7/25/2019 hlad_k

1/103

SUSTAINABILE PRACTICES IN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS

By

KRISTEN HLAD

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOLOF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2009

1

7/25/2019 hlad_k

2/103

2009 Kristen Hlad

2

7/25/2019 hlad_k

3/103

To my husband and my parents

3

7/25/2019 hlad_k

4/103

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my husband and parents for supporting me throughout my academic

career, and, amazingly, still acting interested when I start telling them about architecture and

construction. I owe much of the development of this thesis to my chair, Dr. Svetlana Olbina,

who was always there to answer questions, meet, and help guide me. I would also like to thank

my co-chair, Dr. Raymond Issa, and my committee member, Dr. Robert Stroh, who both were

always there to help me whenever I had any questions. I truly appreciate all your dedication to

your students. I would also like to thank Gina Hill, the executive vice-president of BANCF, and

all those who took the time to participate in the study because, without your contribution, the

thesis would not have been possible.

4

7/25/2019 hlad_k

5/103

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4

LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................8

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................10

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................11

ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................12

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................14

Introduction.............................................................................................................................14 Problem Statement..................................................................................................................14Purpose of Study.....................................................................................................................15

2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................16

Defining and Designing Sustainability...................................................................................16Active Systems for Sustainable Residential Design and Construction ...........................17Passive Design for Sustainable Residential Design and Construction............................19Rating Systems for Sustainable Residential Design and Construction ...........................20

Refining Sustainability ...........................................................................................................24

Pricing Sustainability..............................................................................................................25Owning and Branding Sustainability......................................................................................27

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................30

Survey Objective ....................................................................................................................30Development...........................................................................................................................30 Explanation of Survey ............................................................................................................31

Demographics..................................................................................................................31 Likert Scale Questions for Experience, Importance, Opinion, Familiarity, and

Frequency Responses toward Sustainable Design.......................................................31

Close-ended Questions for Familiarity Responses toward Sustainable Design..............32Ordinal Questions for Importance Responses toward Sustainable Design .....................32Open-ended Questions for Free Responses toward Sustainable Design.........................32Summary..........................................................................................................................33

Selection of Participants .........................................................................................................33

4 RESULTS...............................................................................................................................34

5

7/25/2019 hlad_k

6/103

Survey Response.....................................................................................................................34Demographic Profile of Respondents.....................................................................................34Survey Results ........................................................................................................................35

Experience with Sustainable Practices ............................................................................36Typical respondent ...................................................................................................36

Developer and builder ..............................................................................................36Importance of Sustainable Practices................................................................................37Typical respondent ...................................................................................................37Developer and builder ..............................................................................................40

Opinion about Sustainable Practices ...............................................................................42Typical respondent ...................................................................................................42Developer and builder ..............................................................................................44

Familiarity with Sustainable Practices ............................................................................46Typical respondent ...................................................................................................46Developer and builder ..............................................................................................47

Frequency of Use of Sustainable Practices .....................................................................48

Typical respondent ...................................................................................................48Developer and builder ..............................................................................................48Analysis of Results .................................................................................................................50

Experience with Sustainable Practices ............................................................................50Importance of Sustainable Practices................................................................................50Opinion on Sustainable Practices ....................................................................................51Familiarity with Sustainable Practices ............................................................................51Frequency Use of Sustainable Practices..........................................................................52

Summary.................................................................................................................................52

5 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................72

6 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................74

Recommendations...................................................................................................................74 Limitations and Further Research...........................................................................................74

APPENDIX

A SUSTAINABLE AND RESIDENTIAL PRACTICES SURVEY.........................................75

Informed Consent Disclosure Agreement for Participants.....................................................75Demographic Information ......................................................................................................76

Perception of the Respondents................................................................................................77Familiarity of Respondents.....................................................................................................81Ordinal Questions ...................................................................................................................82

B OVERVIEW OF LEED-H .....................................................................................................84

LEED for Homes Version 2008 .............................................................................................84

C OVERVIEW OF NAHB MODEL GREEN HOME BUILDING STANDARD ...................88

6

7/25/2019 hlad_k

7/103

NAHB Model Green Home Building Guidelines Version 2006............................................88

D FLORIDA GREEN HOME BUILDING CERTIFICATION STANDARD..........................89

Florida Green Home Designation Standard of the FGBC, Version 6.0 .................................89

E STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................91

Analyzed Data ........................................................................................................................91Experience .......................................................................................................................91Importance.......................................................................................................................91 Opinion............................................................................................................................95 Familiarity .......................................................................................................................96Frequency ........................................................................................................................99

LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................100

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................103

7

7/25/2019 hlad_k

8/103

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

4-1 Responses to Likert scale questions related to experience in sustainable practices fortypical respondents.............................................................................................................53

4-2 Responses to Likert scale questions related to experience in sustainable practices fordevelopers and builders......................................................................................................54

4-3 Responses to Likert scale questions related to importance of sustainable practices fortypical respondents.............................................................................................................55

4-4 Responses for Likert scale questions related on importance in sustainable practicesfor developers and builders................................................................................................55

4-5 Rating of importance of sustainable practices against other factors during the design

phase for typical respondents.............................................................................................56

4-6 Responses related to ranking of importance of sustainable practices during designphase between developers and builders .............................................................................57

4-7 Rating of importance of sustainable practices against other factors during theconstruction phase for typical respondents........................................................................58

4-8 Responses related to ranking of importance of sustainable practices duringconstruction phase between developers and builders ........................................................59

4-9 Rating of importance sustainable practices against other factors during the marketingphase for typical respondents.............................................................................................60

4-10 Responses related to ranking of importance of sustainable practices during themarketing phase between developers and builders............................................................61

4-11 Responses to Likert scale questions related to opinion of sustainable practices fortypical respondents.............................................................................................................62

4-12 Responses to Likert scale questions related to opinion about sustainable practices fordevelopers and builders......................................................................................................64

4-13 Responses to Likert scale questions related to familiarity with sustainable practicesfor typical respondents.......................................................................................................67

4-14 Responses to Likert scale questions related to familiarity with sustainable practicesfor developers and builders................................................................................................68

4-15 Familiarity with green building concepts and practices for typical respondents...............69

4-16 Familiarity with green building concepts and practices for developers and builders........70

8

7/25/2019 hlad_k

9/103

4-17 Responses to Likert scale questions related to frequency of use of sustainablepractices for typical respondents........................................................................................71

4-18 Responses to Likert scale questions related to frequency of use of sustainablepractices for developers and builders.................................................................................71

E-1 Data based on experience with sustainable practices using a chi-squared test betweendevelopers and builders......................................................................................................91

E-2 Data based on importance of sustainable concepts and techniques with chi-squaredtest between builders and developers.................................................................................91

E-3 Data based on ranking of importance on sustainable concepts and techniques duringthe design phase with chi-squared test between builders and developers .........................92

E-4 Data based on ranking of importance on sustainable concepts and techniques duringthe construction phase with chi-squared test between builders and developers ................93

E-5 Data based on ranking of importance on sustainable concepts and techniques duringthe marketing phase with chi-squared test between builders and developers....................94

E-6 Raw data based on opinion of sustainable concepts and techniques with chi-squaredtest between builders and developers.................................................................................95

E-7 Data based on familiarity with sustainable practices with chi-squared test betweendevelopers and builders......................................................................................................96

E-8 Data based on familiarity with sustainable concepts and techniques with chi-squaredtest between builders and developers.................................................................................97

E-9 Raw data based on frequency of sustainable concepts and techniques with chi-squared test between builders and developers ...................................................................99

9

7/25/2019 hlad_k

10/103

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1 Three spheres of sustainability...........................................................................................17

4-1 Respondents position within their company, as a percentage of total typicalrespondents ........................................................................................................................35

4-2 Ranking of importance of sustainable practices and concepts during design phase fortypical respondents.............................................................................................................38

4-3 Ranking of importance of sustainable practices and concepts during the constructionphase for typical respondents.............................................................................................39

4-4 Ranking of importance of sustainable practices and concepts during the marketingphase for typical respondents.............................................................................................40

4-5 Percentage of green building concepts and practices familiar to typical respondents.......49

10

7/25/2019 hlad_k

11/103

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ANSI American National Standards Institute

BANCF Builders Association of North Central Florida

BEES Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability

BMS Building Management Systems

D.f. Degrees of Freedom

FGBC Florida Green Building Coalitions Green Home Designation Standard

HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Systems

IECC International Energy Conservation Code

IRC International Residential Code

LCA Life-cycle Assessment

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building RatingSystem, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC),provides standards for environmentally sustainable construction.

