Innovative Learning Environments
The Role of Energy-Efficient
Investments in Russian Preschool Education Facilities
(A Case Study of the Khanty-Mansyisk
Region)
Tigran Shmis, Dmitry Chugunov, Maria Ustinova and Jure Kotnik
JEL classification codes:
I25 Education and
Economic Development
I28 Government Policy
H52 Government
Expenditures and Education
O31 Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
Abstract
This paper discusses an example of
an early childhood development facility intervention in the Khanty-Mansyisk
region of the Russian Federation and its potential to produce efficiency gains
in the region and the country overall. The government of the region is
introducing changes to the built environment of its early childhood development
centers. The proposed new design is based on the concept of the learning
environment as a third teacher. The smaller footprint of the new buildings will
increase the amount of active space per child, and the new design will include
energy efficiency measures. The economic impact of these measures will reduce
operating costs throughout the lifecycle of the building and provide strong
evidence to education policy makers in the rest of the region and the country
as a whole in favor of child-centered, healthy, and energy efficient early
childhood development infrastructure.
Keywords: Early childhood development, innovative learning environment, preschool
education facilities, child-centered design, energy-efficiency, efficient
investments, cost-benefit analysis
Introduction
The demand for high-quality early childhood
development (ECD) support is growing in Eastern Europe and
Central Asia. Indeed, many post-transition
countries have similar issues in regard to preschool service delivery and the
provision of educational facilities. In the Russian Federation, ECD remains a
high priority for federal and regional policy makers. According to national
statistics, 66.2 percent of children aged 0 to 7 are enrolled in the Russian
early childhood education system (UniSIS, 2015). The Russian government
recently introduced a set of reforms to improve the quality of the early
childhood education system and its operational management at the regional level
(Bennett et al, 2012). The new federal state standard of preschool education,
adopted in 2013 (Government of the Russian Federation, 2013), required regional
ECD systems to become more child-centered, diverse, and flexible in terms of
their content and learning environments. Furthermore, aiming to increase
enrollment in kindergartens, the Russian federal government has introduced
policy interventions to support the new construction and the maintenance of
existing educational facilities in the regions, as well as to equip the
kindergartens with relevant modern technology. At the same time that these
federal initiatives are happening, many policy makers at the regional level
strive to reduce the construction and operating costs related to preschool
facilities.
This paper is the first attempt to reflect on the
practical application of the new ECD standard norms to the design of preschools
in Russia. Starting in 2013, the World Bank and the Department of Education and
Youth Policy of the Khanty Mansyisk Autonomous Region of Russia (hereinafter
referred to as Khanty-Mansyisk) began a pilot project aimed at increasing the
efficiency and improving the quality of the region’s ECD system by introducing
an innovative design in its preschool education facilities to foster modern
pedagogy and learning. The project also aimed to use cost- and energy-efficient
approaches in the construction process and, thus, to reduce expenditures on
electricity and heating as well as the kindergartens’ operational and
maintenance costs.
In this paper, we examine the proposed design of
the new type of learning environment in detail as it would be implemented in a
kindergarten with a capacity of 220 places in Beloyarski City. Based on this
example, we argue that converting the spatial arrangement of preschool
facilities into a more open learning environment may improve the quality of the
every-day learning process. A more open learning environment can stimulate
better communication among children, facilitate stronger cooperation between
children and the pedagogical staff, and improve current teaching practices. By
comparing the use of energy and heating in the pilot kindergarten with the
consumption of those still laid out in the traditional way, we found that the
new approach to the design of ECD facilities is less costly and more
energy-efficient, which is a strong argument in favor of child centered ECD
infrastructure design.
Creating New Learning Environments
To understand the importance of the learning
environment, we first look closely at the process of child development and
learning. A child goes through various biological and psychological changes,
acquiring certain physical characteristics, language, cognitive and
socio-emotional skills. Every child develops and learns differently. Many
well-known pedagogical experts, such as Rudolph Steiner, Maria Montessori, and
Jean Piaget, have highlighted the importance of developmental stages defined by
age and the fact that education should respect the natural development of
children, reflecting their needs and supporting their independent exploration
(Scott, 2010). A child should take an active and self-directing role in the
learning process. According to Lev Vygotsky, another fundamental aspect of
children’s cognitive development is their social interaction with their
teachers or parents (Vygotsky, 1978). Also, recent research in learning science
has shown that collaboration within the child’s group of peers can accelerate
his or her learning (Sawyer, 2006). However, the most important activity to
foster a child’s cognitive development, creativity, social cooperation,
flexibility, and learning is play. Therefore, the roles of the curriculum and
the teacher are to support and facilitate this learning process, and the
environment is the spatial framework for this process. Based on the approach of
the Italian pedagogue Loris Malaguzzi, this learning environment can become a
third element in the teaching process, representing not only a tool for
educators but also a source for the child’s own discoveries and experiences
(Cagliari et al, 2016). Architect and researcher Christopher Day (Day et al,
2007) has pointed out that our environment influences the way that we think,
feel, and act. The environment shapes our habits, beliefs, and values and can
encourage our physical, mental, and social development. Overall, the built
learning environment has a spillover effect on the agency and executive
function of children, increasing their ability to learn (Presсott et al, 1967;
White and Stoeklin, 2003, and Maxwell, 2007). Thus, indoor areas such as
playrooms and group spaces and outdoor areas such as playgrounds in
kindergartens designed in accordance with the pedagogical concept of this
preschool facility and children’s developmental needs are essential to any
high-quality preschool system.
