• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Front Cover
 Introduction
 Methodology
 Results and discussion
 Summary
 Table 4: Present worths for various...
 Table 5: Present worths for various...
 Table 6: Present worths for various...
 Table 7: Present worths for various...
 Table 8: Present worths for various...
 Table 9: Present worths for various...
 Table 10: Present worths for various...
 Table 11: Present worths for various...
 Table 12: Comparison of low energy...
 Literature cited
 Back Cover






Group Title: Florida Cooperative Extension Service circular 521
Title: Economics of residential landscaping features in Florida Daytona Beach and vicinity
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00049242/00001
 Material Information
Title: Economics of residential landscaping features in Florida Daytona Beach and vicinity
Series Title: Circular Florida Cooperative Extension Service
Physical Description: 22 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Buffington, Dennis E
Publisher: Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Publication Date: 1982?
 Subjects
Subject: Landscape architecture and energy conservation -- Florida -- Daytona Beach   ( lcsh )
Dwellings -- Energy conservation -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 22.
Statement of Responsibility: Dennis E. Buffington.
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Florida Historical Agriculture and Rural Life
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00049242
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: oclc - 08829456

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Front Cover
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Introduction
        Page 3
    Methodology
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Results and discussion
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Summary
        Page 12
    Table 4: Present worths for various landscaping alternatives for concrete block structure (0% annual energy cost escalation rate)
        Page 13
    Table 5: Present worths for various landscaping alternatives for concrete block structure (10% annual energy cost escalation rate)
        Page 14
    Table 6: Present worths for various landscaping alternatives for concrete block structure (20% annual energy cost escalation rate)
        Page 15
    Table 7: Present worths for various landscaping alternatives for concrete block structure (30% annual energy cost escalation rate)
        Page 16
    Table 8: Present worths for various landscaping alternatives for wood frame structure (0% annual energy cost escalation rate)
        Page 17
    Table 9: Present worths for various landscaping alternatives for wood frame structure (10% annual energy cost escalation rate)
        Page 18
    Table 10: Present worths for various landscaping alternatives for wood frame structure (20% annual energy cost escalation rate)
        Page 19
    Table 11: Present worths for various landscaping alternatives for wood frame structure (30% annual energy cost escalation rate)
        Page 20
    Table 12: Comparison of low energy and high energy landscaping designs for concrete block structure
        Page 21 (MULTIPLE)
    Literature cited
        Page 22
    Back Cover
        Page 23
Full Text






HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida




Circular 521


ECONOMICS OF RESIDENTIAL
LANDSCAPING FEATURES
IN FLORIDA

Daytona Beach and Vicinity

Dennis E. Buffington


Florida Cooperative Extension Service / Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida / John T. Woeste, Dean






































Dennis E. Buffington is an Associate Professor in Agricultural Engineering, Institute
of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611.








ECONOMICS OF RESIDENTIAL
LANDSCAPING FEATURES
IN
FLORIDA

Daytona Beach and Vicinity

Dennis E. Buffington

Energy conservation in residential buildings is being widely pro-
moted throughout the United States as one means of coping with the
problems of rapidly escalating prices of utilities and the uncertain sup-
ply of conventional energy sources. A recent report (12) indicates that
approximately 32% of the energy consumed in the United States is for
heating and cooling buildings occupied by people. The fact that 32% of
total energy consumption is for comfort conditioning underscores the
need for defining parameters for efficient landscaping designs for
buildings. Information on design parameters and recommendations for
economically conserving energy in heating and cooling residential
buildings by using different landscaping features is an obvious void in
literature.
Rather traditional means of energy conservation in residential
buildings include retrofitting existing buildings with insulation in
walls and ceilings, weather-stripping around window and door frames,
and periodic maintenance of the mechanical cooling and heating
equipment. Retrofitting of this nature can save 20 to 25% of the energy
used for comfort conditioning buildings (7). In new residential con-
struction, energy savings of about 50 to 60% can be realized by incor-
porating energy conservation principles into the design, construction,
and operation of a building (8). These energy savings can be realized
with little, if any, discomfort to the occupants of the buildings.
Landscaping features of a residential building can be designed to
save energy and to increase comfort during both heating and cooling
periods of the year. The use of different types of trees, vines, and es-
paliered plants for protecting buildings from intense solar radiation
was presented by Black (2). A discussion of the qualitative means in
which plants can reduce energy expenditures for comfort conditioning
has been presented by others (2, 6, 11).
A quantitative approach on the value of landscaping materials for
energy conservation was presented by Buffington (4) who reported on
the effectiveness of various shading levels, exterior colors of walls and
roofs, and building orientations for conserving energy. The computer
simulation results indicated a reduction of 27% in the heat removal