LEED-AP LEED Professional Accreditation distinguishes building professionalswith the knowledge and skills to successfully steward the LEEDcertification process.

LEED-H Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Ratingsystem that promotes the design and construction of high-performancehomes

NZEH Net-Zero Energy Home

NAHB National Association of Home Builders

PV Photovoltaic

Rating Avg. Rating Average is a weighted average per column and row based on rated

scale

SIPs Structurally Insulated Panels

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

USGBC United States Green Building Council

11

7/25/2019 hlad_k

12/103

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate Schoolof the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction

SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES IN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS

By

Kristen Hlad

December 2009

Chair: Svetlana OlbinaCochair: Raymond IssaMajor: Building Construction

Although there is a trend to build green, most architects, builders, and owners see the

initial costs as being high to implement sustainability in smaller scopes of work. Sometimes,

when the budgets bottom line is not matching, the extra expenses toward making a building

more energy efficient are the first to be cut. The study was conducted to understand the decision

making process, from a builders point of view, on residential sustainability. The procedure

started by asking residential builders of North Central Florida belonging to the Builders

Association of North-Central Florida (BANCF) to assess various topics and concepts on

sustainability. Residential sustainability survey was categorized into different levels related to

experience with sustainability, familiarity with sustainable practices and concepts, frequency of

use of sustainable practices and concepts, opinion on sustainability, and importance of

sustainability within the company. The study was conducted to identify the apprehensions, cost

conflicts, levels of integrations, and confusion associated with residential sustainability in the

current housing market. The purpose was to compare developers and builders within the

residential sector in the area of sustainability and green building. This study built upon existing

research on the applicability of rating systems and other sustainable practices withstanding in the

residential sector. The results of the study proved there are no significant differences between

12

7/25/2019 hlad_k

13/103

builders and developers on the trends of sustainability, except that developers are more familiar

with sustainable concepts and techniques. The typical respondent agreed that cost was most

important, but also agreed that sustainable design was important for the environment. The five

parameters of the study, based on the literature review, indicated that the developers and the

builders surveyed had sustainability experience, were familiar with sustainability, and actively

trained employees in sustainability. They also believed that green homes are more complicated

to build, cost more, and do not help their homes sell faster to consumers.

13

7/25/2019 hlad_k

14/103

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION

Introduction

The worlds of construction and design are changing rapidly as the global demand for

sustainable structures increases. Society is wavering on the edge of change after seeing the

devastating effects of climate change and depletion of natural resources. After all, sustainability

not only adheres to the construction industry, but also to all societal infrastructures around the

world. Changes in the construction industry practices are one way for sustainability in an

unstable world, and contractors and owners are not clamoring quickly to meet the need for

changes in the construction industry. A single American home produces approximately 26,000

pounds of greenhouse gases each year, and every year more and more homes are being

constructed (Schendler and Udall, 2005). Latest applications of sustainable design are cutting

edge, most efficient, and, sometimes, most costly to the overall project. However, keeping up

the latest, up-to-date green techniques and systems does come at a price to not only the builder

and consumer, but also to the environment.

Problem Statement

Presently there is a debate over sustainability in the design and construction of residential

structures. Residential structures are smaller scale and vary from site to site and project to

project making it difficult to make cost estimates. Sustainable rating systems exist, but there still

is a desultory commitment to sustainability. Such rating systems, like the United States Green

Building Councils (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for homes

(LEED-H), offer certification levels for residential structures, but builders and developers do not

utilize them. The movement of building green could be attributed to a trend in building;

however, this could also be the way of thinking is the future of building. But, why are builders

14

7/25/2019 hlad_k

15/103

and other larger scale residential projects not dedicating 100 % of their efforts toward green

building? Builders, designers, and developers look at budget, time, and costs, and sustainability

is often the easiest to cut. The overlapping and complexity of the rating systems dilutes the

meaning behind the programs to help the environment. However, there is a responsibility of the

builder to bring change to the industry, and start the movement toward green homes.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to provide an understanding of the decision making process,

from a builders point of view, on residential sustainability. The procedure started by asking

residential builders of North Central Florida belonging to the Builders Association of North-

Central Florida (BANCF) to assess various topics and concepts on sustainability. Residential

sustainability survey was categorized into different levels based on frequency, opinion,

importance, experience, and familiarity. The aim of the study was to identify the apprehensions,

cost conflicts, levels of integrations, and confusion associated with residential sustainability in

the current housing market. This study built upon existing research on the applicability of rating

systems and other sustainable practices in the residential sector.

15

7/25/2019 hlad_k

16/103

CHAPTER 2LITERATURE REVIEW

Defining and Designing Sustainability

Sustainability is a term with a many definitions. Brandon (1999) points out there are

existing definitions, but all are open to interpretation on key words or phrases. How can

sustainability prove effective there are different interpretations of what is sustainability? There

is a balance between economic, social, and environmental factors, but the key is finding

equilibrium (Figure 2-1). Due to the nature of the construction industry, green buildings have to

be measured and quantified in order to prove that sustainability has enough foreseeable benefits

for the contractors and/or owners. With more than 40% of the total United States energy

consumption going to buildings, there is a benefit for the environment to build more sustainably,

but what about to the owner or to the contractor (Means, 2002)? There are risks associated with

building green, as with all building projects, but these risks can carry a higher price tag. The

construction industry is being hit by increased material prices. Within four years the costs of

construction products have increased dramatically: asphalt increased 190%; iron and steel

increased 114%; aluminum increased 72%; and concrete 36% (Cassidy, 2008). These risks

occur in the design phase and construction phase of a project.

A study by Kats (2003) confirms that the earlier green design was brought into the design

process, the lower the overall costs of the project. Therefore, when poor green design occurs, the

building may not reach its full potential. More directly, the building may never recoup the

additional costs. To combat poor design, cooperation between architects, contractors,

developers, estimators, owners, and governmental officials needs to be established. In other

words, integrated design needs to occur to successfully develop applicable sustainable systems.

16

7/25/2019 hlad_k

17/103

Figure 2-1. Three spheres of sustainability (Adapted from 2002 University of MichiganSustainability Assessment, Source:http://www.vanderbilt.edu/sustainvu/images/sustainability_spheres.png)

Helping designers minimize the risk to their investors is the CSIs Green Format. The

green product database organized around sustainable properties. The products in the database

are entered based on the products composition, embodied energy, life-cycle properties, and

operations-related performance. The level of cooperation between manufacturers and designers

will be greatly improved as manufactures put their products in the database (Barista, 2008). The

designers will no longer have to wade through many specification sheets to find the best match

when other projects have already tested and deciphered the products. This leads to the need for

changes on a larger scale in sustainability, and not just for isolated problems, as well as,

integration earlier in the conceptual and design phases (CII, 2006).