Although there is still only limited evidence on
the connection between types of learning environments and the learning outcomes
of children, we have a good idea of what constitutes a good quality learning
environment and about how it has a positive impact on a child’s development.
Nowadays, many preschools in OECD countries are designed to allow children to communicate
with each other and to share common activities in open environments with
multifunctional equipment that is always accessible to make maximum use of the
kindergarten space. One of the notable differences from traditional
kindergarten design is the avoidance of a complex system of closed corridors,
which are replaced by central multi-use spaces in an open configuration. As
shown in Figure 1, this open spatial configuration can play the same role in a
kindergarten as a main square plays in a city (Ceppi and Zini, 2001). Given
that children learn in different ways, this new open kindergarten design caters
to all kinds of learning modes, from active to calm spaces and from dynamic
group spaces to more individual areas (such as resting and reading corners).
Figure 1: Changes in the Educational
Environment from the Institutional Typology (left) to the Educational Landscape
Typology (right)
Studies in the United States have shown that the
spatial configurations of education facilities as well as their noise,
temperature, light, and air quality all affect children’s learning and
children’s and educators’ abilities to perform (Schneider, 2002). For instance,
one study found that an improvement in school conditions from extremely bad to
good led to an increase of approximately 10 percent of a standard deviation in
children’s learning achievements (Michaelowa and Wechtler, 2006). Further
research has shown a positive correlation between a high-quality preschool
physical environment and improved academic achievement among children from
low-income families (Mashburn et al, 2008). The spatial arrangement of
kindergarten rooms can affect how children play and behave, and if there is a
high density of children in a kindergarten, this can lead to aggressive or
destructive behavior (Rohe and Paterson, 1974 and Kantrowitzand Evans, 2004).
The “biophilia effect,” which represents human exposure to images of nature and
green vegetation in their surroundings, can improve learning and working conditions
inside the building, as well as withstanding the influence of harsh weather
conditions outside (Lidwell et al, 2010).
According to studies of the relationship between
sports activities and brain functions, physical activity also fosters
children’s mental development so designing spaces for children to be physically
active is very important for increasing their cognitive abilities and improving
their learning performance (Meyer and Gullotta, 2012). A study of the impact of
outdoor environments in 11 preschools in Stockholm has shown that a spacious
area with vegetation, shrubbery, and broken ground can increase physical activity
among children and improve their health (Boldeman et al, 2006). Another study,
conducted in 36 primary schools in Spain, showed that exposure to the green
environment within and around the educational institution can also improve
children’s working memory and reduce inattentiveness (Dadvand et al, 2015). The
“Clever Classrooms” study conducted in UK suggests that the physical
characteristics of classrooms may explain up to 16 percent of the differences
in the learning outcomes of children (Barrett et al, 2015). In short, the
evidence is overwhelming that the physical environment can significantly affect
child development from an early age.
While most of the recent global focus on changes
in kindergarten architecture has been on increasing play, there has also been
an emphasis on sustainable construction, the thoughtful selection of building
materials, and the energy efficiency of facilities from the construction phase
through to their day-to-day operations. How much energy buildings use is
affected by their different design and operational characteristics? Studies
have shown that the largest amount of energy consumption occurs while the
building is being used rather than in the construction phase (Sartori and
Hestnes, 2006). Buildings can become more energy efficient through the careful
design and implementation of best practices in the following parameters: (i)
the building’s form and orientation; (ii) insulation; (iii) natural
ventilation; (iv) Construction materials; (v) daylight illumination; and (vi)
the installation of high-quality doors and windows. An effective building
envelope enables the use of highly efficient equipment and energy sources such
as low temperature waste heat, heat pumps, and renewable energy (IEA, 2017). In
recent years, many countries have developed new energy standards for buildings
aimed at stimulating the efficient use of energy and promoting the use of
renewable energy sources (Hegger et al, 2016).
As Table 1 shows, a sample of energy efficient
kindergartens and schools from several countries suggests that there is
potential for a 50 to 70 percent reduction in thermal energy consumption for
space heating, while the energy consumed by equipment and lighting can be
reduced by an average of 30 percent.
Table 1:
Energy Consumption in Energy-efficient Schools and Kindergartens in Various
Countries
|
|
Energy consumption (kWh/m2/year )
|
Heating (kWh/m2/year)
|
Electricity (kWh/m2/ year) |
Reduction in consumption for |
|
|
Heating (kWh/m2/ year) |
Electricity (kWh/m2 |
||||
|
Bulgaria |
|
|
|
|
/ ) |
|
Dobrich: Pilot reconstruction project |
99.5 |
n/a |
n/a |
by 53% |
|
|
Norway |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nardo School, Trondheim: Reconstruction of primary school |
99 |
29 |
43 |
by 70% |
n/a |
|
Austria |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kramsach, Tyrol: Construction of energy-efficient kindergarten |
n/a |
14 |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
|
China |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beijing: Green micro energy consumption kindergarten |
68 |
12 |
40 |
n/a |
n/a |
|
Denmark |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vejtoften, Høje-Taastrup, Denmark: Reconstruction of kindergarten |
n/a |
69 |
n/a |
by 54% |
n/a |
|
Ballerup: Reconstruction of Egebjerg School (1997) |
109.3 |
87.3 |
22 |
by 50% |
by 30% |
Given the fact that, in Russia, the government funds ECD
institutions, federal and regional policy makers often welcome the opportunity
to save public money by using these new technologies so that they may be able
to reallocate the saved expenditures to enhance other areas of child
development and early learning.
