Potential for Application of Retroreflective Materials instead of Highly Reflective Materials for Urban Heat Island Mitigation

Table 2

Summary of influence of HR envelopes on energy consumption.

Reference	Methodology	Building type/region	Energy consumption
[42]	Using WRF modeling system.	Urban regional climate simulations in U.S.	Winter heating penalty can reduce and roll back or even exceed cooling energy savings in summer.
[43]	Using DOE-2 model.	Residential and commercial simulation buildings of 11 U.S. metropolitan statistical areas.	The total savings for all 11 metropolitan statistical areas are annual electricity savings, 2.6 TWh; peak electricity demand savings, 1.7 GW.
[44]	Using DOE2.1-E model.	Four commercial building prototypes simulations in 236 US cities.	3.3–7.69 kWh/m^2 energy saving for annual cooling, 0.003–0.065 therm/m^2 heating penalty for 236 cities in U.S.
[45]	Applying the Temperatures of Urban Facets in 3D (TUF3D) model.	TUF3D model simulation domain with buildings and ground with 25 buildings in Southern California.	Overall building design cooling loads near artificial turf (AT) decrease by 15%–20%. The irrigation water conservation with AT causes embodied energy savings of 10 Wh/m^2·day. Radiative energy from ground to wall increases with increasing the albedo of the nearby ground materials.
[46]	Using EnergyPlus software.	Residential simulation buildings in different localities at Mediterranean latitudes.	Annual energy savings range from −13.7% to 41.7%.
[47]	Applying Simplified Transient Analysis of Roofs (STAR) computer code.	Simulations in 16 California climate zones.	Cooling load decreased by about 38% per year; heating penalty increased by about 8.1% per year for Climate Zone 12.