Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 14 (2020) 280-292 doi: 10.17265/1934-7359/2020.05.006 Analysis of Economic and Socio-Environmental Indicators for Energy, Materials and Water Management and Proposal of Technologies and Alternatives for Sustainable Construction in Housing Clauciana Schmidt Bueno de Moraes1, Rodrigo Prieto Rocha1, Stephani Cristine de Souza Lima1, Leonardo Prudente Torres Gualter1,2, Adriana Maria Nolasco3, Miguel José Oliveira4, Miguel Pires Amado5 and Manuel Duarte Pinheiro5 1. Universidade Estadual Paulista—UNESP, São Paulo, CEP 01049-010, Brasil 2. Universidade de São Paulo—POLI/USP, São Paulo, CEP 05508-010, Brasil 3. Universidade de São Paulo—ESALQ/USP, São Paulo, CEP 13418-900, Brasil 4. Universidade do Algarve, Faro 8005-139, Portugal 5. Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa 1649-004, Portugal Abstract: The work presents technologies of materials, energy and water management that can be used for sustainable buildings, reducing costs and environmental impacts. The aim was to encourage the reduction of energy consumption, adequate water management and more sustainable material choices in new or existing buildings. For this, a diagnosis of existing technologies and alternatives was carried out in the first stage of the work. The second stage consisted of analyzing among the technologies and alternatives diagnosed from the methodology which can be applied in a fictitious case study of housing, its implementation and maintenance and viability analyzing, finally, environmental indicators, social and economic. The results showed that the best evaluated technologies/alternatives were in Energy: ventilation and natural light; in Water Management: double-action sanitary basin, flow restrictors, aerators with constant flow, and minicistern systems; and in Materials: bamboo, wood, soil-cement brick, earth, steel frame and wood frame, aggregate with ash from rice husks, aggregate with ash from sugarcane bagasse, glass, phase change materials, aggregate with residues of construction and demolition, Portland cement and cement with blast furnace slag; which can be used in the civil construction sector, and provide socio-environmental and economic benefits, encouraging new studies and its use for public/private buildings, aid in the elaboration of public policies to reduce costs and improve the quality of buildings. Key words: Economic viability, socio-environmental viability, housing, sustainable construction, energy, materials, water management. 1. Introduction Civil construction is one of the sectors that generate significant negative impacts on the environment. With the population growth and consequent increase in the demand of this sector, it is imperative that actions be taken that seek to minimize such environmental impacts and optimize processes. From this concern Corresponding author: Clauciana Schmidt Bueno de Moraes, PhD, São Paulo State University (UNESP). arises the sustainable construction, that is, the search for the adequate management of the built environment. Less shocking practices and greater responsibility for socio-environmental issues and even lower economic costs are initiated. In this new panorama, several technologies and/or alternatives that seek to use the concept of sustainable in practice in civil construction apply. Some of these technologies are often technically optimal, but with high cost, making it a work with a high cost and D DAVID PUBLISHING Analysis of Economic and Socio-Environmental Viability Indicators for Energy, Materials and Water Management and Proposal of Technologies and Alternatives for Sustainable Construction in Housing 281 unfeasible. Others may be technically viable, but environmentally replacing them will not compensate for the extra expenses they may have, with an unfavorable payback time. In this way, the study aims to diagnose and analyze existing alternative technologies and materials, energy and water management that can be used for more sustainable buildings, helping to reduce costs and environmental impacts. The specific objectives are: to analyze the technologies in the mentioned themes (energy, water and materials management) and their application in the context of sustainable construction in dwellings and; analyze the costs of implementation and/or maintenance of the diagnosed technologies, their effectiveness and viability through economic, environmental and social indicators aimed at sustainable construction. 2. Methodology A collection of data on existing technologies and/or alternatives in energy, water management and materials considered more sustainable was carried out. Subsequently, we analyzed the recurring difficulties among the several authors mentioned in this methodology, thus giving a list of parameters with items in each theme to be checked which are more suitable for application in buildings (existing and/or under construction). In this data collection, bibliographical, market research and technical visits were carried out, being registered and tested in sub-projects linked to this work that portray the results by survey themes. For each theme (energy, water and material management), specific calculations were used to select the most effective and feasible technologies for use and adaptation in single family homes, aiming at the application of the concept of sustainable construction, cost reduction and socio-environmental impacts. These calculations are described by theme, in following topics. After the application of the test methodology in each theme, a simulation of a single-family residence (fictitious case) was performed, using economic and socio-environmental indicators in each context, investment calculation and time of