Current Design of and Energy Use in Russian Kindergartens
The traditional approach to kindergarten design in
Russia was to create a single room for each activity, which usually transformed
a preschool facility into a labyrinth of corridors and separate rooms. This
particular spatial arrangement has been reinforced by current sanitary and fire
regulations, which are designed to protect children from diseases, to ensure
their safety, and to prevent any possible risks. These regulations are based on
the “group isolation” principle, which discourages the mixing of different
groups within the school (generally, a group consists of 15 to 30 children and
one or two teachers).
A usual day in a Russian kindergarten is very
structured, as are the learning activities and games, which are mainly directed
by the teacher. The current teaching practices are strongly correlated with the
traditional spatial organization of a kindergarten and define the interaction
between the adult teacher and the children, which is often very formal and
involves the teacher-oriented form of education. Moreover, Russia is the only
country in Europe which requires: (i) the presence of medical staff in
kindergartens; (ii) a daily check of the health of the children as they arrive
at the kindergarten; and (iii) the principle of “group isolation.” Given the
emphasis that the Russian education system puts on ensuring children’s health
and well-being in ECE facilities, the principle of “group isolation” has
several limitations. The first two limitations relate to a lack of physical
development: (i) the children have little space to run and move, and (ii) the
limited size of the room increases the risk of a disease spreading. However,
the major issue is inefficiency in the use of space. For example, Danish
kindergartens are usually 40 percent smaller in terms of overall space than
Russian kindergartens (around 10 square meters per child versus around 20
square meters per child). However, there is up to four times more so-called
“active space” –– the space available for boys and girls at any time ––in
Danish preschools than in Russia’s (2.5 square meters per child compared with 7
to 8 square meters per child) (Shmis et al, 2014). Thus, adopting these
proportions in Russia preschools would generate tremendous savings in terms of
both space and costs.
Another way to save public funds would be to
increase the energy efficiency of educational facilities, which have the
greatest technical potential for energy conservation in comparison to other
types of buildings. Overall, the building sector in Russia is the largest
consumer of energy, mostly due to inefficient design and long heating seasons
(Bashmakov, 2017and Lychuk et al, 2012). The largest share of consumption comes
from district heating.[1]
According to the Government of Russia, the country possesses very old heating
infrastructure, which is in critical condition and needs replacement. “Ninety percent of power stations, 70 percent
of water boilers, 70 percent of electric grid technologies, and 66 percent of
district heating networks were constructed before 1990” (Lychuk et al, 2012).
International assessments have shown that losses from district heating systems
can be as high as 60 percent, but those in OECD countries account for only 20
percent because they have led the way in adopting modern, energy-efficient
systems and appliances (IEA, 2014). While the number of energy-efficient
buildings in the Russian public sector (including schools, social and medical
facilities) is low, this indicates that there is great potential for energy
savings. For example, only 16.9 percent of all public sector facilities in
Russia obtain at least the D-level (standard) class of energy efficiency, while
84 percent fall into the E (least efficient), F (low), and G (very low) energy
efficient classes (Russian Ministry of Energy, 2017b).
A review of 3,069 preschools in eight federal
administrative districts of Russia showed a trend of increasing energy
consumption, with the largest consumption again accounted for by heating
(Russian Ministry of Education and Science, 2013). More recent data by the
Russian Ministry of Energy confirms that annual levels of consumption of
thermal energy and electricity by public education facilities are steadily
growing in almost all
Russian regions (Russian
Ministry of Energy, 2017b).
Educational institutions consume maximum four
types of energy: (i) electricity; (ii) thermal energy (delivered through the
transmission networks usually in the form of hot water); (iii) hot water; and
(iv) natural gas (although the number of institutions using gas is negligible).
Most of the energy used in education facilities is for space and water
heating.
There are very few energy audit research studies
of preschool educational facilities, but even these sparse findings indicate
that there is an existing potential for energy savings. For example, an energy
audit and energy consumption analysis of 10 operating kindergartens connected
to the district heating transmission networks in Saint-Petersburg showed that
the actual heat losses of the kindergarten buildings exceeded the normative
standard by 30 to 40 percent. Many buildings are over-heated due to the
degraded condition of buildings, a lack of thermal insulation, poor energy
management, and the absence of any controls or meters to regulate the temperature
(Vatin and Nemova, 2012). According to Moscow City data, the technical
potential for thermal energy savings in education facilities in Moscow
constitutes 25 to 80 percent, especially in heating (35 to 70 percent) and
electricity (15 to 25 percent) (Guzhov, 2012). According to the estimates of
the International Finance Corporation and the World Bank, the overall technical
potential for energy savings in educational institutions in Russia might be as
much as 80 percent (IFC/World Bank, 2008).
