v...
a»)...

o.
3
- .§[ 5 -’!“-v7!u

: .x Tr.‘ r
a. .1. xmp ..

$§éa %

«fl.\..i|-:| I 'JAV

l"V . II“.- .a

.. 8...... . z
x. ‘

.43... t
a... H...
.aA .1. .. uv
. 0.“

W? :. é
a... thaflflhxxufi
it .5. 1. air 1

immuhudmrdnt .
otheixi.
D“
L . .
a.» ,
2:

n .-

azz .
anthn
sip

. . X ..
.‘4‘ F. In]. ‘
41.5.3... "Tamra: 5...?

.51. 4 1‘,“ .
. .l-I- ‘ I“
fiat

..

fail!
2331..

 

Mesa;
“I LIBRARY

l} g: Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

DEVELOPMENT OF A FRAMEWORK TO ASSIST OWNERS
IN DECIDING TO USE SUSTAINABLE SITE DESIGN
PRACTICES FOR INSTITUTIONAL BUILDINGS

presented by

NITI GAUTAM KHOSLA

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

degree in Construction Management

 

“47%in

Major Professor’s Signature
6/5/2007

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

3314329015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#
2/05 c:/CIRC/DateDuo.indd-p.15

DEVELOPMENT OF A FRAMEWORK To ASSIST OWNERS IN DECIDING To
USE SUSTAINABLE SITE DESIGN PRACTICES FOR INSTITUTIONAL
BUILDINGS
By

Niti Gautam Khosla

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Construction Management Program

2007

ABSTRACT
DEVELOPMENT OF A FRAMEWORK TO ASSIST OWNERS IN DECIDING TO
USE SUSTAINABLE SITE DESIGN PRACTICES FOR INSTITUTIONAL
BUILDINGS
By
Niti Gautam Khosla

This research incorporated the AHP Multi-Attribute Model developed by Herkert et
al to Pearce et al’s Sustainability Decision Support System Conceptual Framework in
order to develop a new decision—making framework for aiding institutional owners as
they consider use of specific LEED-NC 2.2 Sustainable Sites (SS) and Water Efficiency
(WE) credits for their projects.

The researcher has conducted literature review to identify existing decision-making
frameworks for sustainable development as well as recent studies addressing
environmental, community and economic issues of US. Green Building Council’s
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) credits with emphasis on SS
and WE credits. The researcher identified decision-making attributes, which influence a
decision whether or not to use specific LEED SS and WE credits, through existing data
collected at a collaborative work session of design professionals, held at Michigan State
University, and interviews of four case study projects, to address use of SS and WE
credits of LEED. The researcher identified and presented these attributes, relevant to each
credit, and finally, a new framework based on Herkert and Pearce’s work was developed
for institutional owners for helping them to decide whether or not to pursue individual

LEED SS and WE credits for their projects.

Dedicated to my husband, Gautam for his love, support and his absolute

confidence in me.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I express my gratitude to all those who helped me complete this thesis. I thank my
graduate adviser, Professor Timothy Mrozowski for his attention, insight, guidance and
support during this research and the preparation of this thesis. I also thank Dr. Matt Syal

and Dr. Joanne Westphal for their time and inputs as committee members.

I thank my family for their continuous support and encouragement in every stage of

my life. I also thank all my fi'iends for helping me through tough times.

This thesis could not have been accomplished without my husband, Gautam who is

always with me and gives me warm encouragement and love in every situation.

Finally, I thank God for all the good experiences in my life and for the gifts I have

been given.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................... x
ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1 .1 Introduction ....................................................................... 2
1.2 Problem and Need Statement ................................................... 3
1.3 LEED Overview ................................................................. 5
1.3.1 LEED Sustainable Sites (SS) and Water Efficiency (WE)
Credits ............................................................. 6
1.4 Research Goal and Objectives ................................................. 7
1 .5 Methodology ..................................................................... 8
1 .6 Deliverables ...................................................................... 9
1.7 Research Scope and Limitations .............................................. 9
1.8 Chapter Summary and Thesis Organization ................................. 11
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................... 14
2.2 Existing Decision Making Frameworks for Sustainable Development. 14
2.2.1 The Konvergence Framework ....................................... 14
2.2.2 Analytical Hierarchy Process Model .............................. 16
2.2.3 Environmental Decision-Making Process Framework .......... 18
2.2.4 Sustainability Decision Support System Conceptual
Framework .......................................................... 20
2.2.5 Health Performance Criteria Framework. 23
2.3 LEED SS and WE Credits Comparative Analysis .......................... 25
2.3.1 GSA Cost Study ....................................................... 25
2.3.2 F PC Sustainability Guidelines ...................................... 27
2.3.3 Study by David Eijadi, et a1. [2002] ............................... 29
2.3.4 Land Policy Project .................................................... 30
2.4 Existing Literature on Importance of Weighting Attributes of
Sustainable Development ....................................................... 36
2.4.1 The Flag Model ....................................................... 36
2.4.2 Multi-Attribute Model Using AHP ................................. 37
2.5 Current Status of LEED Accredited Buildings in the Great Lakes
Region ............................................................................. 38
2.6 Chapter Summary ............................................................... 42

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY
3. 1 Introduction ...................................................................... 44
3.2 Methodology ..................................................................... 44
3.3 Literature Review ............................................................... 47
3.4 Collaborative Work Session ................................................... 47
3.5 Case Studies ..................................................................... 49
3.6 Identification of Attributes for Each Credit .................................. 50
3.6.1 Matrix Showing Attributes Identified .............................. 51
3.7 Development of Framework ................................................... 53
3.8 Proof of Concept .................................................................. 54
3.9 Chapter Summary ............................................................... 55
CHAPTER 4

IDENTIFICATION OF ATTRIBUTES FROM THE
COLLABORATIVE WORK SESSION, CASE STUDIES AND
LITERATURE REVIEW

4. 1 Introduction ...................................................................... 5 7
4.2 Collaborative Work Sessron 58
4.2.1 Analysis of Collaborative Work Session Data ................... 59
4.2.2 Work Session Conclusions .......................................... 59
4.2.2.1 Environmental Benefits ................................ 59
4.2.2.2 Health Benefits ............................................ 60
4.2.2.3 Costs ....................................................... 60
4.2.2.4 Communication ......................................... 60
4.3 Case Studies ..................................................................... 61
4.3.1 Analysis of Interview Responses .................................. 65
4.3.2 Motivations and Impacts of Using LEED ........................ 65
4.4 Literature Review ................................................................ 67
4.5 Identification of Attributes ...................................................... 67
4.6 Matrix Showing Attributes Identified from Collaborative Work
Session, Case Studies and Literature Review .............................. 72
4.7 Chapter Summary ............................................................... 75
CHAPTER 5
ATTRIBUTES
5. 1 Introduction ....................................................................... 77
5.2 Attributes Identified for LEED Sustainable Sites (SS) Credits. . . . . . . . 77
5.3 Attributes Identified for LEED Water Efficiency (WE) Credits .......... 82
5.4 Attributes ......................................................................... 84
5.5 Chapter Summary ............................................................... 84
CHAPTER 6
DEVELOPMENT OF FRAMEWORK

6. 1 Introduction ..................................................................... 86

vi

6.2 Framework to Assist Institutional Owners in Deciding to Use Specific

LEED SS and WE Credits for their Projects... 8.6
6.3 Proof of Concept ................................................................ 93
6.3.1 Proof of Concept RespOnse Summary ............................. 96
6.4 Demonstrative Case Study ...................................................... 97
6.4.1 LEED Assumptions .................................................. 98
6.4.2 Framework ............................................................ 99
6.4.3 Conclusion of Demonstrative Case Study ........................ 108
6.5 Modified Framework ............................................................ 109
6.6 Chapter Summary ............................................................... 11 1
CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Introduction ...................................................................... l 1 3
7.2 Research Objectives ............................................................ 113
7.3 Research Contributions ........................................................... 113
7.4 Research Limitations .............................................................. 114
7.5 Recommendations for Institutional Project Owners ........................ 115
7.6 Areas of Future Research ....................................................... 116
7.7 Research Conclusion ............................................................ 117
7.8 Chapter Summary ............................................................... 118
APPENDIX A ................................................................................. 120

LEED-NC Sustainable Sites (SS) and Water Efficiency (WE) Credits

APPENDIX B ................................................................................ 134
LEED Certified Buildings in the “Great Lakes” Region

APPENDIX C ................................................................................ 141
SS and WE Credits obtained by LEED Certified Buildings in "Great Lakes" Region

APPENDIX D ................................................................................ 166
Percent Distribution of SS and WE Credits

APPENDIX E ................................................................................ 171
Collaborative Work Session Work Sheet

APPENDIX F ................................................................................ 175
Case Studies Questionnaire

APPENDIX G ................................................................................ 182
Identification of Attributes from Collaborative Work Session, Case Studies
and Literature Review

APPENDIX H ................................................................................ 255
‘Proof of Concept’ Package

vii

APPENDIX I ................................................................................ 267
Demonstrative Case Study Attribute Wei ghtings

REFERENCES ............................................................................... 283

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 LEED Point Distribution ............................................................ 6
1.2 Realm and Focus Area of Research ................................................ 10
2.1 Konvergence Framework and Konvergence Model ............................. 16
2.2 Generic Decision Framework ...................................................... 17
2.3 Environmental Decision-Making: A Process Framework ...................... 19
2.4 Material Selection Methodology ................................................... 21
2. 5 SDSS Conceptual Framework ...................................................... 22
2. 6a Health Performance Criteria Framework — Health Performance Goals ...... 23
2.6b Health Performance Criteria Framework — Building Systems D/C/I
Strategies .............................................................................. 24
2.7 Range of CTV Values ............................................................... 36
2.8 Hierarchy in Multi-Attribute Decisions ........................................... 38
2.9 States Included in the Great lakes Region ........................................ 39
3.1 Thesis Methodology ................................................................. 46
3.2 Partial Collaborative Session Work Sheet ........................................ 48
3.3 Partial Case Study Questionnaire .................................................. 50
3.4 Snapshot of Matrix Showing Attributes .......................................... 53
4.1 Snapshot of a Typical Template for a Credit from Appendix G ............... 58
5.1 Attributes Related to Credits SS Prerequisite 1, SS], 882, SS3 and SS 8. . ..79
5.2 Attributes Related to Credits $84.1, $84.2, 884.3, 884.4 and SS5.1 ............ 80
5.3 Attributes Related to Credits $85.2, $86.1, SS6.2, SS7.1 and 887.2 ............ 81

5.4 Attributes Related to Credits WE1.1, WE1.2, WE2, WE3.1 and WE3.2.....83
6.1 Framework to Assist Institutional Owners in Deciding to Select LEED SS

and WE Credits for their Projects... . .87
6.2a Snapshot of ‘Proof of Concept’ Package from Appendix Hm ................... 94
6.2b Snapshot of ‘Proof of Concept’ Package from Appendix H ................... 94
6.2c Snapshot of ‘Proof of Concept’ Package from Appendix H .................... 95
6.2d Snapshot of ‘Proof of Concept’ Package from Appendix H .................... 95
6.3 F inal Framework ..................................................................... 1 10

ix

1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2a
2.2b
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8

2.9
2.10

3.1
4.1
4.1a
4.2
4.2a
4.3
4.3a
4.4
4.4a
4.4b
4.5
4.5a
4.6
4.7
4.8
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6

6.7
6.8

LIST OF TABLES

LEED Point Distribution ............................................................ 6

LEED-NC Version 2.2 Point Distribution for SS and WE Credits ........... 7

Attributes Which Affect the Sustainability of Construction Materials ....... 20
LEED GSA Cost Study —- New Courthouse ...................................... 26
LEED GSA Cost Study — Office Building Modernization ..................... 26
LEED Cost Categories ............................................................... 27
F PC Sustainability Guidelines ...................................................... 28
LEED Credits: Environment, Health and Cost Issues .......................... 30
Summary LEED SS and WE Credit Analysis .................................... 32

Excerpt of the Health Related Literature Review Matrix for SS Credit 4.3.. 35
Percent Distribution of Sustainable Sites Credits for 63 LEED Certified
Buildings in the Great Lakes Region (LEED-NC Versions 2.0 and 2.1
Combined) ............................................................................ 40
Percent Distribution of Water Efficiency Credits for 63 LEED Certified
Buildings in the Great Lakes Region (LEED-NC Versions 2.0 and 2.]
Combined) ............................................................................ 40
Descending Order Percent Distribution of Sustainable Sites and Water
Efficiency Credits for 63 LEED Certified Buildings in the Great Lakes

Region (LEED-NC Versions 2.0 and 2.1 Combined) .......................... 41
Matrix Format Used for Each Credit ................................................ 51
LEED SS and WE Credits Pursued by BIC .................................................. 62
LEED SS and WE Credits Not Pursued by BIC ........................................... 62
LEED SS and WE Credits Pursued by Grand Valley State University ......... 63
LEED SS and WE Credits Not Pursued by Grand Valley State University..63
LEED SS and WE Credits Pursued by Chicago Public Library .................... 64
LEED SS and WE Credits Not Pursued by Chicago Public Library ............. 64
LEED SS and WE Credits to be pursued by MSU ............................... 65
LEED SS and WE Credits not to be pursued by MSU .......................... 65
LEED SS and WE Credits likely to be pursued by MSU ....................... 65
Collaborative Work Session Responses for SS Credit 4.1 ...................... 69
Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4.1 from Work Session ..................... 69
Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4.1 from Case Studies ..................... 72
Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4.1 from Literature Review ............... 72
Attributes Related to SS Credit 4.1 ................................................ 74
Important Considerations for Deciding LEED Credits ......................... 98
List of LEED SS and WE Credits .................................................. 99
LEED Credits based on Credit Selection Rules/ Heuristics .................... 101
LEED Credits Summary: ............................................................ 102
List ofPotentiaI Credits .................. 103
Average Sustainability Index for SS Credit 4.1 for Demonstrative Case
Study ............................................................................................................. 106
Ranked List ofCredits for Demonstrative Case Study....... 107
List of Selected Credits for Demonstrative Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 O8

AHP

GSA

LAP

LEED

LEED-NC

MSU

SS

US

USGBC

WE

ABBREVIATIONS

Analytical Hierarchy Process

United States General Services Administration
LEED Accredited Professionals

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LEED for New Construction

Michigan State University

Sustainable Sites

United States (of America)

United States Green Building Council

Water Efficiency

xi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

This thesis develops a new decision-making framework for aiding institutional
owners as they consider use of specific LEED-NC (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design — New Construction) Version 2.2 Sustainable Sites (SS) and
Water Efficiency (WE) credits for their projects. Many organizations are considering
sustainable construction and LEED for their projects. A decision-making framework can
aid them as they pursue sustainable design.

‘Sustainable Construction’ is defined in ASTM E 2114, Terminology for
Sustainability Relative to the Performance of Buildings, as “the maintenance of
ecosystem components and functions for future generations” [ASTM 2004]. Toward a
goal of sustainability, the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) developed the
LEED Green Building Rating System to support healthy and sustainable design concepts.
Using LEED helps design teams and owners determine green project goals, identify
green design strategies, measure and monitor progress, and document success [USGBC-
1].

There are two factors that motivate owners to pursue sustainable buildings: intangible
benefits such as competitive differentiation or social responsibility, and tangible benefits
such as reduced costs or increased revenue [Vyas 2005]. Having a comprehensive
understanding of the factors or attributes that affect potential costs, scheduling and
quality of construction, environment, human health, safety and comfort will allow an
owner to make better choices as to which LEED credits a particular building should

pursue [Matthiessen and Morris 2004].

Realizing that every construction project is unique and what might be a better choice
for one project may not be for the other, this research has identified decision-making
attributes, which influence a decision whether or not to use specific LEED SS and WE
credits and developed a framework to assist owners in deciding which LEED site related

credits his/ her project should pursue.

1.2 Problem and Need Statement

Healthy built environments are conceptualized as those that “provide environmental
resources and interventions that promote enhanced well-being among occupants of an
area” [Frank and Engelke 2001]. In support of healthy and sustainable design concepts,
the LEED standards were developed. These standards focus on Sustainable Sites, Water
Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental
Quality and Innovation & Design Process. The successful design of a healthy built
environment is heavily connected to a project’s site design [Frank and Engelke 2001] and
Sustainable Sites and Water Efficiency are the focus of this study. LEED SS Credits are
designed to develop only appropriate sites, reuse existing buildings and / or sites, protect
natural and agricultural areas, reduce the need for automobile use and protect and / or
restore natural sites [USGBC-2]. LEED WE credits aim to reduce the quantity of water
needed for the building and to reduce municipal water supply and treatment burden
[USGBC-2].

The LEED-NC Version 2.2 Reference Guide shows a matrix that indicates which
project team members are likely to carry decision-making responsibility for each credit.
This matrix emphasizes those credits that are most likely to require strong participation

by a particular team member. According to this matrix, the site related credits that require

owner decision-making are Sustainable Sites (SS) credits SS], 882, SS3, $84.1, $84.3,
$84.4, SSS .1, 885.2 and Water Efficiency (WE) credit WE1.2 [USGBC-2].

However, “most owners have little knowledge of the construction or design process.
After all, this is not their business” [Vyas 2005]. Therefore, there is a need for a tool to
guide them in the credit selection process. According to the United Nations Environment
Programme, “building owners are faced with the need to make decisions in the short term
with the possibility of huge consequences, yet they lack a sound basis for making these
decisions. Likewise, the design and engineering community lacks the basic principles and
rules to help guide the selection of integrated, sustainable solutions. Thus there is a need
for practical tools to promote awareness and to encourage sustainable development”
[UNEP 2001].

This research is also focused on public institutional buildings because of their relative
impact on the construction industry. According to USGBC, as of June 8, 2006,
institutional buildings such as schools, universities, libraries, laboratories and government
buildings account for 23% of LEED certified buildings and have significant impact on
new trends for adopting sustainable development practices.

Some governmental agencies require that public buildings be certified through the
LEED program. Michigan and other states have created LEED or other sustainability
requirements for state funded projects. For example, Michigan has mandated that Capital
Outlay projects in excess of one million dollars be designed for a LEED certifiable level
[MICHIGAN 2004]. Institutional buildings that receive funds from state and federal
government agencies will have to start taking steps to follow LEED standards on new

construction and major renovations.

A decision—making fi'amework will aid institutional owners in deciding specific
LEED SS and WE credits suitable for their projects thereby encouraging sustainable

development.

1.3 LEED Overview

The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) developed the LEED Green
Building Rating System. USGBC is the nation’s foremost coalition of leaders from across
the building industry working to promote buildings that are environmentally responsible,
profitable and healthy places to live and work [USGBC-2].

The LEED system utilizes a list of performance based “credits” totaling 69 points.
There are 4 prerequisite areas that every building must meet and several credit options in
each area. These 69 credits are divided into six categories: Sustainable Sites (SS); Water
Efficiency (WE); Energy and Atmosphere (EA); Materials and Resources (MR); Indoor
Environmental Quality (IA); and Innovation & Design Process (ID). In order to attain
LEED certification, a minimum of 26 points must be achieved. A Silver rating is
achieved by earning between 33 and 38 points, Gold between 39-51 and Platinum
between 52 and 69 points [USGBC-1]. The distribution of points by general category is

shown in Figure 1.1 and Table 1.1 below.

 

 

LEED Point Distribution

 

 

a Sustainable Sites

I Water Efficiency

0 Energy and Atmosphere

0 Materials and Resources

I Indoor Environmental Policy

 

 

 

Figure 1.1: LEED Point Distribution [USGBC-l]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. Of Credits in Maximum points
each Category Category possible %

8 Sustainable Sites 14 22%
3 Water Efficiency 5 8%
6 Energy and Atmosphere 17 27%
7 Materials and Resources 13 20%
8 Indoor Environmental Quality 15 23%

64

Innovation and Design Process 4

LEED Accredited Professional 1

Total Points Available 69

 

Table 1.1: LEED Point Distribution [USGBC-1]

1.3.1 LEED Sustainable Sites (SS) and Water Efficiency (WE) Credits

LEED SS Credits are designed to develop only appropriate sites, reuse existing
buildings and / or sites, protect natural and agricultural areas, reduce the need for
automobile use, and protect and / or restore natural sites [USGBC-2]. LEED WE credits
aim to reduce the quantity of water needed for a building and its site and to reduce

municipal water supply and treatment burden [USGBC-2]. Table 1.2 Shows LEED-NC

Version 2.2 point distribution for SS and WE credits.

 

LEED Rating System Point Categories and Possible Points

 

 

 

 

 

Categories Possible
Points
haematite Sites; C. - . _ ,- . “.7. . ._ _. . .'..........
Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required
Credit 1 Site Selection 1
Credit 2 Development Density & Community Connectivity 1
Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1
Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access 1
Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms 1
Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting and F uel-Efficient Vehicles 1
Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity 1
Credit 5.1 Site Development, Protect of Restore Habitat 1
Credit 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space 1
Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control 1
Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control 1
Credit 7 .1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof 1
Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof 1
-EI‘ZdIt.§ ...... a V_Light Pollution Reduction _ . 1
E'Water Efficiency ' , 7 . 7 , '_ _
Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% 1
Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation 1
Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 1
Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction 1
Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction 1

Table 1.2: LEED-NC Version 2.2 Point Distribution for SS and WE Credits [USGBC-2]

Appendix A provides a brief description of each of the SS and WE credits stating

their intent, requirement and potential technologies and strategies as described in the

LEED-NC Version 2.2 Reference Guide.

1.4 Research Goal and Objectives

The overall goal of this research is to facilitate sustainable development that has

positive impacts on the environment and human health thus leading to the creation of

healthy communities. In working towards achieving this goal, the research efforts were

focused on these two steps:

1. Identifying the attributes of sustainable construction that are relevant in deciding

to pursue or not to pursue specific LEED SS and WE credits.

2. Developing a decision-making framework to assist institutional owners in the task
of deciding which LEED SS and WE credits to pursue within the context of

specific projects.

1.5 Methodology

The research methods and activities were as follows:

1. Literature Review
The research explored and presented existing research on sustainable design decision-
making methods, in order to identify an appropriate model to adopt for this research.
Additionally, literature on importance of weighting attributes of sustainable
development and studies addressing environmental, community and economic issues
of LEED credits with emphasis on SS and WE credits were presented. Current status
of LEED certified institutional buildings in the Great Lakes region was also analyzed.

2. Identified attributes that influence the decision to use an individual LEED SS
and WE credit
The research identified attributes through literature review, analysis of interview
responses of owners of four case study institutional projects in the Great Lakes region
and analysis of data collected at a Collaborative Work Session held for the research
project titled “Promoting Healthy Environments through Application of LEED Site
Planning Standards to Cold Climate Institutional Settings” [Mrozowski et al. 2006],
conducted by the Construction Management and Landscape Architecture Programs in
the School of Planning, Design and Construction at Michigan State University.

3. Development of a framework to assist owners in deciding the use of sustainable

site design practices for institutional buildings in the Great Lakes region

The research adapted the AHP Multi-Attribute Model developed by Herkert et al.
[1996] and the Sustainability Decision Support System Conceptual Framework
developed by Pearce et al. [1995] to develop a new decision—making framework for
aiding institutional owners as they consider use of specific LEED-NC 2.2 SS and WE
credits.

4. Proof of Concept
The fi'amework was presented to owners of two of the case study projects in order to
gain their perceptions on the comprehensiveness and usefulness of the framework.

5. Demonstrative Case Study
A hypothetical case study of a community college was applied to show the use of the
framework

6. Final Revisions and Final Framework
Based on the conclusions of the proof of concept and the demonstrative case study,
several terms in the framework were changed to make it more understandable and

usable by owners and designers.

1.6 Deliverables

Through this research, the researcher developed and presented a framework for
assisting owners in deciding to pursue or not to pursue individual LEED SS and WE

credits within the context of cold climate institutional settings.

1.7 Research Scope and Limitations

As seen in Figure 1.2, within the larger realm of sustainable development, this

research concentrated on the LEED Green Building Rating System. Within this smaller

realm of the LEED Green Building Rating System, this research focused on LEED
Sustainable Sites and Water Efficiency credits.
The limitations of the research were:
1. This research was focused on institutional projects in the Great Lakes region.
2. The focus of this research was primarily on the LEED Green Building Rating System

and other standards of measuring sustainable development were not considered.

   

  

Larger Domain:
Sustainable
Development

 
     
  
  
  
  
  
  

 
   
  
  
 
   
 

Smaller

  
  
  
  
  
  

Focus Area:

Domain: LEED
LEED Sustainable
Green Sites and Water
Burldlng Efficiency
Rating Credits

System

  

Figure 1.2: Realm and Focus Area of Research

3. The analysis was primarily focused on the LEED SS and WE Credits and other LEED
credits were not considered.
4. The research examined institutional buildings that were certified under LEED

Version 2.0 and LEED-NC Version 2.1 Certification. LEED Version 1.0 Certified

projects were not considered.

5. Because of the recent development and issuance of LEED-NC 2.2, case studies were

not found for LEED-NC 2.2.

10

6.

7.

8.

9.

There were a limited number of participants in the collaborative work session
conducted for the research project entitled “Promoting Healthy Environments through
Application of LEED Site Planning Standards to Cold Climate Institutional Settings”
[Mrozowski et al. 2006], whose responses were considered in identifying attributes,
described in detail in chapters four and five of the thesis.

The collaborative work session participants included Michigan public officials from
university and local governments; LEED Accredited Professionals (LAP) and design
professionals including architects, planners, landscape architects, site engineers, and
faculty and staff members from the Physical Plant Division at Michigan State
University. These participants commented on the impact on the contractor of certain
credits. However, there were no contractors at the work session.

This study used four case studies conducted for the research project entitled
“Promoting Healthy Environments through Application of LEED Site Planning
Standards to Cold Climate Institutional Settings” [Mrozowski et a]. 2006]. Additional
case studies would be helpful in identifying attributes.

The attributes were identified by the researcher for each LEED SS and WE credits
from the literature review, collaborative work session data and responses of owners of
case study projects and were based on themes identified by the researcher rather than

by quantitative methods.

1.8 Chapter Summary and Thesis Organization

This chapter presented the introduction, defined the problem area and a need for this

research as well as identified the goal, objectives, methodology, deliverables, scope and

limitations of the thesis. Additionally, the chapter provided an overview of LEED.

ll

This thesis is presented in seven chapters and appendices. The first chapter introduced
this thesis. The second chapter presents the literature review that includes existing
research on sustainable decision-making, importance of weighting attributes of
sustainable development and comparative analysis of LEED SS and WE credits based on
environmental, community and economic issues. Additionally, the chapter establishes the
current status of LEED accredited buildings in the Great Lakes region.

The third chapter describes the methodology used for the research. The fourth chapter
presents the analyses of collaborative work session data and the owner responses of the
four case studies conducted for the research “Promoting Healthy Environments through
Application of LEED Site Planning Standards to Cold Climate Institutional Settings”
[Mrozowski et al. 2006]. This chapter also identifies attributes related to each credit from
the collaborative work session data, interview responses and literature review. The
attributes identified from all the three sources are integrated and presented in a matrix
according to their relation to the objectives of sustainable construction.

The fifth chapter summarizes the attributes that influence the decision to use
individual LEED SS and WE credit. The sixth chapter presents a decision-making
framework to assist institutional owners in deciding which LEED SS and WE credits to
pursue within the context of Specific projects. This chapter also presents proof Of concept
interviews, a framework demonstration and final revisions. The seventh chapter presents

the research summary, areas for future research and conclusion of the thesis.

12

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

13

2 .1 Introduction

This chapter presents an overview of the literature review and is presented in the
following four sections. Section 2.2 of this chapter describes existing decision-making
fimneworks for sustainable development. Section 2.3 includes discussion of studies on
LEED SS and WE credits based on the three key objectives of sustainable development,
which include environmental, community and economic issues [USGBC-2, Presley and
Meade 2004 and ASTM 2004]. Existing literature on importance of weighting attributes

of sustainable development is presented in Section 2.4. Finally, in Section 2.5, LEED

certified buildings in the Great Lakes region are presented.

2 .2 Existing Decision—Making Frameworks for Sustainable Development

This section presents existing decision-making frameworks for sustainable
development and was used by the researcher to identify an appropriate model for
adoption by this research. The frameworks addressed are ‘The Konvergence Framework’,
‘ Analytical Hierarchy Process Model’, ‘Environmental Decision-Making Process
ITTIamework’, ‘Sustainability Decision Support System Conceptual Framework’ and
T IIealth Performance Criteria Framework’. The researcher explored frameworks that

address environmental issues, community issues and economic issues of sustainable

d evelopment.

2 .2.1 The Konvergence Framework

Piet et al. [2003] at the University of Idaho developed the Konvergence Framework to
l'Tlake cleanup decisions using a ‘mental model’ that helped analyze and visualize the

I31‘0blem; ‘strategy’ that helped to include a wide range of alternatives and ‘tactical

l4

processes’ that is derived from experience, values and relevant literature. The ‘mental
model’ states that sustainable decisions take place when knowledge, values and resources
converge (the K, V, R in EONZEEGENCE). “Knowledge means what is known about
the problem and possible solutions, values mean what is important to those affected by
the decision and resources mean what is available to implement possible solutions or
improve knowledge. The problem can be analyzed and visualized with the help of this
mental model as the decisions are made and kept” [Piet et al. 2003].

The left side of Figure 2.1 shows the KONZEBGENCE framework, which includes
the mental model, strategic improvements, tactical process improvements, and
implications of research and development into possible solutions. The right side of Figure
2.1 shows the convergence of knowledge, values and resources so that the decisions work
over time and help visualize what is happening. The key steps in the framework are [Piet
et al. 2003]:

1. Determine alternatives that overlap with knowledge, values and resources.

2. Make sure that the knowledge is adequate by thoroughly investigating the

problem and alternatives.

3. Include sufficient participation of diverse Objectives in the values section of the

process.

4. Make all key resources available in order to implement the decision.

5. Adopt the alternative where all three universes converge.

This framework has been developed to address decision challenges related to cleanup
of contaminated waste sites and facilities. These decision challenges are complex,

unusual, having high likelihood for conflict and relatively high ramifications extending

15

over long time periods. However, the framework can be used for other applications with

similar decision challenges for sustainable development [Piet et al. 2003].

 

\

     
   

/A_lt/ernative_s__ \A i
I \ Invest- \..._
I I enta \igation / I \. Pariwi'
Knowledge l/er ‘ \alues I \i patron I
‘ / l

\

Strategic
/ framing \

I
i ‘I I
' \ \ \f/\\
/ Principled tactics \ \ . \M

I. \ t ' ‘ - -
/ Data gathering/ R & D \\ \ Resources
/ Implementation —\\ \\

T T I “A? KONVERGENCE
I -_ - I

Availability

    

 

 

 

Figure 2.1: EONZEEGENCE Framework (left) and EONKEEGENCE Model (right)
Source: [Piet et al. 2003]

2.2.2 Analytical Hierarchy Process Model

Presley and Meade [2004] developed a conceptual decision model for Environmental
Management Decision Making related to sustainable development and production, using
the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a framework. The “AHP is a comprehensive
framework designed to deal with the intuitive, the rational, and the irrational when
making multi-objective, multi-criterion and multi-actor decisions — exactly the decision-
making situation found with environmental management. This framework assumes a
unidirectional hierarchical relationship among decision levels. The top of the hierarchy
(apex) is the overall goal for the decision model. The hierarchy then decomposes to a

more specific characteristic until a level of manageable decision criteria is met. The

16

hierarchy is a type of system where one group of entities influences another set of

entities” [Presley and Meade 2004].

Identification of Criteria:

Literature was reviewed by Presley and Meade in order to identify evaluation criteria.
Categories of factors identified were: stakeholders affected by implementation of the
system and/or have input or influence into the decision process; benefits and disbenefits
of sustainability referred to as the ‘Dimensions of Sustainability’ that helps in analysis,
Since it is believed that different stakeholders will have differing perceptions of the
importance of the dimensions. Each dimension has some specific metrics that relates to

the dimension [Presley and Meade 2004].

 

 

Choose Environmental System

Stakeholders 3

Owners/ Management Customer Employees External Agencies Society/Community

Dimensions U

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Organizational Technical F inancial/ Market Environmental Societal
Measures
V V V V V
Metric 1 Metric 1 Metric 1 Metric 1 Metric 1
Metric 2 Metric 2 Metric 2 Metric 2 Metric 2
Metric 3 ' Metric 3 Metric 3 Metric 3 Metric 3
Alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 .......... Alternative 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.2: Generic Decision Framework IPreslev and Meade 2004]

17

Development of the Model:

AS seen in Figure 2.2, the apex of the framework developed by Presley and Meade
[2004] is the environmental system for which the decision is to be made. The next level
includes stakeholders such as Owners, Customer, Employees, etc. The third level is the
‘Dimensions of Sustainability’ discussed above, with different categories such as
organizational, technical etc. each having metrics for evaluating the environmental
system. For example, improved management, improved training, improved working
conditions and safety all relate to the organizational dimension of sustainability. This
level helps in analysis, since it is believed that different stakeholders will have differing
perceptions of the importance of the dimensions. The lowest level of the model is the

comparison of alternatives relative to each of the metrics [Presley and Meade 2004].

2.2.3 Environmental Decision-Making Process Framework

Tonn et al. [2000] developed a framework for understanding and improving public
sector environmental decision-making. This comprehensive framework incorporates
concepts from a number of fields such as planning, sociology, psychology, economics,
etc.

The elements and activities that comprise the environmental decision-making process
developed by Tonn et al. are listed in the framework as seen in Figure 2.3. The four major
components are interrelated. The first component is the ‘Environmental and Social
Context’ within which a decision is made. The second component is ‘Planning and
Appraisal’ that precedes and follows decision-making. The next component is the

‘Decision-making Modes’ and last is the ‘Decision Action’ [Tonn et al. 2000].

18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental and Social Context
Goals & Perceptions Collective Institutional
values and beliefs knowledge structures
Context Impetus to
seek
Planning and Appraisal change in
Foresight Molitoring Evaluation context
Implement \ /
appropriate Issue Diagnosis
decision _ . _ F
modes Decrsron-makrng Modes E
. . . . . E
Emergency Routrne Analysrs Elrte ConflIct C ollaboratrve D
L—D action procedure centred corps management learning B
A
Implement Decisions Actions C
appropriate . . . . . K
decision Issue C nterra Option Option Reachmg a
actions familiarization setting construction assessment decision r
¢ Iterative Process >

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.3: Environmental Decision Making: A Process Framework [Tonn et al. 2000]

Environmental and Social Context includes the goals and values related to environmental
problems and the decision process, perceptions and beliefs of environmental problems,
collective knowledge about enviromnental problems and the institutional structures
within which the problems are addressed. Planning and Appraisal includes forecasting,
monitoring and evaluating past decisions, which helps in issue diagnosis. Decision-
making Modes include six ways of conducting an environmental solving process -
emergency action, routine procedures, analysis-centered, elite corps, conflict
management and collaborative learning. Decision Actions are the actual activities that
lead to environmental decisions. It includes five steps: issue familiarization; criteria
setting; option construction; option assessment; and reaching a decision. “This

framework is designed not only to incorporate sustainability concerns but it also helps to

19

enlighten interesting questions regarding institutional responsibility and decision process

complexity” [Tonn et al. 2000].

2 .2.4 Sustainability Decision Support System Conceptual Framework

Pearce et al. [1995] developed a conceptual framework for a sustainability decision
support system (SDSS) to assist the materials selection and specification process. The
SDSS framework was adopted and modified for this thesis research. Presented below is
discussion of Pearce et al.’s [1995] original framework.

The SDSS Conceptual Framework helps designers in selecting materials that will
enhance overall project sustainability. The first step in the development of the framework
was to define sustainability with regards to construction materials, followed by making a
complete list of variables that affect sustainability of materials. These variables were

Classified into the categories of technology, ecology, economics and ethics and are listed
according to the three global objectives of sustainable construction: resource

Consumption, environmental impact and human satisfaction. Table 2.1 shows a

 

I—\l‘actor Resource Environmental Human
\ Consumption Impact Satisfaction

 

_\Scope of harvest

,xlixistence of harvest infrastructure
“Accessibility of raw materials
L\1Xvailability of material
\Abundance of raw materials
r\IDegree of processing required
\IDegree to which material is renewable
.Xlife cycle cost

Rye span under conditions of projected use 0
Naintainability ° -

Eusability - -

Table 2.1: Attributes which Influence the Sustainability of Construction
Materials [Pearce et al. 1995]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20

representative list of attributes, which affect the sustainability of construction materials.
In the next step, a methodology for evaluating material sustainability was developed
using a rational actor decision model. Finally, SDSS was developed based on the method

of sustainability evaluation, to assist decision makers in the task of selecting materials.

 

 

 

(Identify set of all possible material alternatives)!

 

 

I Prune all infeasible alternatives from set ) ‘

 

 

 

WE \

 

valuate remaining alternatives:
0 Weight attributes
0 Calculate values for attributes
o Amalgamate weighted attributes
O

\ Develop ranking J

I

C Review ranking of alternatives )

 

Proceed to next
design element
Ti ' -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Select one alternative based on ranking}

Figure 2.4: Materials Selection Methodology [Pearce et a1. 1995]

Figure 2.4 shows the material selection methodology, which includes generating a list of
all possible material alternatives, eliminating the materials that are not feasible from the
list, evaluating the remaining materials and ranking them according to the utility of the
material for an intended application. This is done by weighting the alternatives and
calculating values for each variable. The alternative with the highest ranking is selected.

The selection process then proceeds to the next element.

21

Figure 2.5 shows the SDSS Conceptual Framework for assisting sustainable materials
selection. “First, the user describes the list of design elements, conceptual design and
decision making parameters. The ‘Material Choice Generator’, with the help of
Knowledge Base, Data Base and the information provided by the user, generates a list of
feasible materials. The ‘Value Extractor’ then asks the user for attributes of sustainability
based on owner’s system of values. The Amalgamator Module then sorts the materials
with relative ranking for each element based on the user’s weightings and attribute values
for each potential material. The material with the highest ranking is then recommended
by the system. As the user selects materials, the knowledge base of the system checks to
detect any potential conflicts between material choices. After material selection, the
Sustainability Index Calculator provides a composite index of sustainability for the whole

design” [Pearce et a1. 1995].
INPUT: List of Design Conceptual Design and Owner’s System of
Elements Decision Making Parameters Values
I

f f \\
VALUE EXTRACTOR \
I (Extracts weightings for

sustainability attributes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  
   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Material Potential. Single Material from user)
Choice Mama's “SI Evaluator
Generator Individual Attribute
Sustainability sustainability weightings
I Index index
KNOWLEDGE DATA BASE CaICUIa‘OI ,
BASE M t ' I .
, a. a”? . Whole Desrgn Choose AMALGAMATOR
Matenal Sustamabrlrty E 1 Material G t nk d l’ f
selection rules/ Properties va uator ( enera es ra 6? 15‘ O
heuristics potential materials for
\ I I each design element) /
V V

 

 

J

 

 

Whole yDesign List of Selected
OUTPUT: Sustainability Index Materials

Figure 2. 5: SDSS Conceptual Framework [Pearce et a1. 1995]

 

22

2.2.5 Health Performance Criteria Framework

Pillai [2006] developed a Health Performance Criteria Framework for homes based
on a “Whole House” approach and the “LEED” criteria. The “Whole House” approach
encourages the idea that the home be viewed as a system composed of different
components that work together so that negative interactions between various building
systems can be avoided. External environment is inextricably connected to the indoor
environment. The “LEED” green building criteria utilizes the whole system approach,
with the intent to minimize environment damage attributable to buildings; while
enhancing occupant health, safety and comfort” [Pillai 2006]. The Health Performance
Criteria Framework consists of two sections. The first one is for compiling health
performance goals as seen in Figure 2.6a and the next section is for building systems

design/ construction/ integration strategies as seen in Figure 2.6b [Pillai 2006].

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

9 a
\
Reduce 43 .30
. ... v,
morsture o o
. . E to '0
mfiltratron \ 5 I: o
. >‘ O U) ""
through arr .: E g .g. g
E a z: ‘3 t: a.
E E E o o o
. . on
‘~ 3 o 0 0 I- “a
T :1: I" > < LU m

 

 

 

 

:: ,’
< [I
>

0

Electrical/ Comm.
Reduce Lighting I /'

moisture
infiltratio

11 through Interior '
air ,

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.6a: Health Performance Criteria Framework — Health Performance Goals
[Pillai 2006]

23

 

 

Tight Envelope
Construction to
prevent moisture
infiltration
through air

~

 

 

 

Ergonomic design/

Temperature
safety

5:
O
'5
GU
.—
'S
c:
a.)
>

Acoustics

\

 

 

 

 

  

Envelope ‘ ~.~ 7‘. .
\‘ “

HVAC ,v .

 

I
l
I
l
I
I
I
l
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\

\
\

 

Plumbing

 

Electrical/ Comm. ,

I\
‘ll

\
x

\

x

\

‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

infiltration

Maintain Lighting | ,”
positive .”
pressure ’I’
”‘5de Interior I
buildings to ,
prevent air ,"
’I
’I

 

 

 

Figure 2.6b: Health Performance Criteria Framework — Building Systems D/C/I
Strategies [Pillai 2006]

Figures 2.6a and 2.6b show building systems (Envelope, HVAC, Plumbing,
Electrical/ Communication, Lighting and Interior) listed against seven health
performance attributes (IAQ, Humidity/ moisture, Temperature, Ventilation, Lighting,
Acoustics, Ergonomic Design/ Safety) identified by Pillai [2006]. The health
performance goal is compiled against the particular building system and the performance
attribute to which it is associated with. The health performance goal is then associated
with a building systems design/construction/integration strategy in the next section of the
framework. Strategies are specific to the user. The strategies section has provisions for
scoring the performance and interaction potentials of each listed strategy [Pillai 2006].

The frameworks ‘The Konvergence Framework’, ‘Analytical Hierarchy Process

Model’, ‘Environmental Decision-Making Process Framework’, ‘Sustainability Decision

24

Support System Conceptual Framework’ and ‘Health Performance Criteria Framework’,
when taken together imply that environmental issues, community issues and economic
issues are the key considerations. Although they are referred to differently, for instance,
‘Environmental Impact and Human Satisfaction’ by Pearce et al. [1995] and
‘Environmental and Social Context’ by Tom et al. [2000], these four general themes can
be extracted: cost, health benefits, environmental benefits and community benefits. Afier
review of these frameworks, the ‘Sustainability Decision Support System Conceptual
Framework’ developed by Pearce et al. [1995] was selected as a basis for developing a
new decision-making framework for institutional owners in selecting LEED SS and WE
credits because it helps to depict the role of each attribute in meeting the objectives of
sustainable construction and considers multiple parameters affecting sustainability, unlike

other models, which consider either economic issues or environmental issues only.

2.3 LEED SS and WE Credits Comparative Analysis

This section presents various studies that compare LEED SS and WE credits based on

cost, environmental benefits and health benefits.

2.3.1 GSA Cost Study

The US General Services Administration (GSA) commissioned a study of two
building designs and found a -0.4 to 2% cost increase for a LEED Certified level and -0.3
to 4.4% increase for LEED silver [SWA 2004]. This study is useful for this thesis
research in documenting cost attributes of various LEED SS and WE credits. Tables 2.2a
and 2.2b show a summary of the GSA study. All credit cost assumptions were made

based on LEED-NC Version 2.1.

25

 

New Courthouse
(262,000 GSF, Base Construction Cost = $220/ GSF)
Certified Silver Gold
1A 2A IA 2A 1A 2A
Low Cost High Cost Low Cost High Cost Low Cost High Cost
LEED Construction Cost Impacts

$/ GSF ($0.76) $2.18 ($0.07) $9.57 $2.97 $17.79
% Change -0.4% 1.0% -0.03% 4.4% 1.4% 8.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2.2a: LEED GSA Cost Study — New Courthouse [SWA 2004]

 

Office Building Modernization
(306,000 GSF, Base Construction Cost = $130/ GSF)
Certified Silver Gold
IA 2A 1A 2A 1A 2A
Low Cost High Cost Low Cost High Cost Low Cost High Cost
LEED Construction Cost Impacts

$/ GSF $1.78 $2.73 $3.94 $5.55 $10.58 $10.22
°/o Change 1.4% 2.1% 3.1% 4.2% 8.2% 7.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2.2b: LEED GSA Cost Study — Office Building Modernization [SWA 2004]

Additionally, this study analyzed the costs of each individual LEED prerequisite and
credit and prepared a summary table, which classified costs in five categories as shown in

Table 2.3 (only SS and WE credits shown).

