Improving the economic viability of investment in building sustainability through the valuation of resilience-based co-benefits

Abstract

In recent years, building designers and community planners have recognized the importance of taking an integrated approach to sustainability and resilience, but in practical application this dual objective approach is not often intentionally realized. For some time, the two efforts have been largely disconnected despite overlapping agendas and shared co-benefits. A building cannot be classified as sustainable if it is not durable enough to withstand the impacts of natural disasters and maintain its functional resilience. Therefore, formally integrating the two concepts is important to ensure the development of long-term sustainable residential and commercial buildings that can withstand the increasing large-scale disaster events of greater magnitude than ever before. A common deterrent for many homeowners to invest in sustainable building elements are the significant upfront costs required. However, the economic viability of such investments can be improved if homeowners facing hazard events or stressors see their investments in sustainability as a way to increase the resilience of their homes to disasters, benefiting from the monetization of numerous direct and/or indirect cost savings or losses avoided. A case study based on a single-family home in Maryland with an installed rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) system with the option for additional battery storage is used to reveal the potential effects of considering resilience benefits in economic analyses of investments in residential sustainability. The results of an environmental impact assessment are then used to reveal underlying tradeoffs between investments in building sustainability (indirect resilience) and a building's environmental footprint.