Active Systems for Sustainable Residential Design and Construction

Understanding where a home needs to change is one of the first steps toward sustainable

residential design and construction. According to the NAHB Research Center (2008), one of the

17

7/25/2019 hlad_k

18/103

first ways to save energy is to look at a homes heating and cooling of space and the heating of

water. The next change should be the major appliances, equipment, and lighting in a home to

ensure they are optimum efficiency.

The microclimate of Florida area is mostly subtropical, and requires mechanical heating

and cooling for optimum indoor temperature comfort, however, the heating and cooling of space

requires a large amount of energy (Brown & DeKay, 2001). In order to achieve the goal of a

sustainable residential project, the heating and cooling needs to be based on high-efficiency

equipment as for a specified climate.

One possible source for heating is a Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP). The GSHP

extracts heat from the ground, and uses it to heat the home, reducing the amount of energy

needed to heat the home. In the summer, the system runs in reverse to provide air conditioning,

depositing heat from the home into the ground. The total control over active systems is

culminated in the Net-Zero Energy House (NZEH). NZEH is a home that is capable of

producing and consuming less energy than is consumed or purchased from energy utilities

(NZEH Coalition, 2009). The United States Department of Energy (NAHB, 2008) defines a

NZEH as a house that is connected to the utility grid, but can be designed and constructed to

produce as much energy as it consumes on an annual basis. Just as the heating and cooling of

space was initially a large burden, the heating of water presents as an initial energy consuming

problem. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Research Center (2008)

suggested that a solar water pre-heat system should be installed to heat residential water. The

subtropical climate permits for large amounts of sunlight in both the winter and the summer,

making this as a viable option to Florida builders. Another option, as mentioned before, is the

GSHP for heating water. However, neither will be efficient if the water consumption is high.

18

7/25/2019 hlad_k

19/103

Therefore low-flow fixtures should be installed on all faucets, toilets, and showerheads. The

dishwasher and washer should be Energy Star compliant and come with a variety of water-

sensing that decrease water usage with smaller loads.

Passive Design for Sustainable Residential Design and Construction

Construction of a green home does not require excessive use of new building techniques or

computerized systems to reduce energy, but merely allows for an investigation into every

opportunity to reduce energy needs. As mentioned before, a NZEH (Net-zero energy home)

coalition denoted that certain changes in specific areas of a home yield the greatest return on

energy savings. Even though every home is different from site location and climate factors,

every home has an opportunity to save energy and produce renewable energy.

Exterior walls are one of the largest components of a home exposed to the outdoor

elements. The walls are penetrated by all the piping, wiring, insulation, and windows but still

should maintain a good amount of insulation. High energy efficient building envelop will permit

for lower variations in temperature conditions in the interior spaces and reducing solar gain

(Brown & DeKay, 2001). For optimal performance, a structures floorplan should be slightly

longer than it is wide. This allows for maximum solar gain in each room (Chiras, 2003). Site

specific window placement help alter the negative and positive pressure zones created around the

building, and will induce wind flow through the windows (Brown & DeKay, 2001). In short, the

effect is a comfortable environment with low energy costs, and, the owners claim, higher

productivity.

Progress Energy (2008) suggests that the range of R-values for ceiling insulation be

between R-19 R-30 for homes in Florida. R-value is a measurement for insulation based on the

resistance of heat flow, and is based on the insulations material, thickness, and density. The

higher the insulations R-value, the better the insulation is at regulating the mitigation of heat

19

7/25/2019 hlad_k

20/103

with the outdoors (U.S. Department of Energy, 2009). One example of a new insulation tactic is

Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs). SIPs consist of two outer skins and an insulated core that

form a monolithic, nonstructural wall (Morley, 2000). SIPs of six inches thick will save up to

25% of the walls energy losses. The panels achieve this goal in two ways: 1) reducing heat loss,

and 2) reducing air leaks (Oak Ridge, 2008; Morley, 2000).

Another passive system option is green, or living, roofs. A green roof helps to mitigate the

urban heat island effect and reduces the added energy demands to keep buildings cool and offers

water management. A green roof can reduce water runoff and sewer overflows (USGBC, 2008).

The vegetation and soil act as a sponge, absorbing and filtering water that would normally run

down gutters, wash through polluted streets and overload the sewer systems. A properly

maintained roof garden can reduce energy costs by 10%, and reduce storm water runoff by 90%

(Kibert, 2008). Retained water is then available for use by the vegetation instead of being added

to the storm system. The water is slowed down since it must percolate through the green roof

system. An appropriate green design greatly influences how much energy buildings use and

when they use it (American Hydrotech, Inc., 2008). The design must incorporate a myriad of

environmental, lifestyle, and climatic contexts, which will dictate openings and wall placements.

In other words, the design becomes a passive mechanism to heat and cool the building all year

long.

Rating Systems for Sustainable Residential Design and Construction

Several options exist for developers and builders to regulate sustainable design and

construction. Many cover similar topics, issues, and assessments scales (Table 2-1). One

example is the United States Green Building Councils (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design for Homes (LEED-H) rating system. Like the other LEED rating

systems, the buildings are rated on a whole-building point system that covers performance in five

20

7/25/2019 hlad_k

21/103

areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy

efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality. LEED-H categories include:

Innovation and Design Process, Location and Linkages, Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency,

Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality and Awareness

and Education. An overview of LEED-H can be found in Appendix B. The LEED levels of

performance range from Certified, Gold, Silver, and Platinum, based on points earned, Platinum

being highest (USGBC, 2008).

Another option is NAHBs Model Green Building Standard. Comparable to LEED-H, the

Green Building Standard focuses on the whole-building view of sustainability from conception

to operation. The parameters for the program criteria are energy and water efficiency, resource

efficient building design and materials, indoor environmental quality, and environmental impact

(NAHB, 2008). Points are given for Lot Design, Preparation, and Development, Resource,

Energy, and Water Efficiency, Indoor Environmental Quality, Operation, Maintenance, and

Homeowner Education, Global Impact, and additional categories for individual projects. This

rating system, from lowest to highest points, is bronze, silver, and gold (NAHB, 2006). In

addition to NAHBs Model Green Building Standard is the American National Standards

Institute (ANSI) approved ICC-700-2008 National Green Building Standard. Closely related to

the Green Model Building Standards, the ANSI Green Building Standard allows for regional

applications. The ANSI system covers energy, water, and resource efficiency, lot and site

development, indoor environmental quality, home owner education, site design and

development, and additional points. The ANSI system is point based, and a building can achieve

bronze, silver, gold, or emerald. The lowest point category must be at least 15% better than the

21

7/25/2019 hlad_k

22/103

2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) (NAHB, 2008). NAHBs Model Green

Building Standard Guidelines can be found in Appendix C.

Similarly, Florida Green Building Coalitions (FGBC) Green Home Standard guides the

processes of selecting green features that are most cost effective and most beneficial to the

environment. FGBCs Green Home Standard is specific to residential structures in Florida, and

adapts sustainability to Floridas ecosystems and climates. The major divisions are Energy,

Water, Lot Choice, Site, Health, Materials, Disaster Mitigation, and General. The Green Home

Standard has also has point divisions ranging from bronze, silver, gold, and platinum (FGBC,

2009).