rate for a building with desirable landscaping features compared to the
same building except with undesirable landscaping features. The heat
removal results were based on the 2/2% design dry-bulb temperature
and outdoor daily temperature range for Orlando, Florida. The design
day selected was June 21, which corresponds to the date of maximum
insolation (solar radiation received). Parker (10) has reported that a
design day of August 6 is more appropriate because it corresponds to
the time of maximum ambient temperature and the period of peak en-
ergy use of residential air conditioners in Miami and probably most of
Florida. Although the results of heat removal are beneficial for design
purposes, heat removal rates cannot be applied directly in any eco-
nomic analyses.
This research focused on determining the economic effectiveness of
various landscaping features for reducing energy expenditures for
heating and cooling residential buildings in Daytona Beach. The land-
scaping features considered were: 1) wall and roof shading; 2) wall and
roof exterior colors; and 3) building orientation. The orientation of a
building is the direction of the major axis of the building. Publications
containing the economics of landscaping features for eight other Flor-
ida locations as shown in Figure 1 are available from your County Ex-
tension Office. A publication for Ft. Myers and vicinity will be available
in the near future.


Methodology
To experimentally evaluate the effects of different landscaping fea-
tures on energy expenditures for heating and cooling residential build-
ingswould involve constructing several identical structures with various
landscaping features. The energy expenditures for heating and cooling
could then be monitored over an extended period of time in order to
evaluate the effectiveness of each landscaping design. Such experi-
mental evaluation would be prohibitively expensive and time consum-
ing. Furthermore, if the residential buildings were occupied, then the
differences in lifestyles among the various families could easily mask
the effectiveness of the landscaping features for reducing energy
consumption.
Computer simulation can be used effectively for a detailed analysis
of the thermal performance of a residential building as a function of
many different structural and landscaping designs.
The computer model for simulating the heat gains and losses of a
residential building over a one-year period was based in part on the
transfer function method as presented in ASHRAE Handbook of
Fundamentals (1). The transfer function coefficients for walls and roofs
of buildings were calculated for the specific construction details of each







































Figure 1. Florida regions with publications available on economic factors of various resi-
dential landscaping features.


building section according to the computer program by Mitalis and Ar-
seneault (9). After heat gains and losses through the building were
simulated, heating loads, cooling loads, heat extraction rates, and heat
addition rates were simulated (1). The consumption of utilities was cal-
culated from heat extraction and addition rates on the basis of system
performance of the mechanical heating and cooling equipment as spec-
ified in Table 1. The utility expenditure was then related to dollars us-
ing current prices of the utilities. Full details of the application of the
transfer function method to the thermal analysis of residential build-
ings are presented by Buffington (3).









TABLE 1. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN
DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA


COOLING SYSTEM


HEATING SYSTEM


AIR CONDITIONER(AIR-TO-AIR) DIRECT-FIRED FURNACE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY RATIO (EER) 75. COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY
7. 5 AT RATED ENVIRONMENTAL NO. 2 HEATING OIL
CONDITIONS (140,000 BTU/GALLON)
EER VARIED AS FUNCTION OF PRICE OF OIL IS
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE $1.31/GALLON
PRICE OF ELECTRICITY IS
$0. 077/KW-HR



To properly evaluate the thermal performance of any building, it is
essential to perform detailed simulations on an hour-by-hour basis for
at least one year (1). It is not sufficient to simply use one summer de-
sign day and one winter design day for analysis, regardless of when the
design days are selected to occur. Using an unique design day for each
month is also not sufficient to simulate energy consumption for heat-
ing and cooling a building.
The weather data set used as input for the simulation model was the
Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) as developed by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for Daytona Beach,
Florida (29.2 deg North latitude; 81.0 deg West longitude). The TMY
consists of hourly climatic data for representative months selected over
a 25-year period. Each selected representative month is then joined to-
gether with a smooth transition to create the TMY (13). The TMY for
Daytona Beach was created as follows:
January, 1959 July, 1963
February, 1967 August, 1958
March, 1972 September, 1959
April, 1960 October, 1961
May, 1969 November, 1965
June, 1974 December, 1964
The TMY was specifically developed by NOAA to be used to evaluate
the performance of heating and air conditioning systems in the same
building or in buildings with different design features. The hourly data
from the TMY used in the computer simulations were: dry-bulb tem-
perature, dewpoint temperature, solar radiation, and wind speed and
direction.