1. GSA mandate (no cost)

2. No cost/ Potential Cost Decrease
3. LOW Cost (<$50K)

4. Moderate Cost ($50K-150K)

5. High Cost (>$150K)

26

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost

Credit Credit Name Category
SS Prereq 1 Erosion & Sedimentation Control 2
SS Credit 1 Site Selection 2
SS Credit 2 Development Density 2
SS Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 2
SS Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access 2
SS Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms 5
SS Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Alternative Fuel Vehicles 3
SS Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity and Carpooling 3
SS Credit 5.1 Reduced Site Disturbance, Protect or Restore Openfiiace 2
SS Credit 5.2 Reduced Site Disturbance, Development Footprint 2
SS Credit 6.1 Stormwater Management, Rate and Quantity 2 or 5
SS Credit 6.2 Stormwater Management, Treatment 4
SS Credit 7.1 Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Non-Roof 2
SS Credit 7.2 Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Roof 2 or 5
SS Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction 2
WE Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% 2
WE Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation 2
WE Credit2 Innovative Wastewater Technologgs Not pursued
WE Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction 1
WE Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction 4

 

Table 2.3: LEED Cost Categories [SWA 2004]

Winter found that SS Prerequisite SSI, Credits SS 1, SS 2, SS 3, SS 4.1, SS 5.1, SS
5.2, SS 7.1, SS 8, WE 1.], WE 1.2, WE 3.1 were “No Cost Increase” or yielded “Cost
Decreases”. Credits SS 4.3 and SS 4.4 were found to lead to “Low” cost increases. WE
3.2 led to “Moderate”jcost increase, SS 4.2 led to “High” cost increase and SS 6.2 and

$57.2 were found to lead to “Low” or “High” depending on design option used.

2.3.2 FPC Sustainability Guidelines

The Facilities Planning and Construction (FPC) Office Of the University of Florida
(UF) ranked each of the LEED credits and prerequisites to provide guidelines to the

project team of the credit’s applicability to UP facilities [FPC 2001]. Table 2.4

27

summarizes the ranking for each credit (only SS and WE credits shown). The credits
were ranked as:
0 “Required” (Req) - Credits required by law or by FPC.
0 “Highly Recommended” (HR) — Credits that do not add cost or have strong life cycle
cost justification
0 “Recommended” (R)— Credits to be tested with regards to specific design solutions
0 “Conditionally Recommended” (CR) -— Credits not beneficial to all applications
FPC Sustainability Guidelines “Highly Recommended” credits 881, 884.1, 884.2,
SS4.4, 885.1, 885.2, 886.2, 887.1, 887.2, 888, WE1.1, WE1.2, WE2, WE3.1 and
WE3.2 for UF projects. Credits 882, 884.3 and 886.1 were “Recommended” and credit
SS3 was “Conditionally Recommended”. Credit 88 Prerequisite 1 was “Required” by

LEED and its compliance was mandatory on the UP campus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credit Credit Name RankiryrL

SS Prereq l Erosion & Sedimentation Control Req
88 Credit 1 Site Selection HR

88 Credit 2 Development Density R

__88 Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment CR

88 Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access HR

88 Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Chanfig Rooms HR

SS Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Alternative Fuel Vehicles R
S S Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Cgpacity HR
S 8 Credit 5.1 Reduced Site Disturbance, Protect or Restore Open Space HR

3 S Credit 5.2 Reduced Site Disturbance, Development Footprint HR

S S Credit 6.1 Stormwater Management, Rate and Quantity R
S 3 Credit 6.2 Stormwater Management, Treatment HR
S 8 Credit 7.1 Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Non-Roof HR
S 3 Credit 7.2 Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Roof HR
8 8 Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction HR
WE Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% HR
E Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation HR
1’3. Credit2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies HR
W13. Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction HR
WIS Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction HR

 

Table 2.4: FPC Sustainability Guidelines [FPC 2001]

28

2.3.3 Study by David Eijadi, et al. [2002]

Eijadi et al. [2002], on the basis of their LEED project experience as certified
consultants, analyzed LEED credits by their direct or indirect value towards
environmental benefits, healthy buildings and profitability [Eijadi et al. 2002]. Table 2.5
shows LEED credit categories based on Environment, Health and Cost Issues (only 88
and WE credits are shown).

Table 2.5 indicates that all 88 and WE credits address environmental concerns
whereas none address health concerns; Credits WE1.1, WE1.2, WE2, WE3.1 and WE3.2
are cost effective for the owner; Credits 88 Prerequisite l, 881, 882, 884.1, 886.1 and
888 can be achieved through standard practice; Credits 884.2, 884.4, 885.1, 885.2,
887.1, WE1.2 and WE3.1 can be achieved through increased design effort but minimal
construction cost and Credits 883, 884.3, 886.2, 887.2, WE1.1, WE2 and WE3.2 are
those that lead to significant increased costs.

Researcher’s Note: This lack of relationship to health impacts indicated by Eijadi et
al. [2002] is not consistent with other literature. When considering health impacts, there
may be “direct” health effects and “indirect” health effects. Direct impacts relate to
benefits that can be correlated Specifically with a design aspect and a benefit such as
improved drinking water quality whereas reducing automobile use by encouraging use of
public transportation likely improves the environment and therefore health. But its effects
cannot be immediately and directly correlated to health improvement of a Specific
individual. This research suspects that Eijadi et al. may be indicating no “direct” health

effects.

29

II

     

      

      

   

Health Credits
Design Effort,
Minor
Construction 3
Construction 5

   
  

Credit Name

  
 

SS Credit 4.]

SS Credit 4.2

  
   

 
 

SS Credit 4.3

  

Vehicles

  

SS Credit4.4

  
  
 
 

  
  

33 Credit 5.1
SS Credit 5.2

SS C:1‘Iedit6.1

 
   
  

Design to

  
 

  

s
S Qredit 7.1

   
  
 

S .
S Qredit 7.2 ”mg“ t°

   

W
E Credit 1.1

W13 Credit 1.2

 
 

Table 2.5: LEED Credits: Environment, Health and Cost Issues [Eijadi et al. 2002]

2
Q4 Land Policy Project
E

h 1‘ the project “Promoting Healthy Environments through Application of LEED Site

Ewing Standards to Cold Climate Institutional Settings” [Mrozowski et al. 2006]
‘lducted by the Construction Management and Landscape Architecture Programs in the

§ \
11001 of Planning, Design and Construction at Michigan State University, the

30

researchers developed a table comparing LEED SS and WE credits based on literature
evidence of health benefits, the GSA LEED credit cost study by Winter, LEED-NC
credits obtained by the 63 Great Lakes region projects, LEED-NC credits obtained by
four case studies, case study cost increases if any, collaborative work session
recommendations for adoption of LEED- NC credits, work session perceived cost
increases from the LEED-NC credits, work session perceived environmental benefits and
work session perceived health benefits [Mrozowski et a1. 2006]. Table 2.6 shows the
summary table.

An important focus of the literature review of this study was to document health
benefits of sustainable design practices. In order to organize the literature, a table was
developed that related the individual LEED standards with, its intent, green building
concerns, health effects, requirements and strategies. An excerpt of the health related
literature table showing literature connection to health benefits for SS Credit 4.3:
Alternative Transportation: Low Emitting & Fuel Efficient Vehicles is shown in Table
2.7. Similar tables were developed for each of the SS and WE credits in the Land Policy
Project report.

The Land Policy Project concluded that credits SS Prerequisite 1, SS], 884.1, 384.4,
886.1, 887.1, 887.2, SSS, WE1.1 and WE3.1 are “Highly Recommended for Adoption”;
credits SS4.2, SS4.3, WE2 and WE3.2 are “Recommended for Adoption”; credits 882,
SS3, 885.1, 886.2 and WE1.2 are “Situation Dependent” and credit 885.2 is “Not
Recommended as Criteria for Site Selection” in cold climate institutional settings

[Mrozowski et al. 2006].

31

 

:58 a a $3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.an mini :85 m3 ea mm amm: gang ea 03¢

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. , 3:95
38 . , a, 293m CO “0205 mm
5332 awi 82on .... , a... ,, 68 02 mm «80 02 23a wo> guano—050 86 “620 mm
. ., , . , and
38 meets .cosutoamfich ed
33 8332 0533 , 38 02 mm 33 ”no: 8% 033522 :35 mm
. a. a... E; 832; 322.5 i
, .. , ...; as» 23 38:5
“m8 ... . _ g... on: 583 -33 .aoantoamaflh m6
33 8332 8:802 _ , . ., 4.. o mm 33 333m“; 03352? €20 mm
mEooM
wEwEfiO a. owfioum
r80 «858: 2985 .coumtommnflh N...
:9: and: 833. 68 oz 2 a8 E: 03%; gasps? :85 mm
I ...: .., , mwooo< donate was;
was ... .... ., $053.: £33m .couSuon—mcfih 3.
8232 swam 0533 “m8 02 mm , _ 38 oz 0338.» 032:2? .620 mm
380 Eofimflgonom m
.35 SE in . o 2 38 oz Eugen €20 mm
ac
Emoo aha? bass—Sou a. N
in am: SE 0 8 .38 oz saver E25 .Eaaoeen :85 mm
38o . . , ,. . 8: _
8332 ammm swam 38 oz . 38 oz 03.50% nouoflow 8% 5.20 mm
38 , , ”Haggai coca—om _
83on AME 2:33 230 oz, .80 oz brig/w nowosbmaou c205 mm
8.5 9325325
553m
5:88 minnow 538m :33 823.5:— co>qu< 83985
:33 :33 x33 Evan—3i .30 .x. 55.5 3333‘ «30 3533.
50:3— Egon 8.3.6:— ..8 no 3.5m 33w .x. 53.5 35m ...—3!
azaom 9.3:”.— .80 53:25::qu 8:0 8.5 v 9mm: no <m0 a: 252 5.9.0 53.5

 

32

seem a a £29822 3%? :35 m3 Ea mm ommq SEES

 

 

 

 

 

 

”Engage 3. 05$

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

68 aouozvox w
304 swam 0533 :8 02 mm mm «m8 02 nocszom £qu 555 mm
moo."
880
500
ages H
3qu newcomoQ
@3580 gonzo moom ms
nwi saw: 0:354 38 02 mm Vm 322:3 use: 3% Joobm 287.— aom :35 mm
I «moo 88
$8 @3865 mooméoz a .h
8332 8:602 83:52 $8 304 mm co «m8 02 “no: 3% .Huobm 2.83 “no: 555 mm
58 cm: 3550 @295 No
awE nwm: 5:602 38 02 mm mm 28252 $63 8% .cwEoQ coaakacoam .620 mm
. a
1,. _ g. nougaofl
ace .ég , .. nocno om: Ebcoo 35830 fie
8232 AME 0533 . . . o 9. 053.23 .833 8% .5609 SEBEQm E55 mm
3:22:55 : , ,, ,. ,
Bmoo oceanoEEooom ,. ,. , ,. . 8an =08 cud—Eda: N6
8:602 Ema £9: 33 «woo 02 on , ,. we, , «moo oz 93m 8% guano—gum cam “€20 mm
568m
568m 558m ..Bmmom :33 830.8:— eo>oEo< 823.65
#83 33>? 3.33 flora—33. ~80 ..\o “:55 c9533.. .80 3513mm
Easem— Eonom $335 ..8 .8 .255 .255 o\.. “$0.5 2.5% 5.3mm
5.3mm Bram ~80 tavnofifieuom 8.5 8:0 v mam—A no <mO :A 25.2 5.9.0 5.9.0

 

 

33

SOON .3 «0 EmBoNB2H $9352 “620 m3 98 mm Qmmq ggsm Acosmssuaog 9N 033.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

    

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

533 5%
NA
880 ESE—mo 8:0:qu gem 5.20
33 83:52 :53on 82252 £283qu 83 .683 m3
3.
55:3,».— .xbm 5.20
8232 8:602 Boo oz dogged 83 .555 m3
£3138 385m moEBoEooh N ”.620
8382 95:62 62 533233 o>ua>o=£ m3
gamut:
E52355 : oz 5 83 0580...“ «A
$80 onmwaoafiooom , , oz .wfinnomvaag $080
33 5282 $5 33 _ - .80 oz 22: 8» aosem 5;? m3
, . ,, . _. .xbm ND 2
, 38 7 . 8.60m .msgnauafl .620
8:802 85:62 6333 .30 oz 20:. 8% 3205mm 833 m3
2365a has?
:2,»me 57.8w 568m 550m 828.55 eo>oEo< 823.55
3.33 :33 3.83 :33 ~80 .x. 5.9.0 3533‘ «30 3:025—
.uonen Egon 83.5:— =eumce< ..8 a 3.3m 35m e\o 5.9.0 :55 513mm
5.3m STEM— :80 ouauuofifiooum 230 8:0 v Gama no <8 :4 95:2 5.30 5.9.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34

$08 .3 s EWBONEE 3 :86 mm E E“: 55¢ 05355 833 5:3: 23o Essa EN 2an

 

.Afiooufio @882
S 38:83
b03393 on— $2:
855$ wave
38me go 2565
3mm 05 ac xzomumo
waving 29Eo>
59 3C0 {on How
328% mafia»:
_ua-u>umEo:m

.0533» wfiosnoa

mo 38me
3:085:39

05 mm :3)

mm ~38“ B183?
8on £53323
ha 9:262

mo E5589

05 hobo 83.3%
$22502
“SEES? was

 

 

 

L

 

    

 

 

Egg

23:5 SEE 52¢

 

 

 

Essa?“

   

  

 

Zoom in

6 92.55
8058

9 2.53:8
bflmmom

any 4.3%
8:3an 2
32 65mm:

A Bow :3 B
3888 86%?
omcowuv Ema:—
ofi E $5538?
28 doufig
m5: £835:
bowuhnme
526:3
530815

no 80qu .8386
5.385560
wiix»

mo nougfimmu
c0638 MS?
3268 3.205
:8 «OZ aw .NOm
.00 9 mob—woman
mo floobo

3:83 douofia

sapmaA "1991115!
uopeuodsuul aApnuJauv - {'17 upaJQ SS

 

 

 

 

 

:82: o Ea 033522
MO .330 $52
.Eofiwfi: .86 B: go 950% 98 onm
HEB bwomaao 953$ 8% Eemcoamfi
mnoufim 22:? :39 2: 8:85:09
3:088 mo §m How 3353 .mumoQ 65% tn .«0 mnomtom
mo flanges “5650-33 was 8sz emu“: 833%
wan $815-32 5m 8 SEE cm? 8333/
£80 2: waving wobomoa is 6:83 3,283 doufiomgo
”Shim 023$ 0 6038298 REE 33 23 35mg ...ow:
52950 MO 2% can :0 5:3: 059388 25
.3238 .833? 9 bmnaooum Ego 88m cfiflocuw 050:6
manna“: 82: By magma nmagmzvduo 58 mass 353:8 550 um Bot
33 @23qu 0235 ESE: ozELom moms» canon 52» 88%: 3:258
03352:” QZ< $59500 no 5:956 a co flmoo mo gamma». we :58 x
ms :25 Eflgficm oEP wommBoev massage swap—5 mac—no:— n§0>ov “Bahama
mocioau ism mo can He Eva 3268 .335 ha 98 9:: 3 26
no“ $333 E2050 :38 so £205? owfifio 390% 8 was a $80 28
fiflommnab -33 98 minute coconcomou EuBEo 83580 3333 23:3 .23:
338m -32 338m . nommubua -EE Sm mo E5830 0260M: 5.8-qu
83$ 83: 83mm 91.33..on
338.2% SEEP—1.3% 315.556 #5:— 32%:—

§§

 

wag owmamn wE: E 3285?: W.
.momcfluw Evafioam 3.38 % M
“mo: 5% 338:. bofihmmm: W

.mommum6 8 08030 238238 u.

3023630 :8 ocowo W.

3
can .368 Jim: ma
boxing. Baa: 8298b d
2530 a mo maoafixm W
298m? Dogma—ham”: can
:3 5:2: nos—3th 8:8 :8
22398 3.3898 338
8 28on1» rod Ehzfioam
4%
32%.: Eases :35 r :35

ES

 

35

2.4 Existing Literature on Importance of Weighting Attributes of Sustainable

Development

2.4.1 The Flag Model
N i j kamp and Ouwersloot [1998] developed the Flag Model for an empirical
assessment of sustainability issues. Indicators of sustainability in the model are used in
combination with Critical Threshold Values (CTV) that addresses the all-or-nothing
character of sustainability. The Maximum CTV indicates the scenario is truly
unsustainable whereas the Minimum CTV indicates the scenario is sustainable [Nijkamp

and Ouwersloot 1998]. Figure 2.7 shows the range of CTV values.

Figure 2.7: Range of CTV Values [Nijkamp and Ouwersloot 1998]

“é line segments are interpreted in the following imaginative way:

0 Section A: ‘Green’ Flag: no reason for specific concern
0 Section B: ‘Orange’ Flag: be very alert

0 Section C: ‘Red’ Flag: reverse trends

0 Section D: ‘Black’ Flag: stop further growth

In the case of different perceptions or views on CTV of each sustainability indicator,
the ranges are superimposed, and the indicator can then be classified as (a) entirely
8‘I‘Stainable, (b) almost sustainable, (c) moderately sustainable, (d) moderately

Illisustainable, (e) almost unsustainable or (t) unsustainable. However, the sustainability

36

1°Hdicator may fall in entirely different domain and in such a scenario; multiple criteria
methods are useful since it allows using different weights for different indicators

[Nljk amp and Ouwersloot 1998].

2.4.2 Multi-Attribute Model Using AHP

Herkert et al. [1996] developed a multi-attribute model using AHP to help make
decisions for sustainable development. Such models are useful when there are multiple
dimensions to a problem, such as in sustainability indicator sets where there are many
different attributes. This model structures a problem, determines all-important attributes,

Weigl'lts their relative contribution to the problem and scores possible outcomes in terms
of each attribute. The Multi-attribute model is shown in Figure 2.8 in the form of a
decision hierarchy [Herkert et al. 1996].

The overall goal is decomposed into attributes and each attribute is assigned a weight
to Show how important the attribute is in order to achieve the goal. Weights of attributes
are determined using the AHP. Scores that measure the performance of each alternative
in terms of each attribute are created and the weights and the score together create a
VVeighted additive function by which each alternative is evaluated in terms of the overall
$0 an] [Herkert et a1. 1996].

“These models are used where there are multiple stakeholders in order to identify
VVIlere differences between stakeholders are rooted, in identifying and weighting
Elttl‘ibutes and in determining the scores. The scoring techniques help in resolving the
Qlififerences between stakeholders and when different attributes are selected by the

Stakeholders, the model helps to reduce conflict between them” [Herkert et al. 1996].

37

 

 

 

 

 

A

GOAL
WEIGHTS ‘ Choice
ATTRIBUTEs// \ \ 1 Problem

SCORES \ ‘ Measurement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.8: Hierarchy in Multi-Attribute Decisions [Herkert et al. 1996]

This concept of weighting is essential in selecting various design solutions. Weightings
are owner and project specific and are not developed by this thesis. This weighting
process must be undertaken by each owner. Discussion of weighting activities is further

presented in Section 6.2 of this thesis.

2.5 Current Status of LEED Accredited Buildings in the Great Lakes Region

According to the LEED Certified Projects list', as of June 8, 2006, there were 63
LEED-NC versions 2.0 and 2.1 certified projects in the Great Lakes region. Figure 2.9
shows the states included in the Great Lakes region. They are Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Provinces in Canada are not

included in this research.

 

' From USGBC website
htmzflwwwusgbc.org/LEED/Project’CertifiedProiectListaspx‘PCMSPagelD=244&CategorvID: 1 9&
Viewed — June 8, 2006

38

   
  

Quebec

Pennsytvania

< Illinois

Figure 2.9: States Included in the Great Lakes Region.
Sour Ce: ht ://www.usembass canada. ov/content/can usa/ima es/GREATLAKESZ.'
(Visited - May 17, 2006)

 

Appendix A provides information about these projects. Of the 63 LEED certified
projects in the Great Lakes region, 28 were certified under LEED-NC 2.1 and 35 were
cmifiéd under LEED-NC 2.0. The numbers of projects certified under LEED-NC
version 2.1 by state are as follows: Michigan (7), Ohio (2), Illinois (4), Wisconsin (1),
Minnesota (0), Indiana (0), Pennsylvania (9) and New York (5). Certified LEED version

2'0 DTOjects by state are: Michigan (8), Ohio (2), Illinois (2), Wisconsin (3), Minnesota
(1), Indiana (1), Pennsylvania (13) and New York (5). For each of these projects, the SS
and WE credits that were successfully obtained are shown in Appendix B. Appendix C
ShQWS the percent distribution of each of the SS and WE credits for each state in the
G1‘eat Lakes region.

Tables 2.8 and 2.9 are based on the entire 63 project set and show the percentage

diStribution of LEED-NC Versions 2.1 and 2.0 Sustainable Sites and Water Efficiency

39

 

 

credits respectively achieved by Great Lakes region states. The 63 projects received 441
points in the Sustainable Sites category with of an average of 7 per project. A total of
198 points were achieved in the Water Efficiency category for an average of 3.14 points
per project. In total 639 points were achieved in the combined Sustainable Sites and

Water Efficiency categories, with an average point total of 10.14 points per project.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credit # Of projects % Total
881 48 76.19048
882 14 22.22222
$83 11 17.46032

884.1 39 61 .90476

884.2 52 82.53968

884.3 20 31 .74603

884.4 37 58.73016

885.1 24 38.09524

885.2 40 ’ 63.49206

$86.1 27 42.85714

886.2 21 33.33333

887.1 38 60.31746

887.2 34 53.96825
$88 36 57.14286

 

Table 2.8: Percent Distribution of Sustainable Sites Credits for 63 LEED Certified
Buildings in the Great Lakes Region (LEED-NC Versions 2.0 and 2.1 Combined)
(Adopted from data obtained at www.USGBC.org, date visited - June 2006)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credit # Of projects % Total
WE1 .1 56 88.88889
WE1.2 49 77.77778
WE2 15 23.80952
WE3.1 42 66.66667
WE3.2 36 57.14286

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2.9: Percent Distribution of Water Efficiency Credits for 63 LEED Certified
Buildings in the Great Lakes Region (LEED-NC Versions 2.0 and 2.1 Combined)
(Adopted from data obtained at www.USGBC.org, date visited - June 2006)

From the tabular data, it is clear that a majority of projects achieved several LEED-

NC Sustainable Sites and Water Efficiency credits and only a limited number of projects

40

achieved other credits. Table 2.10 shows the LEED-NC Version 2.1 and 2.0 credits in

descending percentage order for all Great Lakes region projects. All projects achieved SS

Prerequisite 1: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention (100%). Credits most

commonly achieved (above 75%) were SS 4.2: Alternative Transportation, Bicycle

Storage & Changing Rooms (83%), SS 1: Site Selection (76%), WE 1.1: Water Efficient

Landscaping, Reduce by 50% (89%) and WE 1.2: Water Efficient Landscaping, No

Potable Use or No Irrigation (78%).

Sustainable Sites

 

Credit Number TCredit Name

I Percentage

 

100% to 75% of rojects

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prerecnrisite 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention 100%
SS 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storag£& Changing Rooms 83%
SS 1 Site Selection 76%
75% to 50% of projects

SS 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space 63.5%
SS 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access 62%
SS 7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof 60%
SS 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parkflg Capacity 59%
SS 8 Light Pollution Reduction 57%
SS 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof 54%
Less than 50% of projects

SS 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control 43%
SS 5.1 Site Development, Protect of Restore Habitat 38%
SS 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles 38%
SS 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control 33%
SS 2 Development Density & Community Connectivity 22%
SS 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 17%
Water Efficiency

Credit Number ] Credit Name fiercentage
100% to 75% of rojects

WE 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% 89%
WE 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No erigation 78%
75% to 50% of projects

WE 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction 67%
WE 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction 57%
Less than 50% OfJDFOjeCtS

WE 2 [ Innovative Wastewater Technologies ] 24%

 

 

Table 2.10: Descending Order Percent Distribution of Sustainable Sites and Water
Efficiency Credits for 63 LEED Certified Buildings in the Great Lakes Region (LEED-

NC Versions 2.0 and 2.1 Combined)

(Adopted from data obtained at www.USGBC.org, date visited - June 2006)

 

41

LEED credits where 75% -50% of the projects achieved the credit were SS 5.2: Site
Development, Maximize Open Space (63.5%), SS 4.1: Alternative Transportation, Public
Transportation Access (62%), SS 7.1: Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof (60%), SS 4.4:
Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity (59%), SS 8: Light Pollution Reduction
(57%), SS 7.2: Heat Island Effect, Roof (54%), WE 3.1: Water Use Reduction, 20%
Reduction (67%) and WE 3.2: Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction (57%).

LEED credits achieved by less than 50% of the projects included SS 6.1: Stormwater
Design, Quantity Control (43%), SS 5.1: Site Development, Protect of Restore Habitat
(38%), SS 4.3: Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles

(38%), SS 6.2: Stormwater Design, Quality Control (33%), SS 2: Development Density
& Community Connectivity (22%), SS 3: Brownfield Redevelopment (17%) and WE 2:
I“novaltive Wastewater Technologies (24%). These credits may be situational based (i.e.
if the Site is not a brownfield site then that credit cannot be achieved) or have high

aSSOCiEited costs.

2'6 Chapter Summary

This chapter summarized literature on existing decision-making frameworks for
sustainable development and LEED credits comparative analysis. Additionally, existing
literature on the importance of weighting attributes of sustainable development was
presented and the current status of LEED certified buildings in the Great Lakes region

was analyzed. The next chapter describes the methodology used for this research.

42

 

 

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

43

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the methodology that was used to complete this research.
Interview responses from four case studies and data collected at a collaborative work
session were used in this research. The case studies and work session were conducted as
part of research project entitled “Promoting Healthy Environments through Application
of LEED Site Flaming Standards to Cold Climate Institutional Settings” [Mrozowski et
al. 2006] (referred to as the ‘Land Policy Project’). This chapter also describes how the
collaborative work session data and interview responses were analyzed and used to
identify attributes relevant in deciding to pursue or not to pursue the individual LEED SS
and WE credit. The fourth chapter presents data from the collaborative work session and

the responses from the owners and identifies attributes related to each credit.

3.2 Methodology

The methodology that used for this research is depicted in Figure 3.1 and consisted of

the following core activities:

1. Definition of research project, its goals and objectives.

2. Literature review of existing decision-making frameworks for sustainable
development, comparative analysis of LEED credits, weighting attributes of
sustainable development and current status of LEED accredited buildings in the
Great Lakes region.

3. Extraction and analysis of data from the collaborative work session of Michigan
public officials from state, university and local governments, LEED certified
professionals and design and construction individuals including architects,

planners, landscape architects; and LEED consultants, construction managers, and

44

9.

contractors who are familiar with LEED standards and processes. The purpose of
the collaborative work session was to gain input and advice from experienced
design, planning and construction professionals on LEED credits affecting site
and water requirements only.

Extraction and analysis of data from the interview responses of owners of four
case study projects consisting of institutional buildings in the Great Lakes region.
Identification of attributes for each SS and WE credit with the help of literature
review, collaborative work session responses and data obtained from case study
projects.

Development of a framework to assist institutional owners in deciding which site
related credits to pursue or not to pursue for their projects.

Interviews of owners of the case study projects in order to review the framework
and gain their opinions about the comprehensiveness and usefulness of the
framework.

Application of the framework to a hypothetical case study.

Revisions to the framework.

10. Final reporting and development of conclusions.

Sections 3.3 through 3.8 describe the methodology in detail.

45

 

 

Identification of
Problem Area

 

 

 

 

 

Identification of the need
of this research

 

 

 

 

 

Identification of goals &
objectives

 

 

m

 

 

Existing decision-making

Comparative analysis of LEED

 

frameworks for sustainable SS and WE credits.
development. 0 Great Lakes region LEED
0 Importance of weighting projects.
attributes of sustainable
development.
Collaborative Work Session Case Studies

 

 

 

 

Extraction of data relevant to
the research.
Analysis of data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o Extraction of data relevant to
the research.
0 Analysis of data.

 

 

 

 

Identification of attributes relevant in deciding to pursue
or not to pursue the various LEED SS and WE credit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development of a matrix for each credit

 

 

 

 

 

Development of decision-making framework

 

 

 

 

Proof of Concept

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demonstrative Case Study

 

 

 

 

 

Revisions to the Framework

 

 

 

 

 

Data reporting and Conclusions

 

 

Figure 3.1: Thesis Methodology

46

 

 

3.3 Literature Review

The researcher reviewed technical papers and journal articles to identify existing
decision-making frameworks for sustainable development, weighting attributes of
sustainable development and comparative analysis of LEED credits. The current status of
LEED accredited buildings in the Great Lakes region (with a focus on SS and WE
credits) was documented using data from the USGBC website. Chapter two presented the

literature, which the researcher regarded as relevant to this thesis.

3.4 Collaborative Work Session

Data collected at a Collaborative Work Session held for the research titled
“Promoting Healthy Environments through Application of LEED Site Planning Standards
to Cold Climate Institutional Settings” [Mrozowski et al. 2006] was used for this
research. The primary objective of the collaborative work session held in April 2006 at
Michigan State University was to gain perceptions from design, planning and
construction professionals on LEED credits affecting site and water requirements. Three
areas of concern served as the focus of the session: 1) what assumptions and premises
must be made when evaluating LEED credits for northern climates; 2) which LEED
credits are appropriate for use in cold climate institutional settings; and 3) what
recommendations and strategies must accompany the LEED site related credits for
compliance in northern climates.

Figure 3.2 shows a snapshot of the work sheets used by the work session participants.
Appendix E shows the sample work sheet used for the collaborative work session in its
entirety. Work session responses were transferred to Excel Spreadsheets and data relevant

to this research was extracted from the spreadsheets. Responses obtained for the

47

questions regarding organizational benefits and concerns in pursuing specific credits,
strategies that could be used for compliance and the situational criteria that could
influence the use of specific credits were used for this thesis research. Additionally,
quadrant analyses completed by the work groups which related overall cost of complying
with a standard to its benefit was used for this research. Options in the quadrant analysis
included: High Cost/High Overall Benefit, High Cost/Low Overall Benefit, Low
Cost/High Overall Benefit, Low Cost/Low Overall Benefit. This data helped to identify
attributes that are related to each credit and are important in the decision-making process.

Chapter four describes the collaborative work session data.

L, t . l i i
Collaborative Session \Vork Sheet

 

SS Credit 1: Site Selection

The intent of this credit is to avoid development of inappropriate sites and reduce the
environmentat impact from the tocation of a building on a site [USGBC-2].

 

 

 

Refer to separate summary of LEED—NC 2.2 in Work Session packet for summaryjof
requirements.

Evaiuate the standard in the context ofpubiic institution projects for the Great Lakes
region / cold cfimates.

\Vhat organizational benefits concerns do you foresee in pursuing this credit-
standard?

 

 

 

 

Rank environmental benefits ]:I High 1:] Medium E] Low [:1 None

 

Please explain (what was your rationale for the score given?)

 

 

 

Figure 3.2: Partial Collaborative Session Work Sheet

48

3.5 Case Studies

Interview responses obtained from four case studies undertaken for the research
entitled “Promoting Healthy Environments through Application of LEED Site Planning
Standards to Cold Climate Institutional Settings” [Mrozowski et al. 2006] were also used
in this research. Interviews with case study owners were aimed at gathering information
about decision-making parameters that influence whether to pursue or not to pursue
specific LEED SS and WE credits, as well as to gain insight into the organizational
benefits and concerns that a project team expresses in selecting individual LEED SS and
WE credits for their projects.

Interview data was recorded in Excel spreadsheets and data relevant to this research
was extracted from the spreadsheets. Figure 3.3 is a snapshot of the interview
questionnaire and Appendix F shows the full questionnaire used for the interviews.
General themes regarding organizational benefits and concerns that were expressed by
the project team for pursuing or not pursuing LEED SS and WE credits were considered.
For each credit, the cost associated with required documentation, designing, planning,
engineering, material purchase, construction labor and construction project management

were considered as relevant. Chapter four presents the interview responses.

49

 

A L - -
01 Is the attached Est credits on USGBC websrte correct?

8

C -

132 You project was itiied urdet which LEED“ stardom?

 

. _A. - _-_ .

iDYes

Dunno

ti»;

D LEED-NC 2.1

_D_ -..-..___.E____J _ __E__-__i___ - G______.v

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FoteoehLEEDS' “VoterrelatedweitoosoerthemtioosheochoohoflflsisuEuelSpeeMmmooteptoswol)
Prereq rostoo $84.1 Alternative 884.2 Altman 884.3 Mamie:
I" 851‘s“. 382 W 383 W Troooioetaioo - Troup‘onaioo - Tension“ - 83‘" [Raw
LEED" 0"" smug. Selection) W) W) echo: and. 3...... e. manna fool Poem .
_—““_ud PM 1’! ‘ ' W1 a, W!)
Q3.Did90uobu'n D Yes D Yes D Yes D Yes D Yes D Yes D Yes D Yes
«BLEED'WM- Us. No Duo Duo Duo Clue Duo Duo
stmlard?
0‘; m” "“d' _‘h' C] 0cm 1:] Designer E] 04m C] 0559»: [1 Designer E] Designer E] Designer [:1 Deeper
wm'°°§"}°‘ Clo-m: Elena Um Elem Dem: Dana One! Clo-m
antETjg‘uméim D ProjectTcao D ProjectTuo D Project Tea- D ProjectTeao D Project Tea U Project Teal D Project Tea. D Project'l'eao
“Mfr; ' D 0hr C] on... C] Other I] on“ E] one: C] one: C] Other D Other
05. h the decision
Hakim process to
pursue this LEED"
credit-standard. what
organizational
benefis or concerns
vet ssed’ _r
l the LEED" cred it-standard belo- oas obtained, please ensue: the questions beloo.
em rosooo 884.] (MW. $84.2 [Mu-sci" 884.3 (Mu-am 884 . “....“
a. $81 [5“. 382 (“ND 933 [Dim Transportation - Transportation - T ' - 1. ' otioo _
“In" ““8 Seine-tonne Selection) W) W) P“: m sang. a. Aha-urn rod "wt: r )
flmd Pan-Inn“ hem ' R I ‘ 8 ' L ’
mi V“? c0“ D Yes D Yes C] Yes D Yes D Yes D Yes D Yes D Yes
WWMSWW'G Duo Duo Duo Duo Duo Duo Duo Elm
slimmed D om Kim C] om Km [:1 om Km [1 cm Km E1 000'! Km [1 om Km [1 cm Km 1:] cm Km
d““"”‘*”" E] m C] m. E] m [1 NM [1 u». E] m E] m D m
m ‘ icon?
06b. If ”9. please
espla‘n
me. I known. Mae
7. herease. -
0783010005! E] m C] m D m D Yes C] 1.: 1:] Yes D Yes C] m
heteasesassooioted Du. Duo DNo Duo DNo Ulric [3'40 DP“
WHOM C] om Km 1:] om Km D om Km [1 om Km 1] Don Km 1:] om Km [1 Do“ Km E] om Km
W.“ Cl NM C] m U m [1 NM [3 m E] m E] m Cl HM
mm
_M?
O?!) I In. olease
F 1 gure 3 .3: Partral Case Study Questionnaire
3.6 Identification of Attributes for Each C redrt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attributes relevant in deciding to pursue or not to pursue the various LEED SS and

WE credits were identified from the literature review, collaborative work session data

and interview responses. A matrix was developed for each credit and the attributes were

listed according to their relationship with the three objectives of sustainable construction

— environmental issues, community issues and economic issues identified by [USGBC-2,

Presley and Meade 2004 and ASTM 2004]. The matrix also demonstrates the source of

identification of attributes for each credit. The purpose of identifying attributes was to

50

help in the development of decision-making framework for owners in deciding which

credits to pursue or not to pursue for their project.

3.6.1 Matrix Showing Attributes Identified

A matrix was developed for each credit and patterned after the Sustainability
Decision Support System (SDSS) Conceptual Framework developed by Pearce et al.
[1995]. The matrix developed by this thesis is a variation of the matrix suggested by
Pearce et al. [1995] presented in the literature review section 2.2.4. Table 3.1 below
shows the format of the matrix that was used in this thesis for each credit. The attributes

are presented in detail in chapters four and five.

 

 

Objectives of sustainable construction Source of
Attribute Environmental Community . . identification
. . Economic issues .
issues issues of attribute

 

Attribute 1

 

Attribute 2

 

Attribute 3

 

Attribute 4

 

Attribute 5

 

Attribute 6

 

 

 

 

Attribute n

 

 

 

Table 3.1: Matrix Format Used for Each Credit (Adapted from SDSS Framework)

While the matrix developed by Pearce et a1. [1995] described in section 2.2.4 lists the
indicators that can be used to measure the sustainability of construction materials, with
each indicator listed in context to Resource Consumption, Environmental Impact and
Human Satisfaction. This thesis research substitutes three global objectives of sustainable

construction -— environment, community and economic issues as identified by [USGBC-

51

 

2], [Presley and Meade 2004], and [ASTM 2004] in lieu of the indicators used by Pearce

et al. [1995].

“Economic aspects of sustainability include, but are not limited to, financial
performance, employee compensation and community contribution. Examples of
community aspects are public policymaking, fair labor standards, and equal treatment of
all employees. Environmental aspects include impacts on the air, water, land, natural
resources and human healt ” [Presley and Meade 2004].

The researcher with some modifications used the format of the table because:

1. It enabled the researcher to list each attribute according to its relationship with the

objectives of sustainable construction.

2. It enabled the researcher to identify the source from where the attribute was

obtained.

3. A particular attribute could be related to one or more objectives of sustainable

construction.

Figure 3.4 is a snapshot of the matrix showing attributes identified for SS Credit 4.1:

Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access.

52

 

SS Credit 4.1: Altmtive Public Access

 

to needs
If.)

to mflabrhtyotsrdmaniswahs and [USGBC-3]

No cost if pantie! cost cleanse
“mg“ mm“ mm“ [Eijadi or a 2002]
C S

CS

No cost. immense associated with tourist I CS

e1
. [Eijadieu12002], mummies,
Addresses Wei imparts CW5 cws (whirled high

macaw benefis

ct.
heath mats, Mnmwski er. :1
2006] concluded heath insets,
CW8 cormluded hur' heath

to

 

 

Figure 3.4: Snapshot of Matrix Showing Attributes

3.7 Development of Framework

Based on the attributes of sustainable construction and literature review, a framework
was developed to assist institutional owners in deciding to pursue or not to pursue
individual LEED SS and WE credits for their projects. The AHP Multi-Attribute Model
developed by Herkert et al. [1996] and the Sustainability Decision Support System
(SDSS) Conceptual Framework developed by Pearce et al. [1995] were adapted to
develop the framework for the following reasons:

1. The multi-attribute approach used in the SDSS Framework helps an owner
understand the role of each attribute in meeting the objectives of sustainable
construction.

2. Decisions made by using the SDSS Framework concept support sustainable

development, since they consider all parameters affecting sustainability, unlike

53

other models, which consider either economic issues or environmental issues
alone.

3. The AHP Multi-Attribute Model establishes the need to assign weights to
attributes in order to determine their relative contribution to the overall goal.

Chapter six presents and describes the framework in detail.

3.8 Proof of Concept

In order to obtain practical evaluation, the framework was presented to owners of two
of the case study projects for review. These owners were interviewed in order to gain
their opinions about the comprehensiveness and usefulness of the framework.

Owners of the four case studies were contacted by email to determine their
willingness to participate. Upon agreement to participate they were sent an information
packet which included of a brief introduction stating the purpose of the research, a
graphic depicting the framework and a two-page narrative description of the processes
involved in the framework. They were also sent the list of attributes identified for SS
Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access and WE Credit 1.1:
Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50%, as illustration, in order to gain their
opinion about the comprehensiveness of the attributes identified. Refer to Appendix H for
the ‘proof of concept’ package sent to the owners for their review.

Owners were asked to review the following aspects of the framework:

1. Structure of the framework.

2. Content of the framework.

3. Usefulness of the fi'amework.

54

The proof of concept process along with the suggestions made by the interviewees are
reported in chapter six.

Additionally, the use of the framework was demonstrated with a hypothetical case
study. For the case study, a hypothetical Michigan community college was identified as
planning to construct a new building under LEED-NC Version 2.2. The demonstrative
case study is described in detail in section 6.4 of this thesis.

Finally, based on the proof of concept interviews and the demonstrative case study,
the framework was revised to form a final framework. Revisions included simplification

of terms in order to make it more understandable and usable by the owners and designers.

3.9 Chapter Summary

This chapter described the methodology that was used for this research thesis. The
next chapter describes the collaborative work session data and interviewee responses in a
paraphrased format and identifies attributes from the collaborative work session data,

interview responses and literature review.

55

CHAPTER 4
IDENTIFICATION OF ATTRIBUTES FROM THE

COLLABORATIVE WORK SESSION, CASE STUDIES AND

LITERATURE REVIEW

56

4.1 Introduction

One of the major contributions of this research is the identification of attributes
relevant in deciding whether or not to pursue specific LEED SS and WE credits. These
attributes represent the module 'Data Base' — LEED credits attributes [Khosla 2007] in
Figure 6.1 ofthis thesis.

This chapter presents the approach adopted for identifying the attributes from the
literature, collaborative work session data and owner’s responses from the case study
projects. The chapter begins by describing the collaborative work session and how its
data was reported and analyzed. The next section describes the case study projects and
how their interview responses were reported and analyzed. The literature review articles
presented in chapter two are listed to show the source of identification of attributes. The
chapter then provides a full demonstration of one credit (SS Credit 4.1: Alternative
Transportation: Public-Transportation Access) to show how attributes are identified from
all the three sources for that credit. Finally, the attributes are integrated and a matrix is
presented for that credit, showing the relation of the attributes to the objectives of
sustainable construction — environment, community and economic issues as identified by
[USGBC-2], [Presley and Meade 2004] and [ASTM 2004]. The same approach was used
to identify attributes for all LEED SS and WE credits and the credit-by-credit analysis is
included in Appendix G. Figure 4.1 presents a snapshot of a typical template for SS

Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access from Appendix G.

57

 

 

Sustainable Sites (SS) Credits

SS Prerequisite 1: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention (Formerly - Erosion
and Sedimentation Control) Analysis: The researcher found the important attributes for
SS Prerequisite 1 to be — prevents loss of topsoil during construction, prevents
sedimentation of storm waters or receiving streams, prevents air pollution and has no
cost! potential cost decrease. These attributes were identified by collaborative work
session andf or case studies and supported by the literature.

Intent of the Credit: Reduce pollution from construction activities by controlling soil
erosion, waterway sedimentation and airborne dust generation [USGBC-2].

Work Session: All work groups concluded this was a relatively straightforward
prerequisite and highly recommended its adoption. Overall the groups in the quadrant
analysis indicated this credit had high benefit (environmental) and low cost. The work
groups indicated that this credit was usually being met in most communities, and

reflected good practice, but that details of the newly referenced EPA standard should be

 

Figure 4.1: Snapshot of a Typical Template for a Credit from Appendix G

4.2 Collaborative Work Session

The collaborative work session was conducted to gain input and advice from design,
planning and construction professionals about the assumptions made when evaluating

LEED credits and what recommendations and strategies must accompany the LEED site

related credits for compliance in northern climates institutional settings.

Nineteen professionals participated in the work session. Participants included
Michigan public officials from university and local governments; LEED Accredited
Professionals (LAP) and design professionals including architects, planners, landscape
architects, site engineers, and faculty and staff members from the Physical Plant Division

at Michigan State University. All participants were knowledgeable in sustainable design

58

 

practices as well as traditional approaches. Although the number of participants was
limited, the work session provided valuable insight and expertise from knowledgeable

practitioners with regard to the LEED-NC SS and WE credits.

4.2.1 Analysis of Collaborative Work Session Data

Results of the work session were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and data
relevant for this research was extracted from the spreadsheets. The work sheets used for
the collaborative work session are included in Appendix E. Responses obtained for the
questions regarding organizational benefits and concerns in pursuing specific credits,
strategies that could be used for compliance, and situational criteria that could influence
the use of specific credits were used for this research. Additionally, the quadrant analyses

described in chapter three were used.

4.2.2 Work Session Conclusions

The work session participants perceived credits to have high, medium or low
environmental and health benefits and indicated credits to have high, medium or low cost

impacts.