However, there are some skeptics to the advantages of having a green building. A study of

286 LEED-certified buildings, 1,045 Energy Star buildings, and 29 dual certified buildings found

LEED rating has no effect upon commercial rents, but Energy Star rating is associated with

rents higher by 2.8% (Cassidy, 2008). The sticker price for being green does not always carry a

premium price tag. There are some incentives available from city or other governmental

agencies that can offset the higher prices. Municipalities around the globe are trying to curb the

impact of construction, and those efforts have a major impact on construction activities (Wu et

al., 2003).

Case Study: Leeds City Office Park: The Leeds City Office Park, by Peter Foggo

Associates, is an example of how integrated design and the costs of green building can be offset

by the operational cost savings during the first few years. The program called for rental space,

parking, complied with sustainable principles, and dealt with the existing land contamination and

had architects, engineers, and surveyors that worked together on the project. The engineers

looked at the structural design, and reworked an exposed concrete structure to act as a climate

22

7/25/2019 hlad_k

23/103

modifier. The building took strides to maximize natural day lighting and natural ventilation by,

for example, the use of atriums, sun shades, and a lighting control system. The result was a

building that has many green features in the building management system that is simple to

operate and understand. Even though the structural, glazed glass cost more than 20% of

conventional cladding, the building boasts a 70% saving in fuel bills compared to a normal fully-

air conditioned office building (Edwards, 2003). Over the next few years, the building should

have recouped all of the additional costs for the green systems.

Table 2-1. Similarities and overlaps of categories in residential sustainable rating systems

Category LEED-H

NAHB Model

Green BuildingStandard

ANSI Green

BuildingStandard

FGBC Green

Home Standard

SITESustainable

Sites

Lot Design,Preparation, and

Development

Lot and SiteDevelopment

Lot Choice

MATERIALSMaterials and

ResourcesResourceEfficiency

ResourceEfficiency

Materials

ENERGYEnergy andAtmosphere

EnergyEfficiency

Energy Energy

WATER WaterEfficiency

WaterEfficiency

Water Water

INDOORENVIRONMENT

IndoorEnvironmental

Quality

IndoorEnvironmental

Quality

IndoorEnvironmental

QualityHealth

OWNEREDUCATION

Awareness andEducation

Operation,Maintenance

and HomeownerEducation

Home OwnerEducation

General*

SITE DESIGN Location andLinkages

Global Impact Site Design andDevelopment

Site

INNOVATIONInnovation andDesign Process

AdditionalPoints

AdditionalPoints

General*

MISC. N/A N/A N/ADisaster

Mitigation

* Generalencompasses both Owner Education and Innovative design within its credits

23

7/25/2019 hlad_k

24/103

Refining Sustainability

Predicting the impacts of certain design decisions with respect to environmental and

economic is a task that must be tackled early in the design phases. Systems, such as Building for

Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES), help apply life-cycle assessment (LCA) to

measure the environmental performance of a building. Also, BEES allows for the choosing of

materials based on cost-effectiveness and environmental impacts, which is important for owners

and/or contractors (Kibert, 2008). The LCA assesses all stages of environmental impact. Means

(2002) highlighted the stages of materials as stated below:

(1) Raw Materials Acquisition

(2) Product Manufacture

(3) Transportation

(4) Installation

(5) Operation and maintenance

(6) Recycling and waste management

Similarly, Wu et al. (2003) summarized the basic environmental impacts to the

competition of land between agriculture and construction, the consumption of both renewable

and non-renewable resources, the volume of waste produced, and the air pollution from

processing and transporting of materials. The factors all point toward looking at construction as

continuous process and all the effects from start to finish.

Movements to reuse and recycle have prompted designers to think about what happens to

the materials at the end of a buildings life cycle. The raw materials are being depleted, and the

landfills keep growing. In fact, over 130 million tons of waste and debris is from construction

jobsites and demolition, accounting for about 25% of all solid waste discarded in the United

States (Lennon, 2005; Tam, 2008). Extending the life of materials can help with emissions and

24

7/25/2019 hlad_k

25/103

energy required to make new materials. The implementation of recycling construction and

demolition debris (C&D) is a movement in direction of producing a sustainable building during

all phases of construction and demolition (Kibert, 2008). The reuse of materials in construction

is a worldwide industry change that needs to occur.

Case Study: Glencoa Visitors Center: A building that is designed with LCA in mind is

the Glencoe Visitors Center in Scotland. The design of the building was focused primarily on

the potential of recycling of the materials used in the building. The site was demolished and the

materials from the existing site were used in the construction of the building. The building uses

local timber from the surrounding area and this timber were not treated in order to avoid an off-

gassing. Almost all of the building can be dismantled for recycling later (Sassi, 2006).

Pricing Sustainability

Considering a building from start to finish has a direct effect on pricing and overall cost

analysis of a project. According to the Construction Industry Institute (CII), at the University of

Texas at Austin (2006), 80% of environmental and economic costs are already defined by the

final stage of design. Because green materials are generally not mainstreamed, some materials

lack scale to absorb manufacturing costs, or are special orders that come at an increased price. A

study by the U.S. Department of Energys Building America Residential System (2006)

demonstrated that lead builders could successfully provide 30% energy savings in homes on a

cost-neutral basis.

Yet, some green products are not under the constraints of hazardous or toxic material

compliance because they comply with LCA model. Malin (2000) emphasizes the advantage to

using a more mainstreamed product with a higher initial cost but that has lower life-cycle cost

overtime. This provides a higher cost to the contractor, but lower costs to the owner over time.

25

7/25/2019 hlad_k

26/103

By using mainstreamed green products, and then selecting higher priced green products to be

used for the greatest environmental impact, costs can be lowered.

Differing sustainable practices can aid in the pricing of buildings. An analysis of green

roofs by Nelms (2008) designated performance measures based on parameters such as design

forces, initial costs, and project resources. The results found that for low-rise buildings

application of a green roof had a five time greater benefit than high-rise buildings. Green roofs,

depending on the structure and soil, can capture between 50% and 90% of typical rain fall on the

roof surface. The rain water can be retained and used in other applications to lessen costs

(American Hydrotech, 2008). Similarly, according to Langdon (Mendler et al., 2006) higher

points were given for integrated design during the LEED evaluation of 60 buildings. The cost of

the integrated design added to the overall budget, but had cost savings because the changes. In

effect, the costs become almost negligible because the savings are recuperated during the life of

the building.

Another technique is the application of high-efficiency appliances. Using Energy Star

and high energy efficient appliances, the structure should have a 30% decrease in energy use on

utility costs (USGBC, 2007). For example, the average residential refrigerator of 17 cubic feet

has an electricity usage of 1,460 kWh per year, whereas the average Energy Star refrigerator of

the same size uses 254 kWh per year (Parker & Dunlop, 1994). The savings for refrigeration to

the home owner are approximately 500% compared to the average home not using an Energy

Star refrigerator. The home is said to be an Energy Star home because all the appliances are

rated through Energy Star to be the most technologically advanced and energy efficiency

appliances. These homes are at least 15% more energy efficient than homes built to the 2004

26

7/25/2019 hlad_k

27/103

International Residential Code (IRC), and include additional energy-saving features that

typically make them 20 to 30% more efficient than standard homes (Energy Star, 2008).

