Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enb

Correlating the urban microclimate and energy demands in hot climate

Contexts: A hybrid review
Nourhan M. Waly a, Hamdy Hassan b, c, Ryo Murata d, David J. Sailor e, Hatem Mahmoud a, f, *
a
Dept. of Environmental Engineering, Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology E-JUST, New Borg El-Arab City, Alexandria 21934, Egypt
b
Dept. of Energy Resources, Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology E-JUST, New Borg El-Arab City, Alexandria 21934, Egypt
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Assiut University, Assuit, Egypt
d
Department of Architecture and Building Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Yokohama 226-8502, Japan
e
School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
f
Department of Architectural Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Aswan University, Aswan 81542, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Through demand for heating and cooling, local climate can affect the energy loads of buildings by up to 80%. The
Urban building energy modeling (UBEM) main limitation in this field of research is the single-vision approach, where studies focus on either the urban
Microclimate energy performance or the microclimate, neglecting to quantify their interactions. Additionally, hot climate
Coupling
contexts still lack research covering these topics. Using a hybrid systematic review, the present study aims to
Hot Temperature
bridge these gaps. The review is structured into two main sections. The first section encompasses studies
Thermal comfort
assessing the urban building energy modeling process, while the second section focuses on studies correlating
building-scale energy demands with microclimate, with a focus on hot climate contexts. This review will help to
identify the potential and limitations of coupling urban energy and microclimate modeling. The study also
discusses the feasibility of such research to be widely applied in developing a new urban planning approach
based on energy considerations. The results of this review indicate that improving outdoor thermal comfort is not
necessarily guaranteed to improve energy efficiency. The study also summarizes packages of coupling tools to
guide future researchers and presents an Urban Building Energy Modeling (UBEM) framework to support studies
to achieve comprehensive outcomes.

1. Introduction In this respect, urban energy modeling is an important approach to

The world is facing an unprecedented increase in urbanization rates.
The urban population now exceeds 56% of the global population ac­
cording to statistics of the world bank [1]. The negative effects of
climate change and the global energy crisis, along with the rapid pace of
urbanization, place substantial demands to the traditional urban plan­
ning process. In hot climates, the rise in frequency and intensity of heat
waves is anticipated to have notable consequences on thermal comfort.
This applies to both indoor and outdoor settings, along with the added
burden of increased energy consumption for cooling buildings. These
conditions are widely acknowledged as particularly vulnerable to the
adverse effects of overheating and urban heat island (UHI) effects [2,3].
assess the energy performance of urban settlements. Planners, archi­
tects, scholars, and developers realized that it is no longer enough to
deal with energy consumption of buildings as standalone structures.
Controlling the urban setting with its complexity has become an
important aspect of building energy performance regulation. In addi­
tion, microclimate simulation studies are becoming an essential part of
designing new urban areas or retrofitting existing ones. As shown in
Fig. 1, there is an increasing body of research covering urban energy
modeling and urban microclimate analysis. Research that couples
building scale energy modeling and microclimate analysis is also
growing in popularity.
Urban energy is assessed through two approaches, top-down and

Abbreviations: UBEM, Urban Building Energy Modeling; BEM, Building Energy Modeling; UCM, Urban Climate Modeling; EPC, Energy Performance Certificates;
EUI, Energy Use Intensity; UWG, Urban Weather Generator; CED, Cooling Energy Demand; UGI, Urban Green Infrastructure; WRF, Weather Research and Fore­
casting; CFD, Computational Fluid Dynamics; TMY, Typical Meteorological Year; UBL, Urban Boundary Layer; UCL, Urban Canopy Layer; USL, Urban Surface Layer;
WWR, Window to Wall Ratio; PET, Physiological Equivalent Temperature; UTCI, Universal Thermal Comfort Index; LCZ, Local Climate Zone.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hatem.mahmoud@aswu.edu.eg (H. Mahmoud).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113303
Received 9 April 2023; Received in revised form 18 June 2023; Accepted 22 June 2023
Available online 5 July 2023
0378-7788/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
N.M. Waly et al.
Fig. 1. Number of publications on urban energy and microclimate modeling from 2012 to 2022.
Fig. 2. Representation of microclimate effect on Building Energy Modeling.
bottom-up. Top-down approaches are mainly concerned with data-
driven methods to statistically analyze the energy performance of
building stocks based on historical energy and socioeconomic data [4,5].
Such models are commonly applied to national scale analysis to extract
the amount of energy consumed by different sectors or to forecast future
energy performance of building stocks based on long term relations
based on available data [6]. In this case, buildings are expressed as one
entity without considering physical interactions between building and
neighborhood geometries. Bottom-up approaches simply follow the
reverse direction; the assessment process starts by calculating the energy
performance of single buildings which are then aggregated either sta­
tistically or using physics-based simulation approaches [7–9]. Statistical
or data-driven methods employ machine learning to train models based
on collected energy data at the building scale. Physics-based models
depend on thermal characteristics of building materials affecting the
amount of heat transfer between the building and the outdoor envi­
ronment [10].
Microclimate is defined as the local climate conditions within
buildings, where such conditions differ from one area to another, in the
same climate region, due to changes in urban form [11,12]. Through
various forms of heat transfer between the building envelope and the
outdoor environment, indoor thermal comfort is affected and hence
heating and cooling demands change. As a result, the local microclimate
2
Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303
provides boundary conditions affecting the energy demand of buildings.
Especially in dense urban areas, buildings are exposed to higher tem­
peratures due to greater influence of UHI [13]. As shown in Fig. 2, the
energy performance is affected through changes in solar radiation, wind
speed, ambient air temperature, and relative humidity in the Urban
Canopy Layer UCL [14].
Previous literature reviews have examined different aspects related
to microclimate, urban energy consumption, and urban form. Specif­
ically, there have been comprehensive reviews focusing on the micro­
climate with various objectives. Zhu, et al. [15], Stavrakakis, et al. [16],
Bherwani, et al. [17], Lam, et al. [18] have conducted reviews to assess
the methods, numerical simulation methodologies, and parameters
employed in evaluating the urban microclimate. Furthermore, Zhou,
et al. [19] utilized bibliometric analysis to establish relationships be­
tween methods, application scales, and trend patterns within the field of
urban microclimate. Additionally, studies have explored the assessment
of green and blue spaces in enhancing outdoor thermal comfort, as
highlighted by [20,21].
Moreover, various approaches to urban energy modeling have been
extensively reviewed. Manandhar, et al. [22] have offered a compre­
hensive review of advancements and future prospects in data-driven top-
down studies. Similarly, Li, et al. [23] have examined grey box studies,
which combine physics-based and data-driven assessments and are
N.M. Waly et al.
Fig. 3. Focus of the present review in the context of relevant research topics and keywords.
Table 1
Keywords and search strings used to filter studies.
No Search string
1 “Urban energy modelling”
2 “ Urban building energy modelling” AND “ Microclimate simulation” AND
“thermal comfort”
3 “Coupling” AND “computational fluid dynamics CFD” AND “Building energy
modeling”
4 “Building energy simulation” AND “microclimate”
5 “Microclimate simulation” OR “Buildings CFD”
6 “Thermal comfort” AND “building energy simulation”
considered reduced order models. Furthermore, Quan and Li [24] have
conducted a thorough review of studies investigating the impact of
urban form on energy demands.
However, to date there is no review offered to address the effect of
microclimate on urban energy. This review aims to create a hybrid
approach that combines systematic and sceintrometic review methods in
order to analyze prior research on physics-based urban energy
modeling. The objective is to identify gaps and potential connections
with microclimate models, as illustrated in Fig. 3. The specific urban
microclimate scale considered in this study focuses on the immediate
interaction between built environments and the atmosphere, defined as
the Urban Canopy Layer [25].
The novelty of this review, in addition to its focus on coupling
microclimate models, is that it integrates previous urban energy
frameworks into one comprehensive model that is easily applicable to
any context and provides areas of possible future integration to enhance
energy simulation results. Hence, this review is important as it addresses
the following questions:
• What are the latest developments of physics-based urban energy
modelling?
3
Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303
• What are the microclimate parameters affecting urban energy
demands?
• How can UBEM and urban microclimate assessment be coupled into
one comprehensive framework?
• What are the advantages and limitations of applications in hot arid
regions?
• What are the research gaps for this topic in different climate zones?
2. Methodology
The study employs a hybrid review methodology to analyze a
selected database of papers using the Scopus and WOS scientific data­
base and search strings outlined in Table 1. The methodology consists of
three main sections. The first section involves a preliminary screening of
search results based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, as depicted in
Fig. 4. The resulting papers at each phase are illustrated in the PRISMA
diagram shown in Fig. 5.
The second step includes parallel systematic and sceintrometic re­
views. Within the systematic review, sources are categorized into two
clusters: urban building energy modeling and coupled building energy
and microclimate modeling. These clusters are further divided into
classes based on the specific research focus. After classifying the sources,
comparative analysis categories are determined. On the other hand, the
study utilizes VOSviewer and CiteSpace software for sceintrometic
analysis. As defined by [26], sceintrometic analysis quantitatively ex­
amines the development of science. It assesses research impact, explores
citation relationships, and maps specific knowledge areas using trends
extracted from the academic database. This analysis provides insights
into keyword occurrence, co-authorship, and co-citation patterns within
the selected database, highlighting the most frequently used keywords,
top-cited articles, and top-contributing authors. For this type of analysis,
the study utilizes bibliographic data extracted from the Scopus database
for analysis. Co-occurrence and co-citation analyses are conducted using
the full-counting method. In both analyses, a minimum threshold of 10
N.M. Waly et al.
Fig. 4. Outline of the review methodology.
occurrences for keywords and 10 citations for references was set. The
normalization method employed is association strength. The third sec­
tion of the methodology focuses on presenting the results of the review,
emphasizing the identified gaps in the literature, suggesting areas for
future research, and discussing the significant contributions of the
review.
After applying the specified criteria to the collected reference lists, a
preliminary screening using VOSviewer reveals that although there is
growing interest in both topics and a general agreement on the sub­
stantial impact of microclimate on building energy performance, only a
few studies have explored the link between urban-scale energy modeling
and microclimate analysis. Fig. 6 illustrates the co-citation pattern be­
tween publications related to microclimate and building energy.
The analysis further reveals three main clusters: (A) urban-scale en­
ergy modeling on the left, (B) coupled microclimate and building energy on
the lower right, and (C) urban microclimate studies on the upper right.
The strong connection between clusters (B) and (C) indicates that
microclimate studies have started to draw attention to the integration of
energy performance. However, as depicted in Fig. 7, the weak citation
strength between clusters (A) and (B) suggests that further in-depth
investigation is necessary to fully incorporate microclimate analysis as
a significant component of urban-scale energy modeling. Accordingly,
the subsequent sections of this paper are structured as follows:
• Section 3 presents the results of the review of studies on Urban
Building Energy Modeling (UBEM) to provide insights into the
typical process, tools used, identified gaps, and potential areas for
coupling with microclimate modeling.
• Section 4 focuses on examining studies that explore the coupling of
UBEM at a single scale, with a specific emphasis on identifying the
most influential parameters affecting building energy performance
in hot climates.
4
Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303
• Building upon the findings from sections 3 and 4, Section 5 proposes
a comprehensive framework for the integration of UBEM with urban
microclimate analysis.
• Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper and outlines future research
directions.
Overall, these sections aim to present the outcomes of the review,
offer valuable insights, and provide a roadmap for further research in
the field of urban-scale energy modeling and microclimate analysis.
3. Urban building energy modeling UBEM:
Urban energy modeling is an important approach for scaling up the
simulation of energy performance from a single building to a whole
urban setting. It has long been addressed by scholars through various
assessment approaches. However, the term Urban Building Energy
Modeling UBEM was first introduced by Reinhart and Cerezo Davila
[27], in their review of previous studies aimed at assessing the urban
scale energy demand. They first introduced UBEM as a physics-based
energy simulation approach incorporating heat transfer of various
forms between buildings and their surrounding environments to calcu­
late energy demand on the urban scale. Since then, it has been used
frequently by scholars to indicate physics-based energy analysis at the
urban scale.
The analysis of the selected database revealed four major clusters of
keywords, with UBEM being one of the most frequently occurring words.
While “urban building energy” is also commonly mentioned and
strongly linked to other keywords, “urban planning” is comparatively
weak (see Fig. 8). This suggests that more attention should be given to
utilizing the potential of urban energy modeling as a tool for supporting
urban planning decisions. Fig. 8 compares the strength of two keyword
networks, serving as evidence for the need to conduct further in-depth
investigations to apply Urban Building Energy Modelling (UBEM) as
N.M. Waly et al.
Fig. 5. PRISMA flow diagram of screening and selecting articles.
an urban planning decision support tool.
Table 2 classifies keywords based on their frequency and total link
strength, which indicates how interconnected they are with other doc­
uments. Table 3 lists the top 20 authors who have contributed to the
field of urban energy. To provide a current state-of-the-art understand­
ing of UBEM, this study starts by reviewing previous literature and
conducting a comparative analysis of selected research papers. This
analysis includes examining the context and scale of the studies, the data
inputs used, the archetype classification, the simulation tools, and the
integrated models employed. The subsequent sections elaborate on these
findings to provide an overall picture of previous studies.
3.1. A typical UBEM framework
To develop a comprehensive understanding of UBEM, previous re­
view studies are analyzed to depict the general workflow of carrying out
a physics-based urban scale energy simulation. The aim of this section is
to determine areas of agreement and disagreement between different
studies reviewing UBEM. Some reviews provided a conceptualization of
the typical bottom-up urban energy simulation process. For instance,
Reinhart and Cerezo Davila [27] classified the process based on inputs,
thermal zoning, and validation. Ferrando, et al. [4] focused on exam­
ining UBEM tools employed in previous research. Their aim was to
provide a user-oriented review to allow future users to choose the tools
easily based on five comparing categories of input, model, simulation,
outputs, and post-process. Another review on UBEM by Johari, et al.
[10] divided the process into two main sections model development and
5
Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303
model simulation which are precedented by databases and followed by
validation and calibration. Their aim was to establish a basic ground for
enhancing the process through the integration of new models. Similarly,
Ali, et al. [6] developed quantitative and qualitative assessments of
various urban-scale energy modeling approaches including top-down
and bottom-up. For the bottom-up physics-based approach they
conceptualized the process as four generic steps of input, simulation,
validation, and visualization. Another conceptualization was developed
by [28], where they compared previous studies according to their data
acquisition. Their focus was on providing alternative sources for
obtaining different types of needed data. They divided the typical UBEM
framework into inputs, thermal zoning, simulation, and validation. [29]
developed a taxonomic review of primitive categories of the urban-
energy simulation. They classified previous studies according to input
data, simulation tools, results, and validation. Additionally, [30] sum­
marizes the process through three main steps of archetype classification,
3D city model, and simulation which are then followed by validation. In
each section they provided basic ground of previous studies along with
possible future enhancements. Ten questions regarding UBEM were
answered by [31]. Their conceptualization of the overview of the pro­
cess was divided to datasets, simulation workflows, results, and stake­
holder metrics to support decision-making. Doma and Ouf [32], divided
the framework into inputs, model generation, model energy simulation,
and results processing and validation. In addition to these attempts, Ang,
et al. [33], added the application section as an important determinant of
the UBEM workflow. Table 4 summarizes different parts of frameworks
developed by previous studies.
Other reviews focused on one particular part of the process and
compared previous work in terms of this part. Kamel [34] developed a
systematic review examining different case studies based on the number
and type of integrated buildings, type of data, and validation. Oraio­
poulos and Howard [35] reviewed previous UBEM studies that were
validated against real measured data to assess their accuracy. Other
reviews focused on the integration of occupant-related parameters as a
trigger affecting the overall energy performance of building stocks. For
instance, [36] compared previous UBEM frameworks based on their
modeling of occupant behavior and provided alternative modeling ap­
proaches to enhance the quality of input data related to building occu­
pancy. Similarly [32] argued that one major reason for uncertainties in
UBEM simulations is the absence of accurate occupant-behavior data.
Their review provided a breakdown of occupant parameters and their
integration into the typical UBEM framework. Collectively, previous
review work of UBEM agrees on some basic guidelines comprising a
typical workflow of the urban-scale simulation process. However, each
study categorizes them in a slightly different way according to its focus.
This could result in different outcomes of the simulation due to varia­
tions in the process.
3.2. Climate context and scale
It is agreed that climate conditions have a significant effect on the
energy performance of buildings. Hence, examining the context of pre­
vious studies is an important step to consider their similarities and dif­
ferences when applied to hot regions. By analyzing the climate context
of selected articles, it is found that most of them are carried out in
temperate climates according to Koppen climate classification as shown
in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10. Such regions are characterized by having cold
winter and wet summer which is typically different from hot climate
resulting in major differences in heating and cooling demands, set point
temperature, thermal properties of buildings, different building arche­
types, and microclimate conditions. Even for the same climate region,
extreme weather events and climate change lead to major changes in
energy consumption [37]. Murshed, et al. [38], examined the effect of
climate on energy performance and their results revealed that around
10% increase in heating energy demand and around 80% increase in
cooling energy demand are projected due to anticipated changes in
N.M. Waly et al. Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303

