Interactive Digital Twin Hub

Design a Cooler, Greener and Energy Efficient Neighbourhood

A neighbourhood-scale digital twin to test interventions before spending millions

Heat risk
Energy poverty
Retrofit complexity

Current Twekkelerveld Condition

UHI peak (°C)
0
NDVI
0
Annual demand (MWh)
0
PV potential (MWh)
0
CO₂ (kt/yr)
0
Vulnerable HH (%)
0
Twekkelerveld Map

Why Twekkelerveld?

  • Mixed building stock → retrofit tradeoffs are real.
  • Heat + energy affordability collide here.
  • Perfect scale: neighbourhood interventions actually measurable.

Preset scenarios

Energy-focused
PV-focused
Full rooftop PV · moderate retrofit (pre-1945 stock)
EnergyResidual ≈ 1.02 GWh/yr (−87%)
EcologyNDVI & UHI unchanged
Trade-offSingle-domain
Ecology-focused
Greening-focused
Maximum tree planting · maximum green roofs
EnergyEnergy use unchanged
EcologyNDVI up · UHI peak down
Trade-offSmall CO₂ via sequestration
Combined
Integrated
Moderate PV + moderate greening
EnergyPartial electricity & CO₂ reduction
EcologyModerate NDVI & UHI gains
Trade-offSouth-facing canopy reduces proximate PV yield

Location details

Learn from international examples on cooling, energy, retrofits and community solar.

Now
Hotter summers, rising bills.
2027
Grid pressure + retrofit targets.
2030
Policy deadlines (EU targets).
2050
Climate baseline shift.

Location details

Ecology Digital Twin • Twekkelerveld Sources: Landsat 9 · BGT · AHN · KNMI
Energy Digital Twin • Twekkelerveld Sources: Enexis · Zonnedakje · BAG · CO₂ factors
Combined Scenario Analysis
Simulate integrated energy and ecology measures to maximise co‑benefits. Balance space and investment budgets while exploring greenness, heat, energy use, CO₂ and cost.
Intervention Controls
Additional trees
0 trees
Trees sequester ~20kg CO₂ per year and cost ~€350 each.
Extra rooftop PV
+0% PV capacity
Relative to current PV potential. Cost ~€5,400 per +1%.
Insulated buildings
0% of stock
Approx. 25–30% energy savings at 80% stock insulated.
Heatwave severity
Level 0
0 = normal summer, 3 = extreme heatwave.
Green roof coverage
0% of roofs
Vegetated roofs insulate buildings and provide shade.
Budget
€0
Maximum investment budget to optimize scenario.
Space budget
100% space
Maximum share of available space that can be used for trees and green roofs.
Investment Assumptions ● Live

Change cost assumptions to match your local context. Charts update instantly.

€
€
€
€
Baseline metrics: NDVI ~0.22, UHI ~9°C, energy ~5GWh. Adjust sliders to see impacts.
NDVI (base)
0.22
UHI (base)
9 °C
Energy
5,000 MWh
PV Pot.
650 MWh
CO₂
1.8 kt
Trees
2,400
Greenness (NDVI)
Base ~0.22
Urban heat (°C)
Base ~9 °C
Energy & PV
MWh/yr
Overall balance
Score
Stakeholder benefits
Score
Residents
  • Cooler summers and improved health through more trees and green roofs
  • Lower utility bills thanks to rooftop solar and deep retrofits
City planners
  • Progress towards climate targets with lower CO₂ emissions
  • Greater resilience and social equity for the neighbourhood
Cost & Space vs Benefits
Scenario
Greener
+0%
Cooler (UHI)
-0.0 °C
Energy demand
-0%
CO₂ balance
-0%
Total cost
€0
Protected HH
0%
Space used
0%

Energy & Economic Settings

Prices (€/unit)

Costs

CO₂ factors (kg CO₂ per unit)

CBA parameters

Budget cap

Show equations & assumptions

Energy cost: (gas × pricegas) + (imported electricity × priceelec) − (exported electricity × feed‑in tariff)

CO₂ savings: (baseline energy − new energy) × emission factor

Cost assumptions: PV cost per Wp (costs.pvPerWp), insulation per m² (costs.insulationSqM), heat pump costs (costs.hybridPump/allElectric)

NPV: ∑t=1T (Annual savings)/(1 + r)t − Capex

BCR: Present value of benefits ÷ Capex

Defaults: values drawn from the PARAMS object (units as indicated)

Ecology & MCDA Settings

Weights (0–1)

Costs

CBA parameters

Feasible space limits

Show equations & assumptions

Tree carbon sequestering: ~20 kg CO₂/year/tree; benefits include shade and amenity.

Green roof: Provides insulation and reduces runoff; cost per m² specified above.

Infiltration strip: A vegetated zone along creeks to retain stormwater and cool the microclimate.

NPV: ∑t=1T (Annual benefits)/(1 + r)t − Capex.

BCR: Present value of benefits ÷ Capex.

Stakeholders & users

Stakeholders: residents, local businesses, schools, NGOs, municipality, utilities.

Users: municipal planners, sustainability officers, housing association asset managers, consultants/researchers.

User stories:

  • Municipal planner compares scenarios under a €X budget.
  • Housing corporation prioritizes buildings for retrofit & PV.
  • Community group explores greening options and trade‑offs.
  • Researcher studies the trade‑off between carbon and heat mitigation.

Assumptions & Settings

Financial & Scenario Parameters

Unit Costs

Limits

MCDA Weights

Live Valuation Summary
Total Investment: €—
Annual Savings: —
Simple Payback: — yrs
NPV (30yr): €—

Transparency: Equations

Scenario metrics are computed using simplified relationships based on published literature. For example, UHI reduction per tree is approximated as 0.1 °C per 300 trees and green roof cooling as 1 °C per 100% roof coverage. These parameters can be updated in the code.

Transparency: Data sources & ranges

Default cost values originate from studies of urban greening and energy retrofits. Allowed input ranges ensure realism (e.g., green roof coverage up to 100%, discount rate between 0–10%).