For the purpose of evaluating the various landscaping features, two
rather typical Florida residential buildings were used as control houses
for the computer simulation studies a concrete block house and an
insulated wood frame house. Details of the concrete block control house
were:
139 m2 (1500 ft2) floor area (9.1 m x 15.2 m) (30 ft x 50 ft)
2.4 m (8 ft) wall height
White exterior walls
Asphalt shingle roof (/3 slope)
Dark color roof
Window area 14.5% of floor area
Single-pane windows
S1/2 ACPH (air changes per hour) building infiltration
3 ACPH attic ventilation (natural)
0.61 m (2 ft) roof overhang
No shade on exterior walls and roof
Carport on north end of house
Building occupied by 2 adults and 2 children
SWall construction
20 cm (8 in) concrete block wall
1.9 cm (0.75 in) air gap
1.3 cm (0.50 in) plaster board
Ceiling construction
9 cm (3.5 in) mineral wool insulation
1.3 cm (0.50 in) plaster board
3.8 cm x 8.9 cm (2 x 4) joists on 61 cm (24 in) spacing
Floor construction
10 cm (4 in) concrete slab
carpet and rubber padding
Gable construction
1.59 cm (0.625 in) siding
3.8 cm x 8.9 cm (2 x 4) studs on 41 cm (16 in) spacing
Roof construction
asphalt shingles
building paper
1.3 cm (0.50 in) plywood sheathing
3.8 cm x 8.9 cm (2 x 4) rafters on 61 cm (24 in) spacing
Air handling duct construction
2.5 cm (1 in) duct board

The air temperature maintained inside the building was 250C (770F)
during the cooling period and 210C (700F) during the heating period.
Relative humidities inside the building during the cooling and heating
periods were 60% and 40%, respectively.







Floor plan and side views of the concrete block control house used in
this simulation study are shown in Fig. 2. The wood frame control
house was the same as the concrete block structure, except that the
walls were constructed of 1.59 cm (0.625 in) exterior plywood, 9 cm (3.5
in) mineral wool insulation, and 1.3 cm (0.50 in) plaster board on the
interior. The wall studs were 3.8 cm x 8.9 cm (2 x 4) on 41 cm (16 in)
spacing.
In all the computer analyses performed, the energy expenditures
were simulated for heating and cooling the control house with different
landscaping design features. Other energy expenditures (heating water,
lighting, powering appliances) were not included in any of the analyses
because these energy expenditures were assumed to be independent of
landscaping features.


Figure 2. Floor plan and side views of concrete block control house.








Results and Discussion

Yearly expenditures for comfort conditioning the control house were
simulated using the computer model discussed earlier. Expenses were
simulated for required energy for cooling and heating throughout the
TMY for Daytona Beach, Florida. The energy expenditures for heating
and cooling were simulated for current prices (Autumn, 1981) of $0.077
per kilowatt-hour for electricity and $1.31 per gallon of No. 2 fuel oil for
the mechanical systems as described in Table 1 for Daytona Beach and
vicinity.
The simulated yearly expenditures for comfort conditioning of the
concrete block control house and for 12 different modifications to the
control house are presented in Table 2. The simulated yearly energy
expenditures for the insulated wood frame house are presented in Ta-
ble 3. Whenever a landscaping feature was being evaluated, all other
alternatives remained the same as in the control house. For example,


TABLE 2. SIMULATED YEARLY EXPENSES FOR COMFORT CONDITIONING
CONCRETE BLOCK STRUCTURE


COOLING HEATING TOTAL

$ $ $

CONTROL HOUSE 806. 181. 987.

MODIFICATION


ORIENTATION
EAST-WEST 751. 175. 925.

WALL SHADING
LIGHT SHADING 757. 188. 945.
HEAVY SHADING 695. 189. 884.

ROOF SHADING
LIGHT SHADING 778. 182. 959.
HEAVY SHADING 749. 182. 931.
FULL SHADING 725. 183. 908.

WALL AND ROOF SHADING
LIGHT SHADING 733. 188. 922.
HEAVY SHADING 660. 196. 856.

EXTERIOR COLORS
DARK-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF 886. 157. 1043.
LIGHT-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF 756. 187. 943.

OVERALL COMPARISON
HIGH ENERGY LANDSCAPING 886. 157. 1043.
LOW ENERGY LANDSCAPING 626. 194. 821.