Some Russian preschool buildings have had some
energy-efficient retrofitting done, but the most popular measures have been the
reinforcement and thermal insulation of doors and windows rather than an
upgrade of the overall envelope of a kindergarten building (Russian Ministry of
Education and Science, 2013). Any rehabilitation of heating systems has tended
to involve the installation of metering equipment rather than of new heating
transmission systems (only 25 percent of buildings are equipped). Also,
upgrades of electrical energy systems have mostly involved simply upgrading
lighting equipment.
In fact, there is much potential for making energy savings in the lighting of educational facilities. The Global Environment Facility, a worldwide partnership for addressing environmental problems, has estimated that public buildings (including educational facilities) could potentially save 41.6 percent of their annual consumption of energy for lighting (Lychuk et al, 2012). However, research on energy-efficient policies in Russian preschool facilities has shown that very few have invested in LED-bulbs/lumps and occupancy sensors (18 percent and 8 percent respectively) both in urban and rural areas (Russian Ministry of Education and Science, 2013).
Novelty of the New Kindergarten Design in
the Khanty-Mansyisk Autonomous Region and Its Potential Educational Impact
Located in Western Siberia, Khanty-Mansyisk is one
of the few Russian regions, where population growth has been steady, even
during the economic shocks of the 1990s. The percentage of children aged 1 to 7
years old covered by ECD services remained stable for several years at around
58 percent (58.6 percent in 2005 to 58.8 percent in 2013). However, in
2014-2015, coverage increased to 67.6 percent (UniSIS, 2015). Due to high birth
rates, there is a growing need for additional spaces in preschool facilities.
There are 422 official preschool institutions in the region, and their
operations costs are rising (Department of Education and Youth Policy of
Khanty-Mansyisk, 2017 and
Koveshnikova, 2013).
According to Russia’s national ECD standard
(Government of the Russian Federation, 2013), the learning environment in
kindergartens should meet the following main requirements:
·
It should maximize the educational potential of
the building and land plot.
·
It should stimulate and promote communication
between children, as well as between children and adults of different ages.
·
It should be rich, flexible, accessible,
inclusive, multifunctional, and safe and should support the variety of
children’s needs, provide a range of educational programs, and take into
account the social and climatic characteristics of the area where the
kindergarten is located.
To address these requirements, the team City-Arch[1]
designing the new energy-efficient kindergarten in Beloyarski City of the
Khanty-Mansyisk Region incorporated
several important elements including a multifunctional open space, playrooms
combined with sleeping areas, and design elements to increase the building’s
transparency (for example, the glass doors or glass elements in the walls of
the corridors). In addition, they grouped all functional zones in a specific
order to make them accessible for children and to allow optimal use of space
for learning and play activities.
In the new design, a multifunctional open space is
located in the center of the building replaces traditional corridors to serve
as a connecting point where all users of the building can meet during the day
and use it for various meetings, theater, and music activities. As shown in
Figure 2, all of the different groups’ rooms (marked in green) have separate
entrances that lead to the multifunctional open space (marked in gray). This
open area will have different zones for individual and group activities and
will thus be able to accommodate different aspects of the learning process.
Figure 2: The Floor Plan of the Proposed New Kindergarten in Beloyarski city
As seen in Figure 3, the upper floor will be
connected to the multifunctional open space on the lower floor by a chute that
can be used as a slide by children during the day to encourage physical
activity. In contrast with the “isolated” group rooms, this multifunctional
open space will increase interaction among children and between children and
the teachers, strengthen the kindergarten community, and provide more space for
play and joint educational activities.
The walls of the group rooms will incorporate
transparent glass to provide visual connections between the group spaces and
the multifunctional open space. This arrangement will enable children to
observe other activities being carried out by their peers and will allow for
more frequent communication between children of different ages. Figure
3: Multifunctional Space in the New Kindergarten Design
Combining the playroom and the sleeping room will
reduce the kindergarten’s total area but will increase the space available
inside the playroom from an average of 2.5 square meters to 4 square meters per
child (assuming each group contains 20 children). The zones for eating and
changing clothes are incorporated into the playroom common area. Increasing the
size of the playroom will not only give children more space to play but will
also make it possible to arrange the space in different ways. Including the
multifunctional open hall, the overall active space per child will amount to
10.5 square meters.
The arrangement of the outdoor landscape in the
proposed design is based on making the outside space a complementary learning
and developmental environment for children. To make the playground area as
large as possible, the designers have positioned the new kindergarten building
close to the border of the land plot instead of in the center of the land plot,
which is the traditional placement. Although, under the group isolation
principle, a separate playground would be provided for each group of children
with all of these little playgrounds looking identical, the designers of the
new kindergartens suggested making each group’s playground in a different style
and based on a specific activity. Moving the groups of children around these
different playgrounds according to the daily curriculum schedule will expand
the children’s learning experiences and involve them in various play
activities.
When the kindergarten in Beloyarski City featuring
this new learning environment is constructed, it will be necessary to provide
additional training to the teaching staff to enhance their professional skills
and to ensure the learning environment is used to its full capacity.