return, presenting the three themes in a single context which can be applied to a residence. As a case study of this work, simulations were carried out in fictional homes in Brazil, but the study can be adapted to any reality, using the steps of this work and the technologies and alternatives existing in the locality to be applied. The data of the fictitious residence, its characteristics, location and other details are described in the results of this work. It should be emphasized that this methodology can be adapted and its use directed and applied to other types of buildings since the exact dimensions and appropriate technologies for their simulation in each case, in Brazil and for other countries, are used. 2.1 Specific Calculations Used in Stage 01 of This Work in the Themes of Energy, Water and Materials for Sustainable Construction in Housing 2.1.1 Energy From the theoretical reference, the selected energy alternatives to be analyzed were: natural lighting, natural ventilation, vegetation cover and photovoltaic system. The passive strategies (natural lighting and ventilation and vegetation cover) were selected due to the fact that they are important bioclimatic factors that should be considered in a Brazilian housing project, as well as the active strategy, the photovoltaic system, which has a great energy potential in throughout the territory. It was evaluated each of the alternatives, observing which would be more advantageous economically considering previously the following conditions Wage Allocation. In order to evaluate the energy savings by the residence, a simulation was performed assuming that the family would choose only one of the technologies in their dwelling, earmarking 5% of the salary for discharge of the implementation made and the energy consumed in the residence. Analysis of Economic and Socio-Environmental Viability Indicators for Energy, Materials and Water Management and Proposal of Technologies and Alternatives for Sustainable Construction in Housing 282 Calculations. The formulas used to evaluate the costs were: Q = COST/(SM) (1) RE = (CEE × M × RCE)/100 (2) R = COST/RE (3) where Q: discharge time (month); COST: cost of the evaluated alternative (R$); SM: value referring to the percentage of the salary destined for the discharge of the alternative per month; RE: energy bill reduction (R$/year); EEC: value of the family’s monthly electricity bill; M: number of months during the year, 12 (months); CERs: reduction of energy consumption (%); A: return time (years). Source: prepared by the authors, based on Refs. [1-4]. 2.1.2 Water Management In order to determine which technologies would be most cost-benefit ratio—considering the costs of implementation, maintenance, time of return on investment (reduction of water consumption) and reuse of water, analyses were carried out based on indicators of economic, social and environmental benefits. Economic feasibility calculations were performed only for equipment or alternatives whose market values could be determined or did not require highly qualified technical knowledge for their implementation. In order to do so, we considered the cost of acquisition of the equipment and the time of return of the investment, using the equation proposed by Hafner [5]: TR = G/(C × E × p – G × r) (1) where TR—return time (years); G—total costs of acquisition of equipment and installation (R$); C—total consumption by use of conventional equipment (Liters/month); E—water savings rate generated by substitution; p—cost of drinking one liter of water; r—simple interest rate. For the calculation of tanks systems, the analysis was performed in a different way, because for systems of use of gray and rainwater, it should be used to determine the time of return of the investment: CMEE = (PE × T × D × V) (2) in which, CMEE—cost of electric energy for the operation of the tank pump (R$/month); PE—equipment power (kW); T—equipment operating time (h/day); D—number of days of operation of the equipment in the month; V—value of electric energy tariff consumed (R$/kWh). In this specific case, to calculate the time of return of tanks, hypothetical budgets have been made and the value of Cost of Maintenance of the Tank System (CMOM) has been defined, and the effective monthly economy (EE) can be calculated according to equation: EE = ER – CMOM (3) where, EE = Monthly Effective Economy; ER = Maintenance Costs of the Water Distribution Network; CMOM = Cost of Maintenance of the Tank System. When considering that the cost of maintenance of the tanks will be negligible (the equipment will not need maintenance), we can consider CMOM = CMEE. Considering the effective monthly economy multiplied by 12 months, we obtained the annual effective savings (U), used to calculate the time of return. Finally, the equation proposed by Sella was used [6]. n = P/U (4) in which, n—return time (years); P—the value of the initial investment (R$); U—the value of the annual savings portion (R$). In order to carry out the final analysis of the alternatives, a system of indicators (social, economic and environmental) was used to identify the best alternatives. Source: prepared by the authors, based on Refs. [5-9]. 