TABLE 3. SIMULATED YEARLY EXPENSES FOR COMFORT CONDITIONING
WOOD FRAME STRUCTURE


COOLING HEATING TOTAL



CONTROL HOUSE 806. 139. 946.

MODIFICATION

ORIENTATION
EAST-WEST 747. 157. 903.

WALL SHADING
LIGHT SHADING 752. 150. 903.
HEAVY SHADING 705. 157. 862.

ROOF SHADING
LIGHT SHADING 777. 144. 921.
HEAVY SHADING 748. 147. 894.
FULL SHADING 722. 147. 869.

WALL AND ROOF SHADING
LIGHT SHADING 732. 151. 883.
HEAVY SHADING 656. 158. 814.

EXTERIOR COLORS
DARK-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF 855. 134. 989.
LIGHT-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF 755. 157. 912.

OVERALL COMPARISON
HIGH ENERGY LANDSCAPING 855. 134. 989.
LOW ENERGY LANDSCAPING 632. 162. 794.


when the modification of heavy roof shading was considered, all the
features remained the same in the control house as specified, except
that the roof was assumed to be under heavy shade. In analyzing the
results tabulated in Tables 2 and 3, one can realize the large impact
that various landscaping features can have upon the total expenditures
for comfort conditioning concrete block or wood frame structures. In
each case, the total energy expenditure for the wood frame structure is
less than for the concrete block structure, with nearly all the savings
accruing during the heating period.
Light, heavy, and full shade as used in this manuscript correspond
to approximately 33%, 67%, and 100% shading, respectively, during
the cooling period. During the heating period, the shading levels cor-
respond to 10%, 20%, and 25% shading, respectively. The reduction of
shading levels during the heating period is based on the shading being
provided primarily by deciduous trees.








To evaluate the economic effectiveness of the various landscaping
features being considered, the present worth of each feature for each
type of structure was analyzed for interest rates of 5%, 10%, 15%, and
20%, and assumed 10-year and 20-year life periods. Present worths of
each landscaping feature for a 0% annual energy cost escalation rate
for the concrete block house are presented in Table 4. For assumed an-
nual energy cost escalation rates of 10%, 20% and 30%, present worths
are given in Tables 5, 6, and 7, respectively. Present worths for the
landscaping features for the wood frame house for energy escalation
rates of 0%, 10%, 20% and 30% are provided in Tables 8, 9, 10, and 11,
respectively.

The economic concept of present worth is interpreted as the addi-
tional present value of one alternative compared to another alternative
on the basis of annual monetary savings attributed to the adoption of
the alternative. For example, the present worth of a concrete block res-
idential building with an east-west orientation compared to north-
south orientation is $1654 for an interest rate of 15%, annual energy
cost escalation rate of 20%, and a 20-year life (Table 6). The interpre-
tation is that one could justifiably spend an additional $1654 for the
concrete block control house with an east-west orientation compared to
north-south orientation on the basis of the amount of money saved an-
nually in utilities for comfort conditioning over the next 20-year pe-
riod. The data in Tables 4-11 indicate that as the annual energy cost
escalation rate increases, the present worth of each landscaping fea-
ture increases. Also, as the life periods increase, the present worth in-
creases for each landscaping feature. However, for an increase in
interest rates, the present worth of each landscaping alternative de-
creases. The most desirable landscaping feature is obviously that fea-
ture which yields the highest present worth for a given interest rate
and energy cost escalation rate.

To summarize the results of the economic efficiencies of the various
landscaping alternatives, low energy and high energy landscaping de-
signs were simulated for the concrete block and wood frame control
houses. The high energy landscaping corresponded to each control
house with north-south orientation, no shading on the walls or roof,
and dark-colored exterior walls and roof. The low energy landscaping
corresponded to each control house with east-west orientation, heavy
shading on walls and roof, and light-colored exterior walls and roof. For
an interest rate of 15% and energy cost escalation rates of 0%, 10%,
20%, and 30%, the corresponding present worths of the low energy
landscaping are $1388, $2612, $5954, and $15,688, respectively, com-
pared to the high energy landscape for the concrete block structure for
a 20-year period (Tables 4-7). Over the same period with a wood frame