It will also be necessary to carry out the
post-occupancy evaluation including all active users of the facility: children,
pedagogues, administrative staff, and parents. During these assessments, the
above-mentioned hypothesizes may be tested providing additional qualitative and
qualitative information for further research.
Potential Energy Savings from the Hypothetical Application
of the New Design to a Kindergarten in Beloyarski City
To analyze the energy savings that might be
achievable when new kindergarten is constructed in the Khanty-Mansyisk region
in accordance with this new design, we looked at the existing Semitsvetik
kindergarten in Beloyarski City, which has a total capacity of 220 children and
whose facilities include a swimming pool. We chose this particular
kindergarten, because it represents a typical modular preschool facility in the
same municipality and has the same capacity (number of children) as the new
one.
We analyzed the layout, dimensions, and energy use
of the existing Semitsvetik kindergarten building as of 2013, and these
characteristics are presented in Table 2. The data came from Beloyarski City
administration, as well as City Arch, the engineering design company that
designed Semitsvetik kindergarten and developed the proposed new design for ECD
facility in Beloyarski City.
Table 2: Characteristics of the Semitsvetik
Kindergarten, 2013
|
Gross heated floor area |
4,713.1 square meters |
|
Capacity |
220 people |
|
Actual heating system |
Single-tube horizontal adjustable heating system connected to the district heat transmission network through an individual heating station built in the basement of the kindergarten. The cast-iron radiators and individual heating station are equipped with automatic temperature controllers. Heat-transfer fluid – water with the temperature ranging between 95 and 70 С. |
|
Actual floor heating system |
The heated floors are installed in the playrooms on the 1st floor, in the swimming pool, as well as in the resting and changing rooms near the swimming pool area. Water temperature is controlled at the individual heating station. Heat-transfer fluid – water with the temperature ranging between 30 and 40 С. |
|
Actual ventilation system |
Plenum-and-exhaust ventilation system with mechanical forced and natural convection, as well as a local exhaust ventilation near the areas of harmful emissions. Heat-transfer fluid – water with the temperature ranging between 70 and 95 С. |
|
Actual lighting system |
Kindergarten building is equipped with normal and emergency lighting delivered by general and combined lighting systems. For repair purposes, portable lighting is provided. The main sources of light are fluorescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, and incandescent lamps. The lighting equipment is controlled by tumbler switches. The power consumption for lighting is set at 80.3 kW. |
|
Gross consumption of electricity |
218,843.00 kW-h |
|
Gross consumption of thermal energy |
860,641.77 kWh |
|
Expenditures on electricity |
RUR 806,634 (US$25,350) |
|
Expenditures on thermal energy |
RUR 916,554 (US$28,804) |
|
Consumption of thermal energy per m² |
182.6 kWh/m² |
|
Consumption of electricity per m² |
46.4 kWh/ m² |
City Arch also informed us about the planned
engineering systems for the proposed new kindergarten in Beloyarski City and
with their projections of the consumption of thermal energy and electricity.
Their estimates were peer reviewed and approved by the Regional Construction
Supervision Agency of the Khanty-Mansyisk Autonomous Region. These data are presented
in Table 3 (DSSPDP, 2017).
Table 3: Characteristics of the Proposed New
Kindergarten in Beloyarski City [check] (as approved by the Construction Supervision
Agency)
|
Gross heated floor area |
3, 238 square meters |
|
Capacity |
220 people |
|
Planned heating system |
Double-tube horizontal adjustable heating system connected to the district heat transmission network through an automatic individual heating station using an independent scheme. This will make it possible to maintain hydraulic and thermal conditions for the internal heat supply system as well as to self-regulate heating and ventilation depending on the outside-air temperature. The building will be equipped with steel radiators with thermostatic valves. Heat-transfer fluid – water with the temperature ranging between 60 and 80 С. Different elements for calculating, controlling, and managing heat consumption will be installed in the individual heating station. |
|
Planned floor heating system |
Playrooms, sanitary rooms, changing rooms, the open playing space, the sports hall, and the swimming pool will have heated floors. The temperature in each room will be adjusted by the temperature controllers. Heat-transfer fluid – water with the temperature ranging between 80 and 60 С and the floor will reach 30/35 C through the water mixing units. |
|
Planned ventilation system |
Plenum-and-exhaust ventilation system with mechanical forced convection and exhaust air heat recovery. To save thermal and electrical energy, expelling ventilation will be used, a supply of fresh air will be provided to the playrooms, exhaust - through the changing rooms and sanitary areas. Automatic control of air consumption done by CO2 sensors will be installed in the playrooms, changing rooms, the open space play area, and the sports hall. For the hot summer periods, an additional cooling system for the ventilation units will be in place. The ventilation and cooling system will be fully automatic with an option of remote control/temperature management. |
|
Planned lighting system |
Electrical equipment with energy consumption of class A and A + will be provided. On the premises of the kindergarten, lamps with energy-efficient bulbs and controls that are automatically responsive to the level of daylight will be installed. |
|
Projected consumption of electricity |
83,585 кWh |
|
Projected consumption of thermal energy |
179,215 кWh |
|
Consumption of thermal energy per m² |
55.3 kWh/m² |
|
Consumption of electricity per m² |
25.8 kWh/m² |
The breakdown of electricity and thermal energy
consumption is provided in Figure 4 below. Energy consumption is inversely
related to the length of daylight and outdoor temperature. The coefficient
correlations of these indicators range from -0.69 to -0.85. The 2013 estimates
for the Semitsvetik kindergarten show that the monthly distribution of energy
consumption is uneven and may depend not just on weather conditions but on
other factors as well such as various inefficiencies due to the building’s
condition and design, the improper operation and maintenance of the building,
and/or its users’ behavior. International best practices derived from energy
efficiency projects for kindergartens and schools show that energy efficiency
can be achieved by introducing automated control systems and energy accounting.