4.2.2.1 Environmental Benefits

Work session respondents indicated the following credits were likely to yield “high”
environmental benefits: Prerequisite SS 1, SS 1, SS 2, SS 3, SS 4.1, SS 4.2, SS 5.], SS
5.2, SS 6.1, SS 6.2, SS 7.2 and SS 8. Credits SS 4.3, SS 4.4, SS 7.1, WE 1.1, WE 1.2,
WE 2, We 3.1 and WE 3.2 were indicated to return “medium” environmental benefit.

Overall, no LEED-NC credits were ranked as providing “low” environmental benefit.

59

4.2.2.2 Health Benefits

Work session respondents indicated the following credits were likely to yield “high”
health benefits: SS 2, SS 3, SS 4.2, SS 6.2, and SS 7.2. Prerequisite SS 1 and credits SS
1, SS 4.1, SS 5.1, SS 5.2, SS 6.1, SS 7.1, WE 1.1, WE 2 and WE 3.1 were indicated to
return “medium” health benefits. The following credits were indicated as providing “low”

health benefits: SS 4.3, SS 4.4 SS 8, WE 1.2 and WE 3.2.

4.2.2.3 Costs

When considering cost of implementing the credits, work session respondents
indicated the following credits were likely to be “low cost”: Prerequisite SS 1, SS 4.1, SS
4.2 SS 4.4 SS 6.], SS 7.2, SS 8, and WE 1.1. Credits SS 4.3, SS 5.1 SS 6.2 SS 7.1 and
WE 3.1 were indicated to have a “medium” impact on costs. The following credits were
indicated as having “high” costs to implement - SS 1, SS 2, SS 3, SS 5.2, WE 1.2 and
WE 3.2. Two credits, SS 7.2 and WE 2 indicated as having “low cost” or “high cost”

depending on the design option selected.

4.2.2.4 Communication

A theme raised by many of the participants of the work session was the need for close
communication between parities of a project. Owners, designers and contractors all have
key roles to play in creating a successful project. Sustainability objectives should be
established early in the project and communicated throughout the planning, design and
construction phases to all parties. Design teams should be integrated in planning the

project and contractors must be consulted, as they will ultimately carry out these

60

objectives in planning and constructing the project. Owners must also have close
involvement as they will own, operate and maintain the project [Mrozowski et al. 2006].
Results from the work session were used to identify attributes and this process is

discussed and demonstrated in Section 4.5.

4.3 Case Studies

Four case studies were conducted for the Land Policy Project in order to see how
these projects implemented LEED SS and WE credits and the decision-making
parameters used to decide to pursue or not to pursue certain credits. The projects included
1) Calvin College, Bunker Interpretive Center, Grand Rapids, Michigan (Case Study 1);
2) Grand Valley State University, Ontario Hall, Allendale, Michigan (Case Study 2); 3)
Oriole Park Branch, Chicago Public Library, Chicago, Illinois (Case Study 3); and 4) the
Chemistry Building Addition at Michigan State University (MSU), East Lansing
Michigan (Case Study 4). Site visits and interviews were conducted in May and June

2006.

Case Study 1: Calvin College Bunker Interpretive Center Calvin College, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, LEED Version 2.1, Gold Rating (44 points), May 2005

The Bunker Interpretive Center (BIC) serves as headquarters for the biology
department at Calvin College, a liberal arts school in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Included
in the 5,000 square foot, single story structure is a laboratory classroom, a multi-purpose
room, and a display hall. The Interpretive Center is designed for education of students
and the public in the science of ecology and environmental topics. Creating a sustainable

building and achieving LEED requirements were driving program requirements.

61

Table 4.1 shows the credits pursued by BIC and Table 4.1a shows the credits not

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pursued by BIC.
Credit Credit Name
SS Prerequisite 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
SS Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity
SS Credit 5.1 Site Development, Protect of Restore Habitat
SS Credit 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space
SS Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control
SS Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof
SS Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction

 

WE Credit 1.1

Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce bl 50%

 

WE Credit 1.2

Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation

 

WE Credit 2

Innovative Wastewater Technologies

 

WE Credit 3.1

Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction

 

WE Credit 3.2

 

 

Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction

 

Table 4.1: LEED ss and WE Credits Pursued by BIC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credit Credit Name
SS Credit 1 Site Selection
SS Credit 2 Development Density & Community Connectivity
SS Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment
SS Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access
SS Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changig Rooms
SS Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting and F uel-Efficient Vehicles
SS Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control
SS Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control

 

 

SS Credit 7.]

 

Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof

 

 

Table 4.1a: LEED SS and WE Credits Not Pursued by BIC

Case Study 2: Grand Valley State University, Ontario Hall, Allendale, Michigan
LEED Version 2.1, Silver Rating (34 points), December 2005

This 50,000 square foot academic building houses teaching spaces, offices, support
functions, and is part of a campus wide green building /sustainability effort. It is one of
several LEED buildings being pursued by Grand Valley State University. The building is
designed to meet program requirements, create a high quality work and learning

environment and meet sustainability objectives.

62

Table 4.2 shows the credits pursued by Grand Valley State University and Table 4.2a

shows the credits not pursued by Grand Valley State University.

 

 

 

Credit Credit Name
SS Prerequisite 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
SS Credit 1 Site Selection

 

SS Credit 4.1

Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access

 

SS Credit 5.2

Site Develgment, Maximize Open Space

 

 

 

 

 

 

SS Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof

SS Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction

WE Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction
WE Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction

 

Table 4.2: LEED SS and WE Credits Pursued by Grand Valley State University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credit Credit Name
SS Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment
SS Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changflg Rooms
SS Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting and F uel-Efficient Vehicles
SS Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity

 

SS Credit 5.1

Site Development, Protect of Restore Habitat

 

SS Credit 6.1

Stormwater Design, Quantity’Control

 

SS Credit 6.2

Stormwater Design, Quality Control

 

SS Credit 7.1

Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof

 

WE Credit 1.1

Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50%

 

WE Credit 1.2

Water Efficient Landscgping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation

 

 

WE Credit 2

 

Innovative Wastewater Technologies

 

 

Table 4.2a: LEED SS and WE Credits Not Pursued by Grand Valley State University

Case Study 3: Oriole Park Branch, Chicago Public Library, Chicago, Illinois LEED
Version 2.1, Certified (27 points) December 2004

This project houses a branch library and is one of a number of LEED projects and
“green” building program emphases being pursued by the city of Chicago. Creating a
project that fit the local context was an important criterion, as well as meeting the
program requirements and budget.

Table 4.3 shows the credits pursued by Chicago Public Library and Table 4.3a shows

the credits not pursuedby Chicago Public Library.

63

 

Credit

Credit Name

 

SS Prerequisite 1

Construction Activity Pollution Prevention

 

 

 

SS Credit 1 Site Selection
SS Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof
SS Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof

 

 

WE Credit 1.1

 

Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50%

 

Table 4.3: LEED SS and WE Credits Pursued by Chicago Public Library

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credit Credit Name
SS Credit 2 Development Density & Community Connectivity
SS Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment
SS Credit 4.] Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access
SS Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changipg Rooms
SS Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting and Fuel—Efficient Vehicles
SS Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity

 

SS Credit 5.1

Site Development, Protect of Restore Habitat

 

SS Credit 5.2

Site Development, Maximize Open Space

 

SS Credit 6.1

Stormwater Design, Quantity Control

 

 

 

 

SS Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Qualitl Control

SS Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction

WE Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping No Potable Use or Noflgation
WE Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies

 

WE Credit 3.1

Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction

 

WE Credit 3.2

 

 

Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction

 

Table 4.3a: LEED SS and WE Credits Not Pursued by Chicago Public Library

Case Study 4: Chemistry Building Addition at Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan
This project has been registered under LEED 2.1 and is currently under construction.

Construction began in June 2006. The addition is a multi-story addition to the existing

Chemistry Building. The project is being targeted for LEED Silver.

Table 4.4 shows the credits to be pursued by Michigan State University, Table 4.4a

shows the credits not to be pursued by Michigan State University and Table 4.4b shows

the credits likely to be pursued by Michigan State University.

64

 

 

Credit

Credit Name

 

SS Preretgtisite 1

Construction Activity Pollution Prevention

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SS Credit 1 Site Selection

SS Credit 4.] Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access

SS Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & ChangirigRooms
SS Credit 7.] Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof

SS Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof

SS Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction

 

WE Credit 1.1

Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50%

 

WE Credit 3.1

 

 

Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction

 

Table 4.4: LEED SS and WE Credits to be pursued by MSU

 

 

 

 

Credit Credit Name
SS Credit 2 Development Density & Community Connectivity
SS Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment
SS Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles

 

SS Credit 5.1

Site Development, Protect of Restore Habitat

 

SS Credit 6.1

Stormwater Dcflgn, Quantity Control

 

SS Credit 6.2

Stormwater Design, Quality Control

 

WE Credit 2

 

 

Innovative Wastewater Technologies

 

Table 4.4a: LEED SS and WE Credits not to be pursued by MSU

 

 

 

Credit Credit Name
SS Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity
SS Credit 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space

 

 

WE Credit 3.2

 

Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction

 

Table 4.4b: LEED SS and WE Credits likely to be pursued by MSU

4.3.1 Analysis of Interview Responses

Data obtained from the interviews was recorded in a questionnaire Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet and general themes regarding organizational benefits and concerns that were
expressed by the project team for pursuing or not pursuing LEED SS and WE credits

were identified.

4.3.2 Motivations and Impacts of Using LEED

During the interviews, it was clear that these LEED projects had a high degree of

support from staff and upper administration. All four organizations have made a

65

 

 

 

commitment to sustainable design and construction. Sustainability is an important
educational objective at Calvin College and Grand Valley State University and it is being
embodied in new campus buildings. Similarly, the owners of Grand Valley State
University are pursuing multiple LEED projects. The owners of Calvin College will use
the LEED criteria when applicable. Engineering and Architectural Services (EAS) at
Michigan State University has embarked on an evaluation of all of its required
construction and planning standards and is changing them to include sustainability. These
commitments from both upper administration and staff have been important forces for
pursuing these projects.

Impacts of LEED credits are seen as positive by building users, staff and
administrators. Although some adaptations must be made in learning to manage, operate
and live with nontraditional materials and systems, such as native plants, rainwater
collection systems, reduced parking etc., building users, staff and managers seem to take
pride in knowing that the building is different in its design and approach.

Interviewees reported that most of the LEED SS and WE credits did not add cost to
their projects. Exceptions were the composting toilet and grey water system at Calvin
College. Because environmental education was part of the programmatic mission of
Calvin College, costs of the composting and grey water systems were seen as a part of
meeting that mission. Other solutions that increased costs were the rain water storage
system in meeting WE 1.1 and the use of white Portland cement to achieve reflective
requirements for credit SS 7.1 at Oriole Park Branch, Chicago Public Library.

Results from the case studies were used to identify attributes and this process is

discussed and demonstrated in Section 4.5.

66

4.4 Literature Review

[USGBC-2], [SWA 2004], [Eijadi et al. 2002], [FPC 2001] and [Mrozowski et al.
2006] are the primary references to identify attributes relevant in deciding to pursue or
not to pursue specific LEED SS and WE credits. For further reference, the author
recommends the reader refer to the literature review in chapter two.

Results from the literature review were also used to identify attributes and this

process is discussed and demonstrated in Section 4.5.

4.5 Identification of Attributes

This section shows a full demonstration of one credit (SS Credit 4.1: Alternative
Transportation: Public Transportation Access) to show how attributes are identified from
all the three sources identified above. Finally, attributes from all the sources are
integrated and a matrix is presented for SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public
Transportation Access, showing the relation of the attributes to the objectives of
sustainable construction — environment, community and economic issues as identified by
[USGBC-2], [Presley and Meade 2004] and [ASTM 2004]. The same approach is used to
identify attributes for all LEED SS and WE credits and the credit-by-credit analyses and
list of attributes for all the credits is included in Appendix G.

The relevant themes expressed by the work groups and the paraphrased responses
obtained for SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access are
shown below. The attributes suggested by the work session responses for SS Credit 4.1
are identified and listed.

From the work session, three questions were relevant in identifying attributes. The

first question was ‘what organizational benefits / concerns do you foresee in pursuing this

67

credit-standard?’ The responses to this question were used in identifying those attributes
relating to benefits and concerns in pursuing the credit. For instance, for SS Credit 4.1:
Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access, the work session participants
indicated that pursuing this credit reduces pollution. According to the author’s judgment,
the attribute indicated by this response is “Reduces pollution”.

The second question used from the work session in identifying attributes was
‘Design, technical and, political strategies that could be used for compliance with this
credit-standard. Explain.’ For SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public
Transportation Access, the work session participants expressed the need for public
transportation systems for access to doctors, stores etc. on non-business days. According
to the author’s judgment, the attribute indicated by this response is “Subject to
availability of public transportation system”.

The third question used from the work session in identifying attributes was ‘what
situational criteria might influence use of this credit-standard? Explain.’ For SS Credit
4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access, the work session
participants indicated promotions or incentives to be given to employees to use public
transportation system. According to the author’s judgment, the attribute indicated by this

response is “Encourages building occupants to use mass transit”.

Work Session: SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation
Access: Although this credit was viewed as situational because it is dependent on
availability of public transportation, all work groups indicated that for the right site this

credit had no cost associated with it and high health and environmental benefit. Public

68

sector owners should be encouraged to select sites with available public transportation.
Additionally public sector owners may have the ability to work with public bus systems
to alter routes to accommodate this credit. Table 4.5 shows the work session responses
obtained for SS Credit 4.1 and Table 4.5a shows the attributes identified for SS Credit 4.1

from the work session responses.

 

Question Response Grouptt

 

 

Benefits: Equity benefit (hire people who don’t have cars);

 

What organizational reduce pollution and parking lots costs; some more walking 2
benefits / concerns do you behavior in employees

foresee in pursuing this Amenity to building occupants & employers — Concerns:
credit-standard? Transit system is not in place and needs to be expanded or 3

building needs to follow transit master plan
Should be a requirement for any state building. Makes sense to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

keep with population growth. . 4
Design, technical and, ~ 1
political strategies that 2
could be used for 3
compliance With this Need to create reasonable options that promote use of bus. What 4
credit-standard. Explain to do on the off day you need to get to the doctor, store, etc
What situational criteria 1
might influence use of this 2
credit-standard? Explain 3

promotions, incentives 4

 

Table 4.5: Collaborative Work Session Responses for SS Credit 4.1

Work session responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 4.1:
Subject to availability of public transportation system

Encourages building occupants to use mass transit

Minimizes parking lots

Reduces automobile use and air pollution

No cost / potential cost decrease

Hi h environmental benefits

High health benefits

Table 4.5a: Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4.1 fi'om Work Session

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The relevant themes expressed by the project owners and the paraphrased responses
obtained for SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access are

shown below. The cost impact associated with the required documentation, designing,

69

planning, engineering, material purchase, construction labor and construction project
management is also presented. The attributes suggested by the case studies for SS Credit
4.1 are identified and listed.

From the case study questionnaire, six questions were relevant in identifying
attributes. The first question asked about the organizational benefits / concerns that were
expressed by the project team for pursuing or not pursuing LEED SS and WE credits.
The responses to this question were used in identifying those attributes that indicate
benefits / concerns in pursuing the credit. For instance, for SS Credit 4.1: Alternative
Transportation: Public Transportation Access, Case Study 4 indicated that their building
is located across the street from the main campus bus hub, and adjacent to numerous bus
routes. According to the author’s judgment, the attribute indicated by this response is
“Subject to availability of public transportation system” and “Subject to distance of
building from mass transit”.

The second question was “were cost increases associated with required
documentation significant”. The respondents indicated that there were no cost increases
associated with required documentation. According to the author’s judgment, the attribute
indicated by this response is “No cost increase associated with required documentation”.

The third question was “were cost increases associated with designing, planning or
engineering significant”. For SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public
Transportation Access, the respondents indicated that there were no cost increases
associated with designing, planning or engineering. According to the author’s judgment,
the attribute indicated by this response is “No cost increase associated with designing,

planning or engineering”.

70

The fourth question was “were cost increases associated with material purchase
significant”. For SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access,
the respondents indicated that there were no cost increases associated with material
purchase. According to the author’s judgment, the attribute indicated by this response is
“No cost increase associated with material purchase”.

The fifth question was “were cost increases associated with construction labor
significant”. For SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access,
the respondents indicated that there were no cost increases associated with construction
labor. According to the author’s judgment, the attribute indicated by this response is “No
cost increase associated with construction labor”.

The sixth question was “were cost increases associated with construction project
management significant”. For SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public
Transportation Access, the respondents indicated that there were no cost increases
associated with construction project management. According to the author’s judgment,
the attribute indicated by this response is “No cost increase associated with construction

project management”.

Case Studies: SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access.‘
Three bus lines within 'A mile of the project site serve the Case Study 2 project site. Case
Study 4 is located across the street from the main campus bus hub, and adjacent to
numerous bus routes. The respondents indicated there were no significant cost increases
associated with designing, planning or engineering; material purchase; construction labor;

documentation and construction project management for complying with this credit.

The interview responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 4.1:

71

 

Subject to distance of building from mass transit

Subject to availability of public transportation system

No cost increase associated with required documentation

No cost increase associated with desigflg, planning or enflreering
No cost increase associated with material purchase

No cost increase associated with construction labor

No cost increase associated with constructiorgrro'Lect management

Table 4.6: Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4.1 from Case Studies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[USGBC-2], [SWA 2004], [Eijadi et al. 2002], [FPC 2001] and [Mrozowski et al.
2006] are the primary references to identify attributes from the literature review chapter.
According to the author’s judgment, one of the attributes indicated by [Eij adi et al. 2002]
for SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access is “Achieved

through standard practice (increased design efforts but minimal construction first costs)”.

Literature Review: Literature Review indicates the following attributes for SS Credit 4.1:

 

Subject to distance of building from mass transit [USGBC-2]

Subject to transportation needs of building occupants [USGBC-2]

Sullject to availability of sidewalks, paths and walkways to existing mass transit stops [USGBC-2]
Encourages buildig occupants to use mass transit [USGBC-2]

Minimizes parking lots [USGBC-2]

Reduces automobile use and air pollution [USGBC-2]

No cost / potential cost decrease [SWA 20041 arflFPC]

Achieved through standard practice (increased design efforts but minimal construction first costs)
Eijadi et al. 2002]

Addresses global environmental impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

No health impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

Addresses health impacts [Mrozowski et al. 2006]

Table 4.7: Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4.1 from Literature Review

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.6 Matrix Showing Attributes Identified from Collaborative Work Session, Case

Studies and Literature Review

The attributes identified from the collaborative work session data, case studies and
literature review are integrated and presented in the form of a matrix. The relation of each

attribute to the objectives of sustainable construction — environment, community and

72

economic issues as identified by [USGBC-2], [Presley and Meade 2004] and [ASTM
2004] is shown in the table and is represented by the symbol ‘°’. The table demonstrates
the source of identification of various attributes. CWS indicate attributes identified from
the collaborative work session and CS indicate attributes identified from the case studies.
The highlighted portions in the tables indicate attributes with low confidence level as
seen in the ‘discussion’ column in all of the credits. Table 4.8 shows the attributes
identified for SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access as

a demonstration. Appendix G includes the credit-by-credit analyses and list of attributes

for all LEED SS and WE credits.

73

3. 520 mm 8 e822 8.353.. "as. 2%...

 

among .28:

SE 8388 25 £an

is: 3288 seem a

no EmBONeE_ .3893 530:

8 823:8 Room a a swan
amazon _Saofinohfio

a

$50
5033‘ 23.885

85> 838“ 6:8:

 

as: 8388 $50

803:: Euonaohfio Ego—m
BEES .88 a 3 SE;

$6
.58 a so :65.

38%: 55:80on mommEEE

 

 

 

 

 

wntoofiwao no

 

mu . .nEmE APE “EH8 5S, wouamoOmmm 3.855 $8 02
m0 . 8%: 532528 5.5, veafloofim 9.3055 Eco 02
m0 . 838: Etudes: 5?» 35083 8355 .80 02
m0 . WEBER .waqumoc 5:5 BEBOmmw 8885 3.8 02
m0 .

nocssfisoow
8:38 515 33.683 8852 a8 02

 

Room a 5 SE:

380 SE 5:05.538 GEES :5 mtotco
=3on tummy—08v 00:83 @52un smack: vo>qu<

 

$6 .58
PE 438 56

888% “mo... 355.8 \ “woo oz

 

 

mBU . NOmOmD.

:ouszom he .8: 250623 moo—60M

 

$50 a NOmOmD.

32 wasted mafia—:52

 

mBU . NOmOMD

 

 

 

 

:mfimb ,mmma 0m: Ow mug 3000 GMUZSD mu NEOofim

 

 

m Cum “Ea—Mb mama :flmmxo OH w mfifiwg

 

 

 

 

NOmOmD. . was 2:3 .miaBoEm .«o baggage 9 Sufism
mo .mBU . . 88m? cesarean—mafia 835m mo b=Em=m>m 9 60.55
HNOmOmDH . finmnmsooo waning mo mecca nouficommnwb 8 “00.35
mu ANOmOmDH . 5an SS: 80¢ 5315.3 85.3% 2 spasm
5633.5 neuuocuaofi gingham “ESE—=50 «5:59:25— o~=£n€<
..o ooh—em

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmooo< aeratonmnnnh £35m

 

 

 

smears. Q 3:235. a... 5.20 mm

74

4.7 Chapter Summary

This chapter presented the approach for identifying attributes from the literature,
collaborative work session data and the case study responses. First, the chapter described
the collaborative work session data and interview responses. The chapter then provided a
full demonstration of one credit (SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public
Transportation Access) to show how attributes are identified from all the three sources
for that credit. Finally, the attributes were integrated and a matrix was presented for SS
Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access, showing the
relation of the attributes to the objectives of sustainable construction — environment,
community and economic issues. The next chapter summarizes and presents all attributes

for each LEED SS and WE credit.

75

CHAPTER 5

ATTRIBUTES

76

5.1 Introduction

The approach used to identify attributes from the literature review, collaborative work
session data and interview responses was described in chapter four for LEED SS Credit
4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access. Input data for all the
LEED SS and WE credits are included in detail in Appendix G. This chapter summarizes
the attributes relevant in deciding to pursue or not to pursue the various LEED SS and

WE credits.

5.2 Attributes Identified for LEED Sustainable Sites (SS) Credits

Figures 5.1 through 5.3 summarize the attributes identified for LEED SS credits. The
sources of identification of each attribute are also shown in the figures. CWS indicate
attributes identified from the collaborative work session and CS indicates attributes
identified from the case studies. Each attribute is presented according to its relation to the
three objectives of sustainable construction — Environment (indicated by ‘E’),
Community (indicated by ‘C’) and Economic (indicated by ‘Ec’), as identified by
[USGBC-2], [Presley and Meade 2004] and [ASTM 2004] and the relation is represented
by the symbol ‘0’.

The attributes identified for all the credits related to site selection and development
are grouped and shown in Figure 5.1. These credits are SS Prerequisite 1: Construction
Activity Pollution Prevention; SS 1: Site Selection; SS 2: Development Density &
Community Connectivity; SS 3: Brownfield Redevelopment and SS 8: Light Pollution
Reduction. Figure 5.2 shows attributes identified for credits that are related to
transportation such as SS 4.1: Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access;

SS 4.2: Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms; SS 4.3:

77

Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles and SS 4.4:
Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity and shows attributes related to credit SS
5.]: Site Development, Protect or Restore Habitat. The attributes identified for all the
remaining SS credits are shown in Figure 5.3. These credits are SS 5.2: Site
Development, Maximize Open Space; SS 6.1: Stormwater Design, Quantity Control; SS
6.2: Stormwater Design, Quality Control; SS 7.1: Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof and SS

7.2: Heat Island Effect, Roof.

78

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reduces pollution from construction activities - [USGBC-2] - ° Avoids development of inappropriate sites - [USGBC—2], CS
Prevents loss of topsoil during construction, air pollution — [US GBC—Z], CS ° Reduces environmental impact from the location of a building on a site- [USGBC-2]
Prevents sedimentation of storm waters or receiving streams - [USGBC-2], CS - Subject to site availability - [USGBC—2], C WS, CS
Requires designer to evaluate EPA stds v/s local codes - [USGBC-2], C WS . Requires designers to determine zoning requirements of local community & the
No cost / potential cost decrease — [S WA 2004], CWS ' community master plan; Reduces sprawl - [USGBC-2], CWS
Achieved through standard practice — [Eijadi et al. 2002] - Minimizes disruption of the environmentally sensitive areas - [USGBC-2], CS
Benefits the host community and project neighbors - C WS 0 - Encourages designers to incorporate site features into the design - [USGBC-2]
Reduces site exposure over the duration of the project — C WS ' Limits development footprint - [USGBC-2]
Requires high maintenance of implemented system during construction — C WS - - Achieved through standard practice - [Eijadi et al. 2002] -
Requires effective monitoring of the site activity — C WS, CS - ° No cost increase associated with designing, planning or engineering; material purchase; -
No cost increase associated with designing, planning or engineering; material - Construction labor; construction project management - -
purchase; construction labor; construction project management - CS - No cost / Potential cost decrease - [S WA 2004], [FPC 2001] -
Addresses environmental impacts — [Eijadi et al. 2002], C WS - Addresses environmental impacts — [Eijadi et a]. 2002], CWS
Health impact varies - [Eijadi et al. 2002], C WS - Health impact varies — Literature Review, C WS
Cost associated with required documentation varies - CS - Cost associated with required documentation varies - CS -
SS PREREQUISITE 1: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention E C EC E C EC SS CREDIT 1: Site Selection EC
Rehabilitates damaged sites — [USGBC—2] -
Subject to availability of "brownfield" site - [USGBC—2], C WS, '
CS °
Reduces greenfield development — [USGBC-2], CWS -
Enhances property value - C WS . '
SS CREDIT 3: Encourages use of existing transportation & infrastructure — r -
Brownfield CWS . ,
Redevelopment Cost varies — [SWA 2004], CWS '
Addresses environmental impacts —[Eijadi et al. 2002], C WS °
Health impact varies - [Eijadi et al. 2002], CWS -
Channels development to urban areas with existing infrastructure - [USGBC—2] - Minimizes light trespass from the building and site - [USGBC-2]
Protects greenfields and preserves habitat and natural resources - [USGBC-2] - Reduces sky-glow to increase night sky access - [USGBC-2]
Subject to availability of previously developed site — [USGBC—2], C WS - Improves night time visibility through glare reduction — [USGBC-2]
Increases density of community; Reduces sprawl — [USGBC—2], C WS ' - - Reduces development impact on nocturnal environments — [USGBC—2]
Subject to distance of site from residential zone or neighborhood, distance of site from - No cost / potential cost decrease - [SWA 2004], [FPC 2001], [Eijadi et al. -
basic services; availability of pedestrian access between the building and services ~ - 2004] and CWS -
[USGBC-2] - Some concern about public safety in campus settings — CWS, CS
Achieved through Standard practice - [Eijadi et al. 2002] - No cost increase associated with required documentation - CS -
Decreases land use; Encourages walking and bicycling - C WS - . No cost increase associated with designing, planning or engineering— CS -
Easier to meet in community settings where property lines help define density; . - . No cost increase associated with material purchase - CS -
Reduces unnecessary extension of infrastructure; Minimizes auto demand - CWS - - - No cost increase associated with construction labor — CS .
Supports urban redevelopment & mixed use; Keeps development compact - C WS - - No cost 1ncrease assomated With constructlon prOject management - CS -
Cost varies - [S WA 2004], C WS - Addresses envrronmental impacts - [Eijadi et al. 2002], CWS
Addresses environmental impacts - [Eijadi et al. 2002], C WS ° Health impact varies - [Eijadi et al. 2002], C WS
Health impact varies - Literature Review, C WS '
SS CREDIT 2: Development Density & Community Connectivity E C EC SS CREDIT 8: Light Pollution Reduction EC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.1: Attributes Related to Credits SS Prerequisite 1, $81, 882, SS3 and SSS

79

 

 

 

Subject to distance of building from mass transit — [USGBC—2], CS

Subject to transportation needs of building occupants — [USGBC-2]

Subject to availability of public transportation system — C WS, CS

Subject to availability of sidewalks, paths and walkways to existing mass transit stops
— [USGBC—2]

Encourages building occupants to use mass transit - [ US GBC—Z], C WS
Minimizes parking lots - [USGBC-2], C WS

Reduces automobile use, air pollution - [USGBC—2], CWS

No cost / potential cost decrease - [S WA 2004], [FPC 2001], C WS

Achieved through standard practice - [Eijadi et al. 2002]

No cost increase associated with required documentation; designing, planning or
engineering; material purchase; construction labor; const proj. mgmt. - CS
Addresses environmental impacts — [Eijadi et al. 2002], C WS

Health impact varies - Literature Review, C WS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minimizes parking lot/ garage size - [USGBC-2], CS

Provides parking space for carpools or vanpools — [USGBC-2], CS

Subject to location of project site — [USGBC-2]

Subject to number of cars likely to drive to the site - [USGBC-2]

Encourages use of public transportation - [USGBC-2], C WS, CS

Reduces amount of impervious surface, reduces stormwater runoff - [USGBC—2],
CWS

Low costs - [SWA 2004], [Eijadi et al. 2002], CWS

Reduces air pollution - [USGBC-2], C WS

Makes community more amenable for walking - CWS

No cost increase associated with required documentation; designing, planning or
engineering; material purchase; construction labor; construction project
management — CS

Addresses environmental impacts - [Eijadi et al. 2002], C WS

Health impact varies - Literature Review, C WS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SS CREDIT 4.1: Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access C EC SS CREDIT 4.4: Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity EC
E C EC
Conserves existing natural areas and restores damaged areas - [USGBC—2], CS _ '
Limits construction on greenfield site or previously developed site - [USGBC—2] '
Reduces building footprint - [USGBC-2] .
Maintains existing natural ecosystem - [USGBC—2], C WS, CS - p _
Reduces infrastructure construction - [USGBC-2], CS - -
Requires effective implementation of landscape management - CWS -
SS CREDIT 5.1: Site Development, Protect or Enhances water quality — CWS . -
Restore Habitat Provides better visual impact — CS -
No cost increase associated with required documentation; designing, planning or -
engineering; material purchase; construction labor; const project management - CS -
Cost varies — Literature Review, C WS -
Addresses environmental impacts - [Eijadi et al. 2002], CWS -
Health impacts varies - Literature Review, C WS .
Subject to space available for shower facilities — [USGBC—2], CWS, CS - Provides low~emitting and fuel efficient vehicles for 3% of full time equivalent - -
Provides secure bicycle storage areas for cyclists - [USGBC—2] ' occupants ' [USGBCJL . . . . . ' '
Reduces automobile use, air pollution - [USGBC—2], C WS _ - - - Provides preferred parking for low—em1ttmg and fiiel effic1entvehicles; Provrdes - -
Minimizes parking lots - [USGBCJ], CWS - - - altemative—fuel refueling stations - [USGBC—2] - -
Reduces noise pollution - C WS - Reduces air pollution, automobile use'~ [USGBC-2], CWS - . ,
High financial costs (square footage and plumbing) - C WS, CS - Higher initial costs for alternative vehlcles — [USGBC-2] .
Cost varies - Literature Review, C WS ‘ High infrastructure COSt- CS '
Addresses environmental impacts - [Eijadi et al. 2002], C WS ' Cost varies- Literature Review, C W .
Health impact varies _ Literature Review, CWS . Addresses environmental impacts— [Eijadi et al. 2002], CWS .
Health impact varies— Literature Review, C WS f
SS CREDIT 4.2: Alt. Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms E C EC ' r88 CREDIT 4.3: Alt. Transportation, Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles E C EC

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.2: Attributes Related to Credits SS4.1, SS4.2, $84.3, 884.4 and 885.1
80

 

 

 

Reduces development footprint — [USGBC—2], CS

Provides vegetated open space - [US GBC—2], CS

Minimizes site disruption - [USGBC-2], CS

Increases amount of daylighting - [USGBC-2], C WS

Reduces heat island effects — [USGBC-2], C WS

Promotes sprawl; Increases water infiltration — C WS

Provides better visual impact - CS

No cost increase associated with required documentation; designing, planning or
engineering; material purchase; construction labor; construction project
management — CS

Cost varies - Literature Review, C WS

Addresses environmental impacts - [Eijadi et al. 2002], C WS

Health impact varies - Literature Review, C WS

 

Reduces heat islands - [USGBC—2], C WS

Minimizes impact on microclimate and human and wildlife habitat - [USGBC-2]
Limits the amount of impervious hardscape areas - [USGBC—2], CS

Provides shading for hard surfaced areas — [USGBC-2], C WS, CS

Has issues with snow removal in winter with certain pavement - CWS

No cost increase associated with designing, planning or engineering; construction
labor; construction project management - CS

Cost varies - Literature Review, CWS

Addresses environmental impacts - [Eijadi et al. 2002], CWS

Health impact varies — Literature Review, C WS .

Cost increase associated with required documentation varies - CS

Cost increase associated with material purchase varies — CS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SS CREDIT 5.2: Site Development, Maximize Open Space EC SS CREDIT 7.]: Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof EC
E C ECJ
Limits disruption of natural hydrology- [USGBC—2] -
Increases on- site infiltration— [USGBC— 2] .
Minimizes impervious surfaces— [USGBC -2] a
. Decrease in the volume of stormwater runoff— [USGBC-2] '
SS CREDIT 611' Requires careful design and maintenance of system - [USGBC— -
Stormwater De51gn, 2] CWS .
Quantity Control High equipment purchase cost - CS -
Cost varies - Literature Review, C WS -
Addresses environmental impacts {Eijadi et al. 2002], C WS -
Health impact varies — Literature Review, C WS 0
Reduces or eliminates Water pollution - [USGBC—2], C WS Reduces heat islands— [ USGBC 2], C WS
Minimizes impervious surfaces — [USGBC—2], CS Minimizes impact on microclimate and human and wildlife habitat- [USGBC-2]
Increases on—site infiltration - [USGBC-2], C WS, CS Green roofs provide insulating benefits, aesthetic appeal and lower maintenance than -
Eliminates sources of contaminants - [USGBC-2], C WS standard roofs - [USGBC-2] .
Removes pollutants from stormwater runoff — [USGBC—2], CWS Garden roofs reduce stormwater volumes - [USGBC-2]
Decreases stormwater runoff — [USGBC—2], CS Minor cost increase associated with required documentation- CS -
No cost increase associated with required documentation; designing, planning or - No cost increase associated with designing, planning or engineering, material -
engineering; material purchase; construction labor; construction project - purchase; construction labor; construction project management - CS -
management - CS - High cost for installing green roof— CS .
High equipment purchase cost - CS ' Cost varies - Literature Review, CWS .
Cost varies _ Literature RevieW, CWS - Addresses environmental impacts - [Eijadi et a]. 2002], CWS
Addresses environmental impacts - [Eijadi et al. 2002], CWS Health impact varies — Literature Review, CWS
Health impact varies - Literature Review, C WS
SS CREDIT 7.2: Heat Island Effect, Roof EC

 

SS CREDIT 6.2: Stormwater Design, Quality Control

 

 

 

EC

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.3: Attributes Related to Credits $85.2, $86.1, SS6.2, 887.1 and 887.2

81

 

 

 

5.3 Attributes Identified for LEED Water Efficiency (WE) Credits

This section summarizes the attributes identified for LEED WE credits. Figure 5.4
shows the attributes identified for all WE credits — WE 1.1: Water Efficient Landscaping,
Reduce by 50%; WE 1.2: Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation;
WE 2: Innovative Wastewater Technologies; WE 3.1: Water Use Reduction, 20%
Reduction and WE 3.2: Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction.

The sources of identification of each attribute are also shown in the figure. CWS
indicate attributes identified from the collaborative work session and CS indicate
attributes identified from the case studies. Each attribute is presented according to its
relation to the three objectives of sustainable construction — Environment (indicated by
‘E’), Community (indicated by ‘C’) and Economic (indicated by ‘Ec’), as identified by
[USGBC—2], [Presley and Meade 2004] and [ASTM 2004] and the relation is represented

by the symbol ‘-’.

82

 

 

 

Limits or eliminates the use of potable water or other natural surface or subsurface -

water - [USGBC-2] ~
Encourages use of captured rainwater # [USGBC-2] v
Encourages use of recycled wastewater - [USGBC—2] -
Encourages use of water treated and conveyed by a public agency specifically for -
non-potable uses 7 [USGBC—2] '
Encourages use of native or adaptive plants — [USGBC—2], C WS, CS ~
Requires careful landscape design - CWS -
No cost increase associated with designing, planning or engineering; construction °

labor; construction project management — CS

Cost varies - Literature Review, C WS

Addresses environmental impacts - [Eijadi et al 2002], C WS
Health impact varies - [Eijadi et al 2002], C WS -
Cost increase associated with required documentation varies - CS
Cost increase associated with material purchase varies - CS

 

Limits or eliminates the use of potable water or other natural surface or subsurface
water — [USGBC—2]

Encourages use of captured rainwater — [USGBC—2]

Encourages use of recycled wastewater - [USGBC—2]

Encourages use of water treated and conveyed by a public agency specifically for
non—potable uses for irrigation - [USGBC-2]

Encourages installing landscaping that does not require permanent irrigation
systems — [USGBC—2]

Does not encourage use of supplementary irrigation — [USGBC—2], CS
Encourages use of native or adaptive plants - [USGBC-2], C WS, CS

No cost increase associated with required documentation; designing, planning or
engineering; material purchase; const labor; const project management - CS

Cost varies — Literature Review, C WS

Addresses environmental impacts - [Eijadi et al. 2002], CWS

Health impact varies - [Eijadi et al. 2002], C WS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WE CREDIT 1.1: Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% E C EC

 

 

WE CREDIT 1.2: Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No
Irrigation

 

 

EC

 

 

 

EC EC

 

 

Encourages treating wastewater on-site - [USGBC—2], C WS, CS

Cost varies - Literature Review, C WS
Addresses environmental impacts — [Eijadi et al.. 2002], CWS
Health impact varies - [Eijadi et al. 2002], CWS

 

 

 

Reduces generation of wastewater and potable water demand; Increases the local aquifer

WE CREDIT 2; recharge ~ [USGBC—Z]
Innovative Wastewater Encourages use of high-efficiency/ dry fixtures - [USGBC-2], CWS, CS - .
Technologies Encourages reuse of stormwater or graywater — [USGBC-2] .

High cost associated with required documentation; designing, planning or engineering;
material purchase; construction labor; const project management - CS

 

 

 

 

 

Maximizes water efficiency within buildings - [USGBC—2]

Reduces burden on municipal water and wastewater systems - [USGBC-2]
Encourages use of high-efficiency/ dry fixtures — [USGBC—2], C WS, CS - -
Encourages reuse of stormwater or graywater — [USGBC—2]

High cost associated with required documentation — CS

High cost associated with designing, planning or engineering - CS
High cost associated with material purchase - CS

High cost associated with construction labor - CS

High cost associated with construction project mgmt - CS

Cost varies - Literature Review, C WS

Addresses environmental impacts — [Eijadi et al. 2002], C WS
Health impact varies - [Eijadi et al. 2002], C WS

 

Maximizes water efficiency within buildings - [USGBC-2]

Reduces burden on municipal water and wastewater systems - [USGBC-2]
Encourages use of high—efficiency/ dry fixtures — [USGBC-2], C WS, CS
Encourages reuse of stormwater or graywater - [USGBC-2]

High cost associated with required documentation - CS

High cost associated with designing, planning or engineering — CS

High cost associated with material purchase - CS

High cost associated with construction labor and const project mgmt. - CS
Cost varies - Literature Review, C WS

Addresses environmental impacts - [Eijadi et al. 2002], CWS

Health impact varies — [Eijadi et al. 2002], C WS

 

 

 

WE CREDIT 3.1: Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction E EC

 

 

 

 

WE CREDIT 3.2: Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.4: Attributes Related to Credits WE1.1, WE1.2, WE2, WE3.1 and WE3.2

83

 

 

PA

(I

an:

Tn C

I):
'1-

5.4 Attributes

One of the major contributions of this research is the identification of attributes
relevant in deciding whether or not to pursue specific LEED SS and WE credits. These
attributes were identified and presented according to their relation with the three
objectives of sustainable construction — Environment, Community and Economic issues.
The author, in her literature search, did not find any studies that identified attributes of
LEED credits.

These attributes as shown in Figures 5.1 through 5.4 represent the module ‘Data
Base’ - LEED credits attributes [Khosla 2007] indicated in Figure 6.1 in chapter six. This
module is analogous with the ‘Data Base’ module in the SDSS Framework developed by
Pearce et al. [1995], which represents the material sustainability properties or the
attributes that influence sustainability of construction materials as shown in Table 2.1.

The framework is discussed in detail in the next chapter.

5.5 Chapter Summary

This chapter summarized the attributes identified for all LEED SS and WE credits
from the literature review, collaborative work session and interview responses. The next
chapter presents the framework developed for assisting institutional owners in deciding

the use of specific LEED SS and WE credits for their projects.

84

CHAPTER 6

DEVELOPMENT OF FRAMEWORK

85

6.1 Introduction

Chapter four identified and presented the process of identifying the attributes from the
literature review, collaborative work session data and responses from case studies.
Chapter five summarized the attributes identified for each LEED SS and WE credit. The
development of the framework for assisting institutional owners in deciding the use of
specific LEED SS and WE credits for their projects and its description are presented in
this chapter as well as the proof of concept process. This chapter also demonstrates use of
the framework through a hypothetical case study of a community college located in
Michigan. Based on the conclusion of the demonstrative case study, the framework was

modified and presented in its final form.

6.2 Framework to Assist Institutional Owners in Deciding to Use Specific LEED

SS and WE Credits for their Projects

The researcher incorporated the AHP Multi-Attribute Model developed by Herkert et
al. [1996] to Pearce et al.’s [1995] Sustainability Decision Support System Conceptual
Framework in order to develop a new decision-making framework for aiding institutional
owners as they consider use of specific LEED-NC 2.2 SS and WE credits for their
projects. Figure 6.1 shows a framework developed by this research for assisting
institutional owners in deciding to select LEED SS and WE credits for their projects.

The framework consists of three main inputs required from the owner. The first is
‘List all SS and WE credits’, the second input is represented by the module ‘Conceptual
design and decision-making parameters’ and the third is ‘Owner’s system of values’.

Below is a description of each module used in the framework.

86

FDA—PD

38325; mem :8: we a 83$ See BEEEV
38.8.5 :05 Sm 3680 m3 05 mm Dmmq woo—om 8 wEEooQ E $0550 _mcocaumfi Emmet 2 foBoEEm ”—6 oSME

£680 382% m0 “m5

 

+ :35 800:0

@

 

 

 

\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/

   
      

   

 

 

    

 

 

_. /
.5.ch 235: 85:30;
A3680 @323 8:513." 3:093 Guam: BEE cocoa—om “680
.8 a: Bee aaegg Q awed <55 3% mommaaozx
MOF<E<OA<E< . ,
. a. . , , G "IO......IIDOIIOCIIOO.C.II.. m
banafifimsm
132205 “88250
£080 :03 oumfimcam 006:0
a: 360.5 :VDHU
C0950 80¢ 3:58;

Sanctum bzfimfifimsm _ "

Sm meEwBB £35me _ _

MOPUEHXmmDQ<> A _IILIIIIIIII.II_L _ .

.P — , — \
_ p . . ,
. _
mos—S» £30883 ufififiéofifiou £680 mthZ—
we 839$ 95:30 was swamp 3:030:00 m3 can mm 2m 55
A H v N

 

 

O

87

List all SS and WE Credits (Process 1)

This is the first step in the framework. Here, the owner is required to list all the SS
and WE prerequisite and credits as listed in Table 1.2. This module replaces the ‘List of
Design Elements’ module fi'om Pearce et al.’s [1995] SDSS framework where the user

provides a list of conceptual design elements of a facility broken down by C81 Divisions.

Conceptual design and decision-making parameters (Process 2)

This process requires two inputs from the owner — conceptual design parameters and
decision-making parameters that could influence pursuing or not pursuing specific
credits. The relevant parameters that describe the conceptual design are described, such
as the site selected is not a brownfield site. Then the decision-making parameters are
described. For instance, environmental benefits of pursuing LEED SS and WE credits
could be the determining factor in deciding to pursue certain credits. The owner might
want to use credits that yield high environmental benefits and have low cost of
implementation. Such conceptual design and decision-making parameters are required in
this module. In the ‘Conceptual design and decision-making parameters’ of the SDSS
framework [Pearce et al. 1995], the user provides values for relevant parameters

describing the conceptual design and decision-making context.