structure, the corresponding present worths are $1220, $2296, $5234,
and $13,791, respectively (Tables 8-11).
Tables 12 and 13 summarize the simulated energy consumption and
the mechanical system requirements of these two landscaping designs
for the concrete block and wood frame control houses, respectively. Al-
though the low energy landscaping results in higher consumption of
fuel for heating than the high energy landscaping, the extra heating
expense is more than offset by the much lower cost of utilities required
for cooling. The savings in the purchase of the smaller air conditioner
necessary for the low energy landscaping will compensate for some of
the expenses associated with providing the low energy landscaping
features.
In order to achieve the potential economic benefits from vegetation,
the plants must be sited to properly shade the residence. In the case of
new construction, the residence must be properly sited with respect to
existing vegetation to achieve the desired shading benefits. A series of
circulars providing the necessary factors for easily determining shad-
ing patterns for each sunlit hour of the 1st, 8th, 15th and 22nd days of
each month throughout the year (5) are available for eleven locations
in Florida from your County Extension Office.

Summary
The economic feasibilities of various landscaping alternatives must
be shown before a homeowner, contractor, financial lender, engineer,
architect, horticulturist, realtor, or other person can most effectively
use data on the energy savings of various landscapes. The results pre-
sented show the economic feasibilities of the landscaping features of
building orientation, wall and roof shading, and exterior wall and roof
colors.
The most effective way to educate people about the need to conserve
energy is to convince them how they can save money by saving energy.
Therefore, the economic feasibility of any energy conserving alterna-
tive should always be considered before presenting materials and rec-
ommendations to the consuming public.
Planned future research activities will focus on incorporating the
purchase price and annual maintenance costs (fertilizer, water, pesti-
cides, etc.) of shading materials into the analysis of the economic fea-
sibilities. Economic analyses will then be presented in the form of
effective interest rates earned on the capital investment required to
provide each of the landscaping features for various climatic zones
within Florida. Other research activities will include defining optimal
tree location to maximize shading benefits on residential buildings for
various species of trees, designs of buildings, and climatic zones in the
state.







TABLE 4. PRESENT WORTHS FOR VARIOUS LANDSCAPING ALTERNATIVES FOR CONCRETE BLOCK STRUCTURE
(0% ANNUAL ENERGY COST ESCALATION RATE)


10 YEAR LIFE


20 YEAR LIFE


ALTERNATIVES



EAST-WEST ORIENTATION VS.
NORTH-SOUTH ORIENTATION

HEAVY WALL SHADING VS.
NO WALL SHADING

HEAVY ROOF SHADING VS.
NO ROOF SHADING

LIGHT WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
NO WALL AND ROOF SHADING

HEAVY WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
NO WALL AND ROOF SHADING

HEAVY WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
LIGHT WALL AND ROOF SHADING

LIGHT-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF VS.
DARK-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF


LOW ENERGY LANDSCAPING VS.
HIGH ENERGY LANDSCAPING


INTEREST RATE
5% 10% 15% 20%

$ $ 9 $

476. 379. 309. 258.


799. 636. 519. 434.


430. 342. 280. 234.


505. 402. 328. 274.


1008. 802. 655. 547.


504. 401. 327. 274.


772. 614. 502. 419.


1712. 1363. 1113. 930.


INTEREST RATE
5% 10% 15% 20%

$ $ $ $

768. 525. 386. 300.


1290. 881. 648. 504.


695. 474. 349. 271.


814. 556. 409. 318.


1627. 1112. 817. 636.


813. 555. 408. 318.


1246. 851. 626. 487.


2763. 1888. 1388. 1080.








TABLE 5. PRESENT WORTHS FOR VARIOUS LANDSCAPING ALTERNATIVES FOR CONCRETE BLOCK STRUCTURE
(10% ANNUAL ENERGY COST ESCALATION RATE)


10 YEAR LIFE


20 YEAR LIFE


ALTERNATIVES



EAST-WEST ORIENTATION VS.
NORTH-SOUTH ORIENTATION

HEAVY WALL SHADING VS.
NO WALL SHADING

HEAVY ROOF SHADING VS.
NO ROOF SHADING

LIGHT WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
NO WALL AND ROOF SHADING

HEAVY WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
NO WALL AND ROOF SHADING

HEAVY WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
LIGHT WALL AND ROOF SHADING

LIGHT-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF VS.
DARK-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF


LOW ENERGY LANDSCAPING VS.
HI1H ENERGY LANDSCAPING


INTEREST RATE
5% 10% 15% 20%

$ $ $9

730. 560. 442. 358.


1226. 941. 743. 601.


660. 507. 400. 324.


774. 594. 469. 380.


1547. 1187. 937. 759.


773. 593. 468. 379.


1184. 909. 717. 581.


2627. 2016. 1592. 1289.