Fig. 6. Citation analysis of publications covering three clusters A, B, and C.

Fig. 7. Citation analysis of publications covering UBEM and coupling building energy and microclimate falling under four classes.

climate conditions by the year 2050. Similarly, Heidelberger and Rakha
[39] compared energy demands for current and future climate scenarios.
Their results showed changed patterns in both heating and cooling de­
mands. In their review study, Zou, et al. [40] conducted an assessment of
future climate projections and overheating scenarios using various
simulation frameworks, encompassing both indoor and outdoor climate
simulations. The researchers confirmed the influence of climate
boundary conditions on energy consumption and agreed with the
concept that incorporating climate model projections is crucial for
evaluating future impacts of indoor and outdoor overheating. This

6
N.M. Waly et al. Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303

Fig. 8. The keyword networks of (1) Urban Building Energy Modeling and (2) Urban Planning created using VOSviewer software.

approach is important to enhance the comprehension of climate change

Table 2 effects and aids in the development of adaptive strategies to ensure the
The top 20 most commonly occurring keywords. resilience and comfort of built environments. Therefore, a more
id keyword occurrences total link strength comprehensive investigation into the application of UBEM, specifically
1 urban building energy modeling 80 393 tailored to hot climate contexts, is highly necessary. Such research
2 urban buildings 57 330 would offer invaluable insights and guidelines for planners who are
3 building energy model 45 280 dealing with similar contexts. Understanding the potential and limita­
4 buildings 65 244
tions of utilizing UBEM in these settings would greatly assist in effective
5 energy utilization 43 243
6 energy efficiency 33 178 decision-making and urban planning.
7 housing 21 111 In terms of application scale, studies vary from neighborhood to city
9 energy use 19 143 to national scale. The largest percentage of the reviewed studies apply
10 urban area 19 133 their frameworks on neighborhood or district scale as shown in Fig. 11.
11 building energy use 13 80
12 calibration 13 75
The number of buildings included in these studies range from 22
13 energy conservation 13 93 buildings [41] to 9000 buildings [37]. On the city scale, number of
14 building stocks 11 70 included buildings reaches 68,966 [42]. National scale assessments are
15 greenhouse gases 11 76 mainly associated with top-own statistical approaches. However, Chen,
16 retrofitting 11 90
et al. [8] combined physics-based simulation with statistical analysis to
17 energy management 10 64
18 energy simulation 10 49 develop a dataset of 55,000 buildings containing stochastic occupant
19 gas emissions 10 63 behavior data and representing a national housing stock. Artiges, et al.
20 uncertainty analysis 10 51 [43] used Bayesian Inference to develop archetype datasets representing
the national residential building stock to be later used in UBEM physics
simulation tools.
Table 3
Top 20 authors and their number of citations.
id author documents citations total link strength
3.3. Data acquisition

1 hong t. 9 634 18
The amount and quality of data necessary to achieve precise results
2 chen y. 8 598 13
3 eicker u. 6 35 0 poses a significant challenge in Urban Building Energy Modeling
4 carnieletto l. 5 89 18 (UBEM). Conducting a thorough analysis of energy demand at the urban
5 zarrella a. 5 89 18 level requires several types of data. The reliability and robustness of the
6 reinhart c.f. 5 764 6 data collected play a crucial role in ensuring the accuracy of simulation
7 o’donnell j. 4 120 15
8 ang y.q. 4 72 5
outcomes. Obtaining high-resolution data for urban-scale analysis is
9 zhou x. 4 30 2 particularly challenging. The task becomes even more demanding when
10 ikeda k. 3 30 15 the required data encompasses diverse aspects from multiple sources
11 kim b. 3 30 15 and formats, making the development of unified datasets a complex
12 kimura s. 3 30 15
process. Jin, et al. [44] provided insights into worldwide available
13 ko y. 3 30 15
14 shimoda y. 3 30 15 datasets to examine their usefulness for urban energy modeling studies.
15 yamaguchi y. 3 30 15 Their results highlighted that more accessibility to open datasets would
16 ali u. 3 113 12 enhance the effectiveness of urban building planning, design, operation,
17 hoare c. 3 113 12 and energy policymaking.
18 mangina e. 3 113 12
19 prataviera e. 3 46 12
In their study, Wang, et al. [28] classify the necessary data into four
20 romano p. 3 46 12 categories: weather data, geometric data, non-geometric data, and
validation data. For weather data, most studies use Typical

7
N.M. Waly et al. Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303

Table 4
Summary of previous conceptualization of UBEM workflow.
Study Different parts of the UBEM workflow
Inputs 3D model Thermal zoning ArchetypeClassification Simulation output validation visualization Application

[27] 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 0 0
[4] 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 0
[10] 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 0
[6] 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0
[28] 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 0 0
[29] 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0
[30] 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
[31] 1 2 2 2 1 1 0 2 0
[32] 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0
[33] 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1

1 Major parts.
2 Sub-parts.
0 Not included.

Fig. 9. Number of UBEM reviewed research studies categorized by Koppen Climate Classification.

Fig. 10. Mapping reviewed studies according to location of case studies.

8
N.M. Waly et al. Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303

in different climate zones and among various scales to allow users to

determine appropriate sources in their future studies. Data acquisition is
a vital component of the UBEM process. Advances in publicly available
datasets containing fine detail would lead to enhanced performance of
the urban energy simulation [44]. Wang, et al. [28], recommended data
sharing platforms as a future step to ease the process of obtaining,
sharing, and processing needed data.