Knowledge Base (Process 3)
‘Knowledge Base’ helps in eliminating the credits that are clearly infeasible for the
project. Pearce et al. [1995] used rules/ heuristics in the SDSS Framework at this stage.

The framework developed by this research replaces this activity with a ruling process to

88

eliminate credits which are infeasible based on project conditions. For example, if a
brownfield site is not available, SS Credit 3: Brownfield Redevelopment, cannot be
achieved. The ‘Knowledge Base’ process reduces the complete set of alternatives by

eliminating those alternatives that are clearly infeasible for the application.

Data Base (Process 4)

‘Data Base’ is the list of attributes identified for each LEED SS and WE credit by the
author in this research, as described in detail in chapters Four and Five and Appendix G.
In Pearce et al.'s [1995] SDSS framework, ‘Data Base’ represents the material
sustainability properties or the attributes that influence sustainability of construction

materials as shown in Table 2.1.

Credit Choice Generator (Process 5)

‘Credit Choice Generator’ with the help of the Knowledge Base, Data Base and the
information provided by the owner generates a list of potential credits. This module
replaces ‘Material Choice Generator’ from Pearce et al.’s [1995] SDSS framework that
generates a list of feasible materials with the help of Knowledge Base, Data Base and the
information provided by the user.

For instance, in the first step all the LEED SS and WE credits are listed. In the
‘Conceptual design and decision-making parameters’ module, the owner states that he/
she wants to use credits that yield high environmental benefits and have low cost of
implementation. The ‘Credit Choice Generator’ will integrate information provided by

the owner, information fi'om Knowledge Base and Data Base and generate a list of

89

potential credits that yield high environmental benefits and have low cost of
implementation. Assuming that the site selected is not a brownfield site, then SS credit 3:
Brownfield Redevelopment, will be pruned from the set even though it meets the owner’s
requirements. The ‘Credit Choice Generator’ will then generate this list of potential
credits: SS Prerequisite 1, SS 1, SS 2, SS 4.1, SS 4.2, SS 5.1, SS 5.2, SS 6.1, SS 6.2, SS
7.2 and WE 1.1, since all of these credits yield high environmental benefits and have low

cost of implementation.

Owner’s system of values (Process 6)

The next step in the framework is to evaluate the potential credits such that a ranking
can be developed according to the utility of the credit for a specific project. Based on
‘Owner’s system of values’, which is the third input required from the owner, first the
owner weights each attribute of sustainability according to the subjective importance or
utility which that attribute holds for the owner.

Researcher’s Note: The owner might use internal reviews, such as consultation with
the design team or the planning committee of the organization, in order to determine

weights for the attributes of each credit.

Value Extractor (Process 7)

The module ‘Value Extractor’ extracts weightings for sustainability attributes from
the owner. Then, values for each of the sustainability attributes are determined for each
credit from other sources such as project team, architect, engineer, landscape architect,

designer, etc. and a normalized value between zero and one is calculated for each

90

attribute value. A similar approach is used in Pearce et al.’s [1995] SDSS framework,
except that the values for each of the sustainability attributes are determined for each
material from manufacture information and other sources.

This approach is also described in the multi-attribute model using AHP developed by
Herkert et al. [1996] where the overall goal is decomposed into attributes and each
attribute is assigned a weight to show how important the attribute is in order to achieve
the goal. Weights of attributes are determined using the AHP. Scores that measure the
performance of each alternative in terms of each attribute are created and the weights and
the score together create a weighted additive function by which each alternative is
evaluated in terms of the overall goal [Herkert et al. 1996].

Since determining weights of attributes is not within the scope of this research, the
author recommends that owners use the AHP multi-attribute model developed by Herkert
et al. [1996] in order to determine weights of sustainability attributes for each credit. This

model is described in detail in chapter two of this thesis.

Evaluate Each Credit (Process 8)

In the module ‘Evaluate each credit’, afier weights have been established and values
calculated for each attribute for a particular credit, the weights and normalized values are
multiplied and summed to create an individual sustainability index or an index of
subjective utility for that credit [Pearce et al. 1995]. This module replaces the ‘Single
material evaluator’ module in the SDSS framework [Pearce et al. 1995], where after

weights have been established and values calculated for each attribute for a particular

91

material, the weights and normalized values are multiplied and summed to create an
index of subjective utility for that material.

The SDSS framework [Pearce et a1. 1995] also consists of the ‘Whole Design
Evaluator’ module, which provides the composite index of sustainability for the whole
design based on the materials selected by the user. This module is not included in the
framework developed by this research because the focus of the thesis is on LEED
Sustainable Sites and Water Efficiency credits only. Other categories of LEED credits —
Energy & Atmosphere, Materials & Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality and
Innovation in Design, were not considered in this research. (Researcher’s Note: The
author believes that the ‘Whole Design Evaluator’ module is helpful when all the LEED
credit categories are considered which would help in determining the composite index of
sustainability for the whole design based on the LEED credits selected from all the

categories stated above.)

Amalgamator (Process 9)

The next step in the framework is the ‘Amalgamator’ module, which amalgamates the
owner’s weightings with the attribute values for each credit and sorts them, resulting in a
relative ranking of potential credits. A similar approach is used in the SDSS framework
[Pearce et al. 1995], where the material with the highest ranking is recommended by the

system.

92

List of selected credits (Process 10)

In the module ‘List of selected credits’ which represents the output of the entire
process, the owner can review the credits recommended by the framework and select
credits from the list. This module replaces the ‘List of selected materials’ module in the
SDSS framework [Pearce et a]. 1995], where the user can review the materials

recommended by the system and select materials from the list.

6.3 Proof of Concept

The original interviewees of the research project entitled “Promoting Healthy
Environments through Application of LEED Site Planning Standards to Cold Climate
Institutional Settings” [Mrozowski et al. 2006] were contacted through e-mail to review
the framework. The purpose of interviewing the owners was to gain their opinions about
the comprehensiveness and usefulness of the framework.

Upon their agreement to participate in the ‘proof of concept’ process, they were sent,
through e-mail, a review package consisting of a brief introduction stating the purpose of
the research, a graphic depicting the framework and a two-page narrative description of
the processes involved in the framework. They were also sent the list of attributes
identified for SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access
and WE Credit 1.1: Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50%, for illustration, in
order to gain their perceptions about the comprehensiveness of the attributes identified.
Refer to Appendix H for the ‘proof of concept’ package sent to the owners for their
review and their paraphrased responses. Figures 6.2a, 6.2b, 6.20 and 6.2d are snapshots of

‘proof of concept’ package.

93

 

nlrodurdou

This research developed a decision-making framework for aiding institutional owners
as they consider use of specific LEED-NC 2.2 Sustainable Sites (SS) and Water

Efficiency (WE) credits for their projects. This conceptual fi‘amework could be

 

”icmporated with a decision—support system or a software program to automate the]
nethodology for selecting LEED credits for a project. Development of a working

computer program is beyond the scope of this thesis.

The researcher identified decision-making attributes (characteristics). “'lllCll influence

ia decision whether or not to use specific LEED SS and WE credits. through literatiu'e

review. data collected at a collaborative work session of design professionals held at

Michigan State University. and inteiTiews of four case study projects. to address use of

SS and \VE credits of LEED. The researcher identified and presented these attributes.

 

 

 

Figure 6.2a: Snapshot of ‘Proof of Concept’ Package from Appendix H

 

'Y""'l"'|"‘2"'l“'3"'l"‘4"'|"'5"'|"'fl
rmnnvork

Figure I shows the conceptual framework developed for assisting institutional owners
in deciding to select LEED SS and “’13 credits for their projects. The fi'ainework consists
of three main inputs required from the owner The first is 'List all SS and “'E credits‘.

the second input is represented by the module ‘Conceptual design and decision-making

 

[mi‘ameters‘ mid the third is ‘Owuer’s system of values‘. Below is a description ofeacli
i

iodule used in the fi'amewo‘rk.

Frocess 1: List all SS and “13 Credits
This is the first step in the fi'aniework. Here. the owner is required to list all the SS and

\VE prerequisite and credits.

 

 

 

Figure 6.2b: Snapshot of ‘Proof of Concept’ Package from Appendix H

94

 

 

6 List all SS and WE Conceptual design and Owner' 5 v.lsyesten'i of G)
INPUTS credits decisron- making parameters
. _ - > . |. ;
. . ' > . I -
. . . i : l

 

 

   

. . 7 _ VALUE sxriixcma
(Extracts Weightings for
sustainability attributes

i
V: I". i'
'9.

r-ocu-o-vuuu-
I
I
..

        

 

 

 
  

 

      

 

 
  
 

    

 

Winn-1 from owner)
Credit WM .
Choice Evaluate each credit
Generator it; In w M
' ' Mobility

index

 
   

 

 
 

. -."..........................‘ -.-3 ‘ 7 f 2 ~.'_._‘ .

' ' ' ' '~ AMALGAMATOR

KNOWLEDGE BASE DA T. BASE . . (Generates ranked list of
Credit selectionrules/ LEED credit' 3 nttnbutes potential credits)

' ' [Khosla 100‘]

\ heuf‘Stics . .

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 Framework to Assist Institutional Owners in Decrding to Select LEED SS and WE Credits for their Projects

 

 

Figure 6.2c: Snapshot of ‘Proof of Concept’ Package from Appendix H

= -. -. “a . ..u --..)eclmuemmexr rage) A. “win; “......“ ....um.‘ -m—

[USGBC-3]

No cost / potential cost decrease
[Eijadi el al 2002]

inc-ease CS

CS

[Eijadi et al 2002], envrronmental impacts.
CWS

Add'esses envrronmental impala:

 

Figure 6.2d: Snapshot of ‘Proof of Concept’ Package from Appendix H

95

6.3.1 Proof of Concept Response Summary

Two of the owners of the case study projects agreed to participate in the ‘Proof of
Concept’ process. They were asked ‘When considering the introduction, the framework
graphic and the narrative description of each step, how well do you feel you understand
the intent, structure and the intended use of the framework? Do you need any additional
discussion or background?’ The interviewees responded that they understood the
introduction, framework and its description well and that the framework is a good
approximation of the decision-making process used in their institutions. One of the
interviewees responded that the Credit Choice Generator, Value Extractor, Evaluate Each
Credit, Amalgamator are the ‘gut’ of the framework where you decide whether or not you
are going for the credit. However, ownerssystem of values may differ since weighted
values come from a variety of sources in their institution.

The next question addressed the usefulness of the framework in aiding institutional
owners as they consider use of specific LEED-NC 2.2 Sustainable Sites and Water
Efficiency credits for their projects. The interviewees responded that the framework is
very useful and it formalizes the decision-making process.

The next question asked if there were additional steps or processes, which they can
suggest as key in deciding to use SS and WE credits. The interviewees responded that
there were no additional steps or processes that they could advise which is not included in
the framework.

The next question asked if the attributes identified by the research for SS Credit 4.1:
Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access and WE Credit 1.1: Water

Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50%, comprehensive or are there other important

96

attributes they would suggest or are there some indicated which should be deleted. One of
the interviewees responded that the attributes were covered fairly well and the other
interviewee responded that they had an additional “value” attribute for outreach and
community education for WE Credit 1.1: Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50%.
The final question asked the interviewees to give any additional suggestions
regarding the content and form of the framework. The interviewees responded that they

had no additional suggestions.

6.4 Demonstrative Case Study

The framework was applied to a hypothetical case study consisting of a community
college located in a city in the eastern side of Michigan in order to test the use of the
framework. The case study was cited in a city measuring approximately 8 square miles
and with a population of about 32,000. It was assumed that the college served as the
primary center of higher education for the area and served more than 6,000 students
annually. It was also assumed that the college consists of a 25-acre riverfront campus
located in a downtown area and nine buildings are located on campus with 400,755 Gross
Square Feet of building. There were 816 parking spaces available on site with certain
areas reserved for faculty and staff parking and additional paid parking was available at
city-operated facilities nearby. It was assumed that the pedestrian circulation throughout
the campus was accommodated through an extensive walkway system. Public transit
system operated with support from state, federal and local governments was available to
the students, staff and faculty.

The hypothetical community college was planning to construct a new building, which

was to be certified under LEED-NC Version 2.2. For the planning committee of the

97

organization, cost was the most important consideration for achieving LEED credits. The
planning committee wanted to pursue credits that had low cost of implementation, as well
as yielded high environmental benefits. The next important consideration for the planning
committee was the effect of credits on human health. Table 6.1 below indicates these

important considerations.

 

Immirtant Considerations
Low cost of implementation
iigh environmental benefits
Effect on human health

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6.1: Important Considerations for Deciding LEED Credits

6.4.1 LEED Assumptions

Several assumptions were made so that the new building satisfies the requirements of
LEED—NC 2.2 Sustainable Sites and Water Efficiency credits. The assumptions are
discussed in detail below.

0 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for all the construction activities
associated with the project conformed to the erosion and sedimentation control
requirements of the 2003 EPA Construction General Permit.

- The site was not a prime farmland as defined by the United States Department of
Agriculture in the United States Code of Federal Regulations (citation
7CFR657.5).

o The site was a previously developed site within 1/2 mile of a residential zone
which had an average density of 10 units per acre net and within 1/2 mile of 10
Basic Services such as bank, library, post office etc. and there was pedestrian
access between the building and the services.

0 The site was not a brownfield site.

98

0 There were two bus lines on streets that provided access to the site and there was

one bus line within 1/4 mile from campus entrance.
0 Parking capacity met but did not exceed minimum local zoning requirements.

0 General lighting standards of the college, both for internal and external lighting,

complied with the LEED requirements.

6.4.2 Framework

Process 1: List all SS and WE Credits

In this step, all the SS and WE prerequisite and credits were listed as shown in Table 6.2:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credit Credit Name
SS Prerequisite 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
SS Credit 1 Site Selection
SS Credit 2 Development Density & Community Connectivity
SS Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment
SS Credit 4.] Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access
SS Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changi_n_g Rooms
SS Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting and F uel-Efficient Vehicles
SS Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity
SS Credit 5.] Site Development, Protect of Restore Habitat
SS Credit 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Olen Space
SS Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control
SS Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control
SS Credit 7.] Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof
SS Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof
SS Credit 8 Ligm’ollution Reduction
WE Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscapirg, Reduce by 50%
WE Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation
WE Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies
WE Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction
WE Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction

 

 

 

Table 6.2: List of LEED SS and WE Credits

Process 2: Conceptual design and decision-making parameters
Two inputs were required from the owner in this process — conceptual design
parameters and decision-making parameters. The assumptions made in section 6.4.1

above, were the parameters that describe the conceptual design. The planning committee

99

of the organization wanted to pursue credits that had low cost of implementation and

yielded high environmental benefits. These were the most important considerations in

deciding whether or not to pursue LEED SS and WE credits. The next decision-making

parameter was the effect of the credits on human health. Listed below were the decision-

making parameters (assumptions) so that the new building satisfied the requirements of

LEED-NC 2.2 Sustainable Sites and Water Efficiency credits.

Secure bicycle racks for 5% of the building occupants and shower and changing
facilities for 0.5% of Full—Time Equivalent occupants were to be provided in the
building.

Alternative fuel refueling stations and preferred parking for low-emitting and
fuel-efficient vehicles could not be provided. In addition, low-emitting and fuel-
efficient vehicles for building occupants could not be provided.

5% of the total parking space was to be reserved for carpools or vanpools.

50% of the site area was to be restored with native or adapted vegetation.
Vegetated open space equal to the building footprint was tobe provided adjacent
to the building.

Project site was to maintain natural stormwater flows by promoting infiltration.
Alternate surfaces and nonstructural techniques were to be used to reduce
pollutant loadings.

50% of the site hardscape was to be provided with a combination of shade and
high reflective material.

75% of roof surface was to be provided with high reflective material.

100

0 Landscape design included native or adapted plants, which eliminated irrigation
requirements.
0 High-efficiency fixtures and dry fixtures such as composting toilet systems and

non-water using urinals were to be used to reduce wastewater volumes.

Process 3: Knowledge Base

Based on the conceptual design parameters described in Process 2 above, in this process
referred to as ‘Knowledge Base’, credits which were clearly infeasible for the project
were eliminated. According to the project conditions, the credits that could be achieved

by the college are shown below in Table 6.3:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credit Credit Name
SS Prerequisite 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
SS Credit 1 Site Selection
SS Credit 2 Develognent Density & Community Connectivity
SS Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access
SS Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & ChangiERooms
SS Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity
SS Credit 5.1 Site Development, Protect of Restore Habitat
SS Credit 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space
SS Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control
SS Credit 6.2 Stormwater Deiign, Quality Control
SS Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof
SS Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof
SS Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction
WE Credit 1.] Water Efficient Landscagg, Reduce by 50%
WE Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation
WE Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies
WE Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction
WE Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction

 

 

 

Table 6.3: LEED Credits based on Credit Selection Rules/ Heuristics

SS Credit 3: Brownfield Redevelopment and SS Credit 4.3: Alternative Transportation,

Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles were clearly infeasible for the project.

101

Process 4: Data Base

According to the list of attributes identified for each LEED SS and WE credit by the
author in this research, Table 6.4 below shows a sample table that indicated the cost
impact, environmental benefits and health benefits of each credit. The owner can refer to

Figures 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 to create similar tables with their objectives in various

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

columns.
. . Environmental Health
Credit Credit Name Cost Benefits Benefits
SS . . . .
Prerequi Construction Actrvrty Pollution Low High Medium
. Prevention
Site 1
SS 1 Site Selection Low High Medium
SS 2 Development Densrty & Community Low / High High High
Connectrvrty
SS 3 Brownfield Redevelopment Low/ High High High
Alternative Transportation, Public . .
SS 4'1 Transgortation Access Low High High
Alternative Transportation, Bicycle . . .
SS 4.2 Storage & Chan ing Rooms Low/ High High High
Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting . .
SS 4'3 and Fuel—Efficient Vehicles LOW/ ngh Medium Low
SS 44 Alternative Transportation, Parking Low Medium Low
Capacrty
SS 5.] 18;: iItDaeivelopment, Protect of Restore Low/ Medium High Medium
SS 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space Low/ High High Medium
SS 6.1 Stormwater DesiLn, Quantity Control Low/ High High Medium
SS 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control Low/ High High High
SS 7.] Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof Medium/ High Medium Medium
SS 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof Low/ High High High
SS 8 Light Pollution Reduction Low Medium Low
WE 1.1 Egg/fr Efficrent Landscaping, Reduce by Low / High High Medium
WE 1.2 Water Efficrent Landscaping, No Potable Low / High Medium Low
Use or No Imflon
WE 2 Innovative Wastewater Technolgies Low/ High Medium to Hi h Medium
WE 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction Medium/ High Medium Medium
WE 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction Medium/ High Medium Low

 

 

Table 6.4: LEED Credits Summary

102

 

Process 5: Credit Choice Generator

‘Credit Choice Generator’ with the help of Knowledge Base, Data Base and the decision-
making parameters processes provided by the owner generated a list of potential credits
as shown below in Table 6.5. Since cost was the most important criteria, credits that have
‘Medium/ High’ costs, as shown in Table 6.4, were eliminated in this process. Credits
having ‘Low/ High’ costs, as shown in Table 6.4 were not pruned from the list of

potential credits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credit Credit Name
SS Prerequisite 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
SS Credit 1 Site Selection
SS Credit 2 Development Density & Community Connectivity
SS Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access
SS Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changig Rooms
SS Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity
SS Credit 5.1 Site Development, Protect of Restore Habitat
SS Credit 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space
SS Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control
SS Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control
SS Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof
SS Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction
WE Credit 1.] Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50%
WE Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation
WE Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies

 

 

 

Table 6.5: List of Potential Credits
Process 6: Owner’s system of values
In this step, the owner weighted each attribute of sustainability according to the
subjective importance or utility, which that attribute held for the owner. The planning
committee of the college had decided to weight the attributes on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 being
least important attribute and 7 being the most important). Following were the weights

determined for the attributes by the owner:

103

‘7’ — For attributes having low cost of implementation, high environmental benefits
or high health benefits.

‘5’ — For attributes having medium cost of implementation, medium environmental
benefits or medium health benefits.

‘3’ — For attributes having high cost of implementation, low environmental benefits

and low health benefits.

Process 7: Value Extractor
In this step, weightings for sustainability attributes were extracted from the owner. Then,
values for each of the sustainability attributes were determined for each credit from other
sources such as the project team, architeCt, engineer, landscape architect, designer and
also the staff and faculty of the college and a normalized value between zero and one was
calculated for each attribute value. The following values were assumed for the attributes:
‘0.75’ - For attributes having low cost of implementation, high environmental
benefits or high health benefits.
‘0.5’ — For attributes having medium cost of implementation, medium environmental
benefits or medium health benefits.
‘0.25’ — For attributes having high cost of implementation, low environmental

benefits and. low health benefits.

Process 8: Evaluate each credit
In this step, the weights (obtained from Process 6) and values (obtained from Process 7)

are multiplied and summed to create individual sustainability index or an index of

104

subjective utility for that credit. Since the number of attributes identified for each credit
differs, average sustainability index for an individual credit is calculated by dividing its
sustainability index by the number of attributes identified for that credit. Table 6.6 below
shows the weights, values, the product of weights and values, and the average
sustainability index for SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation
Access as demonstration. Refer to Appendix I for the average sustainability index

obtained for each of the potential credits identified in Process 5 above.

105

33m 030 o>umbmcoEoQ com 31620 mm How 5?: bzsafiflmsm owfio>< no.0 2an

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

can u 3%.; n 3. :85 mm .8 5...: b58588 has? seam 85 332.883:
as u 3. 5.20 mm he 5%— baggagm
nmfi 2.6 n . 85> .on a: HERE
mm.w n50 N. o 88 _E _SEEEBSE 3323ch
mm.w mud N. . .HEwE ..Noa .38 5:» 33.888 8865 58 oz
m~.m mud N. . .532 cocozbmaonc HEB 33683 8885 $8 02
mm.m mud N. . amuse: 3538 5.3» US$083 8885 58 oz
. . meta
mm m mN. o b . .5 wag—n .wficwfiov 55 “883083 335:.“ $8. 02
wmd pd N. . aoaflaofisoow wot: a 5:5 peasant 3.8qu $8 02
. . A880 55 8:923:00 3558
mm m E. o n . :5 mtobo swag 88825 8.58m cavqsm awsofiu wo>oEo<
w N6 mm. N. . 388% 500 _flfionom N 38 oZ
mad mN.. n . . coca—om he .8: 250883 woos—com
wmfi 2.. N. . . 32 waving moNfiEEE
wN..o mm. m . ”ESE 89: cm: 9 was :80 52:5 8 $3025
. . a 2m “is: $2: 23:8
.2. 0 mm o m o 8 ago—EB can mfia .mvszoEm mo b25338 2 “8.35m
mud mmd m . . 806.3 countenmgb 029a mo bzfiazga 9 “gown—am
mud mmd m . 3:338 wane—:5 mo meow: :ocwtommgb 2 Sufism
mud mmd m . :83“ ENE Boa 52:5 mo 02886 9 spasm
2:3» n mun—$35 2:5» 8:35.» egg—cum NEE—Enemy Eofieohgnm viz—Eras

 

 

883.. 5383355. 9:95 "notatommuwnh 95553:. :é 5.9.0 mm

106

Process 9: Amalgamator
In this step, the credits are sorted based on their relative ranking. Table 6.7 below shows

the ranked list of credits suggested by the framework.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average
Ranking Credit Credit Name Sustainability
Index
1 SS Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction 4.48
2 SS Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control 4.27
3 SS Credit 4.] Alternative Transportation, Public 3.84
Transportation Access
4 SS Prerequisite 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention 3.83
5 SS Credit 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space 3.77
6 SS Credit 1 Site Selection 3.73
7 SS Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity 3.72
8 SS Credit 2 Development Density & Community 3.71
Connectrvrty
9 SS Credit 5.1 Site Development, Protect of Restore Habitat 3.66
10 SS Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof 3.57
11 WE Credit 12 WaterEfficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or 3.30
No Imgation
12 WE Credit 1.! Water Efficient Landscapirgfi, Reduce by 50% 3.16
l 3 SS Credit 42 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & 2'94
Changyflooms
14 SS Credit 6.1 Stormwater DesifiQuantity Control 2.61
15 WE Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 1.83

 

Table 6.7: Ranked List of Credits for Demonstrative Case Study
The ranked list of credits above was unexpected by the researcher. The researcher
believed that SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access
would top the list as it has low cost of implementation, high environmental and high
health benefits as suggested by the literature, case studies and the collaborative work
session data. Also, the researcher believed that WE Credit 1.]: Water Efficient
Landscaping, Reduce by 50% would rank higher than WE Credit 1.2: Water Efficient
Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation since WE 1.1 has a lower cost of
implementation as compared to WE 1.2, as suggested by the work session data. The
researcher also believed that SS Credit 6.1: Stormwater Design, Quantity Control would

rank higher than SS Credit 6.2: Stormwater Design, Quality Control because of its low

107

cost of implementation, as suggested by the work session data. These results for the
hypothetical case study resulted from the weightings and values used. Actual owner may
use different weightings and values. It is interesting to note that despite the deviation.
From the expected results, these credits all exceed the 3.0 minimum kevel defined as

acceptable to the owner.

Process 10: List of selected credits

In this step, the owner can review the credits recommended by the framework and select
credits from the list. It was assumed that the planning committee of the college wanted to
pursue credits that had average sustainability index more than 3.0. Therefore, the credits

selected by the owner are shown below in Table 6.8.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ranking Credit Credit Name Sustaifizleiillif; Index
1 SS Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction 4.48
2 SS Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control 4.27
3 SS Credit 41 Alternative Transportation, Public 3.84

Transportation Access
4 SS Prerequisite 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention 3.83
5 SS Credit 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space 3.77
6 SS Credit 1 Site Selection 3.73
7 SS Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking @pacity 3.72
8 SS Credit 2 Development Density & Community 3'71
Connectivrty
9 SS Credit 5.] Site Development, Protect of Restore Habitat 3.66
10 SS Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof 3.57
11 WE Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use 330
g or No Irrigation
12 WE Credit 1.] Water Efficient landscaping, Reduce bL50% 3.16

 

Table 6.8: List of Selected Credits for Demonstrative Case Study

6.4.3 Conclusion of Demonstrative Case Study

After reviewing the demonstration, the researcher concluded that certain terms used

in the framework could be simplified fOr better interpretation by the owners and to make

108

the framework more usable. The researcher also concluded that making these revisions
would make it easier for the owners and designers to use the framework and thus lead to

accurate results.

6.5 Modified Framework

Framework changes resulting from the proof of concept interviews and demonstrative
case study included changing several terms used in the framework and are presented in
Figure 6.3, to make it more understandable and usable by owners and designers.

Figure 6.3 below shows the modified framework. Process 1 (List all SS and WE
credits) remain unchanged in the modified framework. Process 2: Conceptual design and
decision-making parameters was changed to ‘Identify Owner’s Objectives and Decision-

Making Parameters’ in the modified framework.

Process 3: Knowledge Base (Credit selection rules/ heuristics) was referred to as
‘Selecting credits based on project conditions’ in the modified framework. This was
because, in this process the credits were selected based on the requirements stated in the
LEED-NC 2.2 Reference Guide and depending on the project conditions; credits that
were clearly infeasible for the project were eliminated from the process whereas in the
SDSS Framework [Pearce et al. 1995], Knowledge Base (Credit selection rules/
heuristics) used technical performance thresholds or other heuristics to eliminate those

alternatives that were clearly infeasible for the application.

109

QSEEE mem :8: is a 83$ See 8583: @3er :85 ”no 2&5

 

'FDAHHDO\ mummvvuo EEC HUG—Om

 

Ar :85 88:0

 

 

 

5?:
3583833 owfigm no woman
£680 3:28 we a: ism

 

 

 

5?:
bEnmESwsm
3:239:

 

 

 

 

.28
Sac—U: mow—Etta
£8: new;

 

 

 

 

:88

 

 

:88 82:83 :08
Co moanntsm bEnmESmsm
com @5530? Hombxm

 

 

 

EEBOQ :03 mo 59:
bzfimfifima 22330

  

a: 5:55
_wucouom

 

 

IL

 

 

 

         

£83650
So .85
no woman

$620 320m 0

           

    

3:58
_mcfizom mo
Hm: 820m

 

\

 

 

 

 

83g mo EBm>m
95:30 @283

E80883 mc2m2é2£8Q
can 328290 mung/O @353

 

9680
m3 28 mm :m as

,

WAREZ—

 

110

Process 4: Data Base (LEED credit’s attributes) was called ‘LEED credit’s
attributes’ in the modified framework. Process 5 which was originally referred to as
‘Credit Choice Generator’ was changed to ‘Select list of potential credits’ in the modified
framework. Process 6: Owner’s system of values was referred to as “Identify Owner’s
system of values’ in the modified framework. Process 7: Value Extractor (Extracts
weightings for sustainability attributes from owner) was called ‘Extract weightings for
sustainability attributes of each potential credit’ in the modified framework. Process 8,
which was called ‘Evaluate each credit’ was changed to ‘Calculate sustainability index of
each potential credit’ in the modified framework. Process 9: Amalgamator (Generates
ranked list of potential credits) was referred to as ‘Rank list of potential credits based on
average sustainability index’ in the modified framework. Finally, Process 10: List of

selected credits was changed to ‘Select final credits’ in the modified framework.

6.6 Chapter Summary

This chapter presented and described the framework developed for assisting
institutional owners in deciding the use of specific LEED SS and WE credits for their
projects and presented the proof of concept. Additionally, the use of the framework was
demonstrated with the help of a hypothetical case study. Finally, the framework was
modified based on the conclusions drawn fi'om the demonstrative case study. One of the

major reasons for doing this was to make the framework more user-friendly.

111

CHAPTER 7

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

112

7 .1 Introduction

Chapter five summarized the attributes identified for each LEED SS and WE credit.
Chapter six presented the framework developed for assisting institutional owners in
deciding the use of specific LEED SS and WE credits for their projects. Chapter
concludes the thesis, presents contributions of the research, recommendations for
institutional project owners, areas for future research, limitations of this research, and

reiterates goals and objectives of the research.

7.2 Research Objectives

The objectives of this research were:

1. To identify the attributes of sustainable construction that are relevant in deciding
to pursue or not to pursue specific LEED SS and WE credits.

2. To develop a decision-making framework to assist institutional owners in the task
of deciding which LEED SS and WE credits to pursue within the context of
specific projects.

The overall goal of this research was to develop a framework to assist institutional
owners in deciding the use of specific LEED SS and WE credits for their projects. The
researcher incorporated the AHP Multi-Attribute Model developed by Herkert et a1.
[1996] to Pearce et al.’s [1995] Sustainability Decision Support System Conceptual

Framework in order to develop this framework.

7.3 Research Contributions

The following are the major contributions of this research:

113

l. Developed a decision-making framework to aid institutional owners in deciding to
pursue or not to pursue specific LEED site related credits for their projects. Through
the literature review, no pre-existing decision-making framework could be found that
would assist an owner to select LEED site and water credits for their projects.

2. Identified and presented attributes relevant in deciding to pursue or not to pursue
LEED SS and WE credits.

3. Presented the relation of these attributes with the objectives of sustainable
construction, which are environment, community and economic issues [USGBC-2,
Presley and Meade 2004, ASTM 2004].

4. Analyzed the current status of LEED certified buildings in the Great Lakes region

with emphasis on SS and WE credits. This analysis could be used for other studies.

7.4 Research Limitations

The limitations of the research were:

1. This research focused on institutional projects in the Great Lakes region.

2. The focus of this research was primarily on the LEED Green Building Rating System
and other standards of measuring sustainable development were not considered.

3. The analysis was primarily focused on the LEED SS and WE Credits and other LEED
credits were not considered.

4. The research examined institutional buildings that were certified under LEED
Version 2.0 and LEED-NC Version 2.1 Certification. LEED Version 1.0 Certified
projects were not considered.

5. Because of the recent development and issuance of LEED-NC 2.2, case studies were

not found for LEED-NC 2.2.

114

6. There were a limited number of participants in the collaborative work session
conducted for the research project entitled “Promoting Healthy Environments through
Application of LEED Site Planning Standards to Cold Climate Institutional Settings”
[Mrozowski et al. 2006], whose responses were considered in identifying attributes,
described in detail in chapters four and five of the thesis.

7. The collaborative work session participants included Michigan public officials from
university and local governments; LEED Accredited Professionals (LAP) and design
professionals including architects, planners, landscape architects, site engineers, and
faculty and staff members from the Physical Plant Division at Michigan State
University. These participants commented on the impact on the contractor of certain
credits. However, there were no contractors at the work session.

8. This study used four case studies conducted for the research project entitled
“Promoting Healthy Environments through Application of LEED Site Planning
Standards to Cold Climate Institutional Settings” [Mrozowski et al. 2006]. Additional
case studies wouldbe helpful in identifying attributes.

9. The attributes were identified by the researcher for each LEED SS and WE credits
from the literature review, collaborative work session data and responses of owners of
case study projects and were based on themes identified by the researcher rather than

by quantitative methods.

7.5 Recommendations for Institutional Project Owners

The following recommendations are suggested by the researcher based on the
framework developed by this thesis for deciding the use of LEED SS and WE credits for

institutional projects, and are applicable to universities or institutional project owners:

115

1. Establish conceptual design and decision-making parameters early in the project.
Identifying sustainability objectives plays a vital role in using the framework
developed by this research.

2. Develop weightings for each sustainability attribute identified and presented in this
research. The owner according to the subjective importance or utility should identify
these weightings. In doing so, the owner might use internal reviews such as
consultation with the design team or the planning committee of the organization.

3. The owner might seek guidance of a professional consultant such as architect,
designer, engineer, etc. to use the framework developed by this research.

4. The fi'amework could be made more effective by incorporating it with an expert
system or a software program to automate the methodology for selecting LEED

credits for a project.

Researcher’s Note: Although this was not the focus of this study, the collaborative work
session participants and the case study responses indicate the need for early involvement
of designers and contractors in all the phases of construction. They recommend that
design teams should be incorporated in planning the project and contractors should be
consulted, as they will ultimately carry out these objectives in planning and constructing

the project.

7.6 Areas of Future Research

The research focused on the LEED Sustainable Sites and Water Efficiency credits.
Future research could include other categories of LEED credits - Energy & Atmosphere,

Materials & Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality and Innovation in Design, which

116

will enable owners to adopt the framework in order to decide LEED credits which can be
pursued for a project.

From the case studies, responses were obtained from owners to identify attributes
relevant in deciding whether to pursue or not to pursue specific LEED SS and WE
credits. Future research could include responses from architects, designers, engineers,
construction managers and contractors in order to identify more attributes for each credit
and enhance the comprehensiveness of the framework.

The framework could then be incorporated with a decision-support system to

automate the methodology for selecting LEED credits for a project.

7.7 Research Conclusion

Data obtained from the collaborative work session, case studies and literature was
used by the researcher to identify attributes for LEED SS and WE credits and develop a
new decision-making framework to assist institutional owners in selecting credits for
their projects. From this process, the following major conclusions were drawn:

1. The sustainability attributes, which influence a decision of whether or not to pursue
LEED SS and WE credits have been identified in this thesis. It can be concluded that
weighting these attributes is one of the important criteria in the working of this
framework. The owner might consider seeking guidance from professional
consultants such as architect, engineer, designer, etc. for this purpose. Additionally,
these attributes were identified based on themes identified by the researcher rather
than by quantitative methods. An owner might want to add certain attributes, which
they consider important for their institution that might influence their decision-

making process.

117

2. The attributes, relevant to each credit, were presented according to their relation with
the objectives of sustainable construction — environment, community and economic
issues. It can be concluded that the focus of any institution can be either one or all
these three considerations, as demonstrated with the hypothetical case study, where
economic consideration was the deciding factor whether or not to pursue certain
credits.

3. From the ‘proof of concept’ responses presented in chapter six, it can be concluded
that institutions typically use the same decision-making process as suggested by the
framework developed by this research. However, the framework formalizes this
process, which might be helpful for some members of the institution.

4. After reviewing the demonstrative case Study, the researcher concluded that the
framework could be made more user-fi‘iendly by simplifying the terms in the
framework. The researcher believes that simplifying certain terms will help the owner

better understand the framework and make it more usable.

7.8 Chapter Summary

This chapter concluded the thesis, presented contributions of this research,
limitations, recommendations for institutional project owners and areas of future

research.

118

APPENDICES

119

APPENDIX A

LEED-NC Sustainable Sites (SS) and Water Efficiency (WE) Credits

120

Sustainable Sites

Hendee [2006] has defined a sustainable site as “the one in which land use densities,
civil, planning, landscape, water use, and other issues are taken into consideration and
planned for in a way that assists in reducing the ecological footprint of a new

construction on the ecosystem” [Hendee 2006].

SS Prerequisite 1: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention (Formerly: Erosion and
Sedimentation Control) - This credit is a prerequisite that any development should obtain
in order to qualify for any of the points within the overall SS category. The intent of this
credit is “to reduce pollution from construction activities by controlling soil erosion,
waterway sedimentation and airborne dust generation”. The requirements are to:

1) “Prevent loss of soil during construction by stormwater runoff and/or wind
erosion, including protecting topsoil by stockpiling for reuse” since erosion greatly
reduces the soil’s ability to support plant life, regulate water flow, and maintain the
biodiversity of soil microbes and insects that controls disease and pest outbreaks;

2) “Prevent sedimentation of storm sewer or receiving streams” since sedimentation
degrades water quality and

3) “Prevent polluting the air with dust and particulate matter”.

Typically, an Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan will be required with any
development proposal. “Techniques used for erosion control include a variety of
measures such as temporary and permanent seeding, mulching, earth dikes, silt fencing,

sediment traps and sediment basins” [USGBC-2].

121

SS Credit 1: Site Selection — The intent of this credit is “to avoid development of
inappropriate sites and reduce the environmental impact from the location of a building
on a site”. The best strategy for site selection is to choose a previously developed site that
has already been disturbed in order to limit damage to the environment and preserve
sensitive land areas. The first requirement encourages development on portions of sites
that are not considered to be prime farmlands. Another requirement prevents
development of “land whose elevation is lower than 5 feet above the elevation of the 100-
year flood”. Other requirements states that no development should be carried out on “land
identified as habitat for any species, within 100 feet of any water including wetlands,
previously undeveloped land that is within 50 feet of a water body, land which prior to
acquisition for the project was public parkland, unless land of equal or greater value as
parkland is accepted in trade by the public landowner”. It is suggested that during the site
selection process, such sites that do not include sensitive site elements and restrictive land

types be preferred [USGBC-2].

SS Credit 2: Development Density & Community Connectivity — The intent of this
credit is “to channel development to urban areas with existing infrastructure, protect
greenfields and preserve habitat and natural resources”. This credit requires “construction
to be carried on a previously developed site and in a community with a minimum density
of 60,000 sq. ft. per'acre net. The second option is to carry out construction on a
previously developed site within 1/2 mile of a residential zone or neighborhood which
has an average density of 10 units per acre net and within 1/2 mile of at least 10 Basic

Services such as bank, library, post office etc. such that there is pedestrian access

122

between the building and the services”. It is suggested to select such an urban site that

has pedestrian access to a variety of services [USGBC-2].

SS Credit 3: Brownfield Redevelopment — The intent of this credit is to “rehabilitate
damaged sites where development is complicated by environmental contamination,
reducing pressure on undeveloped land”. To qualify for this credit, “development must be
carried out on a site documented as contaminated or on a brownfield site as defined by
local, state or federal government agency”. Strategies include — preferring brownfield
sites for development, identifying tax incentives and property cost savings, coordinating

site development with remediation activity [USGBC-2].

SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation — The intent of this
credit is “to reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile use”. This
credit requires “locating project within ‘/2 a mile of commuter rail, light rail or subway
station or alternatively the project should be located within % mile of bus lines that could
be used by building occupants”. It is suggested to site the building near mass transit

[USGBC-2].

SS Credit 4.2: Alternative Transportation: Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms -
The intent of this credit is to “reduce pollution and land development impacts from
automobile use”. To meet the criteria for this credit, “the building should provide secure
bicycle racks and/ or storage for 5% of the building occupants and also provide shower

and changing facilities in the building for 0.5% of Full-Time Equivalent occupants”. It is

123

recommended to design the buildings with such amenities in order to qualify for this

credit [USGBC-2].

SS Credit 4.3: Alternative Transportation: Low Emitting & Fuel Efficient Vehicles
— The intent of this credit is “to reduce pollution and land development impacts from
automobile use”. There are three options to achieve this credit. First, by “providing low-
emitting and fuel-efficient vehicles for 3% of Full-Time Equivalent occupants and also
providing parking facilities for these vehicles”, this credit could be achieved. Second
option is “to provide parking facilities for such vehicles for 5% of the total parking
capacity on the site and the third option is to install alternative-fuel refueling stations for
3% of the total vehicle parking capacity of the site”. It is suggested to consider sharing

the costs and benefits of refueling stations with neighbors [USGBC-2].

SS Credit 4.4: Alternative Transportation: Parking Capacity — The intent of this
credit is “to reduce pollution and land development impacts from single occupancy
vehicle use”. Non-residential development to qualify for this credit should provide
parking that does not exceed minimum local zoning requirements and 5% of the total
parking space should be reserved for carpools or vanpools. Technical strategies that could
be used to obtain this credit are: minimize parking lot/ garage size, share parking facilities
with adjacent buildings or consider alternatives that will limit the use of single occupancy

vehicles” [USGBC-2]..

124

SS Credit 5.]: Site Development: Protect or Restore Habitat (Formerly: Reduced Site
Disturbance: Development Footprint) — The intent of this credit is “to conserve existing
natural areas and restore damaged areas to provide habitat and promote biodiversity. If
the development is to be done on a greenfield site, then in order to obtain this credit, it is
required to limit all site disturbance to 40 feet beyond the building perimeter; 10 feet
beyond surface walkways, patios, surface parking and utilities less than 12 inches in
diameter; 15 feet beyond primary roadway curbs and main utility branch trenches; and 25
feet beyond constructed areas with permeable surfaces that require additional staging
areas in order to limit compaction in the constructed area. If the development is to be
carried out on a previously developed or graded site, it is required to restore or protect a
minimum of 50% of the site area with native or adapted vegetation. It is possible to
achieve this credit by minimizing disruption to existing ecosystems, minimizing the
building footprint, minimizing disruption of the existing site, restoring previously
degraded areas to its natural state and prohibiting plant materials listed as invasive or

noxious weed species” [USGBC-2].

SS Credit 5.2: Site Development: Maximize Open Space — The intent of this credit is
“to provide a high ratio of open space to development footprint to promote biodiversity”.
One of the following three options could be satisfied in order to achieve this credit. The
first option is “to reduce the development footprint and/ or provide vegetated open space
within the project boundary to exceed the local zoning’s open space requirement for the
site by'25%”. The second option is for areas with no local zoning requirements. They can

achieve this credit by “providing vegetated open space area adjacent to the building that

125

is equal to the building footprint. The third option is for the area where a zoning
ordinance exists, but there is no requirement for open space. They can qualify for the
credit by providing vegetated open space equal to 20% of the project’s site area.
Strategies include designing the building with minimum footprint to minimize site
disruption and adopting a master plan for the development of the project site” [USGBC-
2].

Major credit changes from LEED-NC 2.1 to 2.2: “Open space definition has been refined

to address both urban and suburban settings” [USGBC-3].

SS Credit 6.]: Stormwater Design: Quantity Control (Formerly: Storm water
Management: Rate and Quantity) — The intent of this credit is “to limit disruption of
natural water hydrology by reducing impervious cover, increasing on-site infiltration,
reducing or eliminating pollution from stormwater runoff, and eliminating contaminants.
If existing imperviousness is less than or equal to 50% then this credit could be achieved
by implementing a stormwater management plan that prevents the post-development peak
discharge rate and quantity from exceeding the pre-development peak discharge rate and
quantity for the one— and two-year 24-hour design storms. The other method is to
implement a stormwater management plan that protects receiving stream channels from
excessive erosion by implementing a stream channel protection strategy and quantity
control strategies. But if the existing imperviousness is greater than 50%, then this credit
could be achieved by implementing a stormwater management plan that results in a 25%
decrease in the volume of stormwater runoff from the two-year 24—hour design storm.

Project site could be designed in such a way so as to maintain natural stormwater flows

126

by promoting infiltration. Irnpervious surfaces could be minimized by vegetated roofs,
pervious paving etc. methods could be adopted to reuse stormwater for non-potable
purposes such as landscape irrigation, toilet and urinal flushing and custodial uses”

[USGBC-2].