Society has become more conscious of the consequences of bad design, including: sick

building syndrome and hidden operation costs. Ellis and Partners (as cited by Edwards, 2002)

found the movement to not only be initiated by owners, but by tenants who wanted change in

their office dwellings. Building green forces more thought into the conceptual design, the

selection of materials, and add to the overall cost. As a result, the building becomes more

valuable in the eyes of the owners and the occupants. Green buildings boast reductions in annual

operating costs by a multiple of 10 (capitalization rate) to estimate the increased value of the

building (Mendler et al., 2006). The buildings then gain a market advantage on the other older,

conventional buildings.

Owning and Branding Sustainability

Even though most green buildings recoup the extra price of building green in the first few

years, the average American homeowner is not in a home long enough to see the cost saving

effects (Edwards, 2003). There are many strategies to consider, but daily habits and patterns that

affect energy use in the home as well as proper maintenance of systems, equipment and

appliances will determine the results. Maintenance includes changing Heating, Ventilation, and

Air Conditioning (HVAC) filters, scheduling regular heating and cooling systems cleaning,

including periodically checking the operation of solar systems (NAHB, 2008). Occupant

awareness and education will ensure the performance.

On the other hand, building green also can cause a companys image to the public to

improve. According to Brandon (1999), there needs to be a clear consensus on the definition and

understanding of sustainability, a comprehension of the relationships between sustainability,

client, and construction industry, a measurement of progress, and the proper protocols and a

27

7/25/2019 hlad_k

28/103

proper management framework to promote sustainability in the public mind. This prompts

companies to remake the way their company operates. For example, Turner Construction

Company became the first construction management firm to measure the companys current

carbon footprint, and finding a way to reduce it. Recycling and training of their workers to be

LEED-AP status is also a way for Turner Construction Company to have a grassroots approach

on being green (Cullen, 2008).

When the choices arise over whether or not to include sustainable materials or products

into a building, the initial costs can be daunting. Most green products have higher initial costs,

but can have overall lower costs overtime. Yet, positive aspects can outweigh the negative

aspects. Edwards (2002) explains that benefits include: reduced investment risk; improved rental

income; increased leasable area; improved building flexibility; lower construction costs;

enhanced company image; and improved marketability through improved working environment.

The earlier the concepts of sustainable design are implemented, the better result and cost

savings. Product selection is important during the design phase because the decisions will

dictate the overall project cost and delineation of the project budget. Appropriately finding

solutions for designing green can be used to help lower the costs of using non-green materials in

a green way (Malin, 2000). An example of rethinking sustainability, a parking lot retrofit project

in Bellingham, Washington used a rain garden versus a conventional vault to collect rain water.

Designers understood the value of using green materials to achieve the same result. Because of

careful designing and planning, the city saved 80% on the rain garden, or a savings of $22,000

(EPA, 2008).

Case Study: Building Research Establishment: The Building Research Establishment

(BRE) design by Feilden Clegg Bradley Architects was designed to be green, while maintaining

28

7/25/2019 hlad_k

29/103

the demands of the owners and occupants. The program called for an office park that was a Low

Energy Office and that focused on ventilation, daylighting, and energy needs. The ventilation

comprised of Building Management System (BMS) that operated windows and small depth of

the floor plates. But where ventilation could not occur because of site restraints, the designers

created the wave floor. The wave incorporates a sound block from other offices while still

letting ventilation move through the building. Ventilation routes move above and under the

ceiling plane and under the above floor plane. The configuration allows an even distribution and

night time cooling. Owners can look forward to decreased energy costs, operating costs, higher

premiums, improved image, while the tenants can enjoy increased productivity and healthier

environment. And, not to cloud all the economic benefits, building green is also good for the

environment and the sustainability of our future.

29

7/25/2019 hlad_k

30/103

CHAPTER 3RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Survey Objective

The objective for this study was to identify impetus for being sustainable as it applies it to

the residential construction industry. How the residential sector is implementing green design in

a profitable and appropriate manner is part of the analysis. With the advancement of technology,

being green is becoming easier; but with a price tag that matches the new technology. The aim

of this study was to investigate how building green is implemented by residential builders,

contractors, developers, and designers based on:

Overall experience with green building techniques, concepts, and practices.

Importance to the company to be green during the design, construction, and marketphases.

Overall opinion of sustainability and sustainable rating systems for residential projects.

Overall familiarity with green building concepts, techniques, or products.

Frequency of application of sustainable building concepts, techniques, or products in thedesign, construction, and marketing of their homes.

Therefore, the targeted audiences for the study were developers and builders that dealt with

residential sector that have or have not implemented green design. The study measured a

companys experience, importance, opinion, familiarity, and frequency on sustainability. The

aim of the study was to identify the apprehensions, cost conflicts, levels of integrations, and

confusion associated with residential sustainability in the current housing market.

Development

The survey, found in Appendix A, was based on a series of questions to gauge the

sentiment of green design and the actions taken to implement green design. The questions fall

into categorical themes: familiarity, general opinion, frequency of applications, importance, and

30

7/25/2019 hlad_k

31/103

experience. Data collected was analyzed that fell into these categories. The methodology

resulted from the grouping of those parameters. The procedures to reach the goals of the study

were carried out through:

A literature review was done to document how sustainability is defined, designed, priced,implemented, and marketed. The literature also provided a conceptual base for thesurvey and criteria for the studys parameters.

Case studies were examined to exemplify the aims of the study and parameters.

Data was collected from web based survey and compared against the aims of the study.

A final result was based from the procedures mentioned.

Explanation of Survey

Demographics

The demographic section had a series of fill- in-the-blank questions that would help

quantify the respondent. The section includes: the name of the company, the type of company,

the typical scope of work, the amount of Work, typical size of residences, typical prices, and

typical delivery method used. The responders name, title, and contact information was also

requested. The purpose of the demographic information was to categorize a companys size and

volume of Work versus the practice green design and construction.

Likert Scale Questions for Experience, Importance, Opinion, Familiarity, and Frequency

Responses toward Sustainable Design

The questions were targeted to have the respondent answer pertaining to their companys

attitudes and actions toward green design in their training and projects. The Likert scale

questions for sustainable practices pertaining to experience were questions 1, 3, and 4. The

Likert scale question pertaining to importance was question 2. The Likert scale questions

pertaining to opinion were 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20. The Likert scale questions

pertaining to familiarity were questions 11, 12, and 13. The Likert scale questions pertaining to

31

7/25/2019 hlad_k

32/103

frequency were questions 16 and 17. The questions were to determine if the green techniques,

rating systems, and governmental laws are helping or hindering the dissemination of green

design in the residential construction sector.

Another aspect to the questions were to help determine the importance of green design in

the companys overall mission and the degree which the company implements sustainability.

Allowing opinion in the amount of effort put into green design helped identify why some design

actions, rating systems, or products are not fully executed or used. Understanding if the

proposed clients do not care for green design will help determine if the company deems it

necessary to include in their projects.

Close-ended Questions for Familiarity Responses toward Sustainable Design

Knowledge of the respondents was examined through a checklist of green building

techniques, practices, and concepts. The question for familiarity with sustainable practices was

question 21. The range of possible choices was extracted from LEED-H guidelines, NAHB

Green Home Standards, and the literature review. The respondents were to choose from a

variety of green building terms.

Ordinal Questions for Importance Responses toward Sustainable Design

Respondents were directed to place different items in numerical order of importance during

the design, construction, and sales phases. The ranking scale questions for the importance of

sustainable practices were questions 22, 23, and 24. By asking the respondents to prioritize their

companys main goals, a companys commitment to green building was determined.