A best practice example in an educational institution in Norway is shown in
Figure 5 below.
Figure 4:
Energy Consumption by the Semitsvetik Kindergarten and the Distribution of
Temperature and Daylight Hours in Beloyarsky City, KhantyMansyisk, 2013
Figure 5: Energy Consumption of an Energy-efficient Elementary School and the Distribution of Temperature in Trondheim, Norway, [what year?]
Electricity and thermal energy consumption at the
Semitsvetik kindergarten seem excessive. Based on the 2013 data, average annual
consumption of thermal energy and electricity per square meter in the
kindergarten was approximately 182.6 kWh and 46.4 kWh respectively. The most
energy-efficient kindergartens consume no more than 68 kWh per square meter per
year. The most successful energy efficiency projects (a kindergarten in Austria
and a primary school in Denmark) managed to reduce thermal energy consumption
to 14 kWh/m² and electricity to 22 kWh/m² respectively. The existing
kindergarten in Beloyarski City consumes 13 times more thermal energy and three
times more electricity than the most energy-efficient kindergarten and school
buildings.
Achieving energy efficiency depends considerably
on the conditions in educational institutions, including the availability of
materials and technologies, logistics, and the specific character and climate
of the area. Therefore, with this
information, we conducted a cost-benefit analysis specifically of building a
new energy-efficient kindergarten facility in Beloyarski City.
The operating costs of
the Semitsvetik kindergarten in 2013 were RUR 2.2 million
(US$69,000). This included expenditures on
electricity and thermal energy, which totaled RUR 806,634.49 (US$25,357) and
RUR 916,554.21 (US$28,813) respectively. Consequently, increasing the energy
efficiency of the kindergarten by 1 percent would save up to roughly RUR 17,000
(US$534) annually. The proposed new design will also reduce the heated floor
areas by one-third (from 4,713 to 3,238 square meters), resulting in additional
savings.
We devised three scenarios to quantify the
benefits as high, moderate, or low. Depending on which scenario is applied
during the construction of the new energy-efficient building, thermal energy
consumption will be reduced by approximately 70 percent, 50 percent, or 30
percent respectively, and electricity consumption will be reduced by
approximately 44 percent, 22 percent, and 11 percent respectively. We arrived
at these estimates based on (i) the characteristics of the new kindergarten
from the technical design documentation and (ii) international best practice
examples of energy-efficient schools. According to the technical design
documentation, thermal energy consumption in the new kindergarten is expected
to be 55.3 kWh/m², and electricity consumption is projected to be 25.8 kWh/m²
(70 percent and 44 percent less than in the existing Semitsvetik kindergarten
respectively) (DSSPDP, 2017). The two best practice examples were the
reconstruction of a primary school in Nardo School, Trondheim, Norway, which reduced
energy consumption of thermal energy by 70 percent, and the reconstruction of
Egebjerg School in Ballerup, Denmark, which reduced thermal energy consumption
by 50 percent and electricity consumption by 30 percent.
Table 4: Total Benefits from Investing in the Construction of an Energy-efficient Kindergarten in Khanty-Mansyisk under Three Scenarios
|
Scenario |
Operations costs |
Savings (over 50 years), million RUR, US$ |
Savings (RUR per place), % |
||
|
thermal energy |
Electricity |
||||
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
(5) |
(6) |
|
High (as designed) |
70% |
44% |
70.2 |
2.2 |
28.3% |
|
Moderate |
50% |
22% |
46.1 |
1.4 |
18.1% |
|
Low |
30% |
11% |
41.1 |
1.3 |
10.3% |
We found that proper design and project planning
can save up to RUR 70.2 million (US$2.2 million) in energy consumption costs
during the lifecycle of a kindergarten. With the kindergarten’s construction
cost being RUR 1,1 million (US$34,580) per child, the potential savings as the
result of the proposed new design are equivalent to 63 more places for
children.
Conclusions
The kindergarten design project in the
Khanty-Mansyisk Autonomous Region aims to introduce conceptually new
child-centered learning environments to Russian architectural design practice.
Such environments are consistent with the requirements of federal state
educational standards for early childhood development in terms of
accessibility, flexibility, and multifunctionality, and create opportunities
for children to participate actively in their personal development. These
changes in the design of ECD facilities will provide more learning
opportunities, encourage better communication among children and between the
children and the teachers, and enable the optimal use of the built space for
each child. In traditional kindergartens, indoor space was used ineffectively,
but the new design will make it possible to create flexible and larger spaces
for children to play – increasing from an average of 2.5 square meters to 10.5
square meters of active space per child. At the same time, the footprint and
the overall space of the building will be decreased from 4,713 square meters to
3,238 square meters in the new kindergartens.
