# A Soft Computing Framework to Support Consumers in Obtaining Sustainable Appliances from the Market
## 4 Results and Discussion
The corresponding Pareto surface is obtained in Figure 9.  
Based on the obtained Pareto surface (Figure 9), the crowding distance that resulted from each individual solution is higher in the region where the Economic dimension has more dominance, followed by the Social and, at last, the Environmental one. Such an order of dominance between each dimension of sustainability is somehow expected, given the relative importance values (weight) considered in this case for each dimension (\(\omega_{\rm A}=0.65\), \(\omega_{\rm B}=0.25\), and \(\omega_{\rm C}=0.10\)). One of the nodes from that region is shown on Table 5, regarding a sustainable solution obtained by considering a budget constraint of \(\epsilon 2500\) and a consumer lifecycle of 10 years. The avoided CO\({}_{2}\) emissions for each appliance are also shown, and they result from the comparison between the \"sustainable\" solution achieved and the \"less sustainable\" one, i.e., the standard solution. The investment as well as the consumption savings were also obtained based on the difference between the \"sustainable\" solution achieved and the \"less sustainable\" one, and by also considering the lifecycle period regarding each energy service. Therefore, the corresponding monetary flows were then discounted to the present period in order to calculate the present value of each investment as well as each consumption value regarding the sustainable and less sustainable solutions. Considering the results presented on Table 5, the consumer can achieve energy savings of around \(\epsilon 2112.30\) regarding the considered lifecycle. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Trial** & **Crossover Value** & **Mutation Value** \\ \hline
1 & 0.75 & 0.15 \\
2 & 0.75 & 0.25 \\
3 & 0.85 & 0.15 \\
4 & 0.85 & 0.25 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Crossover’s and mutation values considered. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Electrical Household** & **Standard Solution** & **Sust. sol. Total** & **Inv. Saving** & **Energy Consump.** & **Water Consump.** & **COE Emissions** & **Manuf.** & **Model Type** \\
**Appliance** & **Total Invest. (G)** & **Invest (G)** & **(G)** & **Savings (G)** & **(avoided) (I)** & **(avoided) (kg)** & **Manuf.** & **Model Type** \\ \hline Light & 16.88 & 49.04 & 5.35 & 62.20 & - & _27.60_ & Phillips & LEDypo \\ Air conditioning & 352.00 & 279.00 & 69.00 & 1319.50 & - & 1322.60 & Samsung & QAV09 \\ Refrigerator & 234.00 & 399.00 & \(-\)265.00 & 709.30 & - & 9.72 & Becken & B2016 \\ Washing machine & 272.20 & 249.90 & \(-\)33.00 & 5.60 & 322.10 & 95.10 & INDESIT & EW217 \\ Dishwasher machine & 310.00 & 349.00 & \(-\)39.00 & 3.20 & 423.00 & 6.90 & LG & DE2127 \\ Overn & 171.00 & 701.00 & \(-\)28.30 & 2.82 & - & 2.33 & Electrolux & E2C243 \\ Clothes dryer & 368.00 & 449.00 & \(-\)68.00 & 10.20 & - & 1.82 & Bosch & WTES41 \\ Total & 1724.80 & 2475.94 & \(-\)262.65 & 2112.30 & 745.10 & 1458.90 & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: One of sustainable solutions achieved from the Pareto surface (\(\omega_{\Delta}=0.65\), \(\omega_{\rm B}=0.25\), and \(\omega_{\rm C}=0.10\)). Based on this value, we can estimate a consumption average value of 211.23 \(\epsilon\)/year (previous result divided by the considered lifecycle), which is lower than the average value of 300 in [9], although still significant, thus highlighting the importance of achieving energy savings during the lifecycle of each equipment. During the considered lifecycle, the consumer can also avoid 1458.90 kg of CO\({}_{2}\) emissions and avoid consumption of approximately 745.10 liters of water, with both resulting in savings.