Abstract
A major consideration for consumers and the residential construction industry is the cost–benefit and break-even of various sustainable construction options. This research provides a publicly available simulation that allows users to compare baseline construction options versus sustainable options and evaluates both break-even costs as well as environmental effects. This R Shiny Monte Carlo simulation uses common pseudo-random number streams for replicability and includes options for solar, rainwater harvesting, wells, Icynene foam, engineered lumber, Energy Star windows and doors, low flow fixtures, aerobic/non-aerobic/city waste treatment, electric versus gasoline vehicles, and many other options. This is the first simulation to quantify multiple sustainable construction options, associated break-even points, and environmental considerations for public use. Using user default parameters, coupled with a 100% solar solution for a baseline 3000 square foot/279 square meter house with 2 occupants results in a break-even of 9 years. Results show that many of the sustainable options are both green for the environment and green for the pocketbook.
Highlights
Reducing the impact of the built environment is a necessary step to address concerns of climate change, as well as population growth
Incorporating requirements into Green building codes and certifications (GBCCs) systems improves environmental performance 15–25% across 12 environmental impact categories when compared with the construction of a standard office building, as defined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology [1]
Using distributions based upon known costs and relationships, we propose a simulation that allows users to investigate singularly or simultaneously various green construction options
Summary
Understanding which codes result in effective environmental changes that are positive for the consumer is necessary [1]. Incorporating requirements into GBCC systems improves environmental performance 15–25% across 12 environmental impact categories when compared with the construction of a standard office building, as defined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology [1]. Electricity, tap water consumption, and employee commuting dominated 10 out of 12 environmental impact categories, categories that included global warming; human health consequences; eutrophication, acidification, and use of water; and smog formation. GBCCs have been found to cause up to 25% fewer environmental impacts than standard building techniques. Specific improvements include acidification (25%), human health—respiratory (24%), and global warming (22%) [2]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