SS Credit 6.2: Stormwater Design: Quality Control (Formerly: Storm water
Management: Treatment) — The intent of this credit is “to limit disruption and pollution
of natural water flows by managing stormwater runoff. To qualify for this credit, a
stormwater management plan should be implemented in order to reduce impervious
cover, to promote infiltration, and to capture and treat the stormwater runoff from 90% of
the average annual rainfall using acceptable best management practices (BMPs).
Strategies include using alternative surfaces such as vegetated roofs, pervious pavement
or grid pavers and nonstructural techniques such as rain gardens, vegetated swales,
disconnection of imperviousness, rainwater recycling to reduce imperviousness and
promote infiltration thereby reducing pollutant loadings. Other strategies include using
sustainable design techniques to design integrated natural and mechanical treatment
systems such as constructed wetlands, vegetated filters, and open channels to treat
stormwater runoff” [USGBC-2].

Major credit changes from LEED-NC 2.1 to 2.2: “Stormwater control systems must be
capable of treating 90% of runoff and removing 80% of total suspended solids. System

performance information on phosphorous removal is no longer required” [USGBC-3].

127

SS Credit 7.1: Heat Island Effect: Non-Roof — The intent of this credit is “to reduce
heat islands (thermal gradient differences between developed and undeveloped areas) to
minimize impact on microclimate and human and wildlife habitat”. This credit could be
obtained by satisfying any one of the following to requirements: “1) Provide any
combination of the following strategies for 50% of the site hardscape (including roads,
sidewalks, courtyards and parking lots): Shade (within 5 years of occupancy), Paving
materials with a Solar Reflectance Index (SR1)2 of at least 29, Open grid pavement
system. 2) Place a minimum of 50% of parking spaces under cover (defined as under
ground, under deck, under roof, or under a building). Any roof used to shade or cover
parking must have an SRI of at least 29. The following techniques could be used to
satisfy the above requirement - shading constructed surfaces on the site with landscape
features and utilizing high-reflectance materials for hardscape, Replacing constructed
surfaces (i.e. roof, roads, sidewalks, etc.) with vegetated surfaces such as vegetated roofs
and open grid paving or specifying high-albedo materials to reduce the heat absorption”

[USGBC-2].

SS Credit 7.2: Heat Island Effect: Roof — The intent of this credit is “to reduce heat
islands (thermal gradient differences between developed and undeveloped areas) to
minimize impact on microclimate and human and wildlife habitat”. There are three
options to achieve this credit. First, “by using roofing materials that have a Solar
Reflective Index (SRI) equal to or greater than the following values for a minimum of
75% of the roof area: Low-Sloped Roof (Slope <= 2:12), SR1 should be >=78 and for

High-Sloped Roof (Slope >=2:12), SR1 should be >= 29. Second, by installing a

128

vegetated roof for at least 50% of the roof area this credit could be achieved. Third, by
installing high albedo and vegetated roof surfaces that, in combination, meet the
following criteria: (Area of SRI Roof / 0.75) + (Area of vegetated roof / 0.5) >= Total
Roof Area. Installing hi gh-albedo and vegetated roofs could be considered to reduce heat
absorption” [USGBC-2].

Major credit changes from LEED-NC 2.1 to 2.2: “New performance metric (Solar

Reflectance Index)” [USGBC-3].

SS Credit 8: Light Pollution Reduction — The intent of this credit is “to minimize light
trespass from the building and site, reduce sky-glow to increase night sky access,
improve nighttime visibility through glare reduction, and reduce development impact on
nocturnal environments”. There are requirements to be satisfied for interior as well as
exterior lighting to qualify for this credit. Following is the requirement for interior
lighting —— “The angle of maximum candela from each interior luminaire as located in the
building should intersect opaque building interior surfaces and not exit out through the
windows. Alternatively, all non-emergency interior lighting should be automatically
controlled to turn off during non-business hours. Manual override capability should be
provided for after hours use”. Following is the requirement for exterior lighting - “Only
light areas as required for safety and comfort, not exceeding 80% of the lighting power
densities for exterior areas and 50% for building facades and landscape features as
defined in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004, Exterior Lighting Section, without

amendments. Design strategies include adopting site lighting criteria to maintain safe

129

light levels while avoiding off-site lighting and night sky pollution, minimizing site
lighting where possible and model the site lighting using a computer model” [USGBC-2].
Major credit changes from LEED-NC 2.1 to 2.2: “Requirements for control of interior
lighting to prevent spillover and restructuring of the exterior lighting requirement”

[USGBC-3].

Water Efficiency

WE Credit 1.1: Water Efficient Landscaping: Reduce by 50% - The intent of this
credit is “to limit or eliminate the use of potable water, or other natural surface or
subsurface water resources available on or near the project site, for landscape irrigation.
This credit requires reducing potable water consumption for irrigation by 50% from a
calculated mid-summer baseline case. These reductions shall be attributed to any
combination of the following items: plant species factor, irrigation efficiency, use of
captured rainwater, use of recycled wastewater, use of water treated and conveyed by a
public agency specifically for non-potable uses. Following are the strategies: Perform a
soil/climate analysis to determine appropriate plant material and design the landscape
with native or adapted plants to reduce or eliminate irrigation requirements, where
irrigation is required use high-efficiency equipment and/or climate-based controllers”

[USGBC-2].

WE Credit 1.2: Water Efficient Landscaping: No Potable Water Use or No

Irrigation — The intent of this credit is “to eliminate the use of potable water, or other

natural surface or subsurface water resources available on or near the project site, for

130

landscape irrigation. This credit could be achieved by achieving WE Credit 1.1 and also
by satisfying one of the following two options: Using only captured rainwater, recycled
wastewater, recycled greywater, or water treated and conveyed by a public agency
specifically for non-potable uses for irrigation or install landscaping that does not require
permanent irrigation systems. Temporary irrigation systems used for plant establishment
are allowed only if removed within one year of installation. The strategies include
performing a soil/climate analysis to determine appropriate landscape types and
designing the landscape with indigenous plants to reduce or eliminate irrigation
requirements. Also, using stormwater, greywater, and/or condensate water for irrigation
could be considered” [USGBC-2].

Major credit changes fi'om LEED-NC 2.1 to 2.2: “Use of municipally provided non-

potable water is acceptable for credit compliance” [USGBC-3].

WE Credit 2: Innovative Wastewater Technologies — The intent of this credit is “to
reduce generation of wastewater and potable water demand, while increasing the local
aquifer recharge”. By satisfying one of the following two options, this credit could be
pursued. “First option is to reduce potable water use for building sewage conveyance by
50% through the use of water conserving fixtures (water closets, urinals) or non-potable
water (captured rainwater, recycled greywater, and on-site or municipally treated
wastewater). The second alternative is to treat 50% of wastewater on-site to tertiary
standards. Treated water must be infiltrated or used on-site. Following are some of the
strategies: Specifying high-efficiency fixtures and dry fixtures such as composting toilet

systems and non-water using urinals to reduce wastewater volumes and considering

131

reusing stormwater or greywater for sewage conveyance or on-site wastewater treatment

systems (mechanical and/or natural)” [USGBC-2].

WE Credit 3.1: Water Use Reduction: 20% Reduction — The intent of this credit is “to
maximize water efficiency within buildings to reduce the burden on municipal water
supply and wastewater systems. To qualify for this credit, it is required to employ
strategies that in aggregate use 20% less water than the water use baseline calculated for
the building (not including irrigation) after meeting the Energy Policy Act of 1992 fixture
performance requirements. These calculations are based on estimated occupant usage and
include only the following fixtures (as applicable to the building): water closets, urinals,
lavatory faucets, showers and kitchen sinks. It is suggested to use high-efficiency
fixtures, dry fixtures such as composting toilet systems and non-water using urinals, and
occupant sensors to reduce the potable water demand. Also, reuse of stormwater and
greywater for non-potable applications such as toilet and urinal flushing and custodial

uses could be considered” [USGBC-2].

WE Credit 3.2: Water Use Reduction: 30% Reduction — The intent of this credit is “to
maximize water efficiency within buildings to reduce the burden on municipal water
supply and wastewater systems. To qualify for this credit, it is required to employ
strategies that in aggregate use 30% less water than the water use baseline calculated for
the building (not including irrigation) after meeting the Energy Policy Act of 1992 fixture
performance requirements. These calculations are based on estimated occupant usage and

include only the following fixtures (as applicable to the building): water closets, urinals,

132

lavatory faucets, showers and kitchen sinks. It is suggested to use high-efficiency
fixtures, dry fixtures such as composting toilet systems and non-water using urinals, and
occupant sensors to reduce the potable water demand. Also, reuse of stormwater and
greywater for non-potable applications such as toilet and urinal flushing, mechanical

systems and custodial uses could be considered” [USGBC-2].

133

APPENDIX B

LEED Certified Buildings in the “Great Lakes” Region

134

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

€32 assuage baa”.
3.5st mm @2280 EEO meoafim 533 moorcom _Scofiuohamhoaaa 2
3208258800 913 2038.2 850 95:33. 830 580
can Eon—«Em _.N 32:00 225.53 3 View 13232 “BE - Egon E in 8:282 ES E
5280
c965 .8532 ON 200 anaun ban—~80 882 Rom 5300 Big owaom You 2
ease ..538 _8602
0.50 .28: mm 2.2.250 fiasco ~852 WE2 Edam: 5800 5280 cm .3203 .H @8203 N—
RucoEmE «225-232 mEnum 0.:
.850 3805800 o.~ “gum EEO .meEom gm Eaten—venom 8368m< gum _ _
53:22
thfiuus ON 200 Mona SE mo basins acougonom wEEEm SEQ Hm 9
$532 £85m
3:32:22: mm 3:350 “EEO 233m 2:3 “meow b85805 5.88m mung a
$552 floonum
Eaeuaii QN 335. 2:30 233m 2:: awoken M850 8.2. 8E man 320.2 w
Eons £82
Hoofloi Eooficm
Eghaih: mm 3250 :0on 235m .6on £5.00 302% :0on N.
magnum £00st
3:95.555 mm 2.2.2900 EEO 233 2:3 “mouom mac—Sm 5:85 .52 mmmm o
850 3868800 ON 200 wan—ooN .05 5:22 custom 8% 8m2 _0 5:22 5:53 m
mucosa
3825.80 QN 2.2.560 wooBSum 6.82 @533 0:82 .57. wfiEom 58562 03 v
@5936... 8252380 musing @3525
850 3808800 o.m 200 wnfiooN .«o 9.90 5950 an - 82.3832 352 55.83 2:. m
€2un mfioonom
Beggar: QN 282.2200 EEO £33 £5 680.2 Begum _Sconaohgm 2:23.000 N
.980 mooEom
582550 QN 30960 ism qo=< was .582 Eon biog mafia; on on 802 :0th 2
o H Em :32?» madam 90 .8530 252 36?...— oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

135

Amoom K 59080 62650 awn3:180“cabooHEAQQmmghuo.onwm:.333\\u93 ”850m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8:5 0.:
3808800 fin .625 manoofiwam .333 muoggmum marooiwcm 33$ N.
.05 6858.3.
320588 8 Eco 8088 83 88m 2 32.5w 0
gm 860:0
mm B>=m 033 gm 02m owEM 338m - 8mm 02m m
3808800 mm 328.00 «82920 Envoom 25320 v
08—588ng QN 88.2.60 xomBVdEm .2: 292 830 mmmn 8x52 ofimum 8&0 m
38.85.55 o.m 35:00 8508985? map—Em _Eovom munch ..m 3.88532 N
8233288wa 8505.800
8:05:50 mm “02.380 25.320 moorcom E850 .w.D .m.D 88380502 .2 28532 2
our. «Em :23?» “53% _0 .5850 osz woo—.95 oz
00”.:
2:0 5 m 523m 3:350 fin was 0." DZ Gamma h 05 we «SE—_m =Ev>0
Amoom N 83080 686.50 awn.szlaoomohnboohohfimmmdmhodnww:.BBBQHEE ”meadow
8:5 555
mzowmzom 2N 380.550 @880 .3858800 8083M 28820 .0838800 0:993— _N
5280283 38m
3:52.555 mm S>=m 2883?. Dw>0 Ao=a> 2880 in: 2.880 823 on
858 0.45
3808800 fin uoEflo0 “880 .>_. 5860 8852 882:5 wooaoxoum2mm0m 2
3.580
3&0 _.N 200 838282 nowust2mo 50 oEwBocoM 88 323882 58:82 2
38mm 8250
3:98535 mm 200 “880 uwo=o0 8>E0 “$268885 Sufism owo=o0 8>2u0 S
nocmtommqflhooEO 88mm
3808800 2N nougo0 @820 m: 85558.2 :88; 59:86:: 2
:a 322 5 v. 528m— cocuucU fin 6.3 9” DZ 0mm: 3 2: .2 Han—85m =uuo>0

 

 

136

Amoom K 009080 60:23 awn..mzlao088>0£0~E0mmghuo.0nwws.33><\u93 ”00.83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

033800 0902 NOON commnmnxm 00800 80882050
220008800 _.N 0000000 8203003 000030040122 830$ 8000300 .0 253 v
80800 08:02
0800 9850.2 o.N 200 22995 non=0=< 520m 0800 00802 nonaws< Nisom m
wgm 09.580003 080m
080 0050 ON 802% 80005 309800 220m 0050 >0=0> 803% 8000023 020m m
00820900
00222032 28$
9:285 02.0.20 od 009800 000602 20000032 0289.80 9:285 0050 m2 2
0gb wEm 00283» mat; 30 00:30 080 Z 32.0.5 I 0z
L o 0
80:03.35 8 a 82:5 02.3.50 fl N 0:0 c N 02 QHHA v 05 a. «880m =30>0
Amoom K 003800 ”002050 ngmzlnopaoabg.nohfiflmmdwuodpmgégéuga ”0080m
2d 0025 03030 05 200m 8088052 9202.25.32 720.2me 0
850002 2d 525 208.52 208002.20 8302. 830002 05020 $002230 w
has: £8.20
3:803:05 _.N 008.3000 090.030 0:85 03220 200A 20:0 5855 0:85 03.620 b
800 0052
3.3.0555 _.N 525 coma—gm 280.2 - 5280300 503036002 0
.0895 233m
3:03.03 2” 020050 008.30 00830 0° 06 has: 253 083280 083 0
8088050 ON 002% 090220 092:0 00 5.0 80.505 0020.2 8520 08mm v
0900050.—
~u=fi=§=m=~ ON 02% 085w?~ 380502 088mg 5500.2 baasm .8800 m
08m 8520
38.03.55 2N 02.0800 2005m820m _oosom 32> >213 002% nwi xoofimnzom m
2N 88505 0900220 803.3832 H20 2
00E 020 use; “33. a :55 2:2 .8280 Oz
QN 0Z 9mm: 0 05 .20 ".8883m =30>0

137

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

      

  

 

 

3§h5§u§~ fim voEto0 82:ng 03:00 9555me 5:50 ouaomom owe—30 Bogam b
Eager/am
350 3058800 ON 200 wan—33m 05 mo 325.839 <m wEESm 350 2.5230 c
btoflix 5:50
5.50 ”898280 fin 200 £933sz coEnExm a. 35% 535280 3:833 A 225 m
novbwo _mufifiom EH :0th
fim 53E nwbfimfim bouwiom:00 mmmEm _uoESom EH Ecumtoma00 mania v
65me 30:5
3:3»555 ed 200 Magnum 233m ago—Em _oonom 55805 303.820 m
@335 05282
3:3..555 ed 200 "3:5th mo basins o>uflunomom ~00 8:32: 5250002 N
@580 moomtom
350 3805800 ON 535 :93me 3285a 02m SEo0 oEavfim 02m fl
omwh Mai :22“; “53% NED 5:30 oEaZ 39.9..— a Z
ammu—
«ES: “...—om E a 5315 “55930 flu can 9N 02 9mm: on 05 he .3:—5.6 =Eo>0
Amoom K 83900 68550 %u..w=IHooheumboohoHfiamm—QRS.onwms§33§d3n 605an
26m Rdaofiaohém
Eghafimfi _.~ 200 mmozoM «050 owe—~00 =oqqt0 N
"553?. um
3:3.»555 o.N .625 mzom omo=o0 €550 :osgonum 8:50 ooaofim hoo§o> _
emwh “Em :23?» wnuam a 5:30 via Z 39.9..— oz
9mm:
«.53 E m 52:5 35:00 flu 15“ ad 02 9mm: 95 .«o .3:—5.5 =ahu>0
Amoom K 59900 ”@2650 awn4mm_JoomoaboohoHEQmm‘Hhho.Swaggknat: ”oouzom
85me
3:3.»555 o.~ Hoonom 53M 5m Ecoaflm @8330? 0
o H Em =£m5> can Z 93.95 :2

 

 

138

 

E05 @0000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00:;— 0000m 0: v. 50:05 0050000 0N 000 ed DZ Gama ca 05 .«0

 

 

Eeéafis 3 80050 0:035 05> 82080 be»: .0550 00000 Eossom x
35.05.55 3 28 050050 8000500 55> 309235 00 0,850 000 <0 MN
30000:
03200 80.00 Z 28 050.50 052250 50 002:3 803 mm
00000300. 000000 50000000
000000 5000000000 _.N 003% 0:303th 0000003 0033 0.000030% 0000003 00304 5
..030030: .00 0200090”:
5332 2 52% 0003300 8332 080200.. 0005300 00 8832 ”.8620 8
0000208000: 000503 wEB
3 5:0 0050000 00 028m 080900 fiaoaufim R250 0900 as: 2
0000000800
00:00.03.
03350083 3 800000 5022002 0520880 00230 80050053 0080 2
00230
00230 8000 3 200 5520qu EsmEoz 500 8000 080000 085:8 000 2
:N 200 00000025 0 0:00 00000301 000000 00000.4. 003 000: 0000000 3
030000303 50000303
:0: 0000060”: :.N 33% 09007005 00:02 0&00000 00:02 00000003: 2
00080900 000000
00035 000000: _N 000.0000 :00002 :000m 0035 000.05 :w0_00000H 000 0000000: 00% .m .D E
0:250 8.00 3 020050 220033 0050 .m .3 50980 8&0 38:0 .m .3 2
nowuogmaoU
00250 8000 Z 000 0023020 800 552 8000 0500 850082 000-5 2
00250 8000 ..N 000 080000 80508.0 002 05000 8000 0.5000 000 :
020%
8000 3208080 Z 28 059502 €250 EB: H280 00.0 a 300 £0 2
50000303 50000303
£an 0000200: 9N 00>:w 030030.: 00:02 0_w0E00 0000:: 302 o
03:00 00000300. wEEEm 0000000
003 08050-23: 3 80050 08.0 ”00:00 «003 0.32000 0500 < - 000 5020 w

 

 

 

139

Room K 000000 ”000.550 0000003008000000000\Dmmdw0000000.3330”000 080cm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00:3.

 

000.— 00 m 50:30 0050000 fin 000 :.N 02 ammu— 0N 05 00

 

 

 

  
 

 

 

000000000:
0.05-0002 0m 025 080:0 0wo:00 000000: 000000 000000005 0 0
000000003 .0050 :.N 0:00 000000000 000 $3.00.."— 0009m 000:0m 0000 00:. 03.0000 3
00000000000
002.0 ..N 8550 80033 00000 000 .5002 8005800 002.0 000 $002 0
b00030: 000 00000
E06000 0000000000 0m 02,0000 0000: 30000203 :00000 020000: 0000000000 0000000 30>? w
<00m .00 0020800. 000000 000000< 000 00000 mom 00.0
0000 000050 :.N 02% 0000.: 00.0005 0>0000xm 0900030 <00m 50000 0020.000. 0
000:00
00.00.05.005 0N 0000000 000508;: 0000033 003m 00.000 3 00005 2000083 0
000000 0300000000 0d 000.0000 0:00.030 0000030 Em 000000 0000000000 0w0:._> 0000000000 m
oN 00>:w >08000000m 0000000000 200000 0000000000.— _0000w0M HOG m>Z v
0300:00m E00003 000585 000000 0:003
00000 00000m _.N 02.00000 00.82 000 000000 000.00bm b03005 000:0Q .E 0000000 000. m
0.: 000060030
ON 0:00 000% 302 0000000. 0030 000000. 0030 ombbflom 000. N
0000500000
080000000>0m 00
900000059 0050 ON 0025 0000?. 000a 008m 000». 302 08000000 00000 0030000m mmo _
, our. M05 0000000» wifim Mm: 000.50 00—02 «09.0...— :2
mafia
few 307: E v. 30:50 00.50000 flu 00.w 9N 02 Cum: 3 05 00 HaEE0m =000>O
Goon K 000900 ”000050 0mm.Hm:I000_000bo0h000\QmmA\w00.0003.3330000 “00000w
E 520 003030 03800010 £50 85 0.500 E 3
0080303
0000.05.00: 0N 000.0000 09003.00 00:02 0&00000 000000 000000 mm

 

 

 

 

140

APPENDIX C

SS and WE Credits obtained by LEED Certified Buildings in “Great

Lakes” Region

141

{av—Hm

Xbmdm
o\omv. K

.x.
8.9:

o\oow.mv
$3.?
va. :.
.xbwdv
$5.03
$.0de
gowdv
$3.5m

$3.:

$9.:
$3.:

$3.?
£3de

£3 6m
960.8 @0355

35 $8.83
mo 258$

 

5:0:qu
x8 5888z 3: 533 €83

 

O

 

we“ Bogooh 5332mm? 03535: ”mug

 

 

coca F: 02 no 83 oESom
oz awn—£8283 EEUEM 53>? ”N. 53

 

....

gem B 833
.wfianowvumq 2565mm 583 n _. EB

 

a
34]
g...

 

 

8:03“; 85.8 E 3 ”ma

 

mood Juotm 98—m— Hmo: ”NR“.

 

 

mm ESE “we: ”fit“.

 

 

 

v1 v4 v4 val

 

 

VD 533::on “New.

 

 

 

 

oo~~o°§
o—-—-—-o°o

Ov—‘v—Ov—‘G

35:0va
bcgo dwium Baapcofi “ficmm

 

'—

8QO
EEO REESE JEEQGEBQ ”Em ”Nwwm

 

8:22»
2030M mo 838m .EvEQEoEQ “Em ;.mmm

 

:8 no
wags.”— docmtoamcmfir 332:8? 66mm

 

m£0Ev> EfloEmAuzm can 9:285
-304 dozmtomvdw; 035522 ”mdmm

 

mEoom E 525 a. 0 88m
2985 douse—0&5; “359:8? umémm

 

mmuoo< cocatoqéflh
233m .cocntonmcfih 033582 “fivmw

 

.—

O

O

O

EoEmoESBM Eocgohm ”mmm

 

Nz>coo§o0
saw—2:800 as 3.550 Sewage—gun “Nmm

 

nocoflom ozm U_mm

 

_Soh

 

 

 

 

3%
oBuBQ—om ,
:4 £32

uqefiom E

 

 

 

 

 

.555 38.2.” 58—

 

 

£86

 

Mam

 

 

 

sole:

 

 

142

 

gong m o o H H H H H o 83m :25 Base:
guano—gun uzm “Nmmm

 

 

 

Renae m o H H H H H o o HSBM: 293m Ho 32on
"50:5ngqu 8% ”mem

o\oom.mc w H H o o H H o H ESE—mu magnum .HHoHHSHoamHHHH
u>HHmEBH< ”Yvwm

$8.3 v H o H o o H H 0 83E; EoHoEmHoan Ham

wEEHméQH ,HHoHHSHoQHSH
033822 Uméwm

£6mb 5 H H H o H H H H mEooM wEwHHaHHU Q
quon 2985 62:333th
o>HHmEoHH< ”mémm

38.3 v o H o o H H o H 3.82 soHacommsE
UHEHE docmtoamfich
”335814. UHémm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:6me H o o o o o H o o EoEmWHgoHBM 2&5»on Nmmm
$002 H o H o o o o o o bH>HH8=HoUJHH=HEoU
a. bacon HoHQEoEQ ”Nmm
O$8.3. c H H o H H H o H socouHom 8% HHmm
Hsoh £620
8680 H952 «can Hm £3552 8% HES , Hooaow owaox , 2,85 Humnam A 8&8»—
vosmba , -64.: , ,W H , ,, 8H, , 4.2;: ,ommkvooc Eon: 30505 ,_ , , ,
Hue , , ,. ,
£8.85
.«0 «Gout—Om
8d a mad 38.95 spam“:
soon ,8 HE< 625$ g3.uHH-.>>s.?i>. Emu SBMSEHEE ”venom
a , , ,2: , ,_.., _S. 1:: ., saw a. H. 4 _, ,,
,NN, V. ,1, :V, , ,,,_,,.N, i , _H. , _m , , 5 ,.: ..., .
$3.? v H H o H accustom
gem .HHoHHosHVoM 8: H835 ”mam?
3:56 conga meonH m oHonNovH AH: oonHoU Hum mfi< Hue—HP;
Ha QSMSQ oHnaBonom a. 52.6 .32 HE; me .025
no H083 HH< .HHqu 3
j H." 02-555 38.95 Emma; na 32: 5: :50 «3.5 23.. w

 

 

143

$8.3
$00;
$695

$8.3

$8.2.

$3.3
.Xémdc

o\ooo.om
gomfim
$00.8

8:88
wonfism
HS

38 .85
.3 Beach

 

 

 

38.02

8:65 @3qu 35
38 .85 .Ho HooHom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N H H 3%
H88. 3680
HE 4am 50.on
0an 38:

 

 

H.:H :80 825 23.. m

 

 

 

 

 

 

Handgun exam
doHHoHHvoM SD .533 .N. mm?

 

soHHosvom Ram
dengue“ 32 .533 ”Ham?

 

monoEEHooH

583833 03:32:: ”mm?

 

85qu 02
Ho 95 0380; oZ .mfinmomcg
HHHoHoEm 53>? “N. Hm?

 

p-¢

...

'—

x.% .3 835x .mamaomuafi
Hmofiofim SW3. H :3,

 

 

 

,.HHoHHoHHHH,3H aoHHsHHom 3 HA .wmw,

 

wood 80am 983 28$ Hmfimm

 

l—‘P-‘I—‘Hk

—'OO

o v—‘o‘e

.... o—‘o‘

O v—1—‘VI

Hog
-82 .605 HEE Em ”Emm

 

.—

HobHoU NMHHHHHHM

amid HSmBHEon UNomm

 

 

 

 

H382
-.E .2

 

SEQ Ham

 

AQN a

 

c

58552

SH

 

8v. HHS

[Ed

 

32%

2:3680

 

H

owned
Eon

 

 

o

8qu

mean

 

HobHHoD NWHHSHM

.memofl 533::on ”Hdwm

 

Hanna

 

 

H8 .85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 
 

 

$8.8 H H o monoHoHHouH

533833 ”>396an “mm?

$8.0m H H o :03qu 02

Ho 83 oHHHSonH oz .wHHHHmomHHQH

HoHoEmH BE? ”ME?

$8.8 H H o 3% .3 088m .msmsmHawH

HoHoEmH 333 H H .HmHB

. _HH. , H, HE. HN _ .... .HH ,, ., . ,2, ...; ..H 3. :, 3.. , h

$8.03 N H actuated HoHHHHHHoAH E S mem

$8.0 o o .Hoom .Hoobm HuHHmHmH HaoHrH ”mem

$8.8 H H 0 wood

.52 .Hoobm HHHHHwH HaoHH uH88

$8.0m H H o Hobcoo

bHHSHO .HHmHmonH HonBHEon Hmbmm

$8.8 H o H Hobuoo flammmmw

.anmonH 583885 H H .cmm

$8.8 H o H can m :0 oNHEHwaSH

.HoHHHoHoBD oHHm Hmdww

$86 0 o o HSEHHHH 293m Ho

38on 4583359 8% H68

$8.8 H o H £896 WEE

.aonaflonflafi 033822 ”tvmm

$8.0 o o o m...HoHHHe>

HEHQHHHMHHBH HUSN wHHEHaméoH

.HHoHHSHoHHmHNHH. 033582 Hmémm

$8.8H N H H mHooyH

meHHHHU Hm owEon 20>on

.HHoHHutoHHmHHSH 038822 ”Némm

$8.0m H o H $83.. 8:88 and; £33

.HoHHSHoHHHHH. u>HHmEoHH< H H .vmm

$86 0 o o H2: oHo>uvo~H 28:3on Hmmm

$86 o o o H>HH8HHoU HHHHHHoU

a. bind HoHHHoHo>oQ “mmm

$80.6 HuoHHEHH HE 80...on
58.85 .Ho Hausa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

145

 

 

 

 

$8.6m H H 6 3250 555:0
demoQ .HoHaBEHon H H 63
$8.6m H H 6 83m 560 035522
45862309 8% 66mm
$66.6n H H 6 HSEHHHH Bowed we
88on .EoEHHoHoRVQ BHm “Hawm
$8.6 6 6 6 bHoamU MESA
506886959 o>HHnE2H< Hvémm
$666 6 6 6 onoEo>
EoHoEmHHoHHnH can maEHEmHéoH
.coHHatomquH 033583. Hm.vmm
$66.6 6 6 6 mEooyH
wflwcmzo a. 092on 2935
623:3?qu o>HHmE2H< Hmémw
$666m H H 6 mmooo< sonata SSH. 233m
dosutommafih o>HHmE8H< H H .vwm
$66.6n H H 6 =58 232.0% 20¢:on ummm
$666n H H 6 HH>HHooSHoU HHEHEEoU
a. @655 HaoEmoHo>oQ “mwm
$66.6m H H 6 8:023 gm HHmm
HSoH £620
2620 saga EH . , . .Hva 7% HRHEH ,
388a? quoHom .H H, ... . 133m . EEO . i , , ,, _
6." cam 3865 Emma‘— on¢ 5.3 E60 825 63.. m
366m .6N HHHHH< “63656 mmm.HmHHIHoo.HoHHH\Hoo ..onRHmHmHH $0683.33} :85 HouHHHom
h~ , , $5 ..6. : ,
rll11tr+ H . . . . . V . . _. _,
.... ......” H .51.. E: m. 1. . 5H . . . H; : NEH.
$666n H H :oHHoHHHHBH
$6m .HHoHHozHVoMH 3.3 H885 ”mama
$8.63 N H H accused
$6m .HHoHHoHHHVBH 8: 333 ”Ham?
8:53 @0359 HS: VHHSMH am So ...on

$8.85 .Ho Bop—om

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

  

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

146

 

HHoHHooHom oHHm HHmm

 

 

 

 

  

3.862 V H H H
638. £620
£85 ,. ., 58:2 HE. . Eu a 30.3:
62556 , . . 3385 £665 oHHHHHHAH
35 . 988.30 , €83 owes
$8...on
.Ho HHHooHuHH .... .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H." UZAHHHHHH $8.86 Ea”

866N 6N HHHnH< .6oHHmH>V 63. 3: IHooHoHHHHHooHoHHHHQmHmHHwHo. _onm.m:.. EHH. at: .850m

$66.6
$66.6
$66.6

$8.6m

$66.63

$8.62
$66.62
$66.8

$66.8

860.8 62559 H26
8835 ,Ho HaooHonH

 

 

 

.HHHHHHEHHHH 5.: sawzzm Hi: m

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:oHHmHH63H
$6M .HHoHHoHH6oyH 83 Hon 3 .N. m3
6 6 6 noHHo=6o~H
$6N .HHoHHuHHHHBH 83 .533 HH.m.ur3
6 6 6 ononoSHooH
83323 3 03555: Nm 3
H H 6 :oHHuwaH 92
Ho 83 2680A 02 661386an
HHHoHoEmH H863 HN.HmH3
N H H $6n 3H oos6o~H $363363
HHHoHoEm 5.33. H _HmH_3
N H H HHoHHoHH6o~H HHoHHHHHHonH HHHwHH wmw
N H H Hood Hoobm 6H8HmH HmoHH .N. hmm
H H 6 .HooyH
.602 3&3 6§HmH HmoHH HH.H.mm
H 6 H 3.280
bHHSHO .HHmeonH .5336:on N6mm
6Hm onamH Hoo.HoHnH

Hfio6onH HHHHHHO

 

 

 

 

  

 

147

$66.6
$66.6m

$66.3.

$66.6n
$66.2.
$66.3.
$66.mN
$66.6N
$66.6m
$66.mN
$66.3

$66.mN

$66.6n
$66.3.

$66.6
$66.nN

$608 62556 H96
$8.85 60 Havana

 

8mm. oHquHooH.

53383 3 o>HHHH>oHHHHH ”Nm3

 

 

HHoHHa EH 02 Ho SD oHHHSoHH oz
.wHHHHHHHomHHHHHJ HaoHoHHHmH 833 UN. HmH3

 

 

$6n 3 8:63H
$623863 323mm HBHH 3 HH.HMH3

 

 

I4. =1 . . ,
a; 35H
.2. . L. H H.

 

 

SEEM aoHsHHoH Em: Hmmw

 

 

Hood astm 6:53 How UN.H..mm

 

 

mooyHHHoZ .Hoobm 652 :83 uH.H.mm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3%
5:85 .6339 533::on N63
6 6 H 6 H0280
bHHHHHHHHO .ameoQ HBHNBHEon ”H.6mm

o H H o @301
oNHEmeHZ .HHHoEHHngoQ BHm ”Nwmm
6 6 H 6 HSHHHHHHH 888M
.3 68on .HHHoHHHHHoHo>unH 35 ”mem

o o H o g
.noHHSHoHHmHHEH. o>HH~EoHH< “véwm

o H o o a
EHQEHHHUEH HE ”555-33
.HHoHHmtoHHmSHHH o>HHHHEBH< ”Ovmw
H 6 H 6 good HHH HHSHU a. o 8on 0H0 onH
.HHoHHSHonHmHHEH. o>HHHHEoHH< “Némm
H H H 6 3084... 8693 quH. oHHnHHHHH
.HHoHHSHonHmHHEH. u>HH~EoHH< H H .vmm
6 6 6 6 :68 oHu>o63H 636:3on “mmm
H 6 6 6 bH>HHooHEoU 3658800
a. 36qu HHHoEHHoHo>onH ”Nmm

8532 H: :6 has: EH3.

.5885 235 23an
“.8820 .m $8.30
$03

 

 

 

Hm: £25: 5: :50 HeloHHmiHHLlaonm

 

148

$66.mN
$66.6m

8H6oHo 625.56 35
$8.53 .Ho H8806

 

$66.6m

$66.6

$66.62

$66.66 H

$66.66H

$66.6
$66.6

$66.63

3620 60356 HHHHHH
£8 .85 Ho :8ch

 

H85“: 828%
.Ho 888m 65862050 BHm ”mem

 

@896 $25

#5658698; 033532 Hmvmm

 

moHoHHHu>
HHHoHoEmHHuHHnH 66H... wHHHHHHEmH$>3
.HHoHHutonHmHHSH o>HHmEoHH< ”fivmm

 

mEooyH HHH HHHHHHU Q o 8on 20 em
.HHoHHmtoHHmEHHH 0335261 ”Némm

 

 

mmuoo< HHoHHSHo 38H. oHHHHHHnH
.HHoHHSHoHHmHHEH. u>HHHHEBH< ”Héwm

 

O

 

H88 oHu>o6o~H 2335on 5mm

 

 
 

$68580 HHHHHHEHHHoo
a. meHHonH 26562025 ”wa

 

HHoHHuoHom uHHm HHmm

 

 

 

 

 

5H3.

 

  

 

.2...on

 

 

 

 

 

  

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V QmSmHHIHooHoHHHHHooHoHHHHQmHmH‘HHwHodHmeHHSHBBHHHHHEH HooHHHom

,, . ..6. w . ..hN . H. . H . . gasah
o 6 H 6 56860.6
$6m .coHHoHHHHoM 83 533 HN.MmH3
N 6 H H 6 HHoHHoHH6o~H
$6N .HHoHHoHHHEM 33 .533 HH.HmmH3
858: H: :6 EH HBHSHH

bo>oomHnH oHHHHHHHH oHHHHHHnH

MEHHVHHHHU .m $830

5.5 :80 .366 6.3.. w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

149

Goom 6N HH.H6< 60HHmH>V 6mm. HmHH 1600606660068fiflmmq.

$66.6m
$66.66H
$66.6
$66.63
$66.62
$66.6n
$66.63
$66.6m
$66.6m
$66.6w

$66.6m

06608 603.56 605
$00.86 60 80806

 

600,. 06.60:. Ex. 68: 00,50m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

606066.66
$6M 60605636 003 60603 .N. mm?

 

6060:6066
$6N 60606606 00.3 .5603 ”Haw?

 

monoHoHHHHooH

63030303 03:30an .NmB

 

 

6060 E 02 Ho 00D 03306 02
.mHHH6wow6HHauH HaoHofim 60603 ..N Hm?

 

3% a
.wHH,H6.0006HHS HHH,0,H,0H.mHmH .533. H Hm?

 

Hg... 66

 

,,,, .33....

 

 

:0HH0660M 6063206 3qu .wmm

 

 

600M 60066.6 6603 600E .N. 6mm

 

086-82 .3000 Haas .86 ”3%

 

Hu—th—I

 

35:00
65006 .HHme0Q .HBHNBESm ”Ndmm

 

H0280
©6530 .0389 533::on ”H.666

 

0006m 6060
365082 660862300 06m ”N.mmm

 

 

.0

£006

 

 

 

HHoHHSm

 

80.306

 

 

 

150

$66.6
$66666

$66.63

$66.62
$66.6
$66.6
$66.63
$66.62
$66.62
$66.63
$66.6
$66.6
$66.66H
$66.6

$66.6
$66.6

$66.6

006000 6000.56 006
300806 60 00806

 

monoHoEHooH

0203800 3 0>HH0>0006 ”Nm 3

 

 

0060 .EH 02 00 003 03806
02 6560006004 H00H0£m 0203 ..N Hm3

 

$6n Np 00060~H

 

 

$010,860.06 H00H0mum. 0on 3 H. 663

  

7..

60000606. 020506 3qu .wwm

 

 

600.6 80mm 6002 H00H.H .N bwm

 

 

080-82 0800 032 .80 ”2%

 

 

H00000
3:000 .0mH00Q 02030005 “mem

 

30000
b60000 .0wH00Q H0H0B000Hm ”H.6mm

 

0006w 006m

000000002 .H00H060H0>0Q 0HHm “Nfimw

 

 

H850: 008006
60 88006 .H000H60H0>0Q 0HHm ”Hfimw

 

mHo0m0U M02006
000000600006. 0>HH00H0HH< Hvémm

 

 
 

00H0HHH0> H00H0mumH0HH6 600 00:05
-33 006000600006. 0>HH00H0HH< 5.6mm

 

 

Wan—COM 5 5:0 0% o 0.6on $0 on
00600060086. 0>HH0H00HH< .N. vmw

 

mm000< 00HH0fiomm0006.
0:606 006000600006. 0>HH0000HH< “Hémm

 

O

O

 

H008 2050606 2060305 ”mmm

 

NHH>HH00000U
56000000 0% 550066 H00860H0>0Q .wa

 

00HH00H0m 0HHm .Hmm

 

 

 

 

    
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

151

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$66.62 m H H H 000mm aomO
0.30682 HH0o0060Ho>oQ oHHm “Nfiwm

$0.03 N H o H H550: 20396

.3 H0826 .H00H060Ho>0Q uHHm ”mem

$00.66 N H H 6 6000600 M06606
006800600006. o>HH0000HH< ”Yvww

$mm.mm H H 6 6 moHoHHHo>
HEHouumHHoPH 600 m0HHHHH0mH.33

0068006000; o>HH0000HH< 6.0mm

$8.63 M H H H 000006 0H 0000 a. 0 008m 0H0 0HmH
00050060000.» 0>HH0000HH< “Néwm

$9.9” H o o H 383. 000000 00. 00006
000800600006. 3.000082 U H .vmm

$66.6 6 6 6 6 H008 0H0>o6o~H 6HuHHOBO0mH “mmm

$66.6 6 6 6 6 bH>HH000000 0000000000

0% .HHHm00Q 000062025 ”Nmm

$06.66 N H H 6 00HH00Hom oHHw ”Hmm

3620 w
mHH6000 6000006 , , a 1..
:06 302.006 60 H0000o6 . , ..
H88 .8 HE< 02056 030008HoaHHooHeEommdeo.sagging: H80va

1 , _Z , ., H .,. 3...“: ,, , ,, ,. , , . . :,I,,,.§hf

$66.6 6 00HH0060MH

$6.0. 00000606 on: 0803 HN.mmH3

$86 6 6 00600606

$6N 00000606 83 0803 HH .mmH3

006000 626006 006 0om6H>0nH Hop—.006

300.806 60 H5806 0:: 3
HH.N ONE E00 800 325 6000 m

 

 

 

$66.6

o

$66

$66.6

9608 6000006

006 080.0006 .3 H000006
6.N 02-9mm: 300.006 Ema—H4 3000052 0HB0HH

 

 

O

 

H008 0H0>060~H 6H0H.H0300m ”mmm

 

 
 

H>HH000000 0000009
0% 000009 H00860H0>0Q ”Nmm

 

00HH00H0m 0HHm HHmm

 

 

 

  

0 $0.0m 600.... ..m

 

  

 

£020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$66N .6N HH06< ”60HHOH>H 600.H0HHI HO0H.006\HO0H006\Dmm4\w00 onwwa. 333:. 666 0..,0000m
H HH, ,HHHH _H , , _ 2,:
, , ,. .H, . .,,
$mm.mm 6 00HH0060M
$6m .00HH0060MH 00D 0803 uN.MmH3
$mm.nm H H 6 6 00600606
$6N .00HH0060M 00D 0803 ”60:63
$66.6 6 6 6 6 00w. 2000006.
0803800 3 0>HH0>000H ”NmH3
$5.66 N H 6 H 0060 .EH 02 00 00D 030.06 02
.9060006004 822.1de 080 3 ”N. Hm 3
$8.62 m H H H $6m N6 00060.6
nw0H60006004 HO0HOH.H.H,mH,. 0803. H. Hm3
,.,,.,,.,:_.HH..H_.,_ . ,..,H,H_,,H , :H_H.H, H., 2.1 ,Wfigfig 1.3%
$66.63 00HH0060MH 0oHH0H.H.06 HHH_wH4 .wmm
$mm.mm 600m H0066mH 600H0H H00HH .N 0mm
$mm.mm 600M002 0006.5 600H0H H00: UH.090
$66.66 H0980
5:000 .0wHO0Q 00HOBOHO0Hm “Némm
$06.66 N H H 6 30000
300000 .0wH00Q 00H0BH000Hm ”H.6mm
96000 6000006 NHHHH.H0m H6H0m w6Hm H8306
HOHHH 0.00.0006 .Ho 0000006 00660

 

 

 

 

153

 

$66.6

A$66.6

H$66.6

H$66.62
H$66.6
e$66.6

$66.62

-$66.63

n566.66H
$66.6
Ax666

e0.66.6

B$66.6

00666

006000 6000000
0000 08.80000 00800.0

 

00Hw0H05HooH.
000030000 3 0303005 “NmHB

 

000030.: 02
00 003 030000 02 0500006004
00206: 0003 UN. Hm3

 

 

 

Xon 3 00060m awH0HnH000600q
002%me 00003 uH.HmH3
., _H H.. . .,

,HHE:

  

H
. EH. .

 

 

00H00060m 00HH0HH0m Haws .wwm

 

0030 400mm H.003 H00: uN500

 

0030
-002 080$ 0003 000a H60.00

 

3080 00000
030000 08038020 HN000

 

Jag

de00Q 00003808m HH.0mm

 

00M M iv ONES:

.000800H0>0Q 00m HN. mmm

 

 

H8503 000000~H ‘00 0000000
000802059 3% H63

H00 00 02000 000800 000C.
0>H000000H< “vémm

 

00H0.0H0> 05H0Em-H00nH 600
05080.33 020000000000
O>HudE3~< .m.vwm

 

0800M meEEU 0%
0w008w 20005 00000000000000.
0>H00E2H< HNémm

 

00000< 00H00H00mm00;
250m 400000000000;
03000022 0 H .000

 

 

 

.H0080Hm
.0533

 

000.05

 

6.N UZAHHHA 0000.000— ZPGWHA 5000055 5.50:0 000nm 6000 m

 

154

 

$66.62

$66.63

$66.6

$66.6

$66.6

$66.63

006000
6000000

 

$80 .8 HE... 090.3 05.058.00.0088.0000005303333000: 0880

$66.66 H
$66.66 H
066000 6000000

0000 800.800 hHo 0000000
6.N UZAHHHHMH 300.000 20535 00000052

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H H 00H00H0> 002059300 600

waEHEm-BQH 60600000000;

0300:0003. “mémm

H H 000.00% 9090005 0%

09005 £0.85 4006000000000;

0>HH0E0HH< ”NHme

6 6 00000.00 00000000000;

0:000 0060000000000.

03.000002 ” H .03

6 6 0:0800H0>060~H 6H0m§00m “mwm

6 6 0030000000 .00—0:00.00

0% bH000Q 0000002059 “Nmm

H H 00H000H0w 00m HHmm

H800. 066000

.950 . .. , . . .80....
H... , H . . gawum ..... H H ,H. .,

 

 

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. N, H:,. N . ..,.H. ., ..,.....H...,; ,...,:. .. .,.,, .2:
H H 0060060m $6
.00H00060M 003 00003 HN.H~H.H3
H H 006006000 $6N
£0H00060~H 00 D 00003 ”683
000805 000.800
6.2003

 

5.5000 000.5 6000 m

 

155

H88 .00 0.90 09550 05.093008.0088.0000003303333053 ”8.80

$66.62

$66.62

$66.6

$66.63

$66.62

$66.63
$66.63
$66.63

$66.6

$666

$66.62

$66.62

$66.62

9:55

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0000060~H
$6m doH00060m 003 00003 .N. mm?
H H 00H00060M
$6N 00000600 003 0003 M633
6 6 monoHofiHooh
0000300003 0>00>000H ”mm?
H H 000035 02 .8 00D 05800 02
.w0H000m600xH .0205N .0000)? ”N. H m >9
H H $6w .3 000600
.wfimwwm600q 00.06me. 0000.3. H. Hm?
7.......:Hw .. H . :2. a .n .. ....
H H 0000.060m 000230 E»? ”wwm
H H 0090 0000.5 6003 000m .N. 0mm
H H

003362 0000.3 6022 000m u2.me
6 6 Hobaoo
002000 .0mHm0nH 00003808m ”Nomm
6 6 H8050
300000 .0mHm0Q 000038.88 “H.6mm
H H 000mm 00mm
0000682 n0000002059 02m ”Nmmm
H H 000501 0090040
00 000080 000802050 85 “Hamm
H H 0000000 3.3000
000005000000. 0>H00E00H< “vémm
000000 000.300

0000H0m

0
00§0>
.Hm 6000mm

 

156

$66.66

$66.60

$66.62

$66.6».

$66.6

$66.6

$66.6w

006000
6000000
005
$00 .800
.3
0000000

 

0000000
95:00 00600000000;
0>H00E00H< ”vam

 

00H00H0>

055000-000 0.... 0.5.80
-33 0000000000000.
0>H00E00H< ”mémm

 

mEoom waHmSfiU 0% 09005
£0.35 0000000000000.
0>H00E0=< uméwm

 

$000.0 00000000000;
0:000 00000000000;
0>H00E00H< ” H .vmm

 

“000.020.6600
20.00395 Ummm

 

0030000000 0000:0000
a. meconH 0000002050 ”Nmm

 

00H000H0m 0% Hme

 

 

 

 

@0000
00.2088.

 

08000
50.00 00
0.030
00.500

 

H‘H 0H._c> 302

 

50

$03

 

0:00
000w0Hz

 

«50090.0. 0

 

[.800 05.00

Nfléfim

 

90.0.0

|ll.ll|0&Hm.uj

 

 

 

157

$66.6v
$66.6w

$66.66

006000
6000000
005
$00 .800
00
0000000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 H 6 6 H H0008 b.0005
.0me0Q 00003808m ”H.6mm
H H 6 H H 0000m 0000 00000002
.000800H0>0Q 00m umwmm
H H 6 6 H 0030: 009000 00 000600
.000E0OH0>0Q 00m ”mem
0000 000000 000 0:00 004-8th 000.000
05000000. 02020 0.5 000800 000w0H7H
6EHHoQ 0003
00900

 

IL

 

 

 

HA 03> .502

 

 

 

 

«53310005.. I60000w.

 

158

$66.6V
$66.60q
$66.6m

$66.6w

$66.6w

$66.9V
$66.6N

$66.6w
$66.9V

006000
6000000
0000
0000 .800
00
0000000

 

380 .8 0.9.. 09056 08.00.080.008Hoéom

m$0odnw00§33§000 “0000om

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-.~ UZA—HHA 0000.000 Sham—m

H: 0.0.; 330 «50000000

 

 

 

2 . 0. .0 .00 . $0 6.0.3.:
... .. ... ......n .0.... .. .. . am .00..-.300
6 6 . H 02000600 $6m 00600600
003 00003 ”NE?
m H 6 6 6 H 00000600 $6N 00000600
003 00003 nHaw)?
H 6 6 6 6 H 00Hono00H00H
0000300003 0>H00>o00H ”mm?
0 H H H 6 H 000030.: 02 0o
00D 030000 07H .m0H0000600.H
0006600 00003 ”N. H03
0 H H H 6 H $6w
.3 000600 0500006004
00200000 00003 HH.HmH>>
.00.... . . ...... 0.. . ... ..H . 0.. w . 01.0. . . 00-300
N H 6 H 6 6 00000600
000330 £qu Hwmw
H 6 6 6 6 H 0000
000.000 6002 000m ”~63
v H H H 6 H 0000.030
000000 600H0H 000$ nH.H.wm
N H 6 6 6 H 600000 b.0000
.0wH00Q 000030008m ”Ndmm
:50 000000 000 0:0 0 000-0000 000.800
0500th 0:002 05 0000000 00090.. Z
600HHonH 000?
00.500

 

00005 60'3de

 

159

$66.6N
$66.6N
$66.6

$66.3

$66.66

$66.60

$66.6w

$66.6
$66.66

$66. 66

006000
6000000
020
0000 .800
00
0000000

 

H9050 360000
000009 0000300020 ” H .600

 

0000m 0000 0500682
0000002050 00m nmdwm

 

30000 0000000 .00 0000000
.000802059 00m 0.me

 

0000000
M02000 0068000000;
020000002 ”Yvwm

 

wofioEo>

086000-080 05 05.0080
-33 .000000000000H
030080064. 5000

 

00080 $09300 a. 035%
200000 0000300000000.
0000000040 ”mémm

 

00000< 000050000900.
00300 0000800000000.
0300000002. H Hémm

 

00080203600

 

20003000 ”0.00
0030000000 000000000
0% 00000Q 0000002059 “Nwm

 

0000200 000 HH00

 

 

3.10 0 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

0?; ...»02.

 

 

£00 0000. 080w 6.0.00

..

       
  

 

 

 

000.20

 

m

 

160

$66.66
$66.66
$66.6N

$66.66H

$66.66H

0.8.8
0.8.8
$8.80
0.8.8

006000
6000000
0000
0000 .800
.00
0000000

308 .8 :03 ”020056 03000.8008008020000008.3033330000 0280

     

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3d a—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... ,.,. . .. ,. , an... 33.“
000000600 $6m 000000600
003 00003 ”Nam?
m H H H 6 6 000000600 $6N 4000000600
002 00003 ”H603
H H 6 6 6 6 0003300000.
0000300003 03003005 “mm?
m H H H H H 000003000 02 00
003 03800 02 0000000603
000000.00 00003 ”N. H03
m H H H H H $8
00 000600 $500035;
11:, .2 . .. . .... , .,
m H H H 6 000000600
00000200 0&3 mem
m H H 6 6 H 0000
0000.00 6§H0H 000m HNam
m H H H H H 0000-002
0000.00 6032 000m 0.0mm
H H 6 6 6 6 300000 3.0000
.00000Q 000038005 ”Nemm
0000H0m .anH m>Z 000000 000000 00200000 000.800
000.0 800 000.00
H0005 0m0HH0> 00360000
20000000 060000000

 

000 08.20 E0000 03> Ez .0: :50 0300 Ex: 0

 

161

sun uopenuuuog

 

H.663 .6N HHHQ_< ”60HHmH>v .HHmufiHHI HSHoHnboohonHHnmeuHHwHo. cam? .EQHHHHHHH HooHHHom

 

..,“:THH.§Q,I13°&
S... -33

 

 

        

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 H H _HHoHHoHH60M $6M HHoHH.0HH60~H 0mD H803 ..N mm?
H H 6 H H HHoHHoHH60~H $6N HHoHHoHH60yH 9.5 H033 “Ham?
H H 6 6 6 00H 29303. $338003 0>HH0>oHHHHH ”N95
H H H H H 3

H0 003 03806 02 .wHHHHHmom6HHHwH HHHoHoHHnHmH H033 .N. Hm?
H.\..6w .3 00:60yH HHH 806:3 H60H0H.H.HMH H.063. H. Hm?
a... 3.H
:oHHoHH60yH H.HoHHHHHHo.HH HHHwHH wmm
.Hoox Hooccm 6:03 H00: .N nmm
(Hoomfioz .80me 6:03 H00: uH.H.mm

Hobaoo bHHSHO .HHme0Q 583::on ”Nomm

HobaoU HHHHHHHHH H009 533::on ”H.6mm

000% :08 088682 .HHH0EHHoH0>0Q 0HHm ”Nwmm
H350: 0Hon0yH .Ho 62on €3ng 0HHm “mem
b80600 wHHHuHHHHHH .HHoHHSHoHHmHHErH. 0>HHH~HHHOHH< ”vémm
onoHHHu> HHHoHoEmH

-H0HHHH 6:0 wHHHHHHEmHéoH .HHoHHHEoHHmHHEH 0>HHmEoHH< “mémm
g
0% 0meon 2985 4568563ch 0>HHHHE0HH< Hmémm
mm000<

HHoHHSHoHHmHHSH. 0HHHHHHHH .HHoHHHwtoHHmHHEH 0>HHHHE0HH< ”Hémm
6 E08 oH0>060yH 22.23on ”am
6 HAHH>HH00HHHHoU HAHHHHHHEEoU 0M. meHHOQ HHHofinHoH0>0Q ”mmm
6 HHoHHooH0m 0HHm HHmm
0:605

 

 

 

 

 
      
  

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.—O--OC>OOV-‘V
v—‘6v-‘666v—‘6~

  

fiv—(u—tv—‘OOI—‘o
v—‘OOOO—‘OO
.—.o.—-.—‘ooo.—‘
OOP‘v—‘OOI—‘O

 

O
O
O
.—
O
O
.—

 

'—
v—I
'—
u—a
u—l
'—
'—

 

 

 

 

 

 

v—‘OOO
v-‘OOO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

162

 

$3.66
$66.65
$55.6m
$m6.6w
$H 0N6

$66.6m
$3.56
$66.?
$66.8
$2.66
$N6.65
$w6.mm
$2.66
$55.6m
$H m.N6
$2.66
$55.6m
$55.6m
$H 0N6

mHH60H0
6000.56
HHHHHH
800.85
60
E0806

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H2 2 2 2 NH 2 H
H... H. H. m H m N
o H H H o H o
H: H H H o H o
H. o o H o H o
H H H H H o H H
NH H H H H H H
R H. H H. 2 H. m
m o o H H o o
H o H o o H H
H H H H H o H
H. H H o H o o
0 H o o o H o
H: H H H H H o
m o o H o H o
o H o H H o o
H. o H o H o o
NH H H o H H H
o H H o H o H
H. o o o H o o
H. o H o H o o

- NH H H H H H. H

H98

02.60
0050 Hog—00 :6: .5350 H Omzom
38:0 HHHHH .0 0230: H.500 302
m3 - SHE HmaHm ozHH 000
SH

 

 

uopenupuog

sun

163

sun uonentmuoo

00HH0=60~H HHoHHHHHHoHH

0>HH0E0HH< H6.66.02.

=0HH00H0w 0HHm HHmm
0:605

 

164

$w5.55
$w5.55
$mm.mm
$66.66
$66.62

$66.66
$66.66
$66.66
$H H.HH
$66.66
$56.66
$mm.mm
$56.66
$H H.H H
$66.66
$65.55
$NN.NN
$NNNN
$w5.55

06608
600056
:26
$00 .63
Ho
E0806

 

§
N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

3. N V
5 6 H
5 6 H
m 6 6
w 6 H
6 H H
N6 6 u.
m 6 6
m H 6
m H 6
H H 6
6 H 6
6 H H
m H H
6 6 6
H 6 6
w H H
5 H H
N 6 6
N 6 6
5 H H

H0H0.H.

 

 

 

.H0HHH0U
H0506

 

00HHoHH
.H0600HH

 

 

uopenuuuog)

sun

165

APPENDIX D

Percent Distribution of SS and WE Credits

166

   

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Goom .6N HH.H < U60HHmHH 00.3336” HH 0058 .6080on 066 6 60 2906 030B
$5m.mm 0 .6666 $66.66 $66.66 $66.62 $6w.N6 HHoHHoHH60yH HHoHHHHHHoHH HHH HH mem
$m666 0 .66.6N $66.66 $66.m5 $66.6 $6H.5m 600m .80bmH 6:03 H00: Hn.5mm
$3.66 0066.66 $66.3 $66.65 $66.66 $m6.H5 600M
.002 .8065 6§H0H HmomH HH.5mm
$6H .mm $66.66 $H H.H H - - $66.66H $66.2” $66.66 $6w.m6 HobHHoU HHHHHSHO
.HHMH00Q 533.505 ”N.6mm
$6~.6m $66.66 $66.66 - - $862 $66.66 $66.66 $5m.m~ H0950 b60000
.HHmeonH H0H03HE0Hm ”H.6mm
$H5.66 $66.66 $56.66 - - $8.63 $66.66 $66.66 $66.66 0006.6 0005 0.3852
.HHHoHHHnHoH0>0nH 0HHm Hmdmm
$6N.6m $66.66 $mm.mm - - $66.66H $66.2 $66.6 $6w.N6 H850: 0H0Hm0m .8
H0886 .HHH0EHHoH0>0nH 0HHm ”H.6mm
$6H .56 $66.66 $56.66 - - $66.6 $66.2 $66.66 $6H .56 380600 mHHHVHEHH 4660:0600th
0>HHHHE0HH< ”6.6mm
$M6. H N $66.66 $H H.H H - - $66.6 $66.3 $66.6 $52K 00H0HHHo> H00H0HbmHH0HHnH 6:0
mHHHHHHEméo‘H .HHoHHutoHHwHHHHHH
0>HH0E0HH< Hm.6mm

 

 

 

$6H.Nw $66.66H $6w.ww - - $862 $66.66 $862 $m6.H5 0800M
wHHHwHHmHHU a. 06805 0H050Hm
.HHoHHutoHHmHHEP 0>HHHHE0HH< H~.6mm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.02.0 6.8.8 6.8.: - - 6.00.0 6.00.3 6.00.00 6.00.: .38... .5035 as; .0000

.HHoHHHHHHonHmHHEH. 0>HH050HH< ”H.6mm

6.00.: 6.00.0 6.00.8 - - 6.00.0 6.00.0 6.00.0 6.00.9. HEEHOHEEHH 0000..on .000

6.00.: 6.00.0 6.00.00 - - 6.00.0 6.8.8 6.8.0 6.2.8 0:080:00 £008.08

06 HHHHmHH0Q HHH0EHHoH0>0nH Hmmm

6.8.3 6.8.8 6.8.: - - 6.80 6.00.02 6.0002 6.2.? 80.2.0 .00. ”H00
0003 6020 a H.003 06 - - H003 H6 6003 6 H.603 NH 6020 t 0020

0%
=05 >2 <0 5 22 H3 d :0 H2

 

 

 

2d 0725515 >2 G73. <0— 5 ZS :5 xi :0 =>H ZH HHQQEU wHHHm Ham<5<HmDm m0 ZO—HDEHm—Q HZHUy—Hh

167

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.8.8 6.8.8 6.8.8 6.00.08 6.80 6.8.02 6.8.02 6.00.0 6.8.8 0880 0H 020.0. 220
206066 6068560086.
300822 H$.00
6.00.8 6.00.8 6.00.8 6.00.0 6.00.0 6.00.00 6.00.02 6.8.8 6.8.8 0083.. 800:0 05.;
8536 4868560086.
200520... HH.000
6.3.: 6.00.0 6.8.8 6.00.0 6.00.0 6.00.0 6.00.0 6.8.8 6.8.2 jag. 230000
00003on U000
6.8.00 6.00.00 6.8.8 6.00.0 6.00.0 6.00.0 6.00.0 6.8.8 6.8.9 003500 05888.0
630009 25862050 ”Nwm
6.2.8 6.00.00 6.8.8 60002 6.00.0 6.8.00 6.8.02 6.00.8 6.8.? 00080.0 0:0 ”H00

000an H.003 3 6020 06 laws 6 60.5 6 H. 05 c 6020 .6 6.005 6 H0003 H0 6020

00
H500 .2 SH S 22 H3 .HH no :2
0.0% wz 07H... 63163436 00:0 060650.800 ..Ho 225080.05 0200606
A666N .66 HHH6< H60HHOH>V 600.H0HHIH0060H6600.H.o.H6\QmHmH\H\wHo.0630.333:ng ”00506 £20008 06.6 .3 6062056 0306.

6.8.8 6.8.9. 6.08.8 6.00.0 6.8.2 6.8.8 6.2.8 00000000 600.000.0000
063 .5663 “Nxmma
6.8.00 6.8.00 6.8.8 - - 6.00.0 6.88 6.00.02 6.18 0002.80 6.8 0008000
003 H0203 ”HAM?
6.00.2 6.8.8 6.8.8 - - 6.00.0 6.00.0 6.8.8 6.8.8 02028080
8333003 0>HH0>0HHHHH ”mm?
6.00.? 6.00.8 6.00.8 - - 6.00.02 6.88 6.00.8 6.00.: 00000:: 02.0
003 05806 02 nwHHHHHH~006HHH~1H
.86me 00.3 HNHHHHHH
6.8.8 6.8.8 6.8.8H - - 6802 6.00.8 6.88 6.0002 6.8
.3 000606 656000603
H5580 H903 NH.HHHHHH

~000an H.003 3 H0020 0H - - H003 H H0 03 H0 0 03 6 H. 03 6 0020

8
H500 >z <6 5 22 H3 .6 mo H2
H6 070000 >2 0Z6 SH 7H2 63.604218102280500 ”HES; ..Ho 220002.005 070653

 

 

 

 

168

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Goon .om ::.8:< ”0000:; 00000::I80005000MOHEQmmqhuodnwmqutéfi ”00:80 .0000000.: 0:5 20: 0002050 0:00.:.
$00.00 $00.00 $3.00 $00.00: $00.00: $00.00: $00.00 $00.00: $00.N0 00:00:00:
800000 .00: 000
$00.00 $00.00 $00.00 $00.00: $00.0 $00.00 $00.00: $00.00: $00.N0 .003:
000.0%: 05:0: 000:: ”N600
$3.00 $00.00: $00.00 $00.00: $00.0 $00.00 $00.00 $00.00 $00.00 003:-002
0000.0”: 050:0: 000:: H2.00
$0560 $00.8 $00.3 $00.0 $00.00: $00.00 $00.00 $00.00 $00 .00 35:80 5.00:0
£3009 000038.090 “N000
$5.0.“ $00.0m $0: 0:. $00.0 $00.00: $00.00 $00.00 $00.00 $00.00 3550 3:335
#0809 00338080 “:000
$:h.00 $00.0m $3.00 $00.00: $00.00: $00.00: $00.00 $00.00 $00 N0 00000 0000 3:50:02
0008020035 000 ”N000
$3 .00 $00.0 $00.3 $00.00: $00.0 $00.00 $00.00 $00.00 $00 .m0 530E 0.8000”: .:o 00002.:
J:0800:0>0n: 00:0 u:.0mm
$00.00 $00.00 $8.00 $00.00: $00.0 $00.00 $00.0 $00.0 $00.N0 .mBumno
25:00.: 0008000050;
03005002 ”.1600
$00.2. $00.00. $2.00 $00.00: $00.0 $00.00 $00.00: $00.0 $00.00 m0:n.:::0>
605000.080 05. 0.0.080
.30.: £003.83;
0302:0076 ”0.600
0.003 0003 a 0.003 00 020 0 :003 0 0.003 0 m 20 N 0020 0 0020 00
0C 0:020
:83. >7: <0 5 7:): :5 d :0 E):
0d 02.90% = >7: Q72 (..— JJ .22 .59 x: =0 :2 Zn Baa—5:0 mush—m HAQEHme m0 ZOFDEHw—G Elm—Oman—

 

169

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A000; .00 :t < “000:0: 00.3330” 0: ”00.300 . 0000000 0:5 0 :00 0:260 030:.
$00 .00 $00. v $00.00 $00.00 $00.00: . 000.2fl 00:00:03: 503:9: 0:: :0: H000
$00.0:q $00. N $00 .00 $00.00 $00.0 . .3 .00 003: 0000.5 000:0: 000:: ”N000
$3.60 $00. 0 $00.00 $00.00 $00.00 . 00.0. :0 003:
-57: 00000.": 000:0: 000:: ”:000
$3 .9. $00.2. $: : .2 - - $00.00: $00.0N $00.00 $00.0:V :obaoo 00:00.0
4&qu 000038090 ”N000
$3.00 $00.00 $3.3. - - $00.00: $00.00. $00.00 $00 .mm 30000 0000050
403000 000038080 “:000
$:0.00 $00.2: $00.00 - - $00.00: $00.00 $00.00 $00.9. 00000 0000 0380003:
00080233: 000 ”N000
$3.00 $00.00 $00.00 - - $00.00: $00.00. $00.0 $00.9. 00050: 00800: 00
000080 00080200009 00:0 “:000
$3.00 $00.00 $00.00 - - $00.0 $00.0m $00.00 $3.00 3:000:00 30:00.: dear—0000000
030050010. ”3600
$00. : N $00.00 $: :.:: - - $00.0 $00.0m $00.0 $00 .3 00:030> 80800930“: 0:0
w::::8m:.33 .00:00to%=00.:.
0>00E00< “0.000
$3.Nw $00.00: $00.00 - - $00.00: $00.00 $00.00: $0.30 0803:
wEwSfiU 00. 0005.0 0:00am:
£00000000=0F 03005002 ”N000
$00.60 $00.2. $00.00 - - $00.0 $00.00 $00.00 $mv.:0 00000< 800:0 00000 0:00.:
.0000000000000 0300500.... U : .vmm
$00.0: $00.0 $NN.NN - - $00.0 $00.0 $00.0 $00.3 058020503: 20.08520: “mmm
$00.0: $00.0 $m~.mm - - $00.0 $00.0N $00.0 $00.0N 00380580 00825800
0% .9055 000802039 “mmm
$00.00 $00.0w $w0.00 - - $00.0 $00.00: $00.00: $3.00 00:80:00 00:0 H50
0003 0020 0: 000.0 00 - - : 03 : 0.020 0: #005 N: 0003 0 0030
000
:55. >7: <0 5 7:): :3 A: IO :5:

 

 

 

fiN UZA—m—HA >7: G72 <0: 5 7:0,: :5 x: :0 E): 7:— 025:20 mflhmm Hafiz—(Swim 0:0 ZOnthEm—Q Elm—UM”?—

167

APPENDIX E

Collaborative Work Session Work Sheet

171

Below, is a sample of the work sheet used for the collaborative work session held for the
research titled “Promoting Healthy Environments through Application of LEED Site
Planning Standards to Cold Climate Institutional Settings” [Mrozowski et al. 2006]
conducted by the Construction Management and Landscape Architecture Programs in the
School of Planning, Design and Construction at Michigan State University. Similar work
sheets were developed for each LEED SS and WE credit. These sheets included the intent
of the credit and questions for the work session groups to discuss and organize their

conclusions.

Sample Collaborative Session Work Sheet

 

SS Credit 1: Site Selection

The intent of this credit is to avoid development of inappropriate sites and reduce the
environmental impact from the location of a building on a site [USGBC-2].

 

 

 

Refer to separate summary of LEED—NC 2.2 in Work Session packet for summary of
requirements.

Evaluate the standard in the context of public institution projects for the Great Lakes
region / cold climates.

What organizational benefits / concerns do you foresee in pursuing this credit-
standard?

 

 

 

 

Rank environmental benefits EI High El Medium [:I Low D None

 

Please explain (what was your rationale for the score given?):

 

 

 

172

Rank health benefits [I High [j Medium I] Low [3 None

 

Please explain (what was your rationale for the score given?):

 

 

 

Rank difficulties associated with:

Cost . B High D Medium E] Low [:I None

Please explain (what was your rationale for the score given?):

 

 

 

 

Political issues I:I High I] Medium El Low D None

Please explain (what was your rationale for the score given?):

 

 

 

 

Practicality in implementing C] High D Medium B Low [:I None

Please explain (what was your rationale for the score given?):

 

 

 

 

Design, technical and, political strategies that could be used for compliance with this
credit-standard

 

Explain:

 

 

 

What situational criteria might influence use of this credit-standard?

 

Explain:

 

 

 

173

Do you recommend use of this credit-standard for public sector projects in Great
Lakes region and under what circumstances?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Explain:
High Cost, Less High Cost, High
Overall Benefit Overall Benefit
COSt Low Cost, Less Low Cost, High
Overall Benefit Overall Benefit

 

 

 

 

Overall Benefit

174

APPENDIX F

Case Studies Questionnaire

175

This appendix includes the questionnaire used for the four case studies conducted for the
research titled “Promoting Healthy Environments through Application of LEED Site
Flaming Standards to Cold Climate Institutional Settings” [Mrozowski et al. 2006], by
the Construction Management and Landscape Architecture Programs in the School of
Flaming, Design and Construction at Michigan State University. The interviews with
owners were aimed at gathering information about the decision—making parameters that
influence pursuing or not pursuing LEED SS and WE credits and to gain insight into the
organizational benefits / concerns that a project team expresses in the decision-making

process to pursue or not to pursue the LEED credits.

176

 

$00030.

:o_:utoam:0:._. 0.3::
. :ozatonwcmfi

02.0582: 3.00

:0:0E00_0>000m
20.0565: 000

 

 

.3209 0:250: 05

358029000”.
:35: ~00

530:0 0000.

32.0200 0:0: .00

605050 003 26.2: 0:00:00

02:30
:o_:5:o::_00m 0:0
:o_mo:mv _. U05:—

w.:uo:o 30mm: 05 0.

0:00:80
£020 inn—mm.—

 

fimgwl
0:03 0:50:00 :0
0:00:00 5:255:me
:05; 0:00:83: 00:0
Eomw: 0:: 03050
a: 00000:: 0:20.:
82000 0:: :. .mO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

  

 

  

 

 

00:00:90
:050 _U :26 U :050 U :050 U :050 _U .:_ 00:0 30mm:
Emwk U03; U E000 “003:; D E000 “5.8:: D E000 50:9: D E000 :00:o:: U ml: Emu—no O: :0:
5:30 B 5:30 B 5:20 B 5:30 B 5:30 B :0 £350 0: :2ng
5:908 D 5:950 U 5:908 D 5:950 D 5:9me D Or: 539.: oc>> .VO
00:00:80
02 _U oz _U oz D oz D oz D 0.00:0 50%:
a; _U a» D a» D a; _U m; _U 25 5050 8:: 05 .00
N r. m
:o. “momma. 0. a A :oan 0>o 0 A :0an 0>0 0 cobcoo .zunouEMmm:
.00: 0 .5 a a _ 0 m : _ 0 1 0.2.0200 0:0: .00 50855000 0:0 .
- 5:05:20: Beaniem: 000 :35: «mm :28:
. E F 020::
02.0522: 300
:98 o. m 00. 39:0 00: 50.5000: m .0006 :0 w. 02...
:5300 :000 :_ 20:00.5 05 530:0 300:0 00.0.0: :80; 0:0 03m 0mm.— :000 :0“.
:0 02.0%: D o.~ 85 D 00:00:90 30mm: 50E? 50:: 005000 00:5 50:90 50> .NG
oz U 00> D

060:8 0:30; 0000: 8 900:0 :o E. 006000 0E 2 .6

177

 

00005:. .x.
0.00.0... .965. 0. .000

 

50.9.0
0000.: .00.... .000

 

<\z D

2.05. 0:00 U

02
00>

<\z D

2.05. 0:00 B

oz
00>

32 U

305. .08 _U

02
00>

.02 D

.85. 0.08 D

02
00>

<2 _U

.505. 0:00 D

02
00>

«0:005:90
000005: _0..0.0E 5.2.
00.0.8000 00000.05
.08 0.0.5 .000

 

00005:. .00
0.00.0... .565... .05

 

50.98
0000... .00.... .05

 

<\z U

255. 0.08 _U
02 U

00> D

<\z U

265. .08 _U

00> G

<2 D

305. 0:00 B

00> U

$2 D

305. 0:00 B

00> D

E2 _U

255. 0.08 U
02 U

00> U

0.0%
0:000:55
.0 0550...
00.00.80 .....s
00.0.8000 00000.05
.08 0.0.5 .000

 

00005:. .x.
0.00.0... .0205... .000

 

50.98
0000... .00.... .000

 

 

52 _U

305. 0:00 D
02 U

00> D

 

<2 _U

:05. 0:00 D
02 D

00> D

 

<\z D

2.05. 0:00 D
02 D

00> D

 

52 _U

:05. 0.08 _U
02 D

00> U

 

(.2 _U

305. 0:00 D
02 D

00> D

0.080.090
CO=SCOE§U
00.500. 5.;
00.0.8000 80008:.
.08 0.02. .000

 

 

 

178

 

c398
38:. .8> = .n F ..O

 

 

 

 

«Emocflm
-zoob Eoww.
<2 _U <2 G <2 _U <2 D <2 _U $5 5.5. 85..an0
265. oboe D 305. ycoo D 265. ycoo D 265. econ D 265. ycoo D ..2 8w... 8599.5
oz _U oz _U oz _U oz _U oz _U .8E59 $5 3
m; _U m; _U 8» D me. D m; _U 9.35 =9. 2.1 .2. ..O
.888... .x. 98.9..
.565. 2 do 5
£398
38:. .$> ... .noFO
$50535
<2 _U <2 _U <2 _U <2 _U <2 _U EoEommcmE 80.65
255. ycoo D >65. “hon. D 265. econ. D 265. “ton. D 265. ycoo D cozoawmcoo 53>

02
mm;

oz
mm;

02
mm;

oz
mw>

02
mm;

86.088 $8205
$8 925 do ..0

 

6890:. .x.
38.2. .585. z 80

 

£998
080... .$> u. .80

 

 

<2 _U

265. ycoo D

02
mm>

 

<2 _U

265. 28 U

oz
mo>

 

<2 _U

255. £8 E

oz
mw>

 

<2 _U

255. too D

oz
mw>

 

<2 _U

255. £8 U

oz
mm;

«2.855%

85.083 8398:.

 

.58 so? .80,

.82 co_s§mo8 £3.

 

 

179

 

«wwwmmOOOum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(\z D <\z D (\2 D (\z D (\z D QEUED \_m:uow.=c8
265. ycoo D 265. econ. U 265. ycon. D 265. econ U 265. £69m «own—t. Emvcgw
2.0 ED ozD ozD oz ...85 E85
mo> D mm; D mo> U mm; D 3.» D £5 20 .mw e0
£3wa owmfln. .nm F0
«9.6mm: .6 o>...moo
on 0. 23:93.86
a... 5.2, 8.2.358 8
880230 6853.6...
05 28.2.5
o>nmooz o>nmmoz w>nomwz 9:302 9:362 30> . .6.
9.5.8.. game... 9.5.8”. game“. 92.3". 0.0 m r0
£998
38... do: $5
62356
-..oob of. 26:6
<22 m. <2 D <2 D <2 _U <2 D 99.26 6.6.552.
<65. econ 265. econ. 265. “too 265. “too 265. “ton. \_mE®E:._m>onw
oz 02 oz oz oz .650 “NE UCGEEOOO.
3» mm; wo> ‘ mm; mo> 30> U_:o>> .mVFO
<2 D <2 G <2 _U <2 _U <2 D 2.9.9.6
.65. ..con. D .505. econ. D 265. econ. D 265. $60 D 265. econ. U <3 8w: wn mewumbm
oz oz oz oz oz I mwmcu UCOEEOOP.
mm; m mw> m mm; m m; m mo> H 30> U_:o>> .m r0
<2 _U <2 _H_ <2 D <2 U <2 H $.86 Eowm... w.£
265. $69 U 265. {.60 D 265. econ. D 265. econ. D 265. 5:00 H mEEmEo c. 33.9.
oz oz oz oz oz I 8.8.87. .8662
mo> mo> mo> mm; mm; H wows“ o..w,>>. .N r0 ,

 

 

 

 

180

how—..omn ”50> 02.0%0wm >>m_>¢m.rz_ ...—2.30220". m1... m0". oww: mm 22.3 mmszmmwm m>0m< th

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:.m.oxm .nm ..0
63:8.
mph—09.8 m cm
<2 _H_ <2 D <2 _U <2 U <2 _U \ 66 n
265. econ. 265. 2:00 >65. 2:8 265. econ. 265. econ. _wcoszEmmuo
oz oz 02 oz oz 9.: 99> #55920
2; mo» 2; 66> .8» was 2.626 6.5 x .mm ..O
6.68 8m: 2288 1 66:8 96... 2288 n 66:8 8m: 2288 n 66.8 86 2288 6668 85 222.8
:Bumbc8nnm U 6686863 6822:8636 6666:8626 6832:8236. .. m cm 6. .
66268 66268 l 66268 l 66268 66268 on. o 2 2.626
62.62 2.86:5 H 62.62 2.8263 H 62.62 2.8263 H 62.62 2.86:3 _H 62.62 88663 _H 6.5 .2 606....th
.6526 I 6:5: I 66ch I .6526 n 66:6... n .922.— EDm—m.._ 05
62.62 H 62.62 H 62.62 H 62.62 _H 62.62“ 692.66 95> 2.0
66:65 I :wwEmcm I .6865 I 66:65. n 66:65 n
265. 2.:oo 265. 268 265. 2:8 265. 2.80 m. 265. 2:00 W.
.650 650 .650 650 650
.68 2268 26 .68 2268 26 .68 2268 26 .68 2268 26 .68 2268 26 .2 no.2 o oo
66688692288 .ofimb:8\:m:z.6:8 68688692228 66268692228 66268692228 . _ $5 = x :0
2:8 6:36.”. n 2:8 6:36.“. n 2:8 6:36.“. n 2:8 6:39. n 2:8 6:32. n ,oE—wvcfiwéiooo mEu
2:8 accoom n 2:8 6:603. _H 2:8 6:603. n 2:8 6:603. n 2:8 65.03. _H >n 390mg»... 9.03 \wmg
2:8 6:56.46 n 2:8 6:562; n 2:8 6:562; n 2:8 6:6.an _H 2:8 6:6.an n vamb Efimbcoonaw
.68 6.6: 26 _H .68 3.6: 26 _H .68 26: 26 _H 68 3.6: 26 _H .68 2.6: 26 _H 5.55 ..2. 5
2:8 6.62568 n 2:8 6.62.568 _H 2:8 {02.5.3 D 2:8 6.6.55.3 n 2:8 {032.com n
2:8 6:688:62 n 2:8 6:688:62 n 2:8 6:688:62 n 2:8 9.68633 _H 2:8 6:688:62 n
:6.me

 

 

 

 

886 .8: .85

 

 

 

181

APPENDIX G

Identification of Attributes from Collaborative Work Session, Case

Studies and Literature Review

182

Introduction

This appendix presents the attributes identified from the literature, collaborative work
session data and owner’s responses from the case study projects conducted for the
research titled “Promoting Healthy Environments through Application of LEED Site
Planning Standards to Cold Climate Institutional Settings” [Mrozowski et al. 2006]. For
each credit, first, the important attributes found by the researcher are stated. Then the
intent of the credit is provided, as stated in the LEED-NC 2.2 Reference Guide. The
collaborative work session responses are described in a paraphrased format and the
attributes suggested by the work session responses are listed. Then, the interview
responses are described in a paraphrased format and the attributes indicated by the case
studies are listed. Attributes identified from the literature described in chapter two are
then listed. Finally, the attributes are integrated and a matrix is presented for each credit,
showing the relation of the attributes to the objectives of sustainable construction —
environment, community and economic issues as identified by [USGBC-2], [Presley and
Meade 2004] and [ASTM 2004] and the relation is represented by ‘-’. The table
demonstrates the source of identification of various attributes. CWS indicate attributes
identified from the collaborative work session and CS indicate attributes identified from
the case studies. The highlighted portions in all the tables indicate attributes with low

confidence level as seen in the ‘discussion’ column in all of the credits.

183

Sustainable Sites (SS) Credits

SS Prerequisite 1: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention (Formerly - Erosion
and Sedimentation Control) Analysis: The researcher found the important attributes for
SS Prerequisite l to be — prevents loss of topsoil during construction, prevents
sedimentation of storm waters or receiving streams, prevents air pollution and has no
cost/ potential cost decrease. These attributes were identified by collaborative work
session and/ or case studies and supported by the literature.

Intent of the Credit: Reduce pollution from construction activities by controlling soil
erosion, waterway sedimentation and airborne dust generation [USGBC-2].

Work Session: All work groups concluded this was a relatively straightforward
prerequisite and highly recommended its adoption. Overall the groups in the quadrant
analysis indicated this credit had high benefit (environmental) and low cost. The work
groups indicated that this credit was usually being met in most communities, and
reflected good practice, but that details of the newly referenced EPA standard should be
evaluated. Several Work groups expressed concern that project parties need to be
informed of this credit at project inception and that erosion control measures be
adequately maintained during construction. Table below shows the work session

responses obtained for SS Prerequisite 1.

 

 

 

Question Response Group #
What organizational l
benefits / concerns do you Benefits: Makes project managers consciously think of this.
foresee in pursuing this Concerns: Behavior of excavators; need contractors 2
credit-standard? committed to this. Need effective monitoring of the site

activity; need full understanding through all actors
Benefits: Certified Storm Water Operator
1. Phased Site Const. — Reducing site exposure over the
duration of the project — concern: contractor efficiencies
2. Need a plan but practices are not always enforced
3. Local vs. EPA requirements — Rural may be less
stringent or there may be no standard

 

 

 

 

 

 

184

 

Benefit to the host community and project neighbors. 4

 

_

Design, technical and,

 

 

 

political strategies that ' Technical are more or less laid out in the standards, 2
could be used for technically is feasible and well understood
compliance with this Political: awareness and enforcement varies across
credit-standard. jurisdictions
Explain Consistent codes in the GL Region. Monitoring Compliance — 3
Incentives or fines for violations are a potential strategy
Not so much a political issue yet, but water mgt. is growing in 4

concern within the great lakes basin. Training of people.
MaintaininLthe implemented system.

 

What situational criteria
might influence use of this
credit-standard? Explain

 

 

 

AWN-—

 

 

 

 

 

Work Session Responses for SS Prerequisite 1

Work session responses suggest the following attributes for SS PrerecEisite 1:
Requires designers to evaluate EPA standards v/s local codes
No cost increase
flgh environmental benefits
Medium health benefits
Benefits the host community and project neighbors
Reduces site exposure over the duration of the project
Requires high maintenance of implemented system during construction
Requires effective monitoring of the site activity

Attributes Identified for SS Prerequisite 1 from Work Session

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Studies: For Case Study 1, protection of an adjacent vernal pond through
sedimentation and erosion controls was important. Throughout, the project science
departments monitored water quality. For Case Studies 2 and 3, sedimentation and
erosion control measures were implemented in order to achieve this credit in accordance
with the standards. For Case Study 4, this credit is being pursued since it is a
requirement. Erosion and sedimentation control is progressive and included: initial use of
silt fencing, stormwater structures collectors were protected, temporary paving of some
site areas and placement of gravel over the entire site. The paving and gravel not only
prevent erosion and sediments from flowing off the site, but also provide a firm
construction base and prevent dust. Water from excavations is being filtered through

filter/bladder bags to prevent soil from entering the storm water system.

185

For all the four case study projects, respondents indicated that there were no significant
cost increases associated with designing, planning or engineering; material purchase;
construction labor and construction project management for complying with this credit.
Except for Case Study 3, no other case study project indicated cost increases associated
with required documentation for complying with this credit. Institutional outcomes of
complying with this credit were indicated as positive and all four projects recommended
use of this credit by other govemmental/ institutional owners.

The interview responses suggest the following attributes for SS Prerequisite l:

 

Prevents loss of toisoil during construction

Prevents sedimentation of storm waters or receifig streams

Prevents airmollution

Requires effective monitoring of the site activity

Cost associated with required documentation varies (three case study projects had no cost increase
associated with required documentation whereas one case study project had minor cost increase)

No cost increase associated with designing, planning or engineering

No cost increase associated with material purchase

No cost increase associated with construction labor

No cost increase associated with construction project management

Attributes Identified for SS Prerequisite 1 from Case Studies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Literature Review:

Literature Review indicates the following attributes for SS Prerequisite 1:

 

Reduces pollution from construction activities [USGBC-2]

Prevents loss of topsoil during construction [USGBC-2]

Prevents sedimentation of storm waters or receiving streams [USGBC-2]

Prevents air pollution LUSGBC-Z]

Evaluates EPA standards v/s local codes [USGBC-2]

No cost / potential cost decrease [SWA 2004]

Achieved through standard practice (increased design efforts but minimal construction first costs) [Eijadi
et al. 2002]

Addresses environmental impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

No health impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

Attributes Identified for SS Prerequisite 1 from Literature Review

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for SS Prerequisite I:

186

m 8.6.666..on mm 3 6822. 6.8.5.532

 

 

8886. 6.8
8666 662 63.26 2666 268 one

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6362—? 688606586 68360.. m0 . 85> 60686266006 60.6662 :63 686.083 600
5.? 63626866 86866. 68
06 on: 3365 26:6 063 00wa
i3 626
666:8 630 .9866. 662. 288 ..o 6 6.66. . 65> 665. 6.86
on 66.88 .88 .6 6 .666. . ..
9 0 608606360 w
WMBBfloooo 626 288 ..o 6 .3me . 6865. 688.666 8863
m3
m0 . 28.8.5 6226:6668 5.3 686688 666866. 68 02
mo . 63%
m0 . 82.86 6.6868 5.3 626688 86206. 68 oz
6.686. 66
m0 . no M62666...“ 8869666 5.65 6866866 8366. 268 02
m0 .950 . . atom 26 05 .20 6.68.696 6266b... 86.6 3.
60.625668 wihfi
mBU . . 882$ 68626296. 20 866686.26 2!... 68.68%
mBU . 28.85 26 mo 622666 2.2 :o>o 2:8 8 8.6 68:63.
wBU . o . .
88 6.. 60625668 666666 2: 26 o
”meow ..o 6 Baum. . 638... 6668665 emuooa 66666626. 8.60.6.2 ow>oEW<
mBU .Hvoom 5.9m. . 668666 68 6.26806 \ 68 oz
wBU ANGmOmD. . 6668 .80. w\> 666 $5 866.66 8 :66 .86 86.: 3.
mo .HN-UmOmE . . 6226.6 6.6 25>on
. 666366
m0 _NOmOmD. . 8.382 6 66263 6:26 .o 606858.68 25>on
m0 Amdmwma . 60.66.6668 6266 ..8 oCo 80. 26655
F-0m0mb . . 62636: 60625668 662 6226:0Wwooooom
66.62665 66.235256. raga 2666. 862.6322
6 8.58 -6336”.—

 

 

 

:or:o>o.£ 6826:3— b_>=o< 6322:6660 "— 8.6.63..on mm

187

SS Credit 1: Site Selection Analysis:

The researcher found the important attributes for SS Credit 1 to be — pursuing subject to
site availability, reduces sprawl, avoids development of inappropriate sites and minimizes
disruption of the environmentally sensitive areas. These attributes were identified by
collaborative work session and/ or case studies and supported by the literature.

Intent of the Credit: Avoid development of inappropriate sites and reduce the

environmental impact from the location of a building on a site [USGBC-2]

Work Session: The work groups indicated that this credit offered high environmental
benefits, but the ability to implement it would be situational. Work groups connected the
use of this credit to larger urban planning issues, regional planning, sprawl and land
availability. The work groups were split on whether costs of this credit would be low or
high depending on specific project conditions. Table below shows the work session

responses obtained for SS Credit 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Response Grzup
Should be complying with on any site. Mitigation for wetland. Very
high political, health (environmental and human), social, economic 1
difficulties.
What organizational Benefits: Great PR, reduces public criticism of what you are doing;
benefits / concerns do Concerns: could constrain your land choices, depending upon the 2
you foresee in availability of land (e.g., Ann Arbor, East Lansing)
pursuing this credit- Encourages urban infill & density —- encourages the reduction on 3
standard? consumption of land and destruction of habitat.
High community affects — large issue relative to regional community
planning patterns. Chicago example = if going for LEED 4
certification the approval process is speeded up. Environmental
protection and land use policy impacts.
Design, technical Design strategies—“best practices" guidelines that makes mandatory 1
and, political priority of this item; scale must be at community level; alternative
strategies that could strategies that address quality of life in its broadest definition.
be used for Municipal strategies and zoning policies must be adjusted to
compliance with this accommodate greater public/community input. A tax on “carbon”
credit-standard. and a smart growth boundary may be the most effective strategy for
Explain encouraging while site selection.
2

 

 

 

 

 

188

 

 

 

 

 

 

IDEA: FQA F loristic Qualitative Assessment - Conducted -— 3
Anything over an established threshold would not be developed — this
could be used as an alternative compliance path or added requirement
for great lakes states — FQA benchmarks have been established for up
to 40 states.
4
What situational Combine with above community/regional scale needed. Holistic 1
criteria might approach with focus on broad quality of life issues.
influence use of this Somewhat situational, achieve it if you can. Other state laws provide 2
credit-standard? some of these protections
Explain Availability of site, condition of the site (configuration)
3
Political land use policy and jurisdiction complicate a solid 4
assessment.

 

 

 

 

 

Work Session Responses for SS Prerequisite 1

Work session responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 1:

 

Subject to site availability

Requires designers to determine zoning requirements of the local community and the community master
plan

Reduces sprawl

High environmental benefits

Medium health benefits

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 1 from Work Session

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Studies: Case Studies 2 and 3 project site do not fall in any of the prohibited areas
as described in the standard. Case Study 4 project site is a previously developed/
disturbed site and is not one of the prohibited sites identified by the standard.

For all the three case study projects, the respondents indicated that there were no
significant cost increases associated with designing, planning or engineering; material
purchase; construction labor and construction project management for complying with
this credit. Except for Case Study 3, no other case study project indicated cost increases
associated with required documentation for complying with this credit. Institutional
outcomes of complying with this credit were indicated as positive and the three projects
recommended use of this credit by other governmental/ institutional owners.

The interview responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 1:

189

 

Avoids development of inappropriate sites

 

Subject to site availability

 

Minimizes disruption of the environmentally sensitive areas

 

Cost associated with required documentation varies (two case study projects had no cost increase
associated with recmired documentation whereas one case study project had minor cost increase)

 

No cost increase associated with designing, planning or engineering

 

 

No cost increase associated with material purchase

 

No cost increase associated with construction labor

 

 

No cost increase associated with construction project management

 

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 1 from Case Studies
Literature Review:

Literature Review indicates the following attributes for SS Credit 1:

 

Avoids development of inappropriate sites [USGBC-2]

 

Reduces environmental impact from the location of a building on a site [USGBC-21

 

Subject to site availability [USGBC-2]

 

Requires designers to determine zoning requirements of the local community and the community master
plan [USGBC-2]

 

Minimizes disruption of the environmentally sensitive areas [USGBC-2]

 

Encougges designers to incorporate site features into the design [USGBC-2]

 

Limits development footprint [USGBC-2]

 

Reduces sprawl [USGBC-2]

 

No cost / potential cost decrease [SWA 2004land [FPC 2001]

 

Achieved through standard practice (increased design efforts but minimal construction first costs) [Eijadi
et al. 2002]

 

Addresses local/ regional environmental impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

No health immcts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

 

Addresses health irrmacts [Mrozowski et al. 2006]

 

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 1 from Literature Review

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for SS Credit 1:

190

6 06.20 mm 8 682.: 8:532

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

080608 68

uoEMMaLMHMHfiWMfiHBHMWH mo . 88> 60686086006 608660.. 6.23 60.8088 080
080 0..— 666 66.00.88 W638 080 038
36.863 £686 663608 60620600

mayo .3888 .386 6066—0600 mBU .3030m

zoom .6 6 688266 .6088 0:856: . 85> 688 £606

58: o: 832.8 Room .6 6 68a
£8609 “8608606860 E 60630600 A
3 .8036: 86066606560 669w“: mBO Noam . 806666 60860658 88 <
m U A . _ . .3 8 Ema—ma . _8 . .666
82 8368... :08 .6 a 688 . ..
£60368 08.06 0900 m 60 6.6660 6 H H
nwfi ..o .50— 3 6803 66060 85 ‘60 A SON UPJ . 0806006 300 86680m \ .80 oz
308 626063 60 E8 083 8606» wBO voom «Saw

II m0 . .68w66 A066 .8600 66.65 628088 08808 080 02

m0 . 6062 6060.888 865 628088 08808 080 02

08:08.. 3888 w 66005 60

m0 . 60 $66626 £86386 565 688088 080608 800 02

”Noon $80 6.6 606068600 38.88 65

.8 60 «665: . tobu 6386 6080608V 006086 6666668 @6066 60>0£0<

HmémOma . 086808 80860—086 9.85

- $606

an omwma . 05 98 86663 36 3808008 06 806886 83886.6

m0 AmOmOma . 80.3 03:88 =S608608>8 26 mo 606 886 886682

mBO 658 m 8863* ”62 6888 666888 05 0% 868800

ANGmOmDH . . :82 mo 8608068606 w68on 088.6206 9 806386 88.50%

.meoomwwam . £526: a: 9 “8.3%

fidmOma . 86 a 60 86660.

a mo 606602 26 806 0868 6360682360 8080M

mu Amdmwwa . . 86m 086 06 «8 mo 6608 2306 m6_0><

62868.5 6036056602 0660 H8: 808 8.5263
..0 00.55 -600H -8800 6066,6m

 

 

60fl020m 35 "H 2620 mm

191

SS Credit 2: Development Density & Community Connectivity Analysis:

The researcher found the important attributes for SS Credit 2 to be — increases density of
community, reduces sprawl and pursuing subject to availability of previously developed
site. These attributes were identified by collaborative work session and supported by the
literature.

Intent of the Credit: Channel development to urban areas with existing infrastructure,

protect greenfields and preserve habitat and natural resources [USGBC-2].

Work Session: The work groups generally agreed that implementing this credit would
yield high environmental and health benefits due to decreased land use and reduced
sprawl. Its use was seen as situation dependent in that overall location of an agency
complex may or may not support the use of this credit. The credit was viewed as
encouraging walking and bicycling due to its urban nature. The use of this credit was
subject to land availability and overall planning. Some concern was expressed for campus
settings where property lines are not defined. Costs to implement this credit were seen as
high due to perceived requirement for multistory buildings and working with existing

infrastructure and site utilities. Table below shows the work session responses obtained

 

 

 

 

 

 

for SS Credit 2.
Question Response Grgup

What organizational « Easier to meet in community settings where property lines

benefits / concerns do you help define density; on campus, the lack of property lines may I

foresee in pursuing this require a different way to define the standard.

credit-standard? Benefit: Many benefits are seen. Environmental and lifestyle
benefits. Support fight versus sprawl, urban redevelopment 2
and mixed use; may support city strategies for increased
densification (e. g, infill on strip commercial)

 

 

192

 

Encourages urban redevelopment and infill — uses existing
infrastructure — health and wellness i.e. more transportation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

options — providing service areas within development may 3
enable achievement of credit
Keeps development compact, emphasizes pedestrian
circulation, reduces unnecessary extension of infrastructure, 4
and minimizes auto demand.
Design, technical and, Strategies will include alterations to the master plan for a 1
political strategies that campus compliance
could be used for 2
compliance with this credit- 3
standard. Explain 4
What situational criteria Donor influence, state/federal regulations, energy costs will 1
might influence use of this significantly affect institutional settings; technology will
credit-standard? mediate some of the costs due to energy through improved
Explain communication.
2
3
4

 

 

 

 

 

Work Session Responses for SS Credit 2

Work session responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 2:

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 2 from Work Session

Case Studies: Project criteria of all four projects were inconsistent with the standard.

Interview responses suggested no attributes for SS Credit 2.

Literature Review:

Literature Review indicates the following attributes for SS Credit 2:

 

193

 

 

Subject to availability of pedestrian access between the building and services iUSGBC-Z]

 

Reduces sprawl [USGBC-2]

 

No cost / potential cost decrease [SWA 2004]

 

Achieved through standard practice (increased design efforts but minimal construction first costs) [Eijadi
et al. 2002J

 

Addresses local/ regional environmental impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

No health impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

 

Addresses health impacts [Mrozowski et al. 20061

 

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 2 from Literature Review

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for SS Credit 2:

194

 

N #:90th WW Ow UOwa—Qh mo~3£§<

 

3683 £63 a 86388

630 .3895 .286 86288

$86 .6 5 63809: .3868
£62 8 8388 6686 .6 s 66.6.":

$50
$03.36 0866608..—

605> 006668 5.6066

 

$6060: 360868360 .8 60630600
E50 6606668 360860880 6668606

>82 62.288 688 ..6 a 606.66:

630
.688 .6 a 66E

806668 360666086660 6060066666

 

660.8 666 0.6206
2 $80 636 60630600 £50 86060
6.66 05306 8 00600006 6000 366806
:80 8 86288 :58 <36“

36 6.86 <39 .

6066.» 6600

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mBU . . 006 60866 666 660666205606 66666 660665
mBU . . 606 650 6608 20>06 m 00.6 ”6666606 866 6086882
mBU . . 06306666668 60 6866080

mBU . . 608— 3606066 06063 668606 86666680 .8 6008 9 60866m
T50 . M66935 666 w80=63 m0w666006m
mBU . o 066 6666 606606026

 

Room .6 a 66.66: .

 
 

3600 60.66 6060666600 628866 :5 660660
6wmm06 60260606: 0060666 6666636 666065 60>0Eo<

 

600.5606 666 w86=69

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_NOmOmDH . 05 6003006 660006 66863606 60 09:56:66 8 000.36%
fiOmOmD . 6003606 08669 66066 086 60 0066686 2 600.9%
66-06063 . 68,686 a:
60 063 6666068606 Bob 0% .60 0066686 9 600366
630 6-068% . .

630 6.0682 . .
wOUEOmOu
F-0m0ma . 66.6666 666 668266 63.606066 666 66—0m6006m 800.066
3-06062 . 8203865
@6860 683 66066 666.5 9 6606662056 2066660

6862.005 6806056602 0660 EB: 6606. 0.=n_.§<
60 00.58 -6036 .8680 60636.6

 

3620006600 6:668:30 0% 5:60A—

 

660E&_0>0G "N 660.60 mm

195

SS Credit 3: Brownfield Redevelopment Analysis:

The researcher found the important attributes for SS Credit 3 to be — pursuing subject to
availability of ‘brownfield’ site and reduces greenfield development. These attributes
were identified by collaborative work session and] or case studies and supported by the
literature.

Intent of the Credit: Rehabilitate damaged sites where development is complicated by

environmental contamination, reducing pressure on undeveloped land [USGBC-2].

Work Session: The work groups indicated that although this credit had high potential
environmental and health benefit it also carried high costs. Implementing this credit is
situational, and depends on availability of sites and the particular site conditions. Work
groups felt this credit could be mandated for state agencies, but not school districts or

other public owners. Table below shows the work session responses obtained for SS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credit 3.
Question Response Grzup
1
Benefits: Good public relations “doing the right thing"; 2
What organizational benefits / enhancing gym values
concerns do youforesee in Development incentives — Potential existing Transportation
pursuing this credit-standard? and Infrastructure — reduces Greenfield development — 3
Concerns — cost and public safety perception
Noble cause especially in an urban context. PR. Synergistic 4
community benefits 7 catalyst for other redevebpment.
Design, technical and, 1
political strategies that could 2
be usedfor compliance with 3
this credit-standard.
. 4
Ex lam
What situational criteria might l
influence use of this credit- 2
standard? 3
EXP lam Great planning ethos, but tax paying citizenry is getting 4
leary of the cost.

 

 

 

 

 

Work Session Responses for SS Credit 3

196

Work session responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 3:

 

Subject to availability of “brownfield” site

Reduces greenfield development

_H_igh costs

flgh environmental benefits

iigh health benefits

Enhances property value

Encourages use of existing transportation and infrastructure

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 3 from Work Session

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Studies: Since none of the four sites was classified as “brownfield”, SS Credit 3
was not available to them.

The interview responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 3:

 

fiubject to availability of “brownfield” site J

 

 

Attribute Identified for SS Credit 3 from Case Studies
Literature Review:

Literature Review indicates the following attributes for SS Credit 3:

 

Rehabilitates damaged sites [USGBC-2]

 

Subject to availability of "brownfield" site [USGBC-3]

 

Reduces greenfield development [USGBC-2]

 

No cost / potential cost decreasflSWA 2004]

 

High costs [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

Addresses local/ regional environmental impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

No health impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

 

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 3 from Literature Review

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for SS Credit 3:

197

0 5020 00 3 86...: 8.36:6

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0060603 A
33603 333 60630600 mBU £06666 .mwzw MWON . 0066> 006666 530m
.062. 8 326:8 Room .6 6 66.000 _ a 6 .E
050606 3606066600360 3 60630600 .
mBU 306666 3060668360 6660306 mBU Room . 0006666 63606660630 00000066<
. .6 a 66.66: .
>603 60630600 Room _6 00 366.63
66000
06.6 05.38 9 3000 $3 60630600
030 26 Room .6 6 66.0.”: .0620 .6 03w . 35> 600
066 05.306 00 00600006 0000 66660006 38 <3m
\ 0000 06 60630600 Taoom 463%

0660650663 666
mks . . 6066606066.: M66068 60 006 00w63006m
mBU . 036> 5606066 0006666m
mBU

. . 0606660 0>0 06 00& 0006 0
36-00002 _ 0 2 06 0 6
mo .mBU
. . 060 = 0_ 6300 = 0 >6 6 6 ~6>6 8 000a =
_mOmOma . E m n m .69 3. .n m
_600002 . as: 806860 02565206
63006005 6066066602 0660600H “66:66:00 0606.60036H 00:556..
60 006=0m
0606: 0.000060% 6—066306m “m 660.00 mm

 

198

SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access Analysis:
The researcher found the important attributes for SS Credit 4.1 to be — encourages
building occupants to use mass transit, minimizes parking lots, reduces automobile use
and air pollution and has no cost/ potential cost decrease. These attributes were identified
by collaborative work session and/ or case studies and supported by the literature.

Intent of the Credit: Reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile
use [USGBC-2].

Work Session: Although this credit was viewed as situational because it is dependent on
availability of public transportation, all work groups indicated that for the right site this
credit had no cost associated with it and high health and environmental benefit. Public
sector owners should be encouraged to select sites with available public transportation.
Additionally public sector owners may have the ability to work with public bus systems
to alter routes to accommodate this credit. Table below shows the work session responses

obtained for SS Credit 4.1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Response Grzup
1
Benefits: Equity benefit (hire people who don’t have cars);
What organizational reduce pollution and parking lots costs; some more walking 2
benefits / concerns do you behavior in employees
foresee in pursuing this Amenity to building occupants & employers — Concerns:
credit-standard? Transit system is not in place and needs to be expanded or 3
building needs to follow transit master plan
Should be a requirement for any state building. Makes sense to 4
keep with population growth.
Design, technical and, 1
political strategies that 2
could be used for 3
compliance With this Need to create reasonable options that promote use of bus. What 4
credit-standard. Explain to do on the off day you need to get to the doctor, store, etc.
What situational criteria 1
might influence use of this 2
credit-standard? Explain 3
promotions, incentives 4

 

Work Session Responses for SS Credit 4.1

199

Work session responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 4.1:

 

Subject to availability of public transportation system
Encourages buildingoccgiants to use mass transit
Minimizes parking lots
Reduces automobile use and air pollution
No cost / potential cost decrease

iigh environmental benefits

_P_l_igh health benefits

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4.1 from Work Session

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Studies: Three bus lines within % mile of the project site serve Case Study 2 project
site. Case Study 4 is located across the street from the main campus bus hub, and adjacent
to numerous bus routes. The respondents indicated there were no significant cost
increases associated with designing, planning or engineering; material purchase;
construction labor; documentation and construction project management for complying

with this credit. The interview responses suggest the following attributes for SS 4.1:

 

Subject to distance of building from mass transit

Subject to availability of public transportation system

No cost increase associated with required documentation

No cost increase associated with designing, planning or engineefirg
No cost increase associated with material purchase

No cost increase associated with construction labor

No cost increase associated with construction project mangement

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4.1 from Case Studies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Literature Review: Literature Review indicates the following attributes for SS Credit 4.1:

 

Subject to distance of building from mass transit [USGBC-2]

Subject to transportation needs of building occupants [USGBC-2]

Subject to availability of sidewalks, paths and walkways to existing mass transit stops [USGBC-24]
Encourages building occupants to use mass transit [USGBC-2]

Minimizes parking lots [USGBC-2]

Reduces automobile use and air pollution [USGBC-2]

No cost / potential cost decrease [SWA 2004] and [F PC 2001]

Achieved through standard practice (increased design efforts but minimal construction first costs) [Eijadi
et al. 2002L

Addresses glfiobal environmental impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

No health impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

Addresses health impacts [Mrozowski et al. 2006]

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4.1 from Literature Review

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4. I:

200

6.. 66:0 00 e 866. 8.3602

 

 

86.668 6680 .6 6 66%:

0060606 66606
AME 60630600 mBU £06666 mBU
3606 60630600 $006 .66 . . 0066> 006666 666066
00 2.030600% 086666 3606 30666 00360003
on 025608 :80 .6 a 666$
0660606 66060666006060
636 60630600 E50 wBU
0006666 666060600360 6306» .508 .66 00 666mm: . 0006666 6860666060060 0000006660.

 

66068 .6006 00600 6665 60300006 0060603 0000 02

 

 

 

 

M66003w60 00

 

606606063006

m0 .
m0 . 6063 6060660600 565 6006600006 0060003 0000 02
mo . 0066006 6660068 5.65 606600006 0060603 “000 02
m0 . 9666666 66663006 663 68300006 0060003 0000 02
m0 .

60666000 6665 6006600006 0060003 0000 02

 

688 .6 6 66.00:

 
 

$000 0006 6060660600 666636. 65 060660
666006 60060606: 0060606 60666600 $60.66 60>030<

 

030 .680
0.6: .6306 <30

0060.806 000 66660006 \ 6000 02

 

£50 . .NQM Dab

 
 

6063—0 36 .006 065066966 0006606

 

.WBU . NOM 0.5.

0.3 33666 0066332

 

550 . N06 OwD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

60666 006.6 006 00 0066 6000 36:66 00 606006m

 

 

06000 6066b 0068 66068 9 0 630:6?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fimém—Oma . 666 0566 606663060 60 3:56:63 00 000.36m
m0 .mBU . . E06060 606660060666 06566 60 635666; 8 600.366
HNAVMGmDH . 006666000 366666660 06006 6066§0I6~E 0. .00F6m
m0 ANOmOma . 60666 0068 80.6 36666 60 00666066 00 600.66m
63006005 60660506066 06606006 36666.00 0606—606360— 0:56.63.
.60 00.58

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00000< 6066000606606. 0:666 "6060620606666. 030660002 :6 660.5 mm

201

SS Credit 4.2: Alternative Transportation: Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms
Analysis:

The researcher found the important attributes for SS Credit 4.2 to be — reduces
automobile use and air pollution and minimizes parking lots. These attributes were
identified by collaborative work session and supported by the literature.

Intent of the Credit: Reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile

use [USGBC-2].

Work Session: All four workgroups indicated this credit offered high environmental and
health benefits with relatively low to moderate costs for new buildings. Work groups
indicated some concerns over costs associated with lost square footage to accommodate
shower facilities or bike storage. All work groups indicated this credit should be
recommended for public sector owner projects. Table below shows the work session

responses obtained for SS Credit 4.2.

 

Question Response Grzup

 

Decreased conflicts with automobiles, noise pollution, decreased
space requirements secondary to road and parking requirements of
autos on campus; increased health of student/ faculty/ staff/ 1
What organizational administrators with subsequent decreases on health care costs/
benefits / concerns do insurance. Positive enabling and environmental aspects would be

 

 

 

you foresee in expected.
pursuing this credit- Benefits: good PR, healthier employees, lower health costs,
standard? inspiration to others 2
Concerns: financial costs (square footge and plumbing)
3
Less dependence on the automobile. Potential to consume program 4

 

 

 

 

space.

 

202

 

Design, technical
and, political
strategies that could
be used for
compliance with this
credit—standard.
Explain

Broader, more regional approaches to transportation systems,
particularly bicycle and pedestrian paths, must be considered and
encouraged beyond the campus boundaries of an institution; on-
campus master plans must be adapted to accommodate increased
commuting and recreation bicycle travel from off campus sites and
from campus to campus sites. Adaptation of regional transportation
systems, like CATA, Indian Trails, and Amtrak must occur in routes,
scheduling, and vehicle structures would encourage greater demands
for alternative transportation on campus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Need some research on the benefits of this in terms of greater health 2
outcomes (e. g., amongst employees)
3
Need regional access system so people can actually bike to work and 4
then use the shower, otherwise you provide the shower alone and
simply buy the credit.
What situational Cost of transportation/energy in the near future. Bike repair shop 1
criteria might availability on campus. Institutional policy that provides incentives
influence use of this for bicycle and pedestrian travel on campus by encouraging greater
credit-standard? “healthy living” practices by employees.
Explain 2
3
4

 

Work Session Responses for SS Credit 4.2

Work session responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 4.2:

 

Subject to space available for shower facilities
Reduces automobile use and air pollution
Minimizes parking lots
Low to moderate costs
High environmental benefits

_flgh health benefits
Reduces noise pollution

flgh financial costs (square footage and plumbing)

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4.2 from Work Session

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Studies: None of the case study projects pursued this credit because of concerns
over space allocations for shower rooms. Additionally, since shower facilities pose
liabilities risk, Case Study 3 did not provide shower facilities. However, Case Study 4 is
considering this credit for its registered building and will provide shower rooms since
they ended up with space in basement that could be used for shower rooms without
affecting program space. Some additional costs are anticipated for construction/

plumbing of these rooms.

203

The interview responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 4.2:

 

Subject to space available for shower facilities

 

High financial costs (square footage and plumbing),
May affect program space

 

 

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4.2 from Case Studies

Literature Review:

Literature Review indicates the following attributes for SS Credit 4.2:

 

Subject to space available for shower facilitieflUSGBC-Z]

 

Provides secure bicycle storage areas for cyclists [USGBC-2]

 

Reduces automobile use and air pollution [USGBC—2]

 

Minimizes parking lots [USGBC-2]

 

High costs [SWA 2004L
Low to moderate costs [FPC 2001]

 

Minor construction costs [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

Addresses global environmental impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

No health impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

 

Addresses health impacts [Mrozowski et al. 2006]

 

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4.2 from Literature Review

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4. 2:

204

3. .6020 00 s 0362 8:565.

 

$025.6 £80 606 80288

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mBO .300666 66006 6066—0600 mBU $00336
Econ 60 00 6.030006): 0600666 06606066 . 00t0> 000666 66003
662 8 80288 Room .6 a 60.006
06.0606 _00608606>60 6 .5 6066—0600 A
wBU £00666 666066606360 mks moom . 300666 6660860600 0000066640.
. a a .0005 . .
6.620 000388 Room 6 e 60.66: . .
3000 000606066
9 32 E0288 030 05.. :08 00.: 0 30 .3250
.0000 6060660600 006:6 60620600 0.660.606 . 0060.» 0000
Hmoom 60 00 660mm: 66000 066 0>0E00 .6
9 008 006 80328 6.08 <30“
. 66.5820
m0 wBU . 660 0w0uoow 0.60603 0000 6606066 6E:
mBU . 6066600 00606 0006606
030
. o o o O M Q 8
60-00003 6 _ :66 36 E2
Amdmwmyoa . . . 60.66606 60 .006 06605960 0006606
- 0006060
”N omOma . 600 00060 060090 20.85 066000 0063006
m0 .mBU . 00666006
AWUmOmE 003060 000 0506020 00000 00 000.35
III
62006005 6060050602 06606036 Jaw" 060E60um>6m 0066205..
00 00060.0

 

 

0.600% WEE—060 0% 0w0000w 20.00:— u60_00t0m0606.—. 030066002 "N6 660.60 mm

205

SS Credit 4.3: Alternative Transportation: Low Emitting & Fuel Efficient Vehicles
Analysis:

The researcher found the important attributes for SS Credit 4.3 to be - reduces air
pollution and automobile use. These attributes were identified by collaborative work
session and supported by the literature.

Intent of the Credit: Reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile

use [USGBC-2].

Work Session: Work groups did not think the environmental or health benefits were as
high with this credit. At the same time, they generally indicated that the costs to
implement this credit were relatively low. Option two (providing dedicated parking
spaces for low emitting/fuel efficient vehicles) was seen as the easier option to
implement. The groups were mixed on whether this credit should be recommended for
public sector owners. However, in the quadrant analysis two of three groups indicated
low cost/high overall benefit. Table below shows the work session responses obtained for

SS Credit 4.3.

 

Question Response Group

 

 

Benefits: Incentivize alternative fuel vehicles purchased; lower air
pollution and emissions

Concerns: Can impact upon employees as a whole (lacking 2
parking); also some equity issues works against people who can’t
afford a Prius

What organizational
benefits / concerns do
you foresee in pursuing
this credit-standard?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3
Option 2 is easier — no brainier. Is 3% a great impact? 4
Design, technical and, 1
political strategies that 2
could be used for 3
compliance With this Could a campus purchase fuel-efficient vehicles for fleet and then 4
credit-standard. claim this credit for any building built on campus? Is it somewhat
Explain exclusive — how much to purchase a hybrid car?
What situational l

 

206

 

criteria might influence 2
use of this credit-
standard? Explain 4

Work Session Responses for SS Credit 4.3

 

DJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

Work session responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 4.3:

 

Reduces air pollution, automobile use
Low costs

Medium environmental benefits

Low health benefits

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4.3 from Work Session

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Studies: Because of high infrastructure cost associated for complying with this
credit, none of the case study projects pursued this credit.

The interview responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 4.3:

 

LH_igh infrastructure cost ]
Attribute Identified for SS Credit 4.3 from Case Studies

Literature Review:

Literature Review indicates the following attributes for SS Credit 4.3:

 

Provides low-emitting and fire] efficient vehicles for 3% of full time equivalent occupants [USGBC-2]
Provides preferred parking for low-emitting and fuel efficient vehicles [USGBC-2]

Provides altemative-fuel refueling stations [USGBC-2]

Reduces air pollution and automobile use [USGBC-2]

flgher initial costs for alternative vehicles [USGBC-2]

Low costs [SWA 2004]

Significant construction costs [Eijadi et al. 2002]

Addresses global environmental impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

No health impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

Addresses health impacts [Mrozowski et al. 2006]

Attribute Identified for SS Credit 4.3 from Literature Review

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4.3:

207

 

0.0. 6020 00 3 0322 03265..

 

0.0050 e686 32 8388 030
.3896 .68: 000388 G80

60 00 6603000035 00006666 66006
8 000288 688 .6 e 60an

030
$606036 066000066

0060> 000666 6600:

 

00080

6006066600360 8666066 6066—06600
mBU 0000666 3608606360

6.620 000288 6080 .6 a 60.606

wBU

6080 .6 a 600%

0600666 6066066606260 0000006644.

 

0000 6060660600 0600666660
80288 6800 .6 0... 600.06
.66000 066 05600 00 00000 306
80288 030 05 :08 $606

030
650306 06600066

0060> 0000

 

m0

0000 00600660066.— 666.6

 

60-06002

 

 

 

00.0E0> 026060060 00m 0000 60666 606%:

 

030 60-06002

006 066066260 6062—06 60 000660M

 

 

 

 

 

HNOmOma . 0606000 96606600 6066030060060 0063006
- 00_0E0> 060606.60 603 660
mm umOmDH . $9680-32 00.6 @6606 60.606006 00665006
066066000
KOmOmD. . 060603600 0660 :66 60 gm 000 0206605
060606.60 60.6 660 00666804606 006305
63006005 6060050603 06066606>6H 0066656..
..0 00.660m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00.0E0> 06605.06 _06h a. wigs—m— 304 ”60600600—06066. 030060003. and 66060 mm

208

SS Credit 4.4: Alternative Transportation: Parking Capacity Analysis:

The researcher found the important attributes for SS Credit 4.4 to be — minimizes parking
lot/ garage size, provides parking space for carpools or vanpools, encourages use of
public transportation, reduces amount of impervious surface, reduces stormwater runoff,
low costs and reduces air pollution. These attributes were identified by collaborative
work session and/ or case studies and supported by the literature.

Intent of the Credit: Reduce pollution and land development impacts from single
occupancy vehicle use [USGBC-2].

Work Session: Work groups recommended adopting this credit for public sector projects.
Costs to implement this credit were seen as low, or as less than standard design. The
credit was seen, as have minimal technical difficulties. Benefits cited included reduced
storm water due to reduced impervious surfaces. In general, the work group participants
did not rank the environmental or health benefits as high as with other credits.

Table below shows the work session responses obtained for SS Credit 4.4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Response Grzup
l
Benefit: lower impervious surface cover; if carpooling occurs lower
What organizational emissions and better air quality; encourages use of public 2
benefits / concerns do transportation (with lower emissions again); makes a community
you foresee in more amenable for walkiri
pursuing this credit- 3
Standard? Less pervious pavement, less storm water runoff, better visual
environment. Need to take the life style issue into our thinking - 4
how to deal with issues of what we do on the off day or working
mother, or other unique situations.
Design, technical 1
and, political 2
strategies that could 3
be used for We are cramming more people into less space and more often 4
compliance With this developers are now asking for more parking than the local zoning.
cr edit-standar d. Mixed-use projects are better because it balances out demand.
Egcplain
What situational l

 

 

 

 

 

209

 

criteria might ln existing neighborhoods might be opposition from under sizing 2
influence use of this parking (as will park on street or in neighborhoods); on other hand
credit-standard? we dislike parking lot

Explain

 

b.)

 

Government is pushing for less parking, whereas developers want 4
more. What about promotional days.

Work Session Responses for SS Credit 4.4

 

 

 

 

 

Work session responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 4.4:
Encourages use of public transportation

Reduces amount of impervious surface, reduces stormwater runoff

Low costs

Medium environmental benefits

Low health benefits

Reduces air mllution

Makes community more amenable for walking

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4.4 from Work Session

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Studies: For Case Study 1, parking is provided only for service vehicles and group
buses. No new parking was provided because on- campus students could walk and off-
campus students could ride buses. Green space conservation and cost savings were the
motivating factors for achieving this credit. The respondents indicated that there were no
significant cost increases associated with designing, planning or engineering;
construction labor; documentation and construction project management for complying
with this credit. However, respondents indicated that there was decrease in material
purchase cost since the parking space was reduced and the building had a small footprint.
Case Studies 2 and 3 did not pursue this credit because of parking space requirement for

the program. Case Study 4 may achieve this credit.

The interview responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 4.4:

 

Minimizes parkinglot/ gage size

Provides parking space for carpools or vanpools

Encourages use of public transportation

No cost increase associated with required documentation

No cost increase associated with designing, planning or agineering
No cost increase associated with material purchase

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

210

 

No cost increase associated with construction labor

 

 

No cost increase associated with construction project management

 

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4.4 from Case Studies

Literature Review:

Literature Review indicates the following attributes for SS Credit 4.4:

 

Minimizes parking lot/ garage size [USGBC-2]

 

Provides parking space for carpools or vanpools [USGBC-2]

 

Subject to location of project site [USGBC-2]

 

Subject to number of cars likely to drive to the site [USGBC-2]

 

Encourages use of public transportation [USGBC—21

 

Reduces amount of impervious surface, reduces stormwater runoff [USGBC-2]

 

Reduces air pollution [USGBC-2]

 

Low costs [SWA 2004] and [Eijadi et al. 20021

 

Addresses global environmental impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

No health impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

 

Addresses health impacts [Mrozowski et al. 2006]

 

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4.4 from Literature Review

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for SS Credit 4. 4:

211

E. 0020 00 8 03%: 803:5.

 

00080 003 32 00388
030 .0895 £80 3388
$80 .0 s 003825

08 00-00008 .0805 5.80
8 000288 :80 .0 a... 000$

030
$0300 23%.:

00t0> 0000:: 530i

 

050009 3008000300
820% 000388 030
000000: 3008000300 ~32»
3388 .88 .0 a 03.03

030
.58 .0 s mama

000095 300080.030 0.000002%

 

 

“COED Nada ~00. O.—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mU . 0000300000 5E 08060000 00000000 .000 02

mo . 0002 000250000 50>» 000060000 0000005 0000 02

m0 . 00050.30 300008 FEB 000060000 0000005 0000 02

m=t005w00 ..o wag—0E

m0 . $509000 55 000060000 0000005 0000 02

00080080000

mu . 0003000 55 00.060000 0000005 0000 02

mBU . 00:03 00.0 0300080 0008 0.808800 00x02

030 .R-0000a . . 8:230 .0 88000
030 :80 .0 . 00.8 33

0 Emma 038 <30.

 

030 #00003

toss.— 0803:0080
0003000 .000m30 000300080 00 0:00.00 000:00M

 

00 .030 00.0.0003

 

0000000 0:00 0:0: 00 00: 00 0500.5

 

3-00003

0:0 05 00 0300 00 3003 0000 00 0005:: 00 000.3%

 

3-00003

 

20 000.80 mo 00:000. 00 000.005

 

00 00-00003

 

0_00 00> .8 £00 0000 000 0 0.300 00030;

 

,jj
0200505

 

 

00 00-00002
0030050002
..0 00.55

 

350.5%

 

mflflfiacu

 

0&0 0w000w >2 @5100 00000002

 

Eofinougnm

 

22:3.

 

 

530900 $510k ”=050t0m0n00r—t 0300:0830 "v.3

 

5.000 mm

212

SS Credit 5.1: Site Development: Protect or Restore Habitat (Formerly - Reduced
Site Disturbance: Development Footprint) Analysis:

The researcher found the important attributes for SS Credit 5.1 to be — conserves existing
natural areas and restores damaged areas, maintains existing natural ecosystem and
reduces infrastructure construction. These attributes were identified by collaborative
work session and/ or case studies and supported by the literature.

Intent of the Credit: Conserve existing natural areas and restore damaged areas to

provide habitat and promote biodiversity [USGBC-2].

Work Session: Most work groups viewed this credit as situational. Moderate technical
difficulties with implementation were identified as concerns based on building
configuration, height etc. The work groups recommend use of this credit but they
generally indicated that better urban/regional planning might be more effective. Work
groups also indicated that differences in urban and rural developments would affect the

ability to use this credit. Table table shows the work session responses obtained for SS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credit 5.1.
Question Response Grpup
1
What organizational Benefits: enhanced water quality 2
benefits / concerns do Landscape management/stewardship plan is required to effectively
you foresee in implement. Align with regional strategy - neighbors may not like 3
pursuing this credit— your weeds, having in place a master plan that insures a long term
standard? commitment to open space
Easy to get on Greenfield site but not on urban site. Does not 4
encourage density, compact design.
Design, technical 1
and, political Technically could be hard to meet the dimensions in Option 1.
strategies that could gMulti story buildings in particular)
be used for 3

 

 

 

 

 

213

 

compliance with this This is not a substitute to good urban planning/design. Intent is 4

credit—standard. good, can your get there on all projects. Potentially do it on a

Explain regional/ community planning level where the bigger planning issues
are addressed, but on a project by project basis where things get
chopped up.

 

What situational
criteria might
influence use of this
credit-standard?
Explain

 

 

 

$93k?—

 

 

 

 

Urban vs. rural will vary.

 

Work Session Responses for SS Credit 5.1

Work session responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 5.1:

water

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 5.1 from Work Session

 

Case Studies: For Case Study 1, this credit was achieved by restoring and maintaining
natural vegetation. Excavated earth was deposited to form berms rather than being hauled
from the site. This credit was achieved to preserve space and these berms in combination
with existing vegetation help to provide some degree of visual and acoustical isolation
from the adjacent major roadway. The respondents indicated that there was no significant
cost increase associated with material purchase; documentation and construction project
management for complying with this credit and the cost of designing, planning or
engineering was neutral due to lack of utility connections and less excavation.
Respondents indicated that there were cost savings in terms of construction labor, but the
workers had to work in tight space. Being urbanized sites, Case Studies 2 and 3 did not
pursue this credit. Case Study 4 will not pursue this credit because of site configuration
limitations.

The interview responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 5.1:

214

 

Conserves existinLnatural areas and restores damaged areas

 

Maintains existing natural ecosystem

 

Reduces infrastructure construction

 

Provides better visual impact

 

No cost increase associated with required documentation

 

No cost increase associated with designing, planning or engineering

 

No cost increase associated with material purchase

 

No cost increase associated with construction labor

 

 

No cost increase associated with construction project management

 

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 5.1 from Case Studies

Literature Review:

Literature Review indicates the following attributes for SS Credit 5.]:

 

Conserves existing natural areas and restores damaged areas [USGBC-2]

 

Limits construction on greenfield site or previously developed site LUSGBC-Z]

 

Reduces building footprint [USGBC—2i

 

Maintains existing natural ecosystenflUSGBC-Z]

 

Reduces infrastructure construction [USGBC-2]

 

No cost increase [SWA 2004] and {FPC 2001]

 

Medium costs [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

Addresses local/ regional environmental impacts LEi'Ladi et al. 2002]

 

No health impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

 

Addresses health impacts [Mrozowski et al. 2006]

 

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 5.1 from Literature Review

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for SS Credit 5. I:

215

em :85 mm 3 was: “82:52

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smog; figwgfiagoa cons—once
. on a 0:00 .3050
_wfimirfiyfirfi swarm . .....E..§ 9...:
510: o: vows—0:8 ”moon .3 «o Gamma
flanges Baggage E @3328". .
$50 .3225: 3:250:25 3:3on .950 Ewen . 38mg assuage» mommy—BE
:82 8308... .88 .e 3 ER: 3 .0 ENE
68
8338 cog—once mBU 93 Room .3 mBU .Boraom . 85> “woo
Ho Edna .8383 38 o: wove—once 0::an5 .
58 0%.; :58 E
m0 . «Swan .85 ~38 HEB @2308? 8885 $8 02
m0 . Saa— aousfimconc HEB 33683 8853 38 oz
m0 . 822an 3.8qu 55 3568.8 0322: 88 oz
3%
m0 . .weamwmov 55 83683 8883 38 02
5:858:08
mo . 3:33.— 53, 85083 $385 $8 oz
mo . Human: 33$ dozen 82>on
mBU . . bang $33 moonmncm
60%
mBU . unsaved: no confines—293 groom... moi—com
8 .3883 . . a3
.mmmoumwwm . Eogmzwooo EB“: wages mESEmE
$883 . a: hoe 52:5 $2.8m
admoma . 3
230305 5 new EBB—ovum no 5535980 £85
a
mu ANOmOmE . 8532 new mac; _Eamu wfiumio “Bowman“
5.7.2.85 news—Luau": gagg— iafl.
he ouhaom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«33a: 9.3on .8 «989$ sewage—96¢ mam "mm 5.30 mm

216

SS Credit 5.2: Site Development: Maximize Open Space Analysis:

The researcher found the important attributes for SS Credit 5.2 to be — reduces
development footprint, provides vegetated open space, minimizes site disruption,
increases amount of daylighting and reduces heat island effects. These attributes were
identified by collaborative work session and/ or case studies and supported by the
literature.

Intent of the Credit: Provide a high ratio of open space to development footprint to

promote biodiversity [USGBC-2].

Work Session: Although project open space was seen as a positive for occupants, this
credit was believed to potentially promote sprawl and was not highly recommended for
adoption by public agencies. Some increased costs were associated with multistory
design solutions potentially necessary in meeting the credit. Work groups indicated that
good overall urban design solutions might be a better approach. Although generally work
groups seemed to indicate some environmental and health benefits, the costs and
potential sprawl pressures seemed to outweigh them in the quadrant analysis. Table table

shows the work session responses obtained for SS Credit 5.2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Response Grgup
1

Benefits: to employees / occupiers of the building; increases water

What organizational infiltration, reduction of heat island effect, more opportunities for

benefits / concerns do day lighting for employees 2

you foresee in Concerns: tension with the emphasis on density; could be offset by

pursuing this credit- buildianorm (multi story) or regionally provided open space

standard? 3
Intent is to push taller buildings, but does it create a mix of uses and
synergy, and a reason to be there. More is not necessarily better, 4
how you do it matters.

Design, technical l

and, political

strategies that could 3

 

 

 

 

 

217

 

be used for LEED should stick with the technical stuff (water efficiency, energy, 4
compliance with this etc.) not urban design, planning aspects. Some kind of credit at a
credit-standard. regional level. No good substitute for good urban design.
Explain

What situational
criteria might
influence use of this
credit-standard?
Explain

 

 

 

 

butts.)—

Coupled with good solid comprehensive coordinated urban design
maybe.

Work Session Responses for SS Credit 5.2

 

 

 

 

 

Work session responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 5.2:

 

Increase amount of daylighting
Reduces heat island effects
L_l-I_igh costs

illgh environmental benefits
Medium health benefits
Promotes sprawl

Increases water infiltration

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 5.2 from Work Session

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Studies: Case Study 1 site is relatively large which allowed for use of this credit.
Maintaining existing vegetation, the vernal pond and open space were all used to provide
distance, sound and visual separation from the adjacent major roadway. The respondents
indicated that there was no significant cost increase associated with material purchase;
documentation and construction project management for complying with this credit and
the cost of designing, planning or engineering was neutral due to lack of utility
connections and less excavation. Respondents indicated that there were cost savings in
terms of construction labor, but the workers had to work in tight space. Case Study 2 has
been developed in an area with no local zoning requirements for open space. Open space,
equal to the building footprint, has been provided adjacent to the building. In addition,
the university has designated open space for the life of the building. Being an urbanized
site, Case Study 3 did not pursue this credit. Case Study 4 may achieve this credit. Open

space definition in MSU includes parking space.

218

The interview responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 5.2:

 

Reduces develgiment footprint

 

Provides vegetated open space

 

Minimizes site disruption

 

Provides better visual impact

 

No cost increase associated with required documentation

 

No cost increase associated with designing, planning or engineerinL

 

No cost increase associated with material purchase

 

No cost increase associated with construction labor

 

 

No cost increase associated with construction project management

 

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 5.2 from Case Studies

Literature Review:

Literature Review indicates the following attributes for SS Credit 5.2:

 

Reduces develgment footprint [USGBC-2]

 

Provides vegetated open space [USGBC-2]

 

Minimizes site disruption [USGBC-2]

 

Increases amount of daylighting [USGBC-Q

 

Reduces heat island effects [USGBC-2]

 

No cost increase [SWA 2004] and [FPC 2001]

 

Medium costs [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

Addresses local/ regional environmental impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

No health impacts [Eijadi et a1. 2002]

 

 

Addresses health impacts [Mrozowski et al. 2006]

 

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 5.2 from Literature Review

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for SS Credit 5.2:

219

am :85 mm 3 e322 muses:

   

 
                    

 

 

«daemon 530:
$608 @3388 mBU .3895 513
36.338 SOON .3 8 238085 .3898“.
£33 8 8388 H83 .3 a 63.":
among ”Bevan—835 FE c8238
mBU £638“. _Snoaaohzs :82on
>82 82.88 H88 .3 so mama

 

    

 

mks

85> can: so
got/om 83385 . a ..E m

             

 

 

25 .58
a e papa

 

     

$899. 3:085:50 832234.

 

 

          

                  

awe. 336.80 ”1.30 SE $8 83608
envious Room .3 yo Emma .8855 58
8 8388 SOS PE 9:. ES 35$

$50
.3333 BBEBE

 

85> “moo

 

 

                                 

   

 

      
  

“ENE 60.9. :ouoshmaoQ
5:: 36683 3853 $8 02
“one. morgue—co

.2? 33883 3855 “wow 02
8295.

3.638 HEB 606688 3855 “mo... 02
”Genocide .5 “Bang.

mmm 83.85 38 02
5:858:08
8:32 5:5 c2382..“ 3885 $00 02

 

         

                

 

 

63c: Ea; dozen mug/oi

 

: 3 .«o 650:8 momma.—
aocaamé can moNMEMEE

 

 

    

:2 3:2: . 295: 85 "mm 2.695 mm

220

SS Credit 6.1: Stormwater Design: Quantity Control (Formerly - Storm water
Management: Rate and Quantity) Analysis:

The researcher found the important attribute for SS Credit 6.1 to be — requires careful
design and maintenance of system. This attribute was identified by collaborative work
session and supported by the literature.

Intent of the Credit: Limit disruption of natural water hydrology by reducing impervious
cover, increasing on-site infiltration, reducing or eliminating pollution from stormwater
runoff, and eliminating contaminants [USGBC-2]

Work Session: Work session participants indicated that meeting this credit would yield
high environmental benefits and had low costs associated with implementation. This
credit was highly recommended for adoption by public agencies. Some technical
concerns were expressed with design and maintenance of systems used to implement this
credit. The need for careful integrated planning was expressed. Overall public sector
owners recommended this credit for adoption. Table below shows the work session

responses obtained for SS Credit 6.].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Response Grzup
Opportunity for teaching/ learning for students and faculty on
campus. Improve water quality and eliminate fines from non- l
compliance. Sometimes finding enough space on campus is a
roblern—it requires up parking space
What organizational Benefits: better stream water quality; better fish habitat; could
benefits / concerns do prevent nasty lawsuits arising from flooded downstream neighbors;
you foresee in Concerns: The reductions seem rather arbitrary (if you are 51 must 2
pursuing this credit- reduce to 37%); technical nature of analysis could lead to improper
standard? numbers
Recharge Aquifer — counties and municipalities vary in their level of
control. Is it necessary to fully store the 2 year event — design for 3
two year slow, cleanse cool and infiltrate. Owners need to be
educated — visible systems
4
Design, technical Balancing energy needs with water needs—cg, cisterns, solar 1
and, political powered pumps—through demonstration projects.

 

22]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

strategies that could Integrated design process is necessary; need to have up front 2
be used for planning for this.
compliance with this Stormwater needs a high level of management that may be possible
credit-standard. at the site level; e.g., county drain commissioners really need to
Explain know what thexare doing
High 3
Would it be better to manage storm water at the watershed level, not 4
project-by-project that actually increases the amount of time heavy
flows are moving through the river/stream and eroding more.
What situational Regulations. Available fresh—water supplies. 1
criteria might 2
influence use of this 3
credit-standard? Focusing on infiltration is good. 4
Explain

 

 

 

 

Work Session Responses for SS Credit 6.1

Work session the attributes for SS Credit 6.1:

     

      

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 6.1 from Work Session

Case Studies: None of the case study projects pursued this credit. Because of the high
cost associated with cistern/ greywater system, Case Study 4 will not pursue this credit.

The interview responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 6.1:

 

[ High equipment purchase cost

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 6.1 from Case Studies

 

Literature Review: Literature Review indicates the following attributes for SS Credit 6.]:

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 6.1 from Literature Review

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for SS Credit 6. I .'

222

3 E85 mm 3 e822 8:332

 

gs

5:3: 82on woeflogo mBU
.9895 5.8: 3388 seem
an 6 EmBONEEH 588:: 5:3:
8 8388 Room a e eéa

wBU
.3033” 33885

35> 83:: £232

 

Begun

3:088:35 AME cowfiofixv mBU
.30ng _S:ofi:oh>:o 3:23..
>82 8388 Room .3 a eéa

mac
488 a a Gama

303:: 35:30:50 3323?:

 

$80 32 3:30:80 mBU Ea
3855 3.8 o: woefloeoo Room .3
6 Exam: .umoa nwE :o 8.855 «m8
0: .565 vows—once _voom <33

mBU
"Begum 05825

85> “moo

 

mu

“moo 838:: 50:55?» swam

 

mac Awomoma

689$ we 85:835.:
«Em :wwmow 1:88 mohscom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- £05:
Hm omOmE . Sausages «o 2:29 05 5 $86an
KOmOmE . mooflgw mace/.592 mofigmz
3-0m0wa . coast—GE ciao 83805
HmOmOma . 328?»: 3.58: mo 8395:. £55
Egan—.85 :euaocznoE age-Sum 3:55:30 .:oE:o.:>:H 3:553.
we ooh—Sm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.55.0 @3530 ":wfion— 333::on :6 «50:0 mm

223

SS Credit 6.2: Stormwater Design: Quality Control (Formerly - Storm water
Management: Treatment) Analysis:

The researcher found the important attributes for SS Credit 6.2 to be — reduces or
eliminates water pollution, minimizes impervious surfaces, increases on-site infiltration,
eliminates sources of contaminants, removes pollutants from stormwater runoff and
decreases stormwater runoff. These attributes were identified by collaborative work
session and/ or case studies and supported by the literature.

Intent of the Credit: Limit disruption and pollution of natural water flows by managing
stormwater runoff [USGBC-2].

Work Session: Work groups ranked the environmental benefits from meeting this credit
as high, but indicated cost increases were associated with the credit. Participants
indicated that not all sites could support the use of this credit. Porous pavements, green
roofs and flow through planters were seen as potential strategies, for helping to meet this
credit. This credit was viewed as connected to SS Credit 6.1. Generally, it was
recommended that credit be adopted for public sector projects depending on project

conditions. Table below shows the work session responses obtained for SS Credit 6.2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Response Grzup
see SS Credit 6.1 1
Benefits: methods given will improve water quality by
increased infiltration and removal of suspended solids and other
contaminants
What Organizational Concerns: scale seems low for dealing with water quality 2
benefits / concerns do you (regional issue); lack of data on BMPs (whether they work or
foresee in pursuing this , not); lack of baseline data for the monitoring reports in some
credit-standard? locations; TMDL data can help
Porous pavements — interlocking infill concrete pavers i.e. turf
stone installed over materials with fines — office, industrial, 3
parks, ball stadium, hospitals $4 to 5 @ SF — better for cold
climate, snow removal — rubbeflge blade
4
Design, technical and, 1
political strategies that 2

 

224

 

I»

could be used for
compliance with this Is it more problematic in urban setting however, green roofs will 4
credit-standard. Explain hold most of the water that it receives? Flow through planters.
Infiltration beyond 15’ of the building.

 

 

What situational criteria
might influence use of this
credit—standard? Explain

 

 

 

 

 

AWN—I

 

 

 

Work Session Responses for SS Credit 6.2

Work session responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 6.2:
Reduces or eliminates water pollution

Increases on-site infiltration

Eliminates sources of contaminants

Removes pollutants from stormwater runoff

_H_igh costs

_I-I_i_gh environmental benefits

High health benefits

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 6.2 from Work Session

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Studies: For Case Study 1, bioswales were used to channel and filter water runoff
from roof areas into the vernal pond. Reduced paving for parking areas also helped to
decrease stormwater runoff. The respondents indicated that there were no significant cost
increases associated with designing, planning or engineering; material purchase;
construction labor; documentation and construction project management for complying
with this credit. The other case study projects did not pursue this credit. Because of the
high cost associated with cistem/ greywater system, Case Study 4 will not pursue this
credit.

The interview responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 6.2:

 

Minimizes impervious surfaces

Increases on-site infiltration

Decreases stormwater runoff

No cost increase associated with reguired documentation

No cost increase associated with designing. planning or engineering
No cost increase associated with construction labor

No cost increase associated with construction project management
No cost increase associated with material purchase

High equipment purchase cost

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 6.2 from Case Studies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

225

Literature Review:

Literature Review indicates the following attributes for SS Credit 6.2:

 

Reduces or eliminates water pollution [USGBC-2]

 

Minimizes impervious surfaces [USGBC—2]

 

Increases on-site infiltration [USGBC-2]

 

Eliminates sources of contaminants [USGBC-2]

 

Removes pollutants from stormwater runofijSGBC-2]

 

Decreases stormwater runoff [USGBC-2]

 

Moderate cost [SWA 2004]

 

No cost increase [FPC 2001]

 

Si nificant costs [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

Addresses local/ regional environmental impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002L

 

No health impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

 

Addresses health impacts [Mrozowski et al. 2006]

 

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 6.2 from Literature Review

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for SS Credit 6. 2:

226

 

ad 5.9.0 mm 3 6839. mouaflut<

 

fiwoaon 530: E @3288 wBU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 8&5 0 0:8
“.8 Ear—Mg Man—swam WW“ .3033“ 33MB“ . more.» 83:: 530mm
8 8388 .88 a .... mama
wagon
Efiaogao w a 0:8 .
an .8893 fiWowWHWSWo Edwmuw .meMWAWWMW . flosafi 5:020:25 mommy—3"
>82 8388 Room a a magma
880 E cog—83
E50 93 88 «enemas Eva—once
H88 .3 a mama .8855 . mac . 85> ~80
as on 3388 zoom PE .38 serum 0583:
33305 823:8 :8“ <33
m0 . «moo 83an aaoafisco 35
323 SEE 80.8
mo . cocoabmnoo 55 “923083 8855 38 02
m0 . 52.2 855538 5:» 33882... 8853 68 02
m0 . 8383 35me 55 83883 3333 38 oz
mining;
m0 . .wfiqmaoc 5E E32083 833$ 58 oz
nozsgfisoou
mu . $8568 £5 33883 8855 68 02
m0 ANOmOma . mos: $33506 8380an
mBU Amdmwma . mane SEBESE Sod 9532—8 $580M
mBU AWUmea . Sagacg Co 8858 3%
.mmwoomwmm . 8:229: cameo mowmocos
8 .3039: . 883m 32595 WEBB:
mBU ANOmOma . . sous—Em 53>» 8338:“. 8 333%
Exam—.3.:— EfiwocunwE 352.com lama-Wow Ewaghgm— Mae.
he ouusom

 

 

_ebnoU ham—«=0 Ewmmoa 333::on ”ad 5.9.0 mm

227

SS Credit 7.1: Heat Island Effect: Non-Roof Analysis:

The researcher found the important attributes for SS Credit 7.1 to be —— reduces heat
islands, limits the amount of impervious hardscape areas and provides shading for hard
surfaced areas. These attributes were identified by collaborative work session and/ or
case studies and supported by the literature.

Intent of the Credit: Reduce heat islands (thermal gradient differences between
developed and undeveloped areas) to minimize impact on microclimate and human and

wildlife habitat [USGBC-2].

Work Session: Health and environmental benefits were seen as moderate with this credit
and costs increases were seen as moderate‘to high for northern climates. Establishing
tree canopies was seen as difficult for larger parking facilities, and cost of reflective
pavements was seen as an increase over standard pavements. Work groups indicated that
the use of this credit would be situational. Table below shows the work session responses

obtained for SS Credit 7.1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Response Grzup
Snow removal issues in winter with certain pavement. I
What organizational Concern: 5 year rule for shade can be difficult to achieve; very
benefits / concerns do difficult to quantify benefits (harder to tell than BMP) 2
you foresee in Benefits: does reduce heat
pursuing this credit- Porous paving is encouraged — trees are difficult to implement - SR 3
standard? index is good for concrete but is expensive
Seasonal issues do they apply to our climate — sometimes especially 4
in urban.
Design, technical One must consider how the extremes of climate here affect the l
and, political benefits of different strategies, including pavement snow
strategies that could maintenance.
be used for 2
compliance with this 3
credit-standard. Adding more complexity/detail to parking areas = smaller areas, 4
Explain greater reflectivity pavement may cost more.
What situational Regulations may affect storm water availability 1
criteria might Encourage solar reflexive parking wherever surface parking 2

 

 

228

 

influence use of this 3
credit-standard? 4
Explain

 

 

 

 

 

 

Work Session Responses for SS Credit 7.1

Work session responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 7.1:

 

Reduces heat islands

Provides shading for hard surfaced areas

Moderate to high costs

Medium environmental benefits

Medium health benefits

Has issues with snow removal in winter with certairmavement

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 7.1 from Work Session

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Studies: Case Study I achieved this credit by reducing parking pavement,
maintaining and restoring natural vegetation to provide shading for hard surfaced areas
and using white flagstone in sunny hard surfaced areas. Because of high value of trees,
natural vegetation was restored inspite of some debate about value of some species. The
respondents indicated that there were no significant cost increases associated with
designing, planning or engineering; material purchase; construction labor; documentation
and construction project management for complying with this credit. Case Study 2 did
not pursue this credit. Case Study 3 used reflective white Portland cement concrete for
sunny hard surfaced exterior areas to achieve this credit. The respondents indicated that
there were minor cost increases for documentation required for this credit and cost
increases for material purchase, the cost of Portland Cement Concrete being
approximately double than asphalt cost. Case Study 4 provided a combination of
reflective concrete sidewalks and shade to achieve this credit.

The interview responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 7.]:

 

Limits the amount of impervious hardscape areas

Provides shading for hard surfaced areas

Cost increase associated with required documentation varies (one of the case study projects had no cost
increase associated with required documentation whereas one case study project had minor cost
increase)

 

 

 

 

 

229

 

No cost increase associated with designing, planning or engineering

 

No cost increase associated with construction labor

 

No cost increase associated with construction project management

 

Cost increase associated with material purchase varies (one of the case study projects experienced no
cost increase and the other project had high material purchase cost)

 

 

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 7.1 from Case Studies
Literature Review:

Literature Review indicates the following attributes for SS Credit 7.1:

 

Reduces heat islands [USGBC-2]

 

Minimizes impact on microclimate and human and wildlife habitat [USGBC-2]

 

Limits the amount of impervious hardscape areas [USGBC-2]

 

Provides shadig for hard surfaced areas [USGBC-2]

 

No cost increase (SWA 2004] anflFPC 2001]

 

Minor costs [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

Addresses local/ regional environmental impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

No health impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

 

Addresses health impacts [Mrozowski et al. 2006]

 

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 7.1 from Literature Review

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for SS Credit 7. I:

230

E €20 mm e .52.: ”33:5.

 

“moo 8383 3:038 nwE can 80.8.3

nor—g

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..o o o .8385 $8 on 03:35 . .
5 a £3885 wwfim enema We 25 m0 03:83 Hum—038 HEB 33688 2.: 600
03805 “moo SE8 3: 80.05
35% 88 one .80an gonna—5:508 85> 8:858:98
damage 55 38688 0305 m0 . 3:52 55 Big 883E :80
$8 on can $00.—dun beam 080 05 mo 25
Sweden H28: 3338 vow—€80
mBU .3895 53% Beige". mks .BoEm . 85> 3qu— H28:
:58 .a a £5383; .5085 05805 . .
.28: 8 89:88 H88 .3 so mama
amoeba fianogoaéo 8338 cog—once A
$50 .Soaag _Snoaeohgu ~32»?— fiJW—cmmw . 88%: 3:255:30 $3803.
:82 3.388 H88 .3 a «Ema . ..
$80 a E 8 Subven— veg—once
E50 98 88 838 83650 $50 .BoEom
_88 a a mama cases 38 8 cheese: . 85> “80
3288 .88 El”: 23 :58 $53
m0 . cEwE “8n ameoo HEB @828me $335 “moo oz
mo . 8.3 555538 5:5 83689.“ 3.885 “moo oz
meteofiweo co wEEEm
m0 . .miawmmou a; 3368mm 3885 38 oz
EoEonm Ear—co
mBU . 55 SEE E 13068 30% at? 332 we:
Amwoommwmwm . 32m about; Em; com 9:35. 3365
mo ANOmOmD . macs ommomebfi 253.6 g .«o 250:8 on“ $85
- 552 “56:3
3 mema . . can 58:: 28 8250828 no comma: BEBE:
Amdmwwxwm . . menu? Eon $2.3m
Egan—.85 a 352.com §§$=m 22:52
me 3.3m

 

 

3.5—-52 use:— 252 .8: "E. 5.20 mm

231

SS Credit 7.2: Heat Island Effect: Roof Analysis:

The researcher found the important attribute for SS Credit 7.2 to be — reduces heat

islands. This attribute was identified by collaborative work session and supported by the

literature.

Intent of the Credit: Reduce heat islands (thermal gradient differences between

developed and undeveloped areas) to minimize impact on microclimate and human and

wildlife habitat [USGBC-2].

Work Session: Costs increases associated with green roofs were seen as high, however

the use of reflective roof coverings was seen as practical to implement. The work groups

although generally favoring the use of this credit, did not overwhelmingly recommend its

adoption by public sector owners. Table below shows the work session responses

obtained for SS Credit 7.2.

 

Question Response

Group

 

 

What organizational

 

benefits / concerns do you

foresee in pursuing this Every Roof Material is practical to consider — vegetated is

more practical for synergi33

WN—i

 

credit-standard? _ , .
Perception that it is too over the edge, too costly, and not what

we are used to seeing.

A

 

Design, technical and,

 

political strategies that

 

could be used for
compliance with this credit-

 

standard. Explain

 

What situational criteria

 

might influence use of this

 

credit-standard?

 

Explain

 

 

Need more data to get acceptability.

 

AwN-Awm—

 

Work Session Responses for SS Credit 7.2

Work session responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 7.2:

 

Reduces heat islands

 

Low or high costs

 

High environmental benefits
High health benefits

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 7.2 from Work Session

 

232

 

 

Case Studies: For Case Study 2, an Energy Star rated roofing product that has an
emissivity of at least 0.9 has covered 95.58% of the total roof area. Case Study 3 used
reflective roof material to achieve this credit. The respondents indicated that except for
documentation costs, there was no significant cost increase associated with designing,
planning or engineering; material purchase; construction labor; and construction project
management for complying with this credit. For Case Study 4, light/ reflective roof
material is being used to achieve this credit. The respondents indicated that because of
high cost, green roof is not being installed.

The interview responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 7.2:

 

Minor cost increase associated with regired documentation

No cost increase associated with designing, planning or egineering
No cost increase associated with construction labor

No cost increase associated with construction proiect management
No cost increase associated with material purchase

_H_igh cost for instaflg green roof

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 7.2 from Case Studies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Literature Review: Literature Review indicates the following attributes for SS Credit 7.2:

 

Reduces heat islands [USGBC-2]

Minimizes impact on microclimate and human and wildlife habitat [USGBC-2]
Green roofs provide insulating benefits, aesthetic appeal and lower maintenance than standard roofs
[USGBC-2]

Garden roofs reduce stormwater volumes [USGBC-2]

No cost increase or high costs [SWA 2004]

No cost increase [FPC 20011

Si nificant costs [Eijadi et al. 2002]

Addresses local/ regional environmental impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

No health impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

Addresses health impacts [Mrozowski et al. 2006]

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 7.2 from Literature Review

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for SS Credit 7.2:

233

«H 5.20 mm 3 @829. 8:533.

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smog
5:8: 33 dogmas mg duodenum 5.8: mg .3033” . 85> 88:: 530$
8388 Goa a a REESE 38%: Base: .
an»: 8 8388 .88 .3 so mama
Sweden fiflaofiuogao E cog—once A
mBU .389“: assuage Han—0&2 .950 Noom . 3895 §§§0h>ao mom§u<
. a a mega
>82 8388 H88 3 .0 puma
38 E .5 32 @3388
$6 v.5 as 88mg” 8388 v.26 .3252
Room 3 .0 Manama 8383 «moo on . 85> 980
23.3.5 .
8388 58 PE .38 SE a 03205 .
58 8 has 3.288 :8” <an
mo . moo.— aooum MAE—~55 now $8 swam
6080 288 80.2
mo . 2532538 .23 83682.. 3885 38 oz
.32
mo . nocosbmeoo £5 832ch £8.55 38 oz
Sufism
m0 . HERE as» uBESmma 8855 “moo oz
wqtoofimeu no wanna—m
mo . .m:8m_w% .23 33688 3885 $8 02
mo . 5:858:98
3:33. 5.5, 323082.. 8885 38 SEE
fidmOma . 8829 583::on 832 £08 SEED
£08
Hmdmwma . . . Emuqflm 55 85:0ng 832 can Gonna
385mg deacon maze—35 0235 £02 520
- 55a: NEE? can
an Dmoma . . 383 new Sag—88.2: no 88:: 858sz
.mmdmwcmwm . was? so: 88qu
nova—3.5 53.65.52 omEonoom fiEE—ESU EoEEEEfl 8.352
Co 8.55

 

 

hoom 33:”.— uaflm— 23E ”Nb HEP—U mm

234

SS Credit 8: Light Pollution Reduction Analysis:

The researcher found the important attributes for SS Credit 8 to be — no cost/ potential
cost decrease and some concern about public safety in campus settings. These attributes
were identified by collaborative work session and/ or case studies and supported by the
literature.

Intent of the Credit: Minimize light trespass from the building and site, reduce sky-glow
to increase night sky access, improve nighttime visibility through glare reduction, and
reduce development impact on nocturnal environments [USGBC-2].

Work Session: Public sector owners generally recommended this credit for adoption.
Environmental benefits were seen as moderate. The work groups did not see a strong
health benefit from use of the credit and some concern was expresses over public safety
for general walkways in campus settings. Careful overall site lighting design is necessary

when using this credit. Table below shows the work session responses obtained for SS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credit 8.
Question Response Group #
1
What organizational 2
benefits / concerns do you Municipalities have varying comfort levels, fairly easy 3
foresee in pursuing this achieve and not costly
credit-standard? Generally good overall but not applicable everywhere such as
recycle district. Best reason to do it is reduced energy 4
consumption.
Design, technical and, 1
political strategies that 2
could be used for 3
compliance With this Using less energy, better environment. Don’t know the 4
C” ed it—standar ‘1' Explain impact to safety — do the reduce percentages maintain a safe
environment?
What situational criteria 1
might influence use of this 2
credit-standard? Explain 3
Contextual component to this thing. 4

 

 

 

 

 

Work Session Responses for SS Credit 8

235

Work session responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 8:

 

No cost/ Eatential cost decrease

 

Medium environmental benefits

 

Low health benefits

 

 

Some concern about public safety in campus settings

 

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 8 from Work Session

Case Studies: Case Study 1 campus lighting standards were consistent with this credit.

Limited site lighting was installed. Safety is achieved by use of lighting bollards and

safety pylons. The respondents indicated that there were no significant cost increases

associated with designing, planning or engineering; material purchase; construction labor;

documentation and construction project management for complying with this credit. For

Case Study 2, project’s exterior lighting has been designed in accordance with the

referenced IESNA guidelines. No new site lighting has been provided since the building

is on existing campus. Case Study 3 did not pursue this credit because high light level

was needed for safety purpose. For Case Study 4, general university lighting standards

comply with this credit.

The interview responses suggest the following attributes for SS Credit 8:

 

Some concern about public safety in campus settings

 

No cost increase associated with required documentation

 

No cost increase associated with designing, planning or engineering

 

No cost increase associated with construction labor

 

No cost increase associated with construction project management

 

 

No cost increase associated with material purchase

 

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 8 from Case Studies

Literature Review: Literature Review indicates the following attributes for SS Credit 8:

 

Minimizes lifltrespass from the building and site [USGBC-2]

 

Reduces sky-glow to increase night sky access [USGBC-2]

 

Improves night time visibility through glare reductioniUSGBC-Z]

 

Reduces development impact on nocturnal environments [USGBC-2]

 

No cost / potential cost decrease [SWA 2004], [FPC 2001] and [Eijadi et al. 2004]

 

Addresses local/ regional environmental impacts [Eijadi et al. 2004]

 

 

No health impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

 

Attributes Identified for SS Credit 8 from Literature Review

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for SS Credit 8:

236

w 5.9.0 mm S @822 mag—Evie:

 

 

£83 £8: 32
3388 v.26 .983 £8;
8 8388 Room .3 s mama

$6
488 a so mama

85> 88:: 53am

 

wagon 355856
H585 8388 $6 .583:
_Bnoauogfi. 38%“: >82
wows—once ”meow .3 do mania

map
488 a e mama

98%: 3:08:93ch 38063..

 

 

 

 

 

 

a: 80.8.29
mo . 5:03.538 85 “.8283“ 8358 $8 02
m0 . conu—
aougbmas 5:» 322983 8855 58 oz
328:
m0 . 3.8me firs 8368mm 335$ 68 oz
mauve—twee no wing—m
m0 . .wfizwaov HEB US$083 8855 38 02
5:855:08
mu . 3562 515 38688 335.: $8 02
m0 .mBU a
O

mama—no E bomfi 253m Bonn E0280 oEom

 

$50 as :58
.3 s 6%: .58
PE 438 35$

mummy—Dow ..mOU EEQOHOQ \ 300 oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

- mgnofiaohgo
Hm umOmE . . REBoo: :o 63:: “guano—0>0“. $260M
Edmcma . . 88.68
22» inch: 3:56.; we: Ewe 335::
Hmdmcma . . 888 gm ENE 3,885 9 Bofiwtfim 80:qu
can
3-0m0ma . . was win—Sn 06 Bob mmnmmob Ew: moEEE—z
Exam—.85 grant—SE ego—Sum ”NEE—ESQ 25:59:25 2.533.
a: 358m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

season 5:33:— 3»: "a :86 mm

237

Water Efficiency (WE) Credits

WE Credit 1.1: Water Efficient Landscaping: Reduce by 50% Analysis:

The researcher found the important attribute for WE Credit 1.1 to be — encourages use of
native or adaptive plants. This attribute was identified by collaborative work session and
case studies and supported by the literature.

Intent of the Credit: Limit or eliminate the use of potable water, or other natural surface
or subsurface water resources available on or near the project site, for landscape irrigation

[USGBC-2].

Work Session: Saving water was seen to have a strong enviromnental benefit, and
therefore the groups recommended the adoption of this credit by public sector owners.
Careful landscape design was seen as an important element. Because use of this credit is
likely to lead to nontraditional plant selections, it is possible that approval agencies and
the public will need to be educated in how and what is being accomplished. Costs to
implement were seen as low by the workgroups. Table below shows the work session

responses obtained for WE Credit 1.11.

 

Question Response Grgup

 

 

Benefits: Concern with water conservation will come to M1. Good
for PR, also potential economic/fiscal benefits for firm/agency. 2
(Reducing costs of irrigation, etc.) Reducing treatment

What organizational requirements/infrastructure to deal with water/stormwater
benefits / concerns do Reduced water use and cost & systems maintenance — Concern:

 

you foresee in credit still encourages irrigation, can maintain urban landscape to 3
pursuing this credit- support wildlife and clean air in water and landscape challenged
standard? area’s

 

Basic benefits due to our climate. Need to understand native
community = impacts water requirements. In many instances, a
native plant requires as much water as a non-native — depending on 4
the species. Long-term maintenance can become a larger issue =
control burns.

 

 

 

 

 

238

and, political

strategies that could

be used for

compliance with this system

credit-standard. pipe for grey water.

criteria might
influence use of this
credit-standard?
Explain

 

Work Session Responses for WE Credit 1.1

Work session responses suggest the following attributes for WE Credit 1.1:

 

Attributes Identified for WE Credit 1.1 from Work Session

Case Studies: Case Study 1 used largely native species, which require limited water to
achieve this credit. No supplementary irrigation was required. Because of lot of shade
and cool environment, water use was minimal. The respondents indicated that there was
no significant cost increase associated with material purchase; construction labor;
documentation and construction project management for complying with this credit.
Since landscaping was done by students, there was no contracting and thus saved money
for designing, planning or engineering. Case Study 2 did not pursue this credit. For Case
Study 3, captured rainwater and indigenous plants were used to achieve this credit. The
respondents indicated that there was no significant cost increase associated with
designing, planning or engineering; construction labor; and construction project
management for complying with this credit. However, cost of material purchase was

indicated as high because of the pump required for water treatment. There was minor

239

increase in documentation cost. For Case Study 4, a drip irrigation system is being
installed to achieve this credit.

The interview responses suggest the following attributes for WE Credit 1.1:

 

Encourages use of native or adaptive plants

Cost increase associated with required documentation varies (one of the case study projects had no cost
increase associated with required documentation whereas one case study project had minor cost
increase)

No cost increase associated with designing, planningor eggineering

No cost increase associated with construction labor

No cost increase associated with construction project management

Cost increase associated With material purchase varies (one of the case study projects experienced no
cost increase and the other project had high material purchase cost)

Attributes Identified for WE Credit 1.1 from Case Studies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Literature Review:

Literature Review indicates the following attributes for WE Credit 1.1:

 

Limits or eliminates the use of potable water or other natural surface or subsurface water [USGBC-2]
EncouLages use of captured rainwater [USGBC-2]

Encourages use of recycled wastewater [USGBC-2]

Encourages use of water treated and conveyed by a public agency specifically for non-potable uses
[USGBC-2]

Encourages use of native or adaptive plants [USGBC-2]

No cost increase [SWA 2004] and [FPC 20011

__S_ignificant costs [Eijadi et al. 2002]

Addresses local/ regional environmental impacts [liijadi et al. 2002]

No health impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

Addresses health impacts [Mrozowski et al. 2006]

Attributes Identified for WE Credit 1.1 from Literature Review -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for WE Credit 1.]:

240

 

2 555 m3 3 e322 8:532

 

.80 832: 3538
:3: an: «8.85 Hon—go 05 U5 .8888 38
o: Baggage 33.83 .33» 88 06 .«o 2.0

 

 

8353

88 SEE can 60.8.5 33». 88 one 308:3
5:858:03 finance.“ 55 35083 unwound:
«m8 on and $8.85 33m 88 05 .«o 80

 

 

 

smog

5:3 8288 8388 95 .3895

.22 3388 $88 a a Easeé
.3893 ea»: 8 8388 58 .3 3 ER:

mow—g

wU . 3.38:9 Ere—«E 5:» @8308? 03808 “moo

85> 8:858:08

m0 . v2.53“ 5?» wBfloOmma 8855 “moo
mBU

.808 a 5 Emma

moi? .893 .28:

 

among— Engages—o
qua wag—once mBD £898.— 3:050:50
Eons >82 8388 58 a .0 mama

$6
.888 a a mama

88%: _SuoEaEFco mommouvuat

 

 

68 “Sum. mm
8388 828 a a gamma saga 28 8
8388 $50 ea :08 PE . :58 SE

mBU
.325M 0533:

85> “moo

 

 

 

m0

 
 

“ED—do Nada “00.0.—
Gouogmfloo £55 woummOOmmm owMOuU—h “woo OZ

 

m0

533 aouogmconc 53» 35688 3885 «woo oz

 

mo

wgoofiwao no mags—m

.wficwEoc 5.; 3368wa 8853 58 oZ

 

$50

 

a Run o «822 _EoBo not: ex

 

mo
.95 .8968:

35E 02:33 .5 038: we um: mowflzooqm

 

 

83 0380 -no: not“ =8Eoo m 25 a £3:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~N-Um0ma . a 3 BEES can 3:35 533 mo ow: mowmsooam
HmOmOma . 8838mm? c2938 mo 3%
3.099%: . 53352 «.055qu do 33
58>» 08 m am no 8m a 88m: .8 o
--Umwma . no $83 2980me Ma: 05 SHEEN—o .8 was“;
E5385 5535.52 3 E: a 82:52
me 83cm .8H ...—:50 -EEtEH

 

 

$8 3 835m "manages..— ang .355 ”3 585 m3

241

WE Credit 1.2: Water Efficient Landscaping: No Potable Water Use or No
Irrigation Analysis:

The researcher found the important attributes for WE Credit 1.2 to be — does not
encourage use of supplementary irrigation and encourages use of native or adaptive
plants. These attributes were identified by collaborative work session and/ or case studies
and supported by the literature.

Intent of the Credit: Eliminate the use of potable water, or other natural surface or
subsurface water resources available on or near the project site, for landscape irrigation

[USGBC-2].

Work Session: Costs to implement this credit were seen as high, and the environmental
benefits were seen as moderate by the work groups. This credit was not highly
recommended for adoption by public sector owners. Workgroups questioned the cost
effectiveness for a single building project, but instead favored a community wide
approach. Some opportunities may exist in campus settings. Table below shows the work

session responses obtained for WE Credit 1.2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Response Grgup

What organizational l
benefits / concerns do 2
youforesee in SEE WEc1.l 3
pursuing this credit-
standard? 4
Design, technical l
and, political 2
strategies that could 3
be used for Need a community/shared grey water reservoir = purple pipe. Less 4
compliance With this cost for sewage treatment facility. How to get over project size
credit-standard. threshold to make it viable — share waste water treatment facility
Explain amongst neighbors. Tax increment finance mechanism, city capture

a % of taxes and reimburse land owner over time. How to cover the

upfront gap.
What situational l

 

 

 

 

 

242

 

criteria might
influence use of this
credit-standard?
Explain

 

 

 

 

Ability to do on-site storage of rain water usually necessary 2
3
Site size, amount of water collection required for little irrigation 4

area.

 

 

Work Session Responses for WE Credit 1.2

Work session responses suggest the following attributes for WE Credit 1.2:

 

Encourages use of native or adaptive plants

 

High costs

 

Medium environmental benefits

 

 

Low health benefits

 

Attributes Identified for WE Credit 1.2 from Work Session

Case Studies: Case Study 1 connected with WE 1.1 and used native species, which
require limited water to achieve this credit. No supplementary irrigation was required.
Because of lot of shade and cool environment, water use was minimal. The respondents
indicated that there were no significant cost increases associated with material purchase;
construction labor; documentation and construction project management for complying
with this credit. Since landscaping was done by students, there was no contracting and

thus saved money for designing, planning or engineering. Case Studies 2 and 3 did not

pursue this credit. Case Study 4 may achieve this credit.

The interview responses suggest the following attributes for WE Credit 1.2:

 

Does not encourage use of supplementary irrigation

 

Encourages use of native or adaptive plants

 

No cost increase associated with required documentation

 

No cost increase associated with designing, planning or engineering

 

No cost increase associated with construction labor

 

No cost increase associated with construction project management

 

 

No cost increase associated with material purchase

 

Attributes Identified for WE Credit 1.2 from Case Studies

243

 

 

 

Literature Review:

Literature Review indicates the following attributes for WE Credit 1.2:

 

Limits or eliminates the use of potable water or other natural surface or subsurface water [USGBC-21

 

Encourages use of captured rainwater [USGBC-2]

 

Encourages use of recycled wastewater [USGBC-2]

 

Encourages use of water treated and conveyed by a public agency specifically for non-potable uses for
im'gation [USGBC-2]

 

Encourages installing landscaping that does not require permanent in‘igation systems [USGBC-2]

 

Does not encourage use of supplementary irrigation [USGBC-2]

 

Encourages use native or adaptive plants [USGBC-ZJ

 

No cost increase LSWA 20041 and [FPC 2001]

 

Minor costs [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

Addresses local/ regional environmental impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

No health impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

 

Addresses health imgctflMrozowsh et al. 2006]

 

 

Attributes Identified for WE Credit 1.2 from Literature Review

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for WE Credit 1. 2:

244

 

 

NA 5.9.0 m3 8 @829. moasntt<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nuance "2MB
32 333:8 mBU .88 a: .
.28: 8388 zoom .1 ”WW WWW“ . more, sag 5.8:
an EmBONESH .38qu Hanna E ..
8 3388 Room a .0 aim:
Saunas gasp—«>5 8338
8388 $6 songs 36 .58
aqua—Sago _uaommou >82 .38 Exam”— . $893 _Scofinohgo mommouuv‘t
83.88 Room .3 a puma
Illa
vowaoeoa mBU and 380 835 .
8388 Room a a puma $6 3%? . en? 58
. 0.5835
8883 68 on vows—once .
.88 PE Ba :58 55
, EoEommfiE
m0 . 608E cocoabmnoo .23 35083 8885 38 02
m0 . cons nouogmeoo £5 33683 38.55 68 02
mo . 838: Rings: 55 @8283.“ owns—05 $8 02
wgoofiwg
mo . no magi .wfinwmwou £5 3388mm 8855 a8 02
m0 . 3:858:08 3:: 2 55 33683 3853 “80 oZ
.mmmoomwwwm . 8qu gauge no 02%: mo ow: mowflsooam
mo dogma .
womoma .
HNOMGmE . omega .m E. 33250 95 60:35 833 mo owl momma—comm
_HNOmOma . 8838me @2932 mo om: mowmgoam
HNGm—Oma . 58358 3:38 mo 3: momma—08m
- 833 Bevan—am 8 Beta R53:
R umwma . 850 .8 633 0333 we em: 2: 885.53 8 £85
5:33me 5:35.52 3:858— NMIEEEeU .noauougnm 8:553
he 83cm

 

 

 

 

gramme..— oz .8 83 33>? 0333— e Z ”ya—«83:5 EBoEH .533 "NA 5.9.0 H3

245

WE Credit 2: Innovative Wastewater Technologies Analysis:

The researcher found the important attributes for WE Credit 2 to be — encourages use of

high-efficiency/ dry fixtures and encourages treating wastewater on—site. These attributes

were identified by collaborative work session and/ or case studies and supported by the

literature.

Intent of the Credit: Reduce generation of wastewater and potable water demand, while

increasing the local aquifer recharge [USGBC-2].

Work Session: The work groups favored adoption of this credit by public sector owners.

Option One use of water conserving fixtures was seen as relatively easy to implement and

with low cost. Option 2 was viewed as having high cost. The work groups saw moderate

to high environmental benefit of using this'credit. Table below shows the work session

responses obtained for WE Credit 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Response Grgup
l
Wk 2 ‘ t' l . . . .
b enifi: 5121;263:061 0 you Benefits: Reduction in water use; offsetting utility costs 2
foresee in pursuing this 3
credit-standard? Option 2 = high initial investment, tough to justify payback. 4
Design, technical and, 1
political strategies that Opportunity for ID credit here also 2
could be used for 3
comp I lance W'th this , Development credits for option 2. 4
credit-standardEpram
What situational criteria 1
might influence use of this 2
credit-standard? Explain 3
4

 

Work Session Responses for WE Credit 2

Work session responses suggest the following attributes for WE Credit 2:

 

Encourages use of high-efficiency/ dry fixtures

 

Encourages treating wastewater on-site

 

Low or high costs

 

Medium to high environmental benefits

 

 

Medium health benefits

 

Attributes Identified for WE Credit 2 from Work Session

246

 

 

 

Case Studies: Case Study 1 installed composting toilet and grey water systems to achieve
this credit. Because of lot of shade and cool environment, water use was minimal.
Respondents indicated that there were significant cost increases associated with
designing, planning or engineering; material purchase; construction labor; documentation
and construction project management for complying with this credit. They do not
recommend use of this credit by governmental/ institutional owners because of the high
cost associated with this credit. The other case study projects did not pursue this credit
because of high cost.

The interview responses suggest the following attributes for WE Credit 2:

 

Encourages use of high-efficiency/ dry fixtures
Encourages treating wastewater on-site
_l_l_igh cost increase associated with rejuired documentation
_lflgh cost increase associated with desifling, planningo_rerlgineering
High cost increase associated with construction labor
iigh cost increase associated with construction project managgment
_I-l_igh cost increase associated with material purchase

Attributes Identified for WE Credit 2 from Case Studies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Literature Review:

Literature Review indicates the following attributes for WE Credit 2:

 

Reduces generation of wastewater and potable water demand [USGBC-2]
Increases the local aquifer recharge [USGBC-2]

Uses high-efficiency/ dry fixtures LUSGBC-Z]

Encourages reuse of stormwater or graywater [USGBC-2]

Encourages treating wastewater on-site [USGBC-2]

No cost increase [FPC 2001]

iignificant costs [Eijadi et al. 2002]

Addresses local/ regional environmental impacts LEijadi et al. 2002]

No health imcts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

Attributes Identified for WE Credit 2 from Literature Review

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for WE Credit 2:

247

 

 

 

N 5.9.0 H3 S @329. muggy—«3V

 

£83 532. gene
8388 $6 .9893 £8:
8 @8288 Room .3 .0 swam:

mao .
488 a a mama

mot? woman: 523$

 

Eugen. 3:250:38

nmE 8 83:65 wows—0:8 wBO
.8895 33:39.55 3:29:
>82 3388 Room a so :53:

$6 .
.38“ a 5 Emma

flown—E #S:oE:oh>:o mommo€u<

 

8mg :3: :o 32 3:30:00

$50 98 £80 EnouEwmm 333:8
Room a a mama 63203

as on 8388 zoom PE

wBU
“Begum 83885

met? :80

 

 

 

Hat—Dav “ENE ~00. O.—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wU . :ouosbmgo 5;» 33688 68 swam

mu . 892 5:35:00 55, 33688 58 nwE

mu . 8395: 3.52:: 5; c8208? “moo Aw;—

wEooEw5 :0 Miami

mu . ,wgwmmou £3» 33683 58 AME

5:858:00:

m0 . 8:33: HEB 3868?. «m8 :3:

Ammoomwwm . . 85.8 333833 wigs: wownfioncfim

:ofiimww

HNOmOmE . :o SEEP—Sm mo 3:8 momfiaoo:m

mo £30 3:56

AmOmOwa . . be Ro:20$o-nm£ Co om: mowflnonufiw

ROM—0mm: . 09302 55:3 :82 o5 $3205

- 9.38% 533 0380:

mm mema . Em 5332mm? Co :ocabsw $260M
:o_mm=oma 55.6:th 252.com _EEESU EoEEr—rEH 3=£.§<

t8 ooh—em

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo_wo_e:aoo,—. 3338235 03:26::— ”N «520 m3

248

WE Credit 3.1: Water Use Reduction: 20% Reduction Analysis:

The researcher found the important attribute for WE Credit 3.1 to be — encourages use of
high-efficiency/ dry fixtures. This attribute was identified by collaborative work session
and case studies and supported by the literature.

Intent of the Credit: Maximize water efficiency within buildings to reduce the burden on
municipal water supply and wastewater systems [USGBC-2].

Work Session: The work groups favored adoption of this credit by public sector owners.
Use of water conserving fixtures was seen as relatively easy to implement and with low
cost. The work groups saw moderate to high environmental benefit of using this credit.
They generally saw this credit closely connected with WE Credit 2. Table below shows

the work session responses obtained for WE Credit 3.1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Response Grzup
1
2
What organizational benefits / Concern: Available fixtures that work ~ Maintenance 3
impacts do you foresee in practices - Local or regional regulation limitations
pursuing this credit-standard? Less water in = less costs — however water is still cheap.
Easier to get with simple fixture choices. 4
Need more benchmarking/research on long-term benefits to
push for greater implementation.
Design, technical and, 1
political strategies that could 2
be used for compliance with 3
this credit-standard. Explain 4
What situational criteria might I
influence use of this credit- 2
standard? 3
Explain Owner vs. lease/rent — easier to an owner/occupant whereas 4
additional cost could put it out of reach for a lease/rent
situation.

 

 

 

 

Work Session Responses for WE Credit 3.1

Work session the attributes for WE Credit 3.1:

       

Attributes Identified for WE Credit 3.] from Work Session

249

Case Studies: Case Study 1 installed composting toilet and grey water systems to achieve
this credit. The respondents indicated that there were significant cost increases associated
with designing, planning or engineering; material purchase; construction labor;
documentation and construction project management for complying with this credit. They
do not recommend use of this credit by govemmental/ institutional owners because of the
high cost associated with this credit. For Case Study 2, this credit has been achieved by
installing waterless urinals and 0.5 gpf lavatory aerators. For Case Study 4, waterless
urinals and low flow fixtures are being used to meet this credit. These are generally
already used in new construction across campus.

The interview responses suggest the following attributes for WE Credit 3.]:

 

Encourages use of high-efficiency/ dry fixtures
High cost increase associated with required documentation
_H_igh cost increase associated with desigrflg, planning or engineering
Hi h cost increase associated with construction labor
High cost increase associated with construction project management
High cost increase associated with material purchase

Attributes Identified for WE Credit 3.1 from Case Studies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Literature Review:

Literature Review indicates the following attributes for WE Credit 3.1:

 

Maximizes water efficiency within buildings [USGBC-fl

Reduces burden on municipal water and wastewater systems [USGBC-2]
Encourages use of high-efficiency/ dry fixtures lUSGBC-Z]

Encourages reuse of stormwater or graywater [USGBC—2]

No cost increase [SWA 2004] and [FPC 2001]

Minor costs [Eijadi et a1. 2002]

Addresses local/ regional environmental impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

No health impacts [Efiadi et al. 2002]

Attributes Identified for WE Credit 3.1 from Literature Review

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for WE Credit 3. I:

250

3 555 m3 3 332 @3352

 

sees; an»:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8:808 vows—0:8 wBO .8895 .mkfiv Room . 35> 83:: £30:
. . a a BEE
5:3 8 8388 zoom 3 a gem: .
Summon
3588.860 8388 vows—once mBO Amoom
mg .3223: 35:30:28 uncommon .3 6 =35: . 38%.: _Saofiuohgo mum8€u<
>82 8388 Room .3 so mama
380