INTEREST RATE
5% 10% 15% 20%

$ $ $ $

1892. 1120. 726. 508.


3179. 1882. 1219. 853.


1712. 1013. 656. 460.


2007. 1188. 770. 539.


4010. 2374. 1538. 1077.


2004. 1186. 768. 538.


3069.. 1817. 1177. 824.


6810. 4032. 2612. 1828.







TABLE 6. PRESENT WORTHS FOR VARIOUS LANDSCAPING ALTERNATIVES FOR CONCRETE BLOCK STRUCTURE
(20% ANNUAL ENERGY COST ESCALATION RATE)


10 YEAR LIFE


20 YEAR LIFE


ALTERNATIVES



EAST-WEST ORIENTATION VS.
NORTH-SOUTH ORIENTATION

HEAVY WALL SHADING VS.
NO WALL SHADING

HEAVY ROOF SHADING VS.
NO ROOF SHADING

LIGHT WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
NO WALL AND ROOF SHADING

HEAVY WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
NO WALL AND ROOF SHADING

HEAVY WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
LIGHT WALL AND ROOF SHADING

LIGHT-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF VS.
DARK-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF


INTEREST RATE
5% 10% 15% 20%

$ $ $ *

1151. 855. 654. 513.


1933. 1436. 1098. 862.


1041. 773. 591. 464.


1220. 906. 693. 545.


2439. 1811. 1386. 1088.


1218. 905. 692. 544.


1866. 1386. 1060. 833.


INTEREST RATE
5% 10% 15% 20%



5525. 2895. 1654. 1027.


9280. 4863. 2779. 1725.


4997. 2619. 1496. 929.


5859. 3070. 1754. 1089.


11709. 6136. 3506. 2176.


5850. 3066. 1752. 1087.


8961. 4696. 2683. 1666.


LOW ENERGY LANDSCAPING VS.
HIGH ENERGY LANDSCAPING


4141. 3076. 2353. 1848. 19882. 10419. 5954. 3696.







TABLE 7. PRESENT WORTHS FOR VARIOUS LANDSCAPING ALTERNATIVES FOR CONCRETE BLOCK STRUCTURE
(30% ANNUAL ENERGY COST ESCALATION RATE)


ALTERNATIVES



EAST-WEST ORIENTATION VS.
NORTH-SOUTH ORIENTATION

HEAVY WALL SHADING VS.
NO WALL SHADING

HEAVY ROOF SHADING VS.
NO ROOF SHADING

LIGHT WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
NO WALL AND ROOF SHADING

HEAVY WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
NO WALL AND ROOF SHADING

HEAVY WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
LIGHT WALL AND ROOF SHADING

LIGHT-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF VS.
DARK-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF


10 YEAR LIFE

INTEREST RATE
5% 10% 15% 20%



1840. 1329. 989. 756.


3090. 2233. 1661. 1269.


1664. 1202. 895. 684.


1951. 1410. 1049. 801.


3898. 2817. 2096. 1602.


1948. 1408. 1047. 800.


2984. 2156. 1604. 1226.


20 YEAR LIFE

INTEREST RATE
5% 10% 15% 20%

$ $ $ $

17408. 8395. 4359. 2438.


29240. 14102. 7322. 4096.


15745. 7593. 3943. 2205.


18460. 8903. 4623. 2586.


36892. 17792. 9239. 5168.


18432. 8889. 4616. 2582.


28235. 13617. 7071. 3955.


LOW ENERGY LANDSCAPING VS.
HIGH ENERGY LANDSCAPING


6620. 4784. 3559. 2720. 62645. 30212.


15688. 8775.







TABLE 8. PRESENT WORTHS FOR VARIOUS LANDSCAPING ALTERNATIVES FOR WOOD FRAME STRUCTURE
(0% ANNUAL ENERGY COST ESCALATION RATE)


10 YEAR LIFE


20 YEAR LIFE


ALTERNATIVES



EAST-WEST ORIENTATION VS.
NORTH-SOUTH ORIENTATION

HEAVY WALL SHADING VS.
NO WALL SHADING

HEAVY ROOF SHADING VS.
NO ROOF SHADING

LIGHT WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
NO WALL AND ROOF SHADING

HEAVY WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
NO WALL AND ROOF SHADING

HEAVY WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
LIGHT WALL AND ROOF SHADING

LIGHT-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF VS.
DARK-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF


INTEREST RATE
5% 10% 15% 20%

$ $ $ $

327. 260. 212. 177.


643. 512. 418. 349.


397. 316. 258. 216.