Open-ended Questions for Free Responses toward Sustainable Design

The open-ended questions were used to discover relevant issues and views from the

expressed directly opinion of the responder, in the words of the responder. The open-ended

questions were 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. The questions directly asked about rating systems, the

32

7/25/2019 hlad_k

33/103

reasons for sustainability, and what issues are coming up within a company pertaining to

sustainability. The rationale for the questions was to permit the respondents to highlight their

specific view of sustainability in the residential construction sector.

Summary

The survey included a distinction of perception of green design, intention of green

design, and the profitability of green design. The value of green design is also quantified in

terms of what the company finds to be most profitable. The different parts of the survey are

grouped by the different types of questions.

Selection of Participants

The survey was distributed electronically through a web-based survey to residential home

builders belonging to the Builders Association of North Central Florida (BANCF). The survey is

directed to a competent, knowledgeable employee who knows the financial and clientele

obligations of their company while maintaining a connection to the sustainable design decisions.

The survey was voluntary with neither financial loss nor gain. There were no associated risks

with participating in the survey. The respondents information was collected anonymously with

no obligation to supply all information and with the right to withdrawal from the study at any

time.

The data obtained from the survey helped identify the need for clarification in green

building and construction in residential projects. The information would be useful to the home

builder industry to understand the best aspects, practices, and confusions in sustainable design.

In addition, the study helped identify the opinion of sustainability, frequency of use of

sustainability, experience with green building, familiarity with green concepts, and the

importance of sustainability within their company.

33

7/25/2019 hlad_k

34/103

CHAPTER 4RESULTS

Survey Response

Responses from the survey were returned via the internet from developers and builders in

the North-Central region of the state of Florida. The respondents were members of the Builders

Association of North Central Florida (BANCF). Sixteen responses were received of 150

distributed by email solicitation. Of the 16 responses, seven responses were from developers,

eight responses were received from builders, and one respondent did not specify trade. The

response rate was approximately 11%. The response was lower than expected.

Demographic Profile of Respondents

The typical respondent was a residential builder (50%), developer (43.8%), and one

unspecified trade (6.2%) who worked within North-Central Florida and is a member of BANCF.

In this research, a developer is defined as a company or person that invests in, develops, and

subdivides real estate for the purpose of building and selling homes. In this research, a builder is

defined as a company or person that builds or supervises homes under a contract or for

speculation. The typical projects were single family homes and mixed-use projects. The average

size of residential projects was approximately 1,760 sq ft. The average annual contracted work

of the respondents was $3.84 million. The range of the volume of work was $1.0 million to $8.0

million annually. Fifty percent of respondents provided demographic information. The position

of the respondent was the president (62%), the vice-president (13%), the owner (13%), and the

director (6%) of the company with one respondent (6%) not specifying a position or title (Figure

4-1).

34

7/25/2019 hlad_k

35/103

62%13%

13%

6%6%

President

Vice PresidentOwner

Director

Unspecified

Figure 4-1. Respondents position within their company, as a percentage of total typicalrespondents

Survey Results

The results of the survey were categorized and analyzed based on the following

parameters:

Experience with sustainable practices and concepts;

Importance of sustainability within the company;

Opinion of sustainability in residential design;

Familiarity with sustainable practices and concepts;

Frequency of use of sustainable practices and concepts.

The responses were analyzed for a typical respondent and as a comparison between

developers and builders. A typical respondent response is the average of all the responses from

the survey. Within the familiarity tier, the category was broken further down into the following:

Familiarity with sustainable techniques;

Familiarity with existing rating systems;

Familiarity with sustainable concepts and techniques.

The importance tier covered the importance of sustainability during the design,

construction, and marketing phases. Along with the highest response count in the tables, the

rating average is shown. The rating average is the weighted response count divided by the total

number of responses to highlight the highest, weighted response.

35

7/25/2019 hlad_k

36/103

Experience with Sustainable Practices

Typical respondent

Table 4-1 contains responses to questions 1, 3, and 4 that related to experience of the

respondents with sustainable practices. The responses to these questions were used to quantify

the amount of practical application of green building done by each respondent. Questions were

posed in a 5-point Likert rating scale format (1=No Experience; 2=Barely Experienced;

3=Somewhat Experienced; 4=Experienced; 5=Very Experienced). Question 1 asked about the

level of experience with sustainable practices within the respondents company. Ninety-four

percent of respondents had experience in sustainability. Of those 94% respondents, 38% were

very experienced. The rating average was 4.0 or somewhat experienced in sustainability.

Questions 3 and 4 about asked the experience of the designers and contractors within the

company, respectively. Forty-seven percent of the respondents stated that their designers were

very experienced (Table 4-1). Ninety-three percent of respondents noted that their designers had

experience, whereas, 96% of respondents indicated that their contractors had experience. The

rating average for designer experience was 4.13 and the rating average for contractor experience

was 4.19. Both rating averages indicated that contractors and designers have some experience

with sustainable practices and design. Less than seven percent of respondents for both groups

felt that their designer and contractor have minimum experience. One respondent answered

N/A for the question about design experience because of their company type.

Developer and builder

When asked about the companys experience with green building, the developer

respondents responded with a rating average of 4.29 (between experienced and very

experienced) and the builder group responded with 3.63 (between somewhat experienced and

experienced) based on the Likert scale rating (1=No Experience; 2= Less Experienced;

36

7/25/2019 hlad_k

37/103

3=Somewhat Experienced; 4= Experienced; 5=Very Experienced) as in Table 4-2. The

experience of primary designer with sustainability for developers was 4.67 (experienced) and

3.63 (somewhat experienced) for builders. The experience of the contractor with sustainability

for developers had a rating average of 4.29 (experienced) and builders with a rating average of

4.00 (experienced).

Importance of Sustainable Practices

Typical respondent

Table 4-3 contains responses to question 2 that related to the importance of sustainable

practices. The question was posed in a 5-point Likert scale format (1=Not Important; 2=Rarely

Important; 3=Somewhat Important; 4= Important; 5=Most Important). Forty-six percent of

respondents felt sustainable practices were very important to their company. On the other hand,

six percent felt sustainable practices were not important, and 12% felt sustainable practices were

somewhat important. The rating average of the typical respondent was 4.13 (important).

In question 22, respondents were asked to rank answers related to importance of

sustainable practices to their company during the design phase (Figure 4-2). Questions were

posed in a 6-point ranking rating scale format (6=Least Important; 5=Rarely Important; 4=Less

Important; 3=Somewhat Important; 2=Important; 1=Most Important). Fifty-seven percent of

respondents felt a marketable design was the most important aspect in the design phase with a

rating average of 1.64 (Table 4-5). The next important aspect was an aesthetically pleasing

design. Sixty-seven percent of typical respondents ranked it as the second most important, and it

had a rating average of 2.08 (important). The next important practice was low initial costs.

Thirty-one percent of typical respondents agreed that it was third most important and had a rating

average of 3.08 (somewhat important). Energy efficient design was fourth important practice.

Forty-three percent of typical respondents ranked it fourth most important, and it had a rating

37

7/25/2019 hlad_k

38/103

average of 3.21 (somewhat important). The next aspect was energy rating system approved.

Fifty percent of typical respondents ranked it fifth most important, and it had a rating average of

4.64 (less important). Lastly, 69% of all respondents chose an energy/sustainable certified

designer as the least important aspect with a rating average of 5.54 (least important).

