009.lbl.gov/
docs/221410-jusuf-doc.pdf>.
Jusuf, S.K., Wong, N.H., Hagen, E., Anggoro, R., Yan, H., 2007. The
influence of land use on the urban heat island in Singapore. Habitat
International 31, 232–242.
Kolokotroni, M., Giannitsaris, I., Watkins, R., 2005. The effect of the
London urban heat island on building summer cooling demand and
night ventilation strategies. Solar Energy 80, 383–392.
Kolokotroni, M., Zhang, Y., Watkins, R., 2007. The London heat island
and building cooling design. Solar Energy 81, 102–110.
Landsberg, H.E., 1981. The Urban Climate. Academic Press, New York.
Oke, T.R., Eas, C., 1971. The urban boundary layer in Mountreal.
Boundary Layer Meteorology 1, 411–437.
Ong, B.L., 2003. Green plot ratio: an ecological measure for architecture
and urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 63, 197–211.
Padmanabhamurty, 1990/1991. Microclimates in tropical urban com-
plexes. Energy and Buildings 15, 83–92.
Sani, S., 1990/1991. Urban climatology in Malaysia: an overview. Energy
and Buildings 15, 105–117.
Santamauris, M., Papanikolaou, N., Livada, I., Koronakis, I.,
Geogarkis, C., Assimakopoulos, D.N., 2001. On the impact of
urban climate to energy consumption of buildings. Solar Energy
70 (3), 201–216.
Shashua-Bar, L., Tsiros, I.X., Hoffmann, M.E., 2010. A modeling study
for evaluating passive cooling scenarios in urban streets with trees, case
study: Athens, Greece. Building and Environment 45, 2798–2807.
Taha, B., 1997. Modeling the impacts of large-scale albedo changes on
ozone air quality in the South Coast air basin. Atmospheric Environ-
ment 31, 1667–1676.
Tso, C.P., 1994. The impact of urban development on thermal environ-
ment of Singapore. In: The Report of the Technical Conference on
Tropical Urban Climates. WMO, Dhaka.
Wong, N.H., Chen, Y., 2009. Tropical Urban Heat Islands: Climate
Building and Greenery. Taylor and Francis, UK.
Wong, N.H., Jusuf, S.K., 2008a. An assessment method for existing
greenery conditions in a university campus. Architectural Science
Review 51 (3), 116–126.
Wong, N.H., Jusuf, S.K., 2008b. GIS-based greenery evaluation on
campus master plan. Landscape and Urban Planning 84, 166–182.
Wong, N.H., Jusuf, S.K., 2010. Air temperature distribution and the
influence of sky view factor in a green Singapore estate. Journal of
Urban Planning & Development 136, 1–12.
Wong, N.H., Alex, Y.K.T., Tan, P.Y., Wong, N.C., 2009. Energy
simulations on vertical greenery systems. Energy and Buildings 41,
1401–1408.