2.1.3 Materials Elaboration of a spreadsheet with the following parameters: (1) The durability of the material is reflected in the life and price; (2) The recycling is more expensive than the correct disposal and transport; (3) High availability; (4) Low maintenance; (5, 6) It consumes a lot of water; (7) It consumes a lot of energy; (8) It is renewable; (9) It is recycled or reused; (10) Easy to handle; (11) It works as a thermal and/or Analysis of Economic and Socio-Environmental Viability Indicators for Energy, Materials and Water Management and Proposal of Technologies and Alternatives for Sustainable Construction in Housing 283 acoustic insulation; (12) It generates little residue; (13, (14) The material has some specific environmental seal; (15) There may be a partnership with NGO’s, cooperatives, non-profit associations, etc. (16) It needs a different material that can contaminate the construction site; (17) Can be reused; (18) Possess some hazardous material in the composition; (19) Possess reverse logistics; (20) Requires more and/or other materials for the finish; (21) Visually pleasing when installed. These parameters were chosen in order to simplify the analysis of materials. Each response has a different value and, consequently, can result in a ranking that will be the result of the simple arithmetic mean of the scores assigned to each parameter contained in the table, with the values of each parameter being as follows; 5 (five) for excellent, 3 (three) for good, 1 (one) for regular, -1 (minus one) for bad and -3 (minus three) for does not exist. M = ∑ (5) Source: prepared by the authors, based on Refs. [2-4, 10-14]. 3. Results and Discussions The selection of a fictitious single-family residence in a home rather than an apartment type is due to the fact that it facilitates the application of technologies and/or alternatives, not only for the construction company, but also for its residents, respecting the technical and permissible security of the work, with the advantages presented by the technologies in this project in energy, water and materials management. The chosen residence of the MCMV Program used for this project was Band 2—families with income of up to R$4,000.00 (four thousand reais). This selection aims to give effect to the project, since in the proposed methodology families will be able to use 5% of their income to apply the technologies, if such improvements are made after family housing. The fictional residence has 44.04 m2, two bedrooms, living room, kitchen, bathroom and laundry; aluminum frames, ceramic tile roof over metal structure, ceramic floor and space for enlargement of the work (land with an average of 160 m2). 3.1 Applicable Energy Technologies For a residence to have passive and active alternatives of energy, it is necessary to observe the variables important for its use and for its better use. In this sense, the selected and interesting strategies have the following parameters, maintenance and costs [2, 4, 8, 15].  Side windows (natural lighting and ventilation): it is necessary to check the latitude of the city, quantity and place of opening for the entrance of natural light and air exchange. Maintenance is poor when the design is done properly (cleaning or painting). There is no additional cost if correctly positioned in the design of a common residence.  Extensive coverage (vegetation cover): it is necessary to observe the climate of the region, soil thickness, type of vegetation and other factors of the residence, as the type of cover. Irrigation and periodic trimming need to be carried out and their purchase and installation cost is measured in m2, due care must be taken to avoid infiltration and mold creation.  Grid-tie system for residence connected to the grid (photovoltaic system): local climate check, the amount of energy to be saved, monthly residence consumption and energy tariff. It is not necessary to maintain it during its useful life (20 years) and the cost involves the purchase and installation of the system, which will depend on the amount of energy to be produced. It is observed that the use of natural lighting and ventilation can be realized through the side windows, since even the simplest, contribute to the reduction of energy costs, increasing the thermo-energetic performance of the building. Installation of this component should be well planned in the design phase of the house. Thus, with the correct arrangement of these windows, it is possible to improve the Analysis of Economic and Socio-Environmental Viability Indicators for Energy, Materials and Water Management and Proposal of Technologies and Alternatives for Sustainable Construction in Housing 284 environmental comfort of the users, providing better lighting, a healthier environment, and saving themselves with artificial mechanisms of ventilation, cooling and artificial lighting. For the fictitious residence hypothetically located in a city in the interior of the state of São Paulo, Brazil, the best guidelines regarding natural lighting are north and east, for the environments of greater permanence, being necessary a solar protection to the north and avoiding to be avoided the west side being very hot, and the south, for not very cold, while the directions of the prevailing winds are east and southeast [6], and it is interesting to place the window openings also close to this orientation. The other passive strategy, the vegetal cover, is a structure that helps in the microclimate of the local region, promoting a greater integration of the residence with the natural environment. The cost of this technology was verified through two existing companies, located in the State of São Paulo, Brasil, the data are presented in Table 1. Finally, the active strategy chosen, the photovoltaic system, can achieve to economize of integral form the conventional electrical energy. In the Brazilian market there are companies that manufacture photovoltaic panels, but most of them only with a higher generation of kWh/month. The budget acquired through four Brazilian companies is presented in Table 2. For the possible implantation of the vegetal cover the company budget was chosen of smaller cost, being that the family would follow the installation manual and could choose the vegetation to be planted, being able to even cultivate a small garden that would help in the complement of the feeding, generating a reduction in energy consumption of 2% (considering a residence with only fans, which use less energy). And the other deployment would be the photovoltaic system, being chosen the budget of lower cost, which generates the power of 150 kWh/month, practically the family also consumes (159 kWh/month), considering a reduction in energy consumption of 90%. Considering the family income of R$4,000.00, the light bill for this consumption being R$67.96, and the allocation of the salary for discharge of the alternative of 20% over the months, one alternative at a time, the cost comparison between the photovoltaic system and vegetation cover is presented in Table 3. Table 1 Assumed variables for plant cover. Company System components* Value (R$/m2) Total (R$) 1 Complete component (module + substrate + plants + installation) 200.00 8,804.00 2 Component with manual for installation and without plants (module + substrate) 100.78 4,436.33 * Variables: vegetation cover; City: fake residence, State of São Paulo, Brazil; Type of coverage: slab; Dimension of the cover: 44, 4 m2; Source: prepared by the authors, based on Refs. [4, 15]. Table 2 Assumed variables for photovoltaic system. Company System components* Total (R$) 1 Generation of 150 kWh/month + installation 17,000.00 2 Generation of 210 kWh/month + installation 21,300.00 3 Generation of 250 kWh/month + installation 35,780.88 4 Generation of 245 kWh/month + installation 25,290.00 * Variables—photovoltaic system; City: State of São Paulo, Brazil; Average consumption: 159 kWh/month; Average tariff: $0.37/kWh; Network: 127 V; System: single phase; Source: prepared by the authors, based on Refs. [4, 15]. Table 3 Comparison of costs between the photovoltaic system and plant cover. Technology/power alternative Cost (R$) Approx. discharge time (Q) Reducing power consumption (RCE) Approx. return time (R) Plant cover 4,436.33 5.5 months 2% 272 years Photovoltaic system 17,000.00 21 months 90% 23 years Source: prepared by the authors based on Refs. [4, 15]. Analysis of Economic and Socio-Environmental Viability Indicators for Energy, Materials and Water Management and Proposal of Technologies and Alternatives for Sustainable Construction in Housing 285 Table 4 Benefits of each technology and alternative in energy. Technology/power alternative Benefits Economic Social Environmental Natural lighting A, B, K, M, N G, I, J C, D, E, F, H, L Natural ventilation A, B, M, N G, I, J C, D, E, F, H, L Plant cover A, B, K, M G, I, J C, D, F, H, L Photovoltaic system A, B, K, M - C, D, E Source: prepared by the authors based on [2, 4, 15]. 3.1.1 Indicators of Socio-Environmental and Economic Feasibility of Energy Technologies Qualitative indicators were used to analyze energy technologies and alternatives, such as: (A) reduction of the use of electric energy; (B) reduction of expenses; (C) reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; (D) reduction of natural resources; (E) passive use of natural resources; (F) harmonization with the environment; (G) better thermal comfort; (H) better air quality and environment; (I) health improvement; (J) improvement in quality of life; (K) increased energy efficiency; (L) moderation of urban temperature; (M) increase in the value of the property; (N) low cost/maintenance technologies [2, 4, 15]. From these data it is possible to characterize them according to the economic, social and environmental benefits related to each energy alternative, as indicated in Table 4. In this way, it can be observed that, in relation to general economic, social and environmental benefits, Natural Lighting and Natural Ventilation are the most advantageous alternatives, followed by the Plant Cover, serving most of the indicators. 3.2 Applicable Water Management Technologies Among the equipment for water management, the following technologies can be excluded for application in this specific case of housing: vacuum sanitary basins, electric faucet with proximity sensor, reuse of gray water and reuse of rainwater by conventional cisterns [8]. Thus, in addition to the initial costs of construction, it is necessary to calculate the costs in its useful life and the return of the initial investment, according to the economy potential of the technologies and alternatives recommended [10]. Therefore, for each selected technology, we observed different variables such as market cost, water rate savings and time of return for each of them. It is estimated that the implementation of the technologies and alternatives addressed in this work in homes will immediately reflect on their water consumption, consequently reducing the monthly expenses related to water and sewage. The time period of return differs from a building constructed for one still under planning. For new buildings, this time of return is calculated by considering the cost of acquisition and the consumption of conventional equipment, the cost of acquisition and the consumption of the saving equipment, the cost of possible adaptations needed in the project, the water savings generated by technologies and economizing alternatives, water/sewage tariffs and interest rates [13, 16]. In the case of buildings already built, the economic benefit of replacing conventional equipment with economizers depends on local conditions. Thus, before applying this measure, it is recommended a technical and economic evaluation of the interventions necessary to change the system [13, 16]. In the case of existing buildings, to analyze the advantages and feasibility of replacing sanitary equipment, it would be necessary to match the expected water saving and replacement cost [15]. This correspondence is also estimated by the time of return of the investment, that is, the time required for the cost of replacing the equipment to be offset by the reduction in collection due to the water savings generated by the new Analysis of Economic and Socio-Environmental Viability Indicators for Energy, Materials and Water Management and Proposal of Technologies and Alternatives for Sustainable Construction in Housing 286 equipment. To make a comparison between the equipment and technologies that allow verifying its economic viability, a calculation was made as explained in the methodology of water management [5]. In order to carry out the calculations, we will take the following considerations: the total gain of R$4,000.00 and a monthly allocation of 20% for purchase and installation of saving equipment, will be R$800.00 expenses for discharge of these expenses, being one equipment at a time. Water consumption in the residence: for the water and sewage tariffs used, it will be considered the values will be R$22.38/month each, for consumptions of up to 10 m3/month. A family of four people has water consumption of around 22 m3. Water consumption between 20 and 30 m3 per month adds R$8.75/month to residential tariffs. Therefore, we can consider that both families have a monthly total of R$62.26 with water and sewage tariffs. For practicality of calculations, multiplication factor will be 2.20 [5], and the interest rate will be disregarded (null value of multiplication). The calculations will use the higher flow rate of the economizer equipment; sanitary basins with a total of 8 uses per day; taps with a total of 12 uses per day. Once these considerations have been made, it is possible to elaborate Table 5 which presents some comparative results. The equipment and technologies that are not included in the table are those for which no values were available in the market or whose characteristics are already present in other equipment (such as aerators for aerators of constant flow). From Table 6 we can deduce, therefore, that in the case of hydrosanitary equipment or technologies that apply to them, almost all can be found at relatively affordable costs, with excellent rates of reduction of water consumption and with a very low turnaround time. In the case of the sanitary basin coupled to the lavatory by gravity, the equation was not applicable, due to the high cost of purchasing the product, which led to a negative result. To estimate the monthly water saving after the implantation of the rainwater harvesting system, we will consider the “Ready Tank” model. Considering the total area of the single-family dwelling of this project, 2 models of different volumes/values were suggested, being the KCP models of 3,000 and 5,000 liters. Using the equations proposed in the project methodology, in the item water management, an effective annual saving of R$377.00 was achieved. For an approximation of the return time of the investment, the equation proposed by Sella [6] was used, as explained in Section 2. Considering the estimated values in the market we have a return time of 20 to 26 years for the suggested models. It is evident, therefore, that a conventional tanker project takes too long a time for a return on investment. And this period can be higher or lower based on the rainfall regime and the accumulation of water in the reservoirs. On the other hand, mini-tank projects do not require complex works, or materials of high costs, besides being constructed without needing some specific technical knowledge. Although the volume produced by a mini cistern is much smaller than that of a conventional design, it is enough to meet some needs, which gives it a low return time. 3.2.1 Indicators of Socio-Environmental and Economic Viability in Water Management Technologies The following qualitative indicators were presented that allow an analysis of water saving equipment and technologies: (A) reduction of water consumption; (B) reduction of expenses; (C) water utilization; (D) harmonization with environment; (E) equipment/low cost technology; (F) equipment/low maintenance technology; (G) equipment/technology available in the market; (H) equipment/easy installation technology; (I) low return time. Having these indicators, one can then characterize the technologies and equipment according to their economic, social and environmental benefits, as shown in Table 6. Analysis of Economic and Socio-Environmental Viability Indicators for Energy, Materials and Water Management and Proposal of Technologies and Alternatives for Sustainable Construction in Housing 287 Table 5 Comparison of technologies and equipment available in the water management market for fictitious residence. Comparative data Equipment Cost (R$) Economic consumption (L/use) Conventional consumption (L/use) Consumption savings (%) Return time Unity Total* Double activated sanitary box 151.90 151.90 3.5/6 12 50 1.675 months Sanitary basin with gravity washbasin 18,800.90 18,800.90 7.2 12 40 Equation not applicable Hydromechanical faucet 277.90 833.70 2.4 12 80 1.42 months Flow restrictor 26.90 80.70 7.2 12 40 0.082 months Constant flow aerator 15.79 63.16 4.8 12 60 0.047 months * The “total” cost is the sum of values to replace all the equipment of the house by the models of lower consumption listed. Source: prepared by the authors, based on Refs. [5, 8, 15]. Table 6 Characterization of technologies, alternatives and equipment selected by qualitative indicators in water management with advantages/best return. Technology/equipment water economizer Benefits Environmental Social Economic Double activation sanitary basin A D, G, H B, E, F, G, I Flow restrictor A D, G, H, I B, E, F Constant flow aerator A D, G, H, I B, E, F Rainwater reuse (mini cistern) A, C D, G, H, I B, E, F Source: prepared by the authors, based on Refs. [2, 3, 8, 15]. The equipment and technologies that are not included in the table are those for which no values were available in the market or whose characteristics are already present in other equipment (such as aerators for aerators of constant flow). From Table 6 we can deduce, therefore, that in the case of hydrosanitary equipment or technologies that apply to them, almost all can be found at relatively affordable costs, with excellent rates of reduction of water consumption and with a very low turnaround time. In the case of the sanitary basin coupled to the lavatory by gravity, the equation was not applicable, due to the high cost of purchasing the product, which led to a negative result. To estimate the monthly water saving after the implantation of the rainwater harvesting system, we will consider the “Ready Tank” model. Considering the total area of the single-family dwelling of this project, 2 models of different volumes/values were suggested, being the KCP models of 3,000 and 5,000 liters. Using the equations proposed in the project methodology, in the item water management, an effective annual saving of R$377.00 was achieved. For an approximation of the return time of the investment, the equation proposed by Sella [6] was used, as explained in Section 2. Considering the estimated values in the market we have a return time of 20 to 26 years for the suggested models. It is evident, therefore, that a conventional tanker project takes too long a time for a return on investment. And this period can be higher or lower based on the rainfall regime and the accumulation of water in the reservoirs. On the other hand, mini-tank projects do not require complex works, or materials of high costs, besides being constructed without needing some specific technical knowledge. Although the volume produced by a mini cistern is much smaller than that of a conventional design, it is enough to meet some needs, which gives it a low return time. 3.3 Applicable Materials Technologies In order to assist in the best choice of materials to be used in the project we created a general ranking Analysis of Economic and Socio-Environmental Viability Indicators for Energy, Materials and Water Management and Proposal of Technologies and Alternatives for Sustainable Construction in Housing 288 based on the items of the methodology to assist in the selection of more sustainable materials. Being bamboo: 3.57, wood: 3.19, soil-cement brick: 2.9, earth: 2.71, steel frame and wood frame: 2.33, aggregate with ash from rice husks: 2.14, aggregate with ash from sugarcane bagasse: 2.14, glasses: 2.14, phase change materials: 2.05, aggregate with construction and demolition waste (RCD): 1.95, Portland cement: 1.86, cement with blast furnace slag: 1.76, cement with construction and demolition wastes: 1.76, cement limestone powder: 1.76, aggregate with unserviceable tire: 1.67, mineral inks: 1.57, aggregate with red ceramic: 1.29, aggregate with fly ash: 1.29, aggregate with glass: 1.29, steel or steel slag aggregate: 1.29, plaster: 1.29. 3.3.1 Indicators of Social-Environmental and Economic Viability of Materials Technologies Regarding the socio-environmental and economic feasibility indicators of the presented materials technologies, it is emphasized that it does not use the same energy and water management tables, but the table with parameters analyzed is elaborated by Lima & Moraes [13]. The analyzed residence has a constructed area of 36.36 m2, with a room with a width of 3.3 meters and a length of 2.8 meters; a kitchen with a width of 2.32 meters and a length of 3.25 meters; a room with a width of 3.3 meters and a length of 2.8 meters and another room with a width of 2.8 meters and a length of 3.03 meters and a bathroom with a width of 1.35 meters and a length of 2.2 meters; right foot of 2.50 meters high. The assumed amount of materials used in the residency was calculated based on the estimates applied by the sector together with the steps of the construction with the use of the materials raised according to the table in the sequence. However, because the finishes have a great variety, because they depend directly on the design project and the quality of the selected products, they are out of the scope of calculation. The fictitious residence consists of a total wall footage of 2.50 meters high with 20 centimeters wide for traditional materials and 15 centimeters for sustainable materials, the total wall footage to be built in the residence has the total of 38.15 meters, in this way it is also possible to define that the total amount of mortar required to perform the wall covering has a total of 52.36 m3 of mortar. Another fixed value for both materials is the reinforced concrete for the floor, because for the construction of the same one must own 36.36 m2 of reinforced concrete. Table 7 presents the survey of the quantity of sustainable materials needed for the execution of the work together with the probable values to be spent for the acquisition of the materials. The material list to which the methodology was applied does not contemplate all stages of execution of a work; the analyzed materials contemplate the stages of foundation, structure, closings and a small part of the finish. So it is not possible to fully stipulate the cost of a work. Therefore, to calculate the percentage of reduction of cost of the work were used standard values of construction costs and the reduction consistent with the steps in which the materials were analyzed. Using the cost quantification method proposed by Tognetti (2018), which considers the basic unit cost (CUB) in the single-family category (R1) and the Indirect Benefits and Expanses (BDI), it is possible to stipulate the value of the work in the low, medium and high standards. In this way, the inputs required to calculate the value of the work are the CUB of State of São Paulo, Brazil, in category R1 for low standard R$1,318.10/m2; for the average standard, R$1,635.01/m2; for the high standard, R$1,953.31/m2 and the BDI with the value of 20.11%, in possession of such information the values of the cost of the work with traditional and sustainable materials are represented in Table 8. The cost of the sustainable material work was increased and reduced according to Table 9, based on the list of materials previously analyzed and the final cost. Analysis of Economic and Socio-Environmental Viability Indicators for Energy, Materials and Water Management and Proposal of Technologies and Alternatives for Sustainable Construction in Housing 289 Table 7 Quantity of sustainable material for the execution of the work and its costs. Reinforced concrete 1:2, 5:4 Material Quantity for work Cost Concrete 3,52 m3 R$5,662.07 Construction iron 7 bars R$32.00 Concrete composition Material Quantity for work Cost Cement 221 bags/m3 R$5,525.00 Aggregate with ash form sugarcane bagasse 19.9 m3 R$1.79 Aggregate with construction and demolition waste (RCD) 23.9 m3 R$135.27 Cement and sand in trace 1:4 Material Quantity for work Cost Cement 4.2 bags/m3 R$105.00 Aggregate with ash form sugarcane bagasse 0.81 m3 R$0.07 Brick of 15 × 30 × 14—Wall of 15 cm Material Quantity for work Cost Soil-cement brick 2.133 units R$2,133.00 Mortar 0.64 m3 R$3.20 1.5 cm thick wall covering Material Quantity for work Cost Mortar 72.72 m3 R$363.60 Source: prepared by the authors, based on Refs. [13, 15]. Table 1 Average costs of traditional and sustainable materials. Formula used [(CUB × construction area) + items not included] × (1 + DBI) = final cost Cost of traditional materials Low Medium High R$1,011,720.31 R$1,254,967.62 R$1,499,281.84 Cost of Sustainable Materials Low Medium High R$946.687,94 R$1,174,274.46 R$1,402,879.52 Source: prepared by the authors, based on Ref. [13]. Table 2 Reduction values and additions and equivalence of the work. Foundation Structure Coating Low Equivalent percentage of construction cost R$50,586.02 R$161,875.25 R$146,699.44 Reduction value (green)/addition value (red) R$12,570.62 R$28,457.67 R$80,919.41 Medium Equivalent percentage of construction cost R$62,748.38 R$200,794.82 R$181,970.31 Reduction value (green)/addition value (red) R$15,618.07 R$35,299.73 R$100,374.82 High Equivalent percentage of construction cost R$74,964.09 R$239,885.09 R$217,395.87 Reduction value (green)/addition value (red) R$18,658.56 R$42,171.80 R$119,915.56 Source: prepared by the authors, based on Refs. [13, 15]. Analysis of Economic and Socio-Environmental Viability Indicators for Energy, Materials and Water Management and Proposal of Technologies and Alternatives for Sustainable Construction in Housing 290 Table 3 Payback values of sustainable materials technologies. Foundation Structure Coating Low Equivalent percentage of construction cost R$50,586.02 R$161,875.25 R$146,699.44 Payback with maximum allowance (years) 2.25 13.84 12.26 Medium Equivalent percentage of construction cost R$62,748.38 R$200,784.82 R$181,970.31 Payback with maximum allowance (years) 3.52 17.90 15.93 High Equivalent percentage of construction cost R$74,964.09 R$239,885.09 R$217,395.87 Payback with maximum allowance (years) 4.79 21.97 19.62 Source: prepared by the authors, based on Ref. [13]. Based on a 20% investment, a family income of up to R$4,000.00 and with the subsidy of R$29,000.00 he payback calculation was performed for all the scenarios are presented in Table 10. 4. Conclusions With respect to energy technologies, comparing the results of the proposed technologies with the social, environmental and economic benefits, it is possible to observe that for a Brazilian family the most viable technologies are natural lighting and ventilation. Vegetable cover is still a process that does not have a tangible financial return, but it should be noted that it provides greater thermal comfort, improved ambient air quality and population. Finally, photovoltaic energy can be considered an expensive process in Brazil, which may be more feasible in other countries, and that needs more studies and financing, seeking to be more developed and used, but can be used depending on income family. With regard to water management technologies, this work has demonstrated several technologies and equipment to reduce water consumption in buildings, as well as alternatives to provide water from other sources for non-potable uses. Thus, it can be concluded that the equipment/alternatives that present the most benefits are: double-action sanitary basin, equipment with flow restrictors, aerators (conventional and with constant flow) and mini-tank system, present the same characteristics of a conventional cistern and more comfortable dimensions for the urban environment. With respect to material technologies the methodology has shown that it can be applied with ease. In this theme the most advantageous technologies/alternatives were: bamboo, wood, soil-cement brick, earth, steel frame and wood frame, ,aggregate with ash from rice husks, aggregate with ash from sugarcane bagasse, glass, phase, aggregate with construction and demolition waste, Portland cement and blast furnace slag cement. The analysis of the use of sustainable materials can be performed by stage of the work and thus benefit the three pillars of sustainability. The adoption of more sustainable constructions is somewhat increasing. Many