Figure 4-2. Ranking of importance of sustainable practices and concepts during design phase fortypical respondents

In question 23, respondents were asked to rank answers based on importance of sustainable

practices during the construction phase (Figure 4-3). Questions were posed in a 5-point ranking

rating scale format (5=Least Important; 4=Rarely Important; 3=Somewhat Important;

2=Important; 1=Most Important). Table 4-7 shows that cost was the most important factor with

69 % of respondents ranking it first. Cost had a rating average of 1.38 (most important). Next

was constructability of a project with 46 % of typical respondents ranking it second most

important. Constructability had a rating average of 1.92 (important). Forty-seven percent of

38

7/25/2019 hlad_k

39/103

respondents ranked energy efficiency as third most important aspect. Energy efficiency had a

rating average of 2.6 (somewhat important). Energy rating system approved was next with 40%

of typical respondents ranking it as fourth most important. Energy rating system approved had a

rating average of 4.27 (rarely important). Finally, a green certified contractor was least

important. Twenty-nine of typical respondents selected it as least important with a rating

average of 4.86 (least important).

Figure 4-3. Ranking of importance of sustainable practices and concepts during the constructionphase for typical respondents

In question 24, respondents were asked to rank answers based on importance of sustainable

practices during the marketing phase (Figure 4-4). Questions were posed in a 6-point Likert

rating scale format (6=Least Important; 5=Rarely Important; 4=Less Important; 3=Somewhat

Important; 2=Important; 1=Most Important). As shown in Table 4-9, 73% of typical respondents

selected cost as first most important practice. Cost had a rating average of 1.4 (most important).

Next, 60% of typical respondents chose design of the building as second most important with a

39

7/25/2019 hlad_k

40/103

rating average of 2.2 (important). Sixty-four percent of respondents chose options and extras as

third most important aspect with a rating average of 3.06 (somewhat important). Next, 46 %

respondents ranked energy efficiency of the entire building as fourth most important aspect with

a rating average of 4.15 (rarely important). Fifty-eight percent of respondents selected energy

efficient appliances as fifth most important aspect with a rating average of 4.58 (less important).

Lastly, 79% of respondents ranked energy rating system approved least important aspect with a

rating average of 5.43 (least important).

Figure 4-4. Ranking of importance of sustainable practices and concepts during the marketingphase for typical respondents

Developer and builder

Table 4-4 contains responses from developers and builders to question 2 that related to the

importance of sustainability to their company. Questions were posed in a 5-point Likert rating

scale format (1=Not Important; 2=Rarely Important; 3=Somewhat Important; 4= Important;

40

7/25/2019 hlad_k

41/103

5=Most Important). Both developers and builders said that sustainability is important to their

company. Developers agreed slightly stronger, with a rating average of 4.14 (experienced), as

compared to builders rating average of 4.00 (experienced).

Table 4-6 contains responses from developers and builders to question 22 that related to

the most important aspects in the design phase of a building. Questions were posed in a 6-point

ranking scale format (6=Least Important; 5=Rarely Important; 4=Less Important; 3=Somewhat

Important; 2=Important; 1=Most Important). A developers ranking, in ascending rating average

(most important to least important), was as follows: a marketable design (1.14), an aesthetically

pleasing design (2.17), energy efficient design (3.00), low initial costs (3.60), energy rating

system approved (4.67), and energy certified designer (5.57). For builders, the most important

aspects during the design phase, in ascending rating average (most important to least important)

was aesthetically pleasing design (2.00), marketable design (2.14), low initial cost (2.71), energy

efficient design (2.75), energy rating system approved (4.63), and, least important, energy

certified designer (5.50).

Table 4-8 contains responses from developers and builders to question 23, which related to

the most important aspects in the construction phase of a building. Question was posed in a 5-

point ranking scale format (5=Least Important; 4=Rarely Important; 3=Somewhat Important;

2=Important; 1=Most Important). During the construction phase, both developers and builders

believed cost was the most important with a rating average of 1.33 and 1.43, respectively. In

fact, both agreed that constructability (a rating average of 1.67 and 2.14 respectively), then

energy efficient building (a rating average of 3.00 and 2.50 respectively), then energy rating

system approved (a rating average of 3.86 and 4.57 respectively), and finally, energy certified

41

7/25/2019 hlad_k

42/103

designer or contractor (a rating average of 4.33 and 5.14 respectively) were the order of

importance from most important to least important.

Question 24 related to the most important aspects during the marketing phase. Question

was posed in a 6-point ranking scale (6=Least Important; 5=Rarely Important; 4=Less Important;

3=Somewhat Important; 2=Important; 1=Most Important). Developers and builders believed

that during the marketing phase, the most important aspects were options and extras (a rating

average of 3.40 and 3.00 respectively), then energy efficiency (a rating average of 4.43 and 4.33

respectively), followed by energy efficient appliances (a rating average of 4.50 and 4.67

respectively), and, lastly, the least important was energy rating system approved (a rating

average of 5.67 and 5.86 respectively). A maximum of 13 respondents answered questions about

the ranking of importance during the marketing phase as shown in the response counts as shown

in Table 4-10.

Opinion about Sustainable Practices

Typical respondent

Table 4-11 contains responses to questions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 that

related to a respondents opinion about sustainable practices. Questions were posed in a 5-point

Likert rating scale format (1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Somewhat Disagree; 4=Agree;

5=Strongly Agree). The subcategories within the opinion group of questions were opinions on

overall company view (Q5; Q20), perceived monetary value of sustainable practices (Q6; Q8;

Q15), constructability of sustainable residential projects (Q7; Q14), and marketability of

sustainable residential projects (Q9; Q10; Q18; Q19). Question 5 asked the respondents if they

believed that sustainability was actively practiced. More than half of the respondents (56%)

strongly agreed that their company practiced sustainability. Thirty-eight percent of respondents

agreed their company actively practiced sustainability. The rating average for question 5 was 4.5

42

7/25/2019 hlad_k

43/103

(agreed). Question 20 asked the respondents if they believed sustainable construction benefited

the environment. Sixty-two percent of respondents strongly agreed that green building benefited

the environment. However, 18% of respondents felt neutral or disagreed that green building

benefits the environment. The rating average for question 20 was 4.31 (agreed).

Question 6 asked if green practices equate to increased costs. Sixty-two percent of

respondents strongly agreed that sustainable homes equated to increased costs. All respondents

agreed or strongly agreed that green building means increased costs. Question 6 had a rating

average of 4.63 (agreed). Question 8 asked if green building should be sold at a premium.

Forty-six percent of typical respondents strongly agreed while 18% of respondents agreed home

should sell at a premium. On the other hand, 30% of typical respondents agreed that homes

should not sell at a premium while 12% of typical respondents strongly disagreed. The rating

average for question 8 was 3.63, that is, on average the respondents somewhat disagreed that

homes should sell at a premium. Question 15 asked respondents how much they agreed that

rating systems were worth the extra costs. Thirty-one percent of typical respondents agreed the

rating systems were worth the increase in fees. Twelve percent of respondents strongly

disagreed that rating systems were worth the increase. Only 6% strongly agreed the rating

systems justified an increase in costs. The rating average for question 15 was 2.94 (disagreed).

Question 7 asked respondents if green design is more complicated to build than traditional

designs. Thirty-eight percent of typical respondents agreed that sustainable design was more

complicated to build. Thirty-eight of typical respondents agreed that sustainable design was

more complicated, however, none of the respondents strongly agreed. On the other hand, 12% of

respondents strongly disagreed, and 31% disagreed with this statement. The rating average was

2.81 (disagreed). Question 14 asked typical respondents about the confusion over which

43

7/25/2019 hlad_k

44/103

sustainable rating system to use. Sixty-two percent of respondents strongly agreed that there was

confusion over the different rating systems available. However, 6% of all respondents disagreed

that there was confusion. The rating average for question 14 was 4.31 (agreed).