3.4. Archetype classification and characterization

One significant part of urban scale energy modeling is the concept of

archetypes. In this step, sample buildings from the area of study are
selected to be representatives for the whole building stock. Previous
studies argue that, although use of archetypes offers a very powerful
approach for reducing the complexity of analyzing every single building,
Fig. 11. Distribution of studies according to scale of application.
it might lead to large uncertainties in energy simulation results if the
selected buildings do not accurately represent the target building stock
[52–54]. Archetyping comprises two sections of classification and
Meteorological Year (TMY) files obtained from the nearest weather
characterization.
station to feed the energy simulation model with representative condi­
The segmentation process is associated with dividing the target stock
tions of temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and wind direction.
of buildings into classes based on either deterministic or stochastic
Through heat transfer in various forms, such parameters affect the in­
methods or a combination of both [55]. The deterministic approach
door thermal environment of buildings and their energy performance. It
depends on classifying the building stock according to previously
is argued that these files do not represent accurate weather information,
determined parameters based on literature or knowledge of the
especially for dense urban areas where urban form greatly affects the
addressed data [56]. Fig. 13 shows sample parameters employed by
microclimate conditions [4]. To overcome this issue, field measure­
previous reviewed research. It is found that most studies depend on the
ments, numerical prediction using software like Urban Weather Gener­
year of construction and building type as two preliminary contributors
ator (UWG), and CFD simulations are used to obtain more accurate
to the change in energy performance of buildings. The year of con­
climate data [31,45]. However, their application on the urban scale is
struction determines the thermal properties of the building envelope due
still limited; only 5% of the reviewed work provided modified climate
to changes in construction materials and methods over time. The
data before running the urban energy simulations.
building type also affects the energy performance through changes in
Geometric data include building form, footprint, height, and opening
heating and cooling loads [53,57,58]. Other parameters, including size,
to wall ratio. Where the Level of Details (LoD) included in the simulation
building height, building conditions, and socio-economic parameters,
must be assigned whether LoD1, LoD2, LoD3, or LoD4. Representation of
were employed by a limited number of studies [39,42,59].
the amount of details associated with each level is provided in Fig. 12.
In contrast, the stochastic approach depends on data driven statis­
Common methods for obtaining these data include CityGML open data
tical analysis of the building stock. Cerezo, et al. [56] compared results
sources, OpenStreetMap, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), and GIS
of EUI simulation using different archetypes classification approaches,
datasets. Several studies have been developed to create 3D models to be
their results revealed a reduction of percentage of errors by 13–45%
used in urban energy modeling using different approaches. For instance,
against deterministic methods. Growing research is offered providing
georeferenced two dimensional GIS data containing buildings footprint,
new approaches of archetype classification to avoid bias due to deter­
age, year of construction were used to create 3D geometries using
ministic methods [43,52,54,59–61]. A novel clustering algorithm was
different methods [42,46–48]. Szcześniak, et al. [49], developed an al­
developed by Tardioli, et al. [62] to identify representative buildings for
gorithm to automatically extract window to wall ratio using street view
a large urban stock in Geneva, Switzerland. The results of their study
imagery. Dai, et al. [50] created a novel building 3D dimension mea­
demonstrated the efficiency of applying statistical analysis to extract
surement approach using geometry calculation algorithm, machine
archetype buildings by reaching a classification accuracy of 89%. Ma­
learning and a vehicle mounted camera. Dochev, et al. [51] used remote
chine learning has demonstrated its significance in stochastic classifi­
sensed imageries to process a 3D city model in the CityGML format. For
cation, as exemplified by the work of Shi, et al. [63]. In their study, they
non-geometric data related to building thermal characteristics, heating
created a classification model that was trained using data on various
and cooling systems, and occupancy patterns, sources of data are often
urban zoning types, including transport and mixed-use facilities.
related to the specific context of the study. In some contexts, these data
There is no agreement on the number of buildings to be selected
are publicly available and easy to obtain. In other contexts, especially in
respecting the total number of buildings under study. However, Fig. 14
less developed communities, it is often challenging to obtain this kind of
depicts the correlation between number of archetypes and total number
data [39].
of buildings in previous studies by comparing the number of assigned
Table 5 summarizes different data sources used in reviewed studies
archetypes with their percentage of the total number of addressed

Fig. 12. Representation of different levels of details required for simulation according to CityGML open source.

9
N.M. Waly et al. Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303

buildings.

12.1%
Following the clustering comes the characterization which is asso­

N/A
ciated with providing full details of the representative archetypes to be

1
1

1
included in the simulation process. This includes thermal properties,
open city GML internal loads related to lighting, occupancy and equipment, and me­
chanical systems. Similar to the classification, characterization is either
done by collecting detailed information for the representative buildings,

24.1%
1 or using data-driven statistical analysis to detect the properties of a
1
1
2
1
6

2
virtual building [27]. Heidenthaler, et al. [64], used EPCs to perform
Google’s database

statistical analysis to characterize a city building stock. De Jaeger, et al.

[65] used a probabilistic method to characterize building stocks using
regression models. This approach allows for reducing bias in the results

20.6%
due to more accurate representation of building properties.
1

2
1
6

3.5. Simulation and validation

GIS datasets

Due to increased interest from scholars to assess urban scale energy

37.9%

performance, a variety of tools is now available to simulate and estimate

1
2

4
2
4
1
4
1

energy demands of urban areas. The scope of this review is limited to

geometric data

tools using a physics-based approach which depends on engineering

OpenStreetMap

calculations of energy demand based on thermal characterization.

However, such approaches lead to increased complexity and computa­
18.9%

tion of time when applied on urban scales. Hence, a tremendous amount

1

2
5
2

of research is now focusing on providing user-friendly workflow envi­

ronments for urban scale energy simulations. Such tools have a backend
3.4%
N/A

simulation engine and fronted user interface as shown in Table 6. The

1

most common engine employed by the majority of reviewed studies is

field survey

EnergyPlus through different interfaces of (i) websites such as MIT

UBEM [66] and CityBES [41,47,48,67,68], (ii) plugins such as UMI and
10.3%

Grasshopper plugins to Rhinoceros [37,49,54,56,69,70] or (iii) software

1

1
1
1
1
1

such as Openstudio [8,42,71,72], UrbanOPT [73], and AutoBPS [74].

Other studies employed Python scripts to build in-house simulation
public data

models based on EnergyPlus engine such as SimStock [75], MUBEM-

48.2%

UBEM [76], cesar-p [77], and AutoBEM [7].

10
2

2
4

1
5

Other tools include TRNSYS [38], Teaser [52,78–80], Python-based

Non-geometric data

EUReCA [81,82], City Energy Analyst (CEA) [83], Citysim [84] and D-
authorized sources

eST urban [9]. Table 6 analyzes the frequency of using each of these
tools among the reviewed works. GIS has been employed in some at­
tempts to numerically calculate energy performance of buildings and
63.7%

allocate it to specific geographic contexts [85]. de Rubeis, et al. [86]

16
5
1
5
5

1
3
1

offered a new method to model urban energy using ArcGIS software.

They started by using a validated energy model for representative
other

8.6%

* Climate zones codes are described according to koppen climate classification.

buildings and applied the numerical calculation of the addressed stock

2
2

1
Climate data

using a GIS platform.

TMY files

The reliability of the energy simulation results to be used in urban

98.2%

planning decisions is attributable to three parts of thermal resolution,

22

temporal resolution, and validity. One of the common methods followed

2
1
5
2
8
7

1
8
1

in UBEM studies to reduce the complexity and time needed for simula­
68.9%
Summary of different data sources used in previous studies.

tion, is decreasing thermal zoning details and assume that each building
15
III

1
2

5
5

1
8
1

represents a thermal zone [68,81,87–90]. Another commonly used

method is to model each floor as a thermal zone [7,72,91]. Other at­
27.5%

tempts to increase the accuracy of thermal models were achieved by

II

1
3
1
3
2
6

employing developed algorithms to automatically divide floor spaces

Scale

into heated and non-heated zones [92]. One common method used for
3.4%

this thermal subdivision is the shoeboxer algorithm [56,69]. It is argued

1

1
I

that the simplification of thermal resolution lead to bias in the simula­

Number of studies

III: Neighborhood/ district scale.

tion results. Hence, Johari, et al. [93] investigated the effect of thermal
I: National Scale of application.

modeling on energy demands by employing different zoning methods to

II: City Scale of application.

the same context. Their results revealed considerable differences of

N/A: No available data.

about 5% in heating loads between simulation tools in terms of their

Percentage of studies

response to thermal simplification. Similarly, Faure, et al. [76]

22
1
2
1
5
2
8
7

1
8
1

compared different zoning methods and agreed that an acceptable level

would be one zone per floor method. In the reviewed works, more than
Bwh
BSk

Csb

Dfb
Csa

Dfa
Cfb
Csc
Cfa
Aw

Cfc

80% of the studies utilized either the building or floor level as thermal
Climate
zones*
Table 5

zones, while the remaining studies employed a more detailed approach

D
A

C
B

by subdividing each floor into different thermal zones.

10
N.M. Waly et al.
Fig. 13. Different classification parameters employed by previous studies.
Fig. 14. Correlating number of archetypes to total number of buildings.
Previous studies have employed various temporal resolutions to es­
timate energy demand, including sub-hourly, hourly, daily, monthly,
and annual timeframes. The simulation tools utilized in these studies
vary in their capability to handle temporal data. While the majority of
tools can accommodate aggregated annual measurements, some tools, as
mentioned by Bass et al. (2022), can handle fine time resolution by
running simulations with time steps as short as one minute and then
aggregating the results to predict annual energy consumption. Other
tools can provide simulated energy data at an hourly or sub-hourly level.
However, the availability of real data for validating these fine time
resolutions is often limited. Consequently, approximately 50% of the
reviewed studies attempted to use annual energy simulations, 30%
relied on monthly data, and only 20% employed hourly data.
In terms of validation, previous research uses real energy data from
EPCs, authorized sources, or through field surveys to validate the results
of their simulation models. Among the reviewed database of papers only
47% were validated. Such validation reveals different levels of accuracy.
Validating the aggregate annual energy could yield a percentage of error
up to 1% when compared to actual annual energy use which confirms
the power of UBEM In presenting high-quality simulations. However,
this percentage is attributable to the quality of input data, archetyping,
temporal resolution, and thermal resolution. Oraiopoulos and Howard
[35] in their review assessing the accuracy of UBEM mentioned that the
simplest validation method, employed by the majority of studies, is
11
Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303
measuring the percentage of difference between measured and simu­
lated energy outcomes. Other, more complex, methods include mathe­
matical formulas developed to spot the faults in the simulated results.
Although such validation is very important to prove the applicability of
the energy models, the percentage of validated studies in the UBEM field
is only 9% of the total published work. Thus, future studies need to pay
more attention to the validation of their models. It is also important to
benchmark the measures of errors to spot acceptable and non-acceptable
ranges based on the scope of application of different studies.
Collectively, validation of urban scale energy models is a complex
process and there is no standard for the required level of accuracy since
it is different from one scope to another. Hence, the level of required
accuracy and feasibility of achieving robust validation need to be
carefully considered by individual research efforts. For example, Mar­
tinez, et al. [91] simulated a district of 337 buildings which was still
under construction. Meaning that it is not possible to obtain actual en­
ergy data to validate the model. Hence, they validated the results against
sample reference buildings of a similar building stock based on thermal
properties. Similarly, Malhotra, et al. [78] validated annual energy use
of representative archetypes against standard measures obtained from
TABULA data. Such data is not available outside Europe, confirming that
validation is subject to the type and magnitude of available data in each
geographic context.
Hence, future studies are recommended to consider the available
N.M. Waly et al. Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303