The cost-benefit analysis of the design
interventions and the application of energyefficiency technologies give us a
preliminary understanding of the potential economic outcomes of the pilot
project. The new energy-efficiency concept will reduce the costs of using and operating
the buildings. In addition, optimizing the space might also reduce the
construction costs of the building. Our research findings suggest that the
decreased consumption of electricity and thermal energy in the proposed new
kindergarten could generate up to RUR 70.2 million (US$2.2 million) in savings
over 50 years, including lower operating costs. This finding sends an important
message to other public building developers about the need to focus on getting
“more from less” from public spending.
It is important to note that the approach that we
have described may be profitably applied not only in other regions of Russia
but also in many countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. These countries
still use the traditional approach to the spatial organization of ECD
facilities and do not analyze potential expenditures based on the concept of
the buildings’ lifecycle.
When the new kindergarten is built, this is likely
to add additional variables to the costbenefit analysis model and to affect our
final calculations and results. It will be useful to undertake a post-occupancy
evaluation of the newly constructed kindergarten that includes all active users
of the facility: children, teachers, administrative staff, and parents to test
our hypotheses and to provide additional quantitative and qualitative
information for further research.
The creation of the new kindergarten may also be a
good time to start experimenting with and changing current teaching practices.
Teachers will have to learn how to use the new spaces in their daily teaching
activities and ensure that they are being used effectively and are meeting the
needs of the children. The municipality of Beloyarski City may wish to analyze,
select, and promote best practices within the region and later across the
country.
References
·
Barrett P. S., Y. Zhang, F. Davies, and L.
Barrett (2015). “Clever classrooms: Summary report of the HEAD project.”
University of Salford, Salford, UK.
·
Bashmakov I. (2017). “Improving the Energy
Efficiency of Russian Buildings.” Problems
of Economic Transition, 58:11-12, 1096-1128, DOI:
·
10.1080/10611991.2016.1316099
·
Bennett, J., T. Shmis, and A. Umarov (2012).
“Early Childhood Care and Education Quality Initiatives in Six Russian Regions:
a Comparative Analysis in the Light of International Research and Best
Practice.” UNESCO, Moscow and World Bank, Washington DC.
·
Boldemann C., M. Blennow, H. Dal, F. Mårtensson,
A. Raustorp, K. Yuen, and U. Wester (2006). “Impact of Preschool Environment upon Children's Physical Activity
and Sun Exposure.”
Preventive Medicine.
42(4):301-8.
·
Cagliari P., M. Castagnetti, C. Giudici, C.
Rinaldi, V. Vecchi and P. Moss. 2016. Loris
Malaguzzi and the Schools of Reggio Emilia. A Selection of his Writings and
Speeches, 1945-1993. Routledge, London.
·
Ceppi, G., and M. Zini. (eds) (2001). Children, Spaces, Relations: Metaproject for
an Environment for Young Children. Grafiche Rebecchi Ceccarelli s.r.l.,
Modena, Italy.
·
City Arch. 2015. Architectural design of the
Beloyarski kindergarten (project technical documentation), Moscow.
·
Crawford, K. (1996). “Vygotskian Approaches to
Human Development in the Information Era.” Educational
Studies in Mathematics. (31); p. 43-62.
·
Day, C and A. Midbjer (2007). Environment and Children: Passive Lessons
from the Everyday Environment. Architectural Press, Amsterdam and
London.
·
Dadvand P., M. Nieuwenhuijsena, M. Esnaolaa, J.
Fornsa, X. Basagañaa, M. AlvarezPedrerol, I. Rivasa, Lopez-Vicente M., De
Castro Pascual M., Su J., Jerrett M.,
·
Querol X., and Sunyer J. (2015). “Green Spaces
and Cognitive Development in Primary Schoolchildren” in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of United States of America. Volume 112 no. 26. doi:
·
10.1073/pnas.1503402112.
·
Department of Education and Youth Policy of Khanty-Mansyisk
Autonomous Region. Accessed
August 22, 2017.
·
DSSPDP (2017). “Construction supervision
approval #86-113-031-17.” Department of State Supervision of Project
Documentation and Pricing, Khanty-Mansyisk Autonomous Region, Russia.
·
The Eco-City Project (2013). Brief on ECO‐City Project: Nardo School, Trondheim.
Accessed August 22, 2017.
·
Government of the Russian Federation (2013). Federal State Standard on Preschool Education. Accessed August
22, 2017.
·
Guoao Investment & Development Co. (2013). “Green Micro Energy Consumption Kindergarten in Olympic Village.” China: Tsinghua University.
Accessed August 22 2017.
·
Guzhov S. (2012). “Increase
of energy efficiency of the buildings of the Moscow City Department
of Education on the basis of mechanisms of public-private partnerships.” Energosvet, Volume 6 (25).
·
Hegger, M., C. Hafflok, J. Hegger, and I. Passig
(2016). Active House: The Reference Work.
From Passive House to Energy-Plus House. Birkhaeuser Verlag Gmbh, Basel,
Schweiz.
·
Hegger M., M. Fuchs, T. Stark, and M. Zeumer.