Question 9 asked if respondents agreed that there was a growing demand for green homes.

Thirty-one percent agreed that there is a growing demand for green homes. Twelve percent of

typical respondents strongly agreed that there is a market, and 18% strongly disagreed. The

rating average was 3.00 (somewhat agreed). Question 10 asked if respondents agreed that

consumer demand for green homes is changing their home designs. Twelve percent of

respondents strongly agreed that sustainability demand is changing the design of their homes.

Fifty percent of typical respondents agreed that there is an effect, but 18% disagreed there was

any effect of sustainable consumer demand on the design of their homes. The rating average was

3.38 (somewhat agreed). Question 18 asked respondents if they agreed that there was a

consumer preference for sustainable residences. Thirty-five percent of typical respondents

strongly disagreed that there was a consumer preference. Thirty percent of respondents agreed

that there was a preference. The rating average was 2.69 (disagreed). Respondents equally

strongly disagreed (31 % of respondents) and agreed (31 % of respondents) that green building

made their homes sell faster (Q 19). Six percent strongly agreed that building green aided the

ability of their homes to sell faster. The rating average was 2.69 (disagree).

Developer and builder

Table 4-12 contains responses to questions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 that

related a developer and builder responses opinion about sustainable practices questions.

Questions were posed in a 5-point Likert rating scale format (1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree;

3=Somewhat Disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly Agree). Both rating averages for the belief that

their company actively incorporates sustainability were between agree and strongly agree with

44

7/25/2019 hlad_k

45/103

rating averages of 4.71 for developers and 4.25 for builders (Q 5). The same result applies for a

ranking of the respondents agreement with the statement that building green means higher costs.

Developers rating average was 4.86 and builders rating average was 4.38 (Q6). When asked if

sustainable homes were more complicated to build, developers somewhat agreed that green

buildings were more complicated (Q7), with a rating average of 3.29. Developers agreed that

green homes should sell at a premium with a rating average of 4.14. Builders disagreed that

green buildings were more complicated, with a rating average of 2.63, and somewhat agreed

green homes should sell at a premium with a rating average of 3.50. Both groups disagreed that

there was a growing demand for sustainable homes with rating averages of 2.86 for developers

and 2.88 for builders (Q9). If there were any design changes made, as a result for consumer

demand for sustainable homes, both developers (rating average of 3.57) and builders (rating

average of 3.00) somewhat agreed (Q10). The confusion over rating systems was similar with

both groups agreeing to strongly agreeing that there is confusion as asked in question 14. Both

developers (rating average of 4.29) and builders (rating average of 4.38) agreed with this

statement. Likewise, both groups disagreed that those rating systems were worth the extra costs

(Q15). Developers and builders responses were closely related with rating averages of 2.86 and

2.88, respectively. Again, both developers (rating average of 2.57) and builders (rating average

of 2.50) disagreed that there is a consumer preference for sustainable homes (Q18). Both

developers and builders disagreed, with the rating averages of 2.71 and 2.38, respectively, that

building green helps their homes sell faster (Q19). However, both groups agreed or strongly

agreed that sustainable design benefits the environment with developers rating average of 4.43

and builders rating average of 4.13 (Q20).

45

7/25/2019 hlad_k

46/103

Familiarity with Sustainable Practices

Typical respondent

Table 4-13 contains responses to questions 11, 12, and 13 that related to a respondents

familiarity with sustainable practices. Questions were posed in a 5-point Likert rating scale

format (1=Unfamiliar; 2= Less Familiar; 3=Somewhat Familiar; 4=Familiar; 5=Very Familiar).

These responses were used to quantify the typical respondents familiarity with residential

sustainable rating systems, concepts, and techniques.

Question 11 asked respondents to rate their familiarity with USGBCs LEED-H rating

system. Equally, respondents were somewhat familiar (31%) or very familiar (31%) with

LEED-H. Six percent of total respondents were unfamiliar with the LEED-H rating system.

Respondents familiarity with USGBCs LEED-H had a rating average of 3.69 (somewhat

familiar). Question 12 asked respondents to rate their familiarity with NAHBs Green Building

Standard. Equally, respondents were somewhat familiar (31%) or familiar (31%) with the rating

system. Twelve percent were very familiar with NAHBs Green Building Standard.

Respondents familiarity with NAHB Green Home Standard had a rating average of 3.31

(somewhat familiar). Question 13 asked respondents to rate their familiarity with Energy Star.

Fifty-six percent of respondents were very familiar with the Energy Star rating system.

Similarly, 38% of typical respondents were familiar with the Energy Star system. The rating

average was 4.5 (familiar). Respondents were somewhat familiar with both LEED-H and Green

Home Standard and familiar to very familiar with Energy Star. Of the three rating systems

presented, 56% of typical respondents were the most familiar with Energy Star. Next, 31% of

typical respondents were familiar with USGBCs LEED-H followed by 12% of typical

respondents familiar with NAHB Green Home Standard.

46

7/25/2019 hlad_k

47/103

Table 4-15 contains responses to question 21 that related to a respondents familiarity with

sustainable practices, techniques, and concepts. Respondents were most familiar with drought

tolerant plants and landscaping (93.8%), Energy Star appliances (93.8%), and Low-E glass (93.8

%). Respondents were least familiar were Green Globes (12.5 %), vegetated roof (25 %), and

thermal bridge (25 %) as shown in Figure 4-5.

Developer and builder

Questions 11, 12, and 13, related to a respondents familiarity with sustainable practices.

Questions were posed in a 5-point Likert rating scale format (1=Unfamiliar; 2= Less Familiar;

3=Somewhat Familiar; 4=Familiar; 5=Very Familiar). These responses were used to quantify

the developers and the builders familiarity with residential sustainable rating systems, concepts,

and techniques. The familiarity with USGBCs LEED-H resulted in a rating average of 4.00 for

developers and 3.38 for builders (Table 4-14). Developers felt familiar with the rating system,

and the builders were between somewhat familiar and familiar. Both groups were somewhat

familiar with NAHBs Green Building Standard with developers rating average being 3.43 and

builders rating average being 3.13. The familiarity with Energy Star brought both groups

between experienced and very experienced with a rating average of 4.43 for developers and 4.63

for builders.

Table 4-16 presents a difference between builders and developers relative to their

familiarity with the green building concepts and techniques. All developers (100%) were

familiar with site selection, minimal disturbance to surrounding areas, access to open space,

drought tolerant plants and landscaping, drip irrigation, rainwater collection systems, and

construction waste management. All builders (100%) were familiar with Energy Star appliances

and Low-E glass. The developers were least (0%) familiar with Green Globes, and the builders

47

7/25/2019 hlad_k

48/103

were least familiar (12.5%) with reduction of heat island effect, FSC Certified Wood, vegetated

roof, and rain garden.

Frequency of Use of Sustainable Practices

Typical respondent

Table 4-17 contains responses to questions 16 and 17 that related to the frequency of use

of sustainable practices. Questions were posed in a 5-point Likert rating scale format (1=Never;

2=Rarely; 3=Sometimes; 4= Often; 5=Frequently). These responses were used to quantify the

respondents company frequency of using residential sustainable rating systems and

sustainability training.

Question 16 measured the frequency of using sustainable rating systems to assess the

typical respondents projects. Fifty percent of respondents often used a rating system for

assessing green or sustainable design. Six percent o