Table 6 On the other hand, microclimate coupling has been addressed by a

Tools employed by previous UBEM studies. limited number of studies. Such studies agree on the considerable effect
Engine Interface Count of Count of of thermal comfort on energy demand even at the urban scale [94].
interface engine However, to date, such coupling is not addressed properly. Prior
City Energy Analyst 1 coupling attempts include developed in-house models to quantify the
(CEA) microclimate effect on urban energy demands [14,95,96]. Their results
City Energy Analyst 1 agree that the effect of microclimate on urban energy is significant.
(CEA) Other studies used the Urban Weather Generator (UWG) to create
CitySim 1
CitySim 1
modified TMY files to feed the urban energy models with more accurate
D-eST urban 1 climate data [73,82,97].
D-eST urban 1 The integration of a generative design model into the Urban Building
DIMOSIM 2 Energy Modeling (UBEM) process has not been implemented yet.
DIMOSIM 2
Nonetheless, there have been some efforts to explore the relationship
EnergyPlus 31
Openstudio 1 between urban geometry and urban energy consumption. For example,
Cesar-p 1 in a study by Demir Dilsiz, et al. [98], a sensitivity analysis was con­
Designbuildier 1 ducted to investigate the impact of various urban form parameters on
EnergyPlus 8 energy demands. Another study by Wang, et al. [99] demonstrated the
Grasshopper 1
MUBEM-UBEM 1
significant influence of urban morphology, specifically relative
Openstudio 2 compactness, building coverage ratio, and building height distribution,
Python 3 1 on urban energy. Mutani, et al. [100] examined six different urban block
UBEM.io 1 typologies to determine the optimal density and shape of buildings.
UMI 6
Vartholomaios [101], using parametric sensitivity analysis, confirmed
AutoBEM and 1
OpenStudio the synergy between high urban compactness strategies and passive
CityBES 5 solar design.
CityBES and 1 However, it should be noted that all these findings are attributed to
OpenStudio changes based on the urban microclimate and may not be universally
SimStock python 1
applicable to different contexts. Moreover, reviewed work of existing
script
HTB calculation 1 UBEM frameworks either incorporate one of these models or disregard
method them entirely. Therefore, it is crucial to develop a comprehensive UBEM
VirVil in SketchUP 1 model for future research.
IDA ICE 2
IDA ICE 2
INSEL 1 4. Coupling building energy simulation and microclimate
Insel4Cities 1 modelling
Python-based 2
EUReCA There is a widely held belief that weather data collected from
EuReca 2
SimStadt 1
weather stations alone do not adequately capture the true characteristics
SimStadt 1 of the local climate in various locations. Pei, et al. [102] proved that the
Teaser 3 utilization of typical climate data resulted in an overestimation of the
Teaser 3 heating load, approximately by 5.8%, and an underestimation of the
TRYNSYS 1
cooling load, approximately by 8.7% Therefore, it is considered crucial
TRYNSYS 1
Grand Total 47 to have climate data specific to each location in order to accurately
assess the energy efficiency of buildings. Lauzet, et al. [103] conducted a
comprehensive review study examining the influence of local climates
data for validation before starting the simulation process. It should be on building energy models (BEMs) using eight different coupling chains.
noted that in contexts where real energy data is lacking, particularly in Their findings strongly support the idea that utilizing climate data
developing countries, validating urban energy models can be a chal­ specific to a particular location significantly impacts the thermal
lenging task. Therefore, it is crucial to dedicate additional attention to behavior of buildings. While there is increasing interest in single
identifying potential validation methods that can be applied in these building coupling, the researchers recommended a generalized coupling
specific contexts. framework to enhance the accuracy of BEMs. Thus, it is essential to
adequately incorporate microclimate considerations not only in indi­
3.6. Integrated models vidual building assessments but also in urban-scale energy evaluations.
The previous section’s findings suggest that incorporating microcli­
Prior UBEM research agreed that better quality of urban energy mate factors into the Urban Building Energy Modeling (UBEM) process
simulation results could be achieved through integration of multiple requires further advancement. Meanwhile, there is a growing interest
models, including microclimate, occupant behavior, and generative among researchers in studying the combined impact of microclimate
design. However, only a handful of previous studies comprising merely and individual building energy requirements. Hence, the objective of
9% of the research field have gone through such integration. On the one this section is to examine previous research that intends to link the urban
hand, occupant behavior models have been addressed to model sto­ microclimate with the energy performance of individual buildings. This
chastic patterns of users instead of using traditional occupancy sched­ analysis will facilitate the breakdown of microclimate parameters that
ules. Mosteiro-Romero, et al. [90], compared three different models of influence the energy performance of built environments, ultimately
occupant behavior using deterministic, stochastic and agent-based enhancing the application of this integration in urban-scale energy
modeling. Their results revealed significant variance of 10–20% in modeling.
sub-yearly measurements of heating and cooling demand due to The examination of keywords in previous studies focusing on
changing occupant patterns. Similarly, Chen, et al. [8] developed a new coupling reveals the prominence of certain terms such as UHI (Urban
model of stochastic occupancy patterns and proved that such models Heat Island), global warming, building retrofits, computational fluid
could lead to enhanced performance of urban energy models. dynamics, urban microclimate, and building energy modeling, as

12
N.M. Waly et al. Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303

Fig. 15. The keyword networks of (1) UHI, (2) CFD, and (3) Urban Planning created using VOSviewer software.

depicted in Fig. 15 and Table 7. These studies cover a wide range of

Table 7
climates, but for the purpose of this review, the focus is specifically on
The top 20 most commonly occurring keywords on coupling studies.
hot climate contexts. The selection of these contexts is performed ac­
id keyword occurrences total link strength cording to the Köppen climate classification, specifically the A (tropical)
1 atmospheric temperature 33 295 and B (arid) categories, as they are known for experiencing particularly
2 energy utilization 35 284 hot summer seasons. In these specific contexts, the effects of urban heat
3 urban heat island 34 276
island (UHI) and overheating are considered to have a substantial in­
4 buildings 33 267
5 energy conservation 21 198
fluence on the energy demands of buildings. This is primarily attributed
6 computational fluid dynamics 26 179 to the increased cooling requirements necessary to maintain thermal
7 energy efficiency 24 179 comfort levels in both indoor and outdoor spaces. It is widely
8 building energy simulations 19 169 acknowledged that cooling demand significantly increases in such
9 climate change 19 162
contexts. Since heat flow between building and outer environment is
10 microclimate 18 152
11 climate models 15 143 highly affected under such extreme environmental conditions. There­
12 air conditioning 15 138 fore, it is imperative for scholars to devote serious attention to these
13 heat island 11 131 areas and tailor specific considerations accordingly.
14 ventilation 14 128 In such contexts, scholars are increasingly interested in assessing the
15 air temperature 12 127
16 building energy simulation 14 124
outdoor thermal performance of the built environment using a single
17 computer simulation 12 122 vision approach. This approach typically assumes that improving ther­
18 energy management 14 118 mal comfort would result in better energy performance. For instance,
19 urban planning 11 111 [104] studied the influence of urban geometry parameters on outdoor
20 cooling demand 12 107
thermal comfort, but they did not quantify the resulting energy perfor­
mance of buildings at either the urban or building scale. Similarly, [105]

Fig. 16. Breakdown of three sets of correlated parameters.

13
N.M. Waly et al.
examined the impact of orientation and densification on outdoor ther­
mal comfort and concluded that urban morphology modifications could
lead to a decrease of up to 5.5 ◦ C. However, there is no quantified evi­
dence to support the notion that such solutions would enhance energy
performance.
4.1. Breakdown of microclimate parameters affecting the energy
performance
To better understand the complexity of the interaction between
various parameters affecting energy and microclimate of urban areas, it
is important to first classify and breakdown these parameters. The
typical coupling framework depends on manipulating three correlated
sets of parameters to examine and quantify their effect on one another
based on the scope of different studies. These sets of parameters are
classified in this review to (i) urban/architecture, (ii) microclimate, and
(ii) energy performance as shown in Fig. 16.
Upon closer examination of previous coupling work, it can be
broadly categorized into three groups: (i) the first category encompasses
studies that evaluate the impact of various urban and architectural pa­
rameters on microclimate and energy demand for specific buildings, (ii)
The second category focuses on examining the effects of adjusting
microclimate data on building energy modeling, without considering
the influence of urban parameters, (iii) The third category is concerned
with examining the effect of different building conditioning systems on
the outdoor environment. A more detailed investigation of recent
advancement of research in each category is offered below.
In all categories, coupling is achieved either in a one-way linear
format or a two-way cyclical format [16]. One-way coupling involves
incorporating enhanced microclimate data from different sources into
building energy simulations. On the other hand, two-way coupling
provides a more comprehensive perspective by exchanging boundary
conditions between microclimate and energy simulation platforms. This
allows for monitoring the coupled effects resulting from alterations
determined in each study. A detailed description of various parameters,
tools, type of employed coupling, and resulting effect is provided in
Appendix-A.
In the first type of studies, various urban parameters are evaluated at
different scales, including the urban block, canyon, and building levels.
For instance, several studies have explored the impact of green infra­
structure and vegetation cover on energy consumption and thermal
comfort. In their review, Zhu, et al. [15] examined previous research
focusing on the influence of Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI) on
Building Energy Models (BEM). They emphasized that current BEM tools
have not fully incorporated the modeling of site-scale vegetation to ac­
count for its impact on microclimate and shading. An assessment con­
ducted by Dardir and Berardi [106] focused on evaluating the influence
of increased horizontal and vertical green infrastructure on the micro­
climatic and energy demand of three urban typologies. The study
highlighted the importance of employing multi-objective optimization
due to the varying effects of different greening interventions. The
study’s findings demonstrate that increasing tree canopy coverage has a
significant effect on reducing canyon air temperature, resulting in a
temperature decrease of 0.23 ◦ C for every 0.10 increment in fractional
tree canopy. On the other hand, green façades were found to have the
most substantial impact on energy savings, with a projected reduction of
0.15 kWh/m2 for every 0.10 increase in fractional vegetation cover on
building facades. Ge, et al. [107], developed a coupling framework be­
tween Envi-met and EnergyPlus to address this effect. Their results
reveal that enhancement of cooling by adding vegetation was more
obvious in low-rise buildings. Additionally, energy saving of 2.3 % of
total consumption could be achieved.
Similarly, [108] first examined the effect of UHI then mitigated the
effect with alternation in vegetation and addition of high albedo mate­
rials. Their results showed a 29% decrease in total cooling load. Another
example of this type of coupling studies is done by Zheng, et al. [109],
14
Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303
where they examined the effect of different design parameters on the
canyon scale including canyon orientation, vegetation, and WWR. Their
results reveal that not all design strategies that lead to enhanced thermal
comfort promote energy efficiency, some conflicts are depicted between
both meaning that it is not enough to only examine one aspect and
neglect the other and confirms the importance of the microclimate and
energy coupling.
Confirming the importance of assessing energy demands and thermal
comfort simultaneously, a study conducted by Xu, et al. [110] empha­
sized the significance of considering both factors to achieve optimized
outcomes. The researchers compared the Universal Thermal Comfort
Index (UTCI) and Cooling Energy Demand (CED) in relation to various
urban parameters such as density, height, and wall-to-plan ratio. The
study results confirmed the significance of conducting multi-objective
optimization considering specific contexts, as the correlation between
UTCI and CED is subject to temporal and spatial variations that influence
the magnitude of their effects. By developing a multi-phase optimization
framework, [111] aimed to identify problematic urban microclimates
and inefficient energy performance during the initial design phase. They
emphasized that addressing the trade-offs between energy performance
and outdoor thermal comfort does not have a single solution but rather a
range of acceptable solutions depending on specific contextual factors.
In their study, Bansal and Quan [112] utilized statistical analysis to
investigate the Energy Use Intensity (EUI) across various Local Climate
Zones (LCZs), which represent the thermal characteristics of the built
environment. The findings of the study further supported the notion that
energy usage can be attributed to the specific configuration of LCZs,
emphasizing that a single perspective on energy or microclimate is no
longer adequate for providing decision-makers with suitable solutions.
Salvati, et al. [113] investigated the effect of urban densification and
agreed that, especially in cooling load, urban form and microclimate
play a significant role.
Other studies focused on examining the effect of urban layout pa­
rameters including the configuration of buildings to control air flow and
temperature [114]. The result In this case showed an increase of 1.9 ◦ C
in Mean Radiant Temperature and reduction of 4.9% of total energy use.
Abdollahzadeh and Biloria [115] introduced a parametric optimization
approach to control design of urban blocks using courtyards, cubic and
rectangular forms based on energy and microclimate criteria. The results
of this study argued that and enhancement of up to 25.85% of thermal
comfort and reduction of up to 93.14% of energy demands could be
achieved by alternating building typology, urban grid, building height,
and aspect ratio. Jareemit and Canyookt [116] examined the effect of
building orientation, geometry, and WWR and proved that up to 32%
energy saving could be achieved due to controlling these parameters.
Hadavi and Pasdarshahri [117] also confirmed the importance of con­
trolling urban layouts and reached a 16.4% energy saving under UHI
effect by alternating the geometry, configuration, and built-up area.
Nazarian, et al. [118] assessed the impact of using high albedo wall
materials and revealed that in hot humid climate, such modification
could lead to 10% reduction of cooling energy. In a study conducted by
Mahmoud, et al. [104], the impact of varying built-up densities was
evaluated, leading to energy savings ranging from 1.8% to 14.4%.
While coupling is highly influential in studies involving the design of
future scenarios or retrofits for existing urban areas, a significant limi­
tation found in most of the reviewed studies is the omission of quanti­
fying the impact of incorporating modified microclimate data compared
to traditional weather data. This quantification is crucial in demon­
strating the significance of coupling frameworks.
For the second type of studies, the main focus is on the tradeoffs
between microclimate and energy platforms to predict the impact of UHI
and overheating effect on existing urban areas, to fine tune existing
weather data, or to estimate the effect of future climate conditions on
energy demands [119–123]. Xu, et al. [124], examined the effect of
using different microclimate data from TMY files, and locally measured
by different locations of station and showed an enhancement of the
N.M. Waly et al. Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303