(2008). Energy Manual: Sustainable Architecture. Edition Detail, Munchen.
·
IEA (2017). “Energy Efficiency 2017,” International
Energy Agency Paris.
·
IEA (2014). “Energy Policies Beyond IEA
Countries: Russia 2014.” International Energy Agency, Paris. https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Russia_2014.pdf
·
IEA (2003). “Case studies overview: Egebjerg
School, Ballerup, Denmark.” Annex 36, IEA Energy Conservation in Buildings and
Community Systems. International Energy Agency, Paris.Accessed August 22, 2017.
http://www.annex36.com/pdf/dk1.pdf
·
IFC/World Bank (2008). “Energy Efficiency in Russia: Untapped Reserves.”
International Finance Corporation and World Bank, Washington DC.
·
Kantrowitz, E. J. and G. Evans (2004). “The
Relation Between the Ratio of Children
·
Activity Area and Off-task Behavior and Type of
Play in Day Care Centers.” Environment
and Behavior, 36(4), 541-557.
·
Koveshnikova L. (2013). Modern Kindergarten in Yugra: Technological and
Project Solutions.
Khanty-Mansyisk Autonomous Region: Department of Education and Youth Policy. Accessed August 22,
2017.
·
Lidwell, W., K. Holden, and J. Butler (2010). Universal Principles of Design. Rockport
Publishers, Inc., Massachusetts.
·
Lychuk, T., M. Evans, M. Halverson, and V.
Roshchanka (2012). “Analysis of the Russian Market for Building Energy
Efficiency,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland.
·
Mashburn, A.J., R.C. Pianta, B.K. Hamre, J.T.
Downer, O. Barbarin, D. Bryant, and C. Howes (2008). “Measures of Classroom
Quality in Pre-kindergarten and Children's Development of Academic, Language
and Social Skills.” Child Development,
79(3), 732-749.
·
Maxwell E. (2007). “Competency
in Child Care Settings.”
Environment and Behavior Volume: 39,
Issue: 2, 229-245.
·
Meyer, A. and T. Gullotta (2012). Physical Activity Across the Lifespan:
Prevention and Treatment for Health and Well-Being. Springer-Verlag, New
York.
·
Michaelowa, K. and A.Wechtler (2006). “The
Cost-Effectiveness of Inputs in Primary Education: Insights from the Literature
and Recent Student Surveys for SubSaharan Africa.” Institute of International
Economics, Hamburg.
·
Mørck O. (2003). Retrofitting of Educational Buildings - REDUCE: Energy concept adviser
for technical retrofit measures; case study reports. FaberMaunsell, St.
Albans, Hertfordshire, UK.
·
Norwegian-Bulgarian Cooperation Project (2011).
“The Results of the NorwegianBulgarian Cooperation Project.” Norwegian
Association of Local and Regional Authorities, Brussels and Union of Bulgarian
Black Sea Local Authorities, Varna.
·
Prescott E., E. Johnes, and E. Kritchevsky
(1967). “Group Day Care as a Child-Rearing Environment: An Observational
Study,” Pacific Oaks College, Pasadena, California.
·
Rohe, W. and A. H. Patterson (1974). “The
Effects of Varied Levels of Resources and
·
Density on Behavior in a Day Care Center.” Childhood City, 1, 161-171
·
Rose, J. and K. Thomsen (2012). “Kindergarten Vejtoften, Høje-Taastrup, Denmark”
Danish Building Research Institute, AAU.
·
Russian Ministry of Education and Science
(2013). “Energy Saving Navigator of Preschool Educational Organizations: Analytical Report with
Study Results.”
Moscow.
·
Russian Ministry of Energy (2017a). “Russian Energy Week. Russian Ministry of Energy plans to reduce energy consumption by improving
lighting equipment efficiency.”
Moscow.
·
Russian Ministry of Energy (2017b). “On Energy
Savings and Increasing Energy Efficiency
in the Russian Federation in 2016.”
Moscow.
·
Sartori I. and A. G. Hestnes (2006). “Energy Use in the Life Cycle of Conventional and Low-energy Buildings: a Review Article.” Energy and Buildings, 39, 249-257
·
Sawyer R. (ed) (2006). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge
Handbooks in Psychology, New York.
·
Schneider, M. (2002). “Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?”
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, Washington, DC.
·
Scott S. (2010). Architecture for Children. Australian Council for Educational
Research Ltd, ACER Press, Camberwell, VIC, Australia.
·
Shmis T., J. Kotnik, and M. Ustinova (2014). “Creating New Learning Environments: Challenges for Early Childhood Development Architecture and
Pedagogy in
·
Russia.” Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences. Volume 146, 25, 40-46.
·
UniSis (2015). Unified
Interdepartmental Statistical Information System: Federal Plan of Statistical
Works.
Accessed August 22, 2017.
·
Vatin, N. and D. Nemova (2012). “Increase in the power efficiency of kindergarten buildings.” Construction
of Unique Buildings and Structures, Volume 3. SanktPetersburg State
Polytechnic University.
·
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
·
White R. and V. Stoeklin. (2003). “The Great 35
Square Foot Myth,” White Hutchinson Leisure and Learning Group, London.