485. 386. 316. 264.


1018. 810. 662. 553.


533. 424. 346. 289.


598. 476. 389. 325.


INTEREST RATE
5% 10% 15% 20%

9 $ $ $

528. 360. 265. 206.


1038. 709. 521. 406.


641. 438. 322. 250.


783. 535. 393. 306.


1643. 1123. 825. 642.


860. 587. 432. 336.


965. 659. 485. 377.


LOW ENERGY LANDSCAPING VS.
HIGH ENERGY LANDSCAPING


1505. 1198. 978. 817. 2429. 1660. 1220. 949.







TABLE 9. PRESENT WORTHS FOR VARIOUS LANDSCAPING ALTERNATIVES FOR WOOD FRAME STRUCTURE
(10% ANNUAL ENERGY COST ESCALATION RATE)


10 YEAR LIFE


20 YEAR LIFE


ALTERNATIVES



EAST-WEST ORIENTATION VS.
NORTH-SOUTH ORIENTATION

HEAVY WALL SHADING VS.
NO WALL SHADING

m HEAVY ROOF SHADING VS.
NO ROOF SHADING

LIGHT WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
NO WALL AND ROOF SHADING

HEAVY WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
NO WALL AND ROOF SHADING

HEAVY WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
LIGHT WALL AND ROOF SHADING

LIGHT-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF VS.
DARK-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF

LOW ENERGY LANDSCAPING VS.
HIGH ENERGY LANDSCAPING


INTEREST RATE
5% 10% 15% 20%

$ $ $ $

502. 385. 304. 246.


987. 757. 598. 484.


609. 468. 369. 299.


745. 572. 451. 365.


1562. 1199. 946. 766.


817. 627. 495. 401.


918. 704. 556. 450.


2309. 1772. 1399. 1133.


INTEREST RATE
5% 10. 15% 20%

$ $ $ $

1300. 770. 499. 349.


2559. 1515. 981. 687.


1579. 935. 606. 424.


1931. 1143. 740. 518.


4049. 2397. 1553. 1087.


2119. 1254. 813. 569.


2379. 1408. 912. 639.


5987. 3544. 2296. 1607.







TABLE 10. PRESENT WORTHS FOR VARIOUS LANDSCAPING ALTERNATIVES FOR WOOD FRAME STRUCTURE
(20% ANNUAL ENERGY COST ESCALATION RATE)
--------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------

10 YEAR LIFE 20 YEAR LIFE

INTEREST RATE INTEREST RATE
ALTERNATIVES 5% 10% 15% 20% 5% 10% 15% 20%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

EAST-WEST ORIENTATION VS. 791. 587. 449. 353. 3796. 1989. 1137. 706.
NORTH-SOUTH ORIENTATION

HEAVY WALL SHADING VS. 1556. 1156. 884. 694. 7470. 3915. 2237. 1389.
NO WALL SHADING

S HEAVY ROOF SHADING VS. 960. 713. 546. 429. 4611. 2416. 1381. 857.
NO ROOF SHADING

LIGHT WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS. 1174. 872. 667. 524. 5637. 2954. 1688. 1048.
NO WALL AND ROOF SHADING

HEAVY WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS. 2462. 1829. 1399. 1099. 11822. 6195. 3540. 2198.
NO WALL AND ROOF SHADING

HEAVY WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS. 1288. 957. 732. 575. 6186. 3242. 1852. 1150.
LIGHT WALL AND ROOF SHADING

LIGHT-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF VS. 1446. 1074. 822. 645. 6945. 3639. 2080. 1291.
DARK-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF

LOW ENERGY LANDSCAPING VS. 3640. 2704. 2068. 1625. 17479. 9160. 5234. 3249.
HIGH ENERGY LANDSCAPING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------








TABLE 11. PRESENT WORTHS FOR VARIOUS LANDSCAPING ALTERNATIVES FOR WOOD FRAME STRUCTURE
(30% ANNUAL ENERGY COST ESCALATION RATE)


ALTERNATIVES



EAST-WEST ORIENTATION VS.
NORTH-SOUTH ORIENTATION

HEAVY WALL SHADING VS.
NO WALL SHADING

o HEAVY ROOF SHADING VS.
NO ROOF SHADING

LIGHT WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
NO WALL AND ROOF SHADING

HEAVY WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
NO WALL AND ROOF SHADING

HEAVY WALL AND ROOF SHADING VS.
LIGHT WALL AND ROOF SHADING

LIGHT-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF VS.
DARK-COLORED WALLS AND ROOF


LOW ENERGY LANDSCAPING VS.
HIGH ENERGY LANDSCAPING


10 YEAR LIFE

INTEREST RATE
5% 10% 15% 20%

$ '$ $ $

1264. 913. 679. 519.