of the construction companies in Brazil have adhered to several more sustainable practices, either for awareness or even for the benefits they have noticed in this new phase of the construction industry. Another trend is environmental certifications for sustainable buildings, which shows that such a change in the sector is a path that tends to consolidate, thus helping the application of energy technologies, water and materials management, as well as other themes, bringing opportunities for the emergence of new technologies and/or enhancement of existing ones, and still adds value. It should be emphasized that the work also Analysis of Economic and Socio-Environmental Viability Indicators for Energy, Materials and Water Management and Proposal of Technologies and Alternatives for Sustainable Construction in Housing 291 sought to assist the reflection of the civil construction sector with a view to more sustainable actions and practices linked to the UN Sustainable Development Objectives, Agenda 2030, which we can exemplify in this sector: ODS6—Water and Sanitation for all; ODS 7—Accessible and Clean Energy; ODS 9—Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, ODS 11—Sustainable Cities and Community and ODS 12—Responsible Consumption and Production. Finally, this work aims to encourage new studies and the use of more sustainable technologies and/or alternatives, which can be applied in addition to housing in other public/private buildings and in the aid of the elaboration of public policies to reduce costs and improve quality of buildings with a view to more sustainable construction. Acknowledgments Thanks to the Laboratory and Research Group ACert—Audit, Certification and Environmental Management (CNPq-UNESP/UFSCar), São Paulo State University (UNESP), University of São Paulo (ESALQ/USP) in Brazil; Higher Institute of Technology of the University of Algarve (UALG) and Higher Technical Institute of the University of Lisbon (ULisboa) in Portugal; National Council for Scientific and Technological Development—CNPq and São Paulo State Research Support Foundation— FAPESP-Brazil for supporting this work. References [1] Miranda, A. L. G., Santesso, C. A., Garcia, M. L., and Moraes, C. S. B. 2019. “Development of Program for Simulation of Photovoltaic Systems Dimensioning for the Municipalities of Brazil.” Brazilian Journal of Renewable Energy 8: 216-23. [2] Santesso, C. A. 2013. “Sustainable Building and Housing: Diagnosis of Alternative and Energy Technologies for Single-Family Residence.” In Scientific Initiation (FAPESP). Rio Claro: UNESP. [3] Santesso, C. A., and Moraes, C. S. B. 2013. “Sustainable Construction and Housing: Diagnosis of Alternatives and Energy Technologies for Single Family Homes.” In Proceedings of the XXV CIC-UNESP Scientific Initiation Congress. [4] Santesso, C. A., Moraes, C. S. B., Santarine, G. A., and Goncalves, J. C. 2017. “Energy Economy through Passive and Active Strategies: A Case Study for Social Interest Housing.” SPACES (CARACAS) 38: 23. [5] Hafner, A. V. 2007. “Water Conservation and Reuse in Buildings—National and International Experiences.” Master thesis, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. [6] Sella, M. B. 2011. “Gray Water Reuse: Feasibility Assessment of the Implementation of the Residential System.” Diplomation work, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRS). [7] Rocha, R. P., Moraes, C. S. B., Santesso, C. A., and Pugliesi, E. 2017. “Socio-Environmental and Economic Viability of Technologies and Alternatives for Water Management in Single-Family Homes.” Presented at ABES/FENASAN Congress 2017, Sao Paulo. [8] Rocha, R. P., Moraes, C. S. B., and Pugliesi, E. 2017. “Analysis of Technologies and Alternatives for Water Management in Single-Family Homes.” In Proceedings of National Symposium on Urban Management and Engineering—SINGEURB 2017. [9] Rodrigues, G. P. L. 2016. “Diagnosis of Water Management Technologies and Alternatives as a Sustainable Construction Proposal for Use at the University.” Paulista State University. [10] Bissoli-Dalvi, M., et al. 2013. “Necessary Simplification in Materials Sustainability Assessment Methodology: Case Study—ISMAS.” Curitiba. Accessed May 26, 2017. http://lpp.ufes.br/sites/lpp.ufes.br/files/field/anexo/artigo3 78627.pdf. [11] Kwai, L. L., and Moraes, C. S. B. 2013. “Technologies, Concepts and Proposals for the Use of Materials for Sustainable Construction in Universities.” Presented at Annals of XV ENGEMA—International Meeting on Business Management and Environment, São Paulo. [12] Kwai, L. L. 2014. “Technologies, Concepts and Proposals for Sustainable Building Materials at the UNESP Experiences Center, Rio Claro/SP.” Paulista State University. [13] Lima, S. C. S., and Moraes, C. S. B. 2018. Socio-Environmental and Economic Feasibility Analysis of Sustainable Materials for Application in Single Family Homes. Scientific Initiation Report—PIBIC/CNPq/UNESP, Rio Claro. [14] Silva, V. G. 2007. “Building Sustainability Indicators: State of the Art and Challenges for Development in Brazil.” Built Environment 7 (1): 47-66. [15] Moraes, C. S. B. 2019. Analysis of Socio-Environmental and Economic Efficacy and Viability of Sustainable Housing Construction Technologies and Alternatives. Analysis of Economic and Socio-Environmental Viability Indicators for Energy, Materials and Water Management and Proposal of Technologies and Alternatives for Sustainable Construction in Housing 292 Research Report, Rio Claro. [16] Lima, S. C. S., and Moraes, C. S. B. 2017. “Socio-Environmental and Economic Feasibility Analysis of Sustainable Materials for Application in Single Family Homes.” In Proceedings of the XXIX Congress of Scientific Initiation of UNESP.