Table 8 [108,116,119,130]. Noting that UWG is also gaining increased interest

Packages of tools employed in reviewed coupling studies. and is argued to yield robust predictions of microclimate parameters
Energy tool Microclimate tool Count of Count of [118,126].
Microclimate energy For the third type of studies, recent research examined the effect of
tool tool evaluating the impact of air conditioning systems on urban microcli­
Designbuildier 1 mates through a coupling between a building energy model and an at­
ENVI-met 1 1 mospheric model. In a study by Alhazmi, et al. [131], a novel approach
EnergyPlus 13 was proposed to assess the overall sensible heat emitted by buildings to
ANSYS-Fluent 2 2
ENVI-met 2 2
the environment, taking into account the thermal properties of the
in-house model and field 1 1 buildings as well as emissions from HVAC systems. The findings indi­
measurements cated that the building envelope emits more heat to the surroundings
Measured microclimate 1 1 compared to the HVAC system. Furthermore, Salamanca, et al. [132]
data and linked through
demonstrated that the operation of air conditioning systems could lead
GIS tool
OpenFOAM 3 3 to an increase in outdoor air temperatures by approximately 3 ◦ C. Xu,
UWG 3 3 et al. [133] argued that the influence of air conditioning on the outdoor
WRF-UCM 1 1 thermal environment is negligible, around 1 ◦ C in the morning, but
eQuest 1 becomes more noticeable during the night, with an increase of approx­
ENVI-met 1 1
IES-VE 3
imately 2.4 ◦ C.
ENVI-met 3 3
In-house code 1 5. Results and discussion
In-house code 1 1
Ladybug and 1
Based on hybrid review methodology on UBEM integration with
Honeybee
Ladybug and Honeybee 1 1 microclimate some gaps are depicted among prior studies. This section
TRNSYS 1 presents each of these gaps and discusses the need for future work to
In-house model 1 1 address them properly.
TUF-IOBES 1
UWG 1 1
Grand Total 22
5.1. A comprehensive UBEM framework

By examining previous UBEM work, it is found that various frame­

results of energy simulation by 6%. Luo, et al. [125] simulated the effect
of increased heat waves on energy demand. Their results showed heat
transfer from the building could increase by 77% due to increased mean
radiant and surface temperature. Santos, et al. [126] developed an al­
gorithm to couple the effect of UHI to produce more accurate energy
models using UWG. The results of this paper argued the feasibility and
highest accuracy of UWG to modify microclimate data. A similar
coupling tool is The Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model
which employs advanced numerical algorithms and physical parame­
terizations to simulate various atmospheric processes, such as radiation,
cloud formation, turbulence, and land-surface interactions. It utilizes
existing Land Use Land Cover (LULC) maps to enhance its simulations.
The WRF model offers the flexibility of adjusting resolutions for fore­
casting purposes. For example, in a study by Shu, et al. [127], two
different resolutions of 25 km and 1 km were tested, revealing that
simulations at higher resolutions resulted in more accurate representa­
tions of microclimate parameters such as temperatures and wind.
Similarly, another study Ciancio, et al. [128] demonstrated that modi­
fied climate data using the WRF model led to changes in energy de­
mands, with cooling demand showing an increase of up to 49.25%.
However, there is currently no research available that explores the
application of the WRF model specifically in hot climates.
The depicted gap here is that this type of study mostly neglects the
urban/architectural parameters. Noting that, either with or without
urban parameter modifications, the majority of studies use radiant
temperature or surface temperature as primary contributors to changes
in the microclimate scale specifically when focusing on monitoring
changes in the cooling loads followed by relative humidity and wind
speed.
For these two categories, common packages of coupling tools are
illustrated in Table 8. It is found that EnergyPlus is dominating the en­
ergy modeling filed with different user interfaces coupled with various
tools for the microclimate analysis including CFD utilizing Envi-met,
OpenFOAM, and ANSYS Fluent or numerical calculations and field
measurements employing UWG or in-house developed models
[107,117,120,122,124,125,129]. For the microclimate pat, the domi­
nating method is CFD with the most common tool Envi-met
works could be followed to assess the energy performance of urban areas
using a physics-based approach. Although it is argued that a more reli­
able and robust UBEM simulation results could be achieved through the
integration of models of occupant behavior, mobility and microclimate,
previous frameworks commonly neglect to mention areas where future
research can integrate such models. The depicted gap here is that a
comprehensive UBEM framework covering different aspects of previous
frameworks and providing areas of future enhancement is needed.
Hence, this study provides a comprehensive UBEM framework collecting
these views together under four broad categories each with relevant
subcategories as shown in Fig. 17. It also highlights areas of further
future integrations that may vary from one research to another. Each of
the integrated models is also highlighted with areas where input data
need to be modified. Noting that integrating all models at the same time,
is a complex process which would typically require high computational
and economic resources. Hence, it is important to determine the goal of
the study, the desired quality of the results, and the stage of design
before deciding which model to integrate.
5.2. Conflict between energy performance and outdoor thermal comfort
It is no longer enough to represent local climate conditions with
typical weather data that are unable to capture accurate representation
of the urban microclimate. Coupling studies have confirmed that out­
door thermal comfort and building energy demands are correlated.
However, these studies do not follow the same pattern. Some studies
proved that enhancing the thermal comfort reduces energy consump­
tion, while other studies revealed the conflict between both [109–111].
Hence, future studies assessing the urban microclimate or energy de­
mands must consider the coupling approach to maintain high quality of
their results. In terms of most affecting parameters, it is found that in hot
arid climates studies focus on measuring air and surface temperature
and leave the rest of parameters as obtained from TMY files. In tropical
climates, temperature is important too, but humidity must be included
in the modified microclimate data. Radiation of long and short waves
along with shadowing effect are also very important factor which is
included in some UBEM tools. It is also important to note that modifying

15
N.M. Waly et al. Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303

Fig. 17. Comprehensive UBEM framework.

16
N.M. Waly et al. Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303

the data must be accompanied with quantifying the energy change due

Shading WWR
to these modifications.

1
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
5.3. Integration of microclimate on UBEM process

1
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
Due to the complexity and multidimensionality of urban settings,
unrealistic and uncertain simulation results often occur. Hence, a

materials
Building
coupled UBEM microclimate approach is essential to reduce errors and
enhance simulation results. Based on single building coupling studies,

1
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
several methods could be adopted to better represent the boundary
conditions of the urban energy models. These methods include:

geometry
Vegetation Building
• Modify typical weather data using field measurements of microcli­

1
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
mate parameters at pre-specified points based on the urban form.
Where temperature is believed to be the most influencing factor in
hot climates. This method is useful when simulating energy demands

1
1

1
1

1
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
of existing urban forms. However, at the urban scale, it would require
high resources to capture change in different locations along the

Aspect
ratio
addressed context.

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
• Use UWG or WRF model to develop modified weather files repre­
senting different contexts. This method is useful when predicting

Orientation
scenarios of future climatic changes including overheating and UHI

Canyon
based on historic data. Although the WRF model has not been
extensively tested in hot climates, its efficiency and effectiveness in

1
1

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
weather forecasting for lower resolutions up to 1 km have been

Canyon
demonstrated in other contexts. For both models, application in two-

width
way coupling frameworks is limited.

1
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
• Employ the advanced technologies of CFD to simulate the urban
microclimate. This would be useful when planning new cities in BUA FAR Building
Heights
order to make use of detailed physics-based analysis to assess the
1

1
1

1
1

1
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
impact of different urban forms. Also, useful to integrate parametric
and generative design when coupling two software for CFD and

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
UBEM.
• Develop in-house algorithms to run parallel simulation platforms

1
1

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
between microclimate and urban energy.
Building

5.4. Hot climate contexts

use

1
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
One of the findings of this review is the lack of research covering hot
layout
urban
form

climate contexts both in urban energy modeling and single building

1

1
1

1
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
couplings. Although, it is important to upgrade this type of research in
hot climates since it agreed that the overheating effect and UHI are
Grasshopper

major contributors to the increase in energy demands. It is also impor­

Sketchup
platform

tant because the calculation of heating and cooling loads is different and
Rhino

Rhino
Tool

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
is highly affected by the boundary conditions.

6. Conclusion and future work

I: Architecture/
urban model

Based on a hybrid review methodology, the findings of this study

Two-way

emphasize the need for a comprehensive UBEM framework that in­

tegrates previous efforts and provides guidance for future model inte­
Architecture/urban parameters and associate tools.

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

gration. Such a framework would enable planners to assess the energy

One-way

performance of their master plans effectively. The study also under­

coupling
Type of

scored the significance of incorporating microclimate factors into urban

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1

energy assessments, with a particular focus on identifying the micro­

0

Neighbourhood

climate parameters that have the most influence on energy performance

Neighborhood
Neighborhood

Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Urban block
Urban block
Urban block
Urban block

Urban block
Urban block

Urban block
Urban block
Urban block
Urban block
Urban block

Urban block
Urban block
Urban block

in hot climate contexts, such as radiant air temperature, surface tem­

perature, and relative humidity.
Scale

Moreover, the research provided a summary of alternative methods

City

City

to obtain modified microclimate data and presented an overview of

previously employed UBEM tools and potential coupling packages. This
Climate

offers opportunities for future research to harness the power of coupling

BWh
BWh

BWh
BWh
BWh
BWh

BWh

BWh

BWh

BWh
zone

BSh
BSk

BSk
Bsh
Bsk
Aw

Aw
Af
Af

Af

Af

approaches in designing new urban areas or retrofitting existing urban

agglomerations. The study highlights the importance of using these
Table A1

Source

[107]
[109]
[119]
[114]
[115]
[124]
[120]
[108]
[129]
[117]
[121]

[116]
[130]
[122]
[123]
[134]
[125]
[118]
[135]
[136]
[126]

approaches to accurately represent future configurations, as historic

weather data alone does not encompass the strategies employed by

17
N.M. Waly et al. Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303

Table A2
Microclimate and parameters and packages of tools.
Source II: Microclimate modeling II: Microclimate modeling Depicted change
Tool Surface Mean Relative Wind Wind Solar and Tool Cooling Heating
temperature radiant Humidity speed pressure Sky load load
temperature radiation analysis analysis

[107] ENVI-met 1 1 1 1 0 0 EnergyPlus 1 0 (-) 1.7 ◦ C radiant

temperature

(-) 2.13% of total

energy
consumption
[109] In-house code 1 1 1 1 1 1 In-house code 1 0 up to (-) 23.8% in
heat stress and up
to (-) 5% in
cooling load
[119] ENVI-met 1 0 1 0 0 0 IES-VE 1 0 (-) 9% cooling
load due to
modifications of
temperature and
humidty
[114] ENVI-met 1 0 1 1 0 0 IES-VE 1 0 (-) 1.9 ◦ C radiant
temperature

(-) 4.9% cooling

load
[115] Ladybug and 1 1 1 1 0 0 Ladybug and 1 1 (+) 1 ◦ C radiant
Honeybee Honeybee temprature

(+) 10 to 15
Kwh/m2
(+) 25.85%
thermal comfort
(-) 93.14% total
energy
[124] Measured 1 1 0 0 0 0 EnergyPlus 1 1 (-) 6% in
microclimate simulation errors
data and linked when compared
through GIS tool to actual energy
data
[120] UWG 1 1 1 0 0 0 EnergyPlus 1 1 up to (+) 2.49 ◦ C
[108] ENVI-met 1 0 0 0 0 0 Designbuilder 1 0 (-) 2.1 oC radiant
temprature

(-) 29% cooling

load
[129] UWG 1 1 1 0 0 0 EnergyPlus 1 0 up to (+) 26%
temperature
prediction
accuracy

up to (-) 7.3%
gaps in estimated
energy
[117] OpenFOAM 1 1 1 1 1 1 EnergyPlus 1 0 (-) 16.4% total
energy
consumption
[121] ANSYS-Fluent 1 1 1 1 1 1 EnergyPlus 1 0 up to (+) 20%
simulated PET
due to modfied
microclimate data
[116] ENVI-met 1 1 0 0 0 0 eQuest 1 0 (-) 32% total
energy
consumption
[130] ENVI-met 1 1 0 0 0 0 IES-VE 1 0 (-) 13% total
energy
consumption
[122] OpenFOAM 1 1 0 0 0 0 EnergyPlus 1 0
[123] OpenFOAM 1 1 1 1 0 1 EnergyPlus 1 0
[134] in-house model 1 1 1 1 1 1 TRNSYS 1 0 up to (-) 29% total
energy
consumption
[125] WRF-UCM 1 1 1 1 1 1 EnergyPlus 1 0 up to (+) 77%
heat transferred
from buildings
when simulating
heat waves
(continued on next page)

18
N.M. Waly et al. Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303

Table A2 (continued )
Source II: Microclimate modeling II: Microclimate modeling Depicted change
Tool Surface Mean Relative Wind Wind Solar and Tool Cooling Heating
temperature radiant Humidity speed pressure Sky load load
temperature radiation analysis analysis

[118] UWG 1 1 1 1 1 1 TUF-IOBES 1 0 up to (-) 10%

cooling load
[135] in-house model 1 1 1 1 1 1 EnergyPlus 1 0 up to (-) 60%
and field cooling load
measurements
[136] ANSYS 1 1 1 1 1 1 EnergyPlus 1 0 up to (+) 64%
accuracy of the
simulated energy
results
[126] UWG 1 1 1 1 1 1 EnergyPlus 1 0

designers to mitigate climate change. The coupling of urban energy References:

assessment with considerations of overheating and urban heat island
(UHI) effects using physics-based models emerges as a vital area for
further exploration.
Overall, this research contributes to the advancement of UBEM
studies by providing insights, directions, and a reliable framework for
incorporating microclimate parameters, coupling approaches, and
future configurations in urban energy assessments. It lays the ground­
work for future investigations into the impact of overheating and UHI
through a physics-based lens, enhancing the understanding of the
complex interactions between urban environments and energy
performance.
The future directions outlined by this review suggest the following:
• To enhance the Urban Building Energy Modeling (UBEM) process, it
is crucial to integrate microclimate, occupant behavior, and gener­
ative design models. The prioritization of this integration should be
based on the study’s scope, required accuracy, and the intended
application of the results.
• For future research focused on climate mitigation strategies, it is
recommended to consider three sets of parameters: urban form,
urban microclimate, and urban and building energy performance.
• In regions characterized by hot climates such as arid and tropical
areas, particular attention should be given to studying urban energy
assessment in conjunction with microclimate and outdoor thermal
performance. This step is vital for mitigating the Urban Heat Island
(UHI) effect.
• In all cases, the validation of UBEM models is crucial to demonstrate
their applicability. Therefore, the validation process should not be
limited to obtaining actual energy data alone. Instead, it is important
to develop new validation methods that incorporate both numerical
and experimental approaches to bridge this gap.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Appendix A
Table A1
Table A2
[1] WorldBank. (2023, 4/4/2023). Urban population data. Available: https://data.
worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS.
[2] I. Lima, V. Scalco, R. Lamberts, Estimating the impact of urban densification on
high-rise office building cooling loads in a hot and humid climate, Energy and
Buildings 182 (2019) 30–44.
[3] H. Kim, D. Gu, H.Y. Kim, Effects of Urban Heat Island mitigation in various
climate zones in the United States, Sustainable Cities and Society 41 (2018)
841–852.
[4] M. Ferrando, F. Causone, T. Hong, Y. Chen, Urban building energy modeling
(UBEM) tools: A state-of-the-art review of bottom-up physics-based approaches,
Sustainable Cities and Society 62 (2020), 102408.
[5] X. Jin, F. Xiao, C. Zhang, Z. Chen, Semi-supervised learning based framework for
urban level building electricity consumption prediction, Applied Energy 328
(2022), 120210.
[6] U. Ali, M.H. Shamsi, C. Hoare, E. Mangina, J. O’Donnell, Review of urban
building energy modeling (UBEM) approaches, methods and tools using
qualitative and quantitative analysis, Energy and Buildings 246 (2021), 111073.
[7] B. Bass, J. New, N. Clinton, M. Adams, B. Copeland, C. Amoo, How close are
urban scale building simulations to measured data? Examining bias derived from
building metadata in urban building energy modeling, Applied Energy 327
(2022), 120049.
[8] J. Chen, et al., Stochastic simulation of occupant-driven energy use in a bottom-
up residential building stock model, Applied Energy 325 (2022), 119890.
[9] Z. Liu, X. Zhou, W. Tian, X. Liu, D. Yan, Impacts of uncertainty in building
envelope thermal transmittance on heating/cooling demand in the urban context,
Energy and Buildings 273 (2022), 112363.
[10] F. Johari, G. Peronato, P. Sadeghian, X. Zhao, J. Widén, Urban building energy
modeling: State of the art and future prospects, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 128 (2020), 109902.
[11] T. Hong, Y. Xu, K. Sun, W. Zhang, X. Luo, B. Hooper, Urban microclimate and its
impact on building performance: A case study of San Francisco, Urban Climate 38
(2021), 100871.
[12] J. Huang, P. Jones, A. Zhang, R. Peng, X. Li, P.-W. Chan, Urban Building Energy
and Climate (UrBEC) simulation: Example application and field evaluation in Sai
Ying Pun, Hong Kong, Energy and Buildings 207 (2020), 109580.
[13] A. Vallati, A.D.L. Vollaro, I. Golasi, E. Barchiesi, C. Caranese, On the Impact of
Urban Micro Climate on the Energy Consumption of Buildings, Energy Procedia
82 (2015) 506–511.
[14] E. Garreau, et al., District MOdeller and SIMulator (DIMOSIM) – A dynamic
simulation platform based on a bottom-up approach for district and territory
energetic assessment, Energy and Buildings 251 (2021), 111354.
[15] S. Zhu, et al., Numerical simulation to assess the impact of urban green
infrastructure on building energy use: A review, Building and Environment 228
(2023), 109832.
[16] G.M. Stavrakakis, D.A. Katsaprakakis, M. Damasiotis, Basic Principles, Most
Common Computational Tools, and Capabilities for Building Energy and Urban
Microclimate Simulations, Energies 14 (20) (2021) 6707.
[17] H. Bherwani, A. Singh, R. Kumar, Assessment methods of urban microclimate and
its parameters: A critical review to take the research from lab to land, Urban
Climate 34 (2020), 100690.
[18] C.K.C. Lam, H. Lee, S.-R. Yang, S. Park, A review on the significance and
perspective of the numerical simulations of outdoor thermal environment,
Sustainable Cities and Society 71 (2021), 102971.
[19] Y. Zhou, N. An, J. Yao, Characteristics, Progress and Trends of Urban
Microclimate Research: A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric
Analysis, Buildings 12 (7) (2022) 877.
[20] P. Ampatzidis, T. Kershaw, A review of the impact of blue space on the urban
microclimate, Science of The Total Environment 730 (2020), 139068.
[21] F. Balany, A.W. Ng, N. Muttil, S. Muthukumaran, M.S. Wong, Green Infrastructure
as an Urban Heat Island Mitigation Strategy—A Review, Water 12 (12) (2020)
3577.
[22] P. Manandhar, H. Rafiq, E. Rodriguez-Ubinas, Current status, challenges, and
prospects of data-driven urban energy modeling: A review of machine learning
methods, Energy Reports 9 (2023) 2757–2776.

19
N.M. Waly et al.
[23] Y. Li, Z. O’Neill, L. Zhang, J. Chen, P. Im, J. DeGraw, Grey-box modeling and
application for building energy simulations - A critical review, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 146 (2021), 111174.
[24] S.J. Quan, C. Li, Urban form and building energy use: A systematic review of
measures, mechanisms, and methodologies, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 139 (2021), 110662.
[25] I. Kousis, M. Manni, A.L. Pisello, Environmental mobile monitoring of urban
microclimates: A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 169 (2022),
112847.
[26] L. Leydesdorff Scientometrics N.J. Smelser P.B. Baltes International Encyclopedia
of the Social & Behavioral Sciences 2001 Pergamon Oxford 13752 13755.
[27] C.F. Reinhart, C. Cerezo Davila, Urban building energy modeling - A review of a
nascent field, Building and Environment, Review 97 (2016) 196–202.
[28] C. Wang, M. Ferrando, F. Causone, X. Jin, X. Zhou, X. Shi, Data acquisition for
urban building energy modeling: A review, Building and Environment 217
(2022), 109056.
[29] A. Malhotra, et al., Information modelling for urban building energy
simulation—A taxonomic review, Building and Environment 208 (2022),
108552.
[30] L. Dahlström, T. Broström, J. Widén, Advancing urban building energy modelling
through new model components and applications: A review, Energy and Buildings
266 (2022), 112099.
[31] T. Hong, Y. Chen, X. Luo, N. Luo, S.H. Lee, Ten questions on urban building
energy modeling, Building and Environment 168 (2020), 106508.
[32] A. Doma, M. Ouf, Modelling occupant behaviour for urban scale simulation:
Review of available approaches and tools, Building Simulation 16 (2) (2023)
169–184.
[33] Y.Q. Ang, Z.M. Berzolla, C.F. Reinhart, From concept to application: A review of
use cases in urban building energy modeling, Applied Energy 279 (2020),
115738.
[34] E. Kamel, A Systematic Literature Review of Physics-Based Urban Building Energy
Modeling (UBEM) Tools, Data Sources, and Challenges for Energy Conservation,
Energies 15 (2022) 8649.
[35] A. Oraiopoulos, B. Howard, On the accuracy of Urban Building Energy Modelling,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 158 (2022), 111976.
[36] S. Dabirian, K. Panchabikesan, U. Eicker, Occupant-centric urban building energy
modeling: Approaches, inputs, and data sources - A review, Energy and Buildings
257 (2022), 111809.
[37] N. Buckley, G. Mills, C. Reinhart, Z.M. Berzolla, Using urban building energy
modelling (UBEM) to support the new European Union’s Green Deal: Case study
of Dublin Ireland, Energy and Buildings 247 (2021), 111115.
[38] S.M. Murshed, S. Picard, A. Koch, Modelling, Validation and Quantification of
Climate and Other Sensitivities of Building Energy Model on 3D City Models,
ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 7 (11) (2018) 447.
[39] E. Heidelberger, T. Rakha, Inclusive urban building energy modeling through
socioeconomic data: A persona-based case study for an underrepresented
community, Building and Environment 222 (2022), 109374.
[40] J. Zou, H. Lu, C. Shu, L. Ji, A. Gaur, L. Wang, Multiscale numerical assessment of
urban overheating under climate projections: A review, Urban Climate 49 (2023),
101551.
[41] X. Luo, T. Hong, Y.-H. Tang, Modeling Thermal Interactions between Buildings in
an Urban Context, Energies 13 (9) (2020) 2382.
[42] Z. Deng, Y. Chen, J. Yang, Z. Chen, Archetype identification and urban building
energy modeling for city-scale buildings based on GIS datasets, Building
Simulation 15 (9) (2022) 1547–1559.
[43] N. Artiges, S. Rouchier, B. Delinchant, F. Wurtz, Bayesian Inference of Dwellings
Energy Signature at National Scale: Case of the French Residential Stock, Energies
14 (18) (2021) 5651.
[44] X. Jin, C. Zhang, F. Xiao, A. Li, C. Miller, A review and reflection on open datasets
of city-level building energy use and their applications, Energy and Buildings 285
(2023), 112911.
[45] C.H.H. Wong, M. Cai, C. Ren, Y. Huang, C. Liao, S. Yin, Modelling building energy
use at urban scale: A review on their account for the urban environment, Building
and Environment 205 (2021), 108235.
[46] S. HosseiniHaghighi, P.M.Á. de Uribarri, R. Padsala, U. Eicker, Characterizing and
structuring urban GIS data for housing stock energy modelling and retrofitting,
Energy and Buildings 256 (2022), 111706.
[47] Z. Deng, Y. Chen, X. Pan, Z. Peng, J. Yang, Integrating GIS-Based Point of Interest
and Community Boundary Datasets for Urban Building Energy Modeling,
Energies 14 (4) (2021) 1049.
[48] Y. Chen, T. Hong, X. Luo, B. Hooper, Development of city buildings dataset for
urban building energy modeling, Energy and Buildings 183 (2019) 252–265.
[49] J.T. Szcześniak, Y.Q. Ang, S. Letellier-Duchesne, C.F. Reinhart, A method for
using street view imagery to auto-extract window-to-wall ratios and its relevance
for urban-level daylighting and energy simulations, Building and Environment
207 (2022), 108108.
[50] M. Dai, W.O.C. Ward, H. Arbabi, D. Densley Tingley, M. Mayfield, Scalable
Residential Building Geometry Characterisation Using Vehicle-Mounted Camera
System, Energies 15 (16) (2022) 6090.
[51] I. Dochev, et al., Calculating urban heat demands: An analysis of two modelling
approaches and remote sensing for input data and validation, Energy and
Buildings 226 (2020), 110378.
[52] I. De Jaeger, G. Reynders, C. Callebaut, D. Saelens, A building clustering approach
for urban energy simulations, Energy and Buildings 208 (2020), 109671.
20
Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303
[53] M. Gholami, D. Torreggiani, P. Tassinari, A. Barbaresi, Narrowing uncertainties in
forecasting urban building energy demand through an optimal archetyping
method, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 148 (2021), 111312.
[54] J. Sokol, C. Cerezo Davila, C.F. Reinhart, Validation of a Bayesian-based method
for defining residential archetypes in urban building energy models, Energy and
Buildings 134 (2017) 11–24.
[55] H. Lim, Z. Zhai, Estimating unknown parameters of a building stock using a
stochastic-deterministic-coupled approach, Energy and Buildings 255 (2022),
111673.
[56] C. Cerezo, J. Sokol, S. AlKhaled, C. Reinhart, A. Al-Mumin, A. Hajiah, Comparison
of four building archetype characterization methods in urban building energy
modeling (UBEM): A residential case study in Kuwait City, Energy and Buildings
154 (2017) 321–334.
[57] P. Nageler, A. Koch, F. Mauthner, I. Leusbrock, T. Mach, C. Hochenauer,
R. Heimrath, Comparison of dynamic urban building energy models (UBEM):
Sigmoid energy signature and physical modelling approach, Energy and Buildings
179 (2018) 333–343.
[58] Y. Chen, T. Hong, Impacts of building geometry modeling methods on the
simulation results of urban building energy models, Applied Energy 215 (2018)
717–735.
[59] M.H. Kristensen, R.E. Hedegaard, S. Petersen, Hierarchical calibration of
archetypes for urban building energy modeling, Energy and Buildings 175 (2018)
219–234.
[60] M.H. Kristensen, R.E. Hedegaard, S. Petersen, Long-term forecasting of hourly
district heating loads in urban areas using hierarchical archetype modeling,
Energy 201 (2020), 117687.
[61] O. Pasichnyi, J. Wallin, O. Kordas, Data-driven building archetypes for urban
building energy modelling, Energy 181 (2019) 360–377.
[62] G. Tardioli, R. Kerrigan, M. Oates, J. O’Donnell, D.P. Finn, Identification of
representative buildings and building groups in urban datasets using a novel pre-
processing, classification, clustering and predictive modelling approach, Building
and Environment 140 (2018) 90–106.
[63] Z. Shi et al., “Defining archetypes of mixed-use developments using Google Maps
API data,” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, vol. 0, no.
0, p. 23998083221141428.
[64] D. Heidenthaler, M. Leeb, P. Reindl, L. Kranzl, T. Bednar, M. Moltinger, Building
stock characteristics of residential buildings in Salzburg, Austria based on a
structured analysis of energy performance certificates, Energy and Buildings 273
(2022), 112401.
[65] I. De Jaeger, J. Lago, D. Saelens, A probabilistic building characterization method
for district energy simulations, Energy and Buildings 230 (2021), 110566.
[66] Y.Q. Ang, Z.M. Berzolla, S. Letellier-Duchesne, V. Jusiega, C. Reinhart, UBEM.io:
A web-based framework to rapidly generate urban building energy models for
carbon reduction technology pathways, Sustainable Cities and Society 77 (2022),
103534.
[67] Y. Chen, Z. Deng, T. Hong, Automatic and rapid calibration of urban building
energy models by learning from energy performance database, Applied Energy
277 (2020), 115584.
[68] Y. Chen, T. Hong, M.A. Piette, Automatic generation and simulation of urban
building energy models based on city datasets for city-scale building retrofit
analysis, Applied Energy 205 (2017) 323–335.
[69] T. Dogan, C. Reinhart, Shoeboxer: An algorithm for abstracted rapid multi-zone
urban building energy model generation and simulation, Energy and Buildings
140 (2017) 140–153.
[70] J. Wen, S. Yang, Y. Xie, J. Yu, B. Lin, A fast calculation tool for assessing the
shading effect of surrounding buildings on window transmitted solar radiation
energy, Sustainable Cities and Society 81 (2022), 103834.
[71] M. Issermann, F.-J. Chang, P.-Y. Kow, Interactive urban building energy
modelling with functional mockup interface of a local residential building stock,
Journal of Cleaner Production 289 (2021), 125683.
[72] L. Teso, et al., Large scale energy analysis and renovation strategies for social
housing in the historic city of Venice, Sustainable Energy Technologies and
Assessments 52 (2022), 102041.
[73] T. Charan, C. Mackey, A. Irani, B. Polly, S. Ray, K. Fleming, R. El Kontar,
N. Moore, T. Elgindy, D. Cutler, M.S. Roudsari, D. Goldwasser, Integration of
Open-Source URBANopt and Dragonfly Energy Modeling Capabilities into
Practitioner Workflows for District-Scale Planning and Design, Energies 14 (18)
(2021) 5931.
[74] Z. Deng, Y. Chen, J. Yang, F. Causone, AutoBPS: A tool for urban building energy
modeling to support energy efficiency improvement at city-scale, Energy and
Buildings 282 (2023), 112794.
[75] A. Mathur, P. Fennell, R. Rawal, I. Korolija, “Assessing a fit-for-purpose urban
building energy modelling framework with reference to Ahmedabad,” Science and
Technology for the, Built Environment 27 (8) (2021) 1075–1103.
[76] X. Faure, T. Johansson, O. Pasichnyi, The Impact of Detail, Shadowing and
Thermal Zoning Levels on Urban Building Energy Modelling (UBEM) on a District
Scale, Energies 15 (4) (2022) 1525.
[77] J. Allan, et al., Operational and embodied emissions associated with urban
neighbourhood densification strategies, Energy and Buildings 276 (2022),
112482.
[78] A. Malhotra, M. Shamovich, J. Frisch, C. van Treeck, Urban energy simulations
using open CityGML models: A comparative analysis, Energy and Buildings 255
(2022), 111658.
[79] S. Risch, P. Remmen, D. Müller, Influence of data acquisition on the Bayesian
calibration of urban building energy models, Energy and Buildings 230 (2021),
110512.
N.M. Waly et al.
[80] P. Remmen, M. Lauster, M. Mans, M. Fuchs, T. Osterhage, D. Müller, TEASER: an
open tool for urban energy modelling of building stocks, Journal of Building
Performance Simulation 11 (1) (2018) 84–98.
[81] E. Prataviera, P. Romano, L. Carnieletto, F. Pirotti, J. Vivian, A. Zarrella, EUReCA:
An open-source urban building energy modelling tool for the efficient evaluation
of cities energy demand, Renewable Energy 173 (2021) 544–560.
[82] P. Romano, E. Prataviera, L. Carnieletto, J. Vivian, M. Zinzi, A. Zarrella,
Assessment of the Urban Heat Island Impact on Building Energy Performance at
District Level with the EUReCA Platform, Climate 9 (3) (2021) 48.
[83] I. Mansó Borràs, D. Neves, R. Gomes, Using urban building energy modeling data
to assess energy communities’ potential, Energy and Buildings 282 (2023),
112791.
[84] F. Haneef, G. Pernigotto, A. Gasparella, J.H. Kämpf, Application of Urban Scale
Energy Modelling and Multi-Objective Optimization Techniques for Building
Energy Renovation at District Scale, Sustainability 13 (20) (2021) 11554.
[85] G. Mutani, V. Todeschi, Building energy modeling at neighborhood scale, Energy
Efficiency 13 (7) (2020) 1353–1386.
[86] T. de Rubeis, L. Giacchetti, D. Paoletti, D. Ambrosini, Building energy
performance analysis at urban scale: A supporting tool for energy strategies and
urban building energy rating identification, Sustainable Cities and Society 74
(2021), 103220.
[87] S.S. Abolhassani, M. Amayri, N. Bouguila, U. Eicker, “A new workflow for
detailed urban scale building energy modeling using spatial joining of attributes
for archetype selection,” Journal of Building, Engineering 46 (2022), 103661.
[88] Q. Ji, Y. Bi, M. Makvandi, Q. Deng, X. Zhou, C. Li, Modelling Building Stock
Energy Consumption at the Urban Level from an Empirical Study, Buildings 12
(3) (2022) 385.
[89] A. Zarrella, E. Prataviera, P. Romano, L. Carnieletto, J. Vivian, Analysis and
application of a lumped-capacitance model for urban building energy modelling,
Sustainable Cities and Society 63 (2020), 102450.
[90] M. Mosteiro-Romero, I. Hischier, J.A. Fonseca, A. Schlueter, A novel population-
based occupancy modeling approach for district-scale simulations compared to
standard-based methods, Building and Environment 181 (2020), 107084.
[91] S. Martinez, M. Vellei, J. Le Dréau, Demand-side flexibility in a residential
district: What are the main sources of uncertainty? Energy and Buildings 255
(2022), 111595.
[92] F. Battini, G. Pernigotto, A. Gasparella, A shoeboxing algorithm for urban
building energy modeling: Validation for stand-alone buildings, Sustainable Cities
and Society 89 (2023), 104305.
[93] F. Johari, J. Munkhammar, F. Shadram, J. Widén, Evaluation of simplified
building energy models for urban-scale energy analysis of buildings, Building and
Environment 211 (2022), 108684.
[94] S. Liu, Y.T. Kwok, C. Ren, Investigating the impact of urban microclimate on
building thermal performance: A case study of dense urban areas in Hong Kong,
Sustainable Cities and Society 94 (2023), 104509.
[95] A. Katal, M. Mortezazadeh, L. Wang, Modeling building resilience against
extreme weather by integrated CityFFD and CityBEM simulations, Applied Energy
250 (2019) 1402–1417.
[96] A. Katal, M. Mortezazadeh, L. Wang, H. Yu, Urban building energy and
microclimate modeling – From 3D city generation to dynamic simulations,
Energy 251 (2022), 123817.
[97] W. Li, Quantifying the Building Energy Dynamics of Manhattan, New York City,
Using an Urban Building Energy Model and Localized Weather Data, Energies 13
(12) (2020) 3244.
[98] A. Demir Dilsiz, K. Ng, J. Kämpf, Z. Nagy, Ranking parameters in urban energy
models for various building forms and climates using sensitivity analysis,
Building Simulation (2022).
[99] M. Wang, H. Yu, Y. Yang, R. Jing, Y. Tang, C. Li, Assessing the impacts of urban
morphology factors on the energy performance for building stocks based on a
novel automatic generation framework, Sustainable Cities and Society 87 (2022),
104267.
[100] G. Mutani M. Carozza V. Todeschi A. Rolando Urban-Scale Energy Models:
relationship between urban form and energy performance in 2020 IEEE 3rd
International Conference and Workshop in Óbuda on Electrical and Power
Engineering (CANDO-EPE) 2020 000185 000190.
[101] A. Vartholomaios, A parametric sensitivity analysis of the influence of urban form
on domestic energy consumption for heating and cooling in a Mediterranean city,
Sustainable Cities and Society 28 (2017) 135–145.
[102] L. Pei Mines Paris, PSL University, Centre for Energy Efficiency of Systems (CES),
75006 Paris, France P. Schalbart Mines Paris, PSL University, Centre for Energy
Efficiency of Systems (CES), 75006 Paris, France B. Peuportier Mines Paris, PSL
University, Centre for Energy Efficiency of Systems (CES), 75006 Paris, France
Quantitative Evaluation of the Effects of Heat Island on Building Energy
Simulation: A Case Study in Wuhan, China Energies 16 7 2023 3032.
[103] N. Lauzet, et al., How building energy models take the local climate into account
in an urban context – A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116
(2019), 109390.
[104] H. Mahmoud, H. Ghanem, S. Sodoudi, Urban geometry as an adaptation strategy
to improve the outdoor thermal performance in hot arid regions: Aswan
University as a case study, Sustainable Cities and Society 71 (2021), 102965.
[105] O.M. Galal, H. Mahmoud, D. Sailor, Impact of evolving building morphology on
microclimate in a hot arid climate, Sustainable Cities and Society 54 (2020),
102011.
[106] M. Dardir, U. Berardi, Development of microclimate modeling for enhancing
neighborhood thermal performance through urban greenery cover, Energy and
Buildings 252 (2021), 111428.
21
Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303
[107] J. Ge, Y. Wang, H. Akbari, D. Zhou, Z. Gu, X. Meng, Cooling energy saving by
vegetation planting in high-density districts: Evaluation using the coupled
simulation, Building and Environment 232 (2023), 110054.
[108] A. Sedaghat, M. Sharif, Mitigation of the impacts of heat islands on energy
consumption in buildings: A case study of the city of Tehran, Iran, Sustainable
Cities and Society 76 (2022), 103435.
[109] X. Zheng, L. Chen, J. Yang, Simulation framework for early design guidance of
urban streets to improve outdoor thermal comfort and building energy efficiency
in summer, Building and Environment 228 (2023), 109815.
[110] G. Xu, H. Zhao, J. Li, Y. Shi, X. Feng, and Y. Zhang, “Multivariate thermal
environment data extraction and evaluation: A neighborhood scale case in
Guangzhou, China,” Building and Environment, vol. 234, p. 110190, 2023/04/15/
2023.
[111] S. Mirzabeigi, M. Razkenari, Design optimization of urban typologies: A
framework for evaluating building energy performance and outdoor thermal
comfort, Sustainable Cities and Society 76 (2022), 103515.
[112] P. Bansal, S.J. Quan, Relationships between building characteristics, urban form
and building energy use in different local climate zone contexts: An empirical
study in Seoul, Energy and Buildings 272 (2022), 112335.
[113] A. Salvati, M. Palme, G. Chiesa, M. Kolokotroni, Built form, urban climate and
building energy modelling: case-studies in Rome and Antofagasta, Journal of
Building Performance Simulation 13 (2) (2020) 209–225.
[114] S. Shareef, H. Altan, Urban block configuration and the impact on energy
consumption: A case study of sinuous morphology, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 163 (2022), 112507.
[115] N. Abdollahzadeh, N. Biloria, Urban microclimate and energy consumption: A
multi-objective parametric urban design approach for dense subtropical cities,
Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (3) (2022) 453–465.
[116] D. Jareemit, P. Canyookt, Residential cluster design and potential improvement
for maximum energy performance and outdoor thermal comfort on a hot summer
in Thailand, International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 16 (2) (2021)
592–603.
[117] M. Hadavi, H. Pasdarshahri, “Investigating effects of urban configuration and
density on urban climate and building systems energy consumption,” Journal of
Building, Engineering 44 (2021), 102710.
[118] N. Nazarian, N. Dumas, J. Kleissl, L. Norford, Effectiveness of cool walls on
cooling load and urban temperature in a tropical climate, Energy and Buildings
187 (2019) 144–162.
[119] M.H. Elnabawi N. Hamza A Methodology of Creating a Synthetic, Urban-Specific
Weather Dataset Using a Microclimate Model for Building Energy Modelling
Buildings 12 9 1407.
[120] R. Ma, T. Wang, Y. Wang, J. Chen, Tuning urban microclimate: A morpho-patch
approach for multi-scale building group energy simulation, Sustainable Cities and
Society 76 (2022), 103516.
[121] R. Aghamolaei, M. Fallahpour, P.A. Mirzaei, Tempo-spatial thermal comfort
analysis of urban heat island with coupling of CFD and building energy
simulation, Energy and Buildings 251 (2021), 111317.
[122] M. Miguel, et al., A physically-based model of interactions between a building and
its outdoor conditions at the urban microscale, Energy and Buildings 237 (2021),
110788.
[123] M. Hadavi, H. Pasdarshahri, Impacts of urban buildings on microclimate and
cooling systems efficiency: Coupled CFD and BES simulations, Sustainable Cities
and Society 67 (2021), 102740.
[124] L. Xu, et al., Better understanding on impact of microclimate information on
building energy modelling performance for urban resilience, Sustainable Cities
and Society 80 (2022), 103775.
[125] X. Luo, P. Vahmani, T. Hong, A. Jones, City-Scale Building Anthropogenic
Heating during Heat Waves, Atmosphere 11 (11) (2020) 1206.
[126] L.G.R. Santos, A. Afshari, L.K. Norford, J. Mao, Evaluating approaches for district-
wide energy model calibration considering the Urban Heat Island effect, Applied
Energy 215 (2018) 31–40.
[127] C. Shu, et al., Added value of convection permitting climate modelling in urban
overheating assessments, Building and Environment 207 (2022), 108415.
[128] V. Ciancio, S. Falasca, I. Golasi, G. Curci, M. Coppi, F. Salata, Influence of Input
Climatic Data on Simulations of Annual Energy Needs of a Building: EnergyPlus
and WRF Modeling for a Case Study in Rome (Italy), Energies 11 (10) (2018)
2835.
[129] A. Kamal, et al., Impact of urban morphology on urban microclimate and building
energy loads, Energy and Buildings 253 (2021), 111499.
[130] S. Shareef, The impact of urban morphology and building’s height diversity on
energy consumption at urban scale. The case study of Dubai, Building and
Environment 194 (2021), 107675.
[131] M. Alhazmi, D.J. Sailor, J. Anand, A new perspective for understanding actual
anthropogenic heat emissions from buildings, Energy and Buildings 258 (2022),
111860.
[132] F. Salamanca, A. Krpo, A. Martilli, A. Clappier, A new building energy model
coupled with an urban canopy parameterization for urban climate
simulations—part I. formulation, verification, and sensitivity analysis of the
model, Theoretical and Applied Climatology 99 (3) (2010) 331–344.
[133] X. Xu, et al., Using WRF-Urban to Assess Summertime Air Conditioning Electric
Loads and Their Impacts on Urban Weather in Beijing, Journal of Geophysical
Research: Atmospheres 123 (5) (2018) 2475–2490.
[134] A. M’Saouri El Bat, Z. Romani, E. Bozonnet, A. Draoui, “Thermal impact of street
canyon microclimate on building energy needs using TRNSYS: A case study of the
N.M. Waly et al. Energy & Buildings 295 (2023) 113303

city of Tangier in Morocco,” Case Studies, Thermal Engineering 24 (2021),
100834.
[135] M. Shirzadi, M. Naghashzadegan, P.A. Mirzaei, Developing a framework for
improvement of building thermal performance modeling under urban
microclimate interactions, Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 27–39.
[136] R. Zhang, P.A. Mirzaei, B. Jones, Development of a dynamic external CFD and BES
coupling framework for application of urban neighbourhoods energy modelling,
Building and Environment 146 (2018) 37–49.

22