2487. 1797. 1337. 1022.


1535. 1110. 825. 631.


1877. 1356. 1009. 771.


3936. 2845. 2116. 1617.


2060. 1488. 1107. 846.


2312. 1671. 1243. 950.


5820. 4206. 3129. 2391.


20 YEAR LIFE

INTEREST RATE
5% 10% 15% 20%



11960. 5768. 2995. 1675.


23537. 11351. 5894. 3297.


14529. 7007. 3638. 2035.


17760. 8565. 4448. 2488.


37250. 17965. 9328. 5218.


19490. 9400. 4881. 2730.


21882. 10553. 5480. 3065.


55073. 26560. 13791.


7714.











TABLE 12. COMPARISON OF LOW ENERGY AND HIGH ENERGY LANDSCAPING
DESIGNS FOR CONCRETE BLOCK STRUCTURE


LOW HIGH
ENERGY DESIGN ENERGY DESIGN


ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION, KW-HR/YR 8138. 11501.

FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION, GALLONS/YR 148. 120.

COOLING SYSTEM CAPACITY, TONS 3.0 4. 5

HEATING SYSTEM CAPACITY, BTU/HR 52000. 52000.











TABLE 13. COMPARISON OF LOW ENERGY AND HIGH ENERGY LANDSCAPING
DESIGNS FOR WOOD FRAME STRUCTURE


LOW HIGH
ENERGY DESIGN ENERGY DESIGN


ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION, KW-HR/YR 8209. 11109.

FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION, GALLONS/YR 124. 102.

COOLING SYSTEM CAPACITY, TONS 3.0 4.5

HEATING SYSTEM CAPACITY, BTU/HR 44000. 44000.








Literature Cited


1. ASHRAE Handbook ofFundamentals. 1977. Chapter 26. Am. Soc.
of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engr., Inc., New
York.
2. Black, R. J. 1976. Landscaping to Conserve Energy. EC-17, IFAS,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
3. Buffington, D. E. 1977. Economics of energy conservation in cool-
ing/heating residential buildings. Paper No. 77-4003, Am. Soc. of
Ag. Eng., St. Joseph, MI.
4. Buffington, D. E. 1978. Value of landscaping for conserving en-
ergy in residences. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 91:92-96.
5. Buffington, D. E., S. K. Sastry, and R. J. Black. 1981. Factors for
Determining Shading Patterns in Florida Orlando and vicinity.
Landscaping for Energy Conservation Series, Circular 505, IFAS,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. (An additional ten
site-specific circulars as follows: Circ. 507, Panama City; Circ.
508, Pensacola; Circ. 509, Ft. Myers; Circ. 510, Gainesville; Circ.
511, Jacksonville; Circ. 512, Miami; Circ. 513, Tallahassee; Circ.
514, Tampa; Circ. 515, West Palm Beach; and Circ. 516, Daytona
Beach).
6. Carpenter, P. L., T. D. Walker, and F O. Lanphear. 1975.Plants in
the Landscape, W. H. Freeman Co., pp. 164-169.
7. Kirkwood, R. R. 1974. Energy conservation ASHRAE's oppor-
tunity. ASHRAE J. 16(5):42.
8. Lowry, R. 1974. Energy conservation in proposed facilities and
buildings. Florida Engineering Society Proc. on "Energy Conser-
vation by Design." March 20-21, Orlando, FL.
9. Mitalis, G. P. and J. G. Arseneault. 1970. Fortran IV program to
calculate Z-transfer functions for the calculation of transient heat
transfer through walls and roof. Paper presented at the First Sym-
posium on Use of Computers for Environmental Engineering Re-
lated to Buildings, National Bureau of Standards, Washington,
D.C.
10. Parker, J. H. 1978. Precision landscaping for energy conservation.
Proc. of the Nat'l Conf. on Technology for Energy Conservation,
Tucson, Arizona.
11. Robinette, G. 0. 1972. Plants/People/and Environmental Quality.
U.S. Department of Interior, pp. 67-99.
12. Savitz, M. L. 1975. Federal R & D in building conservation.
ASHRAE J. 17(9):27.
13. User's Manual Typical Meteorological Year. 1978. Nat'1 Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Ashe-
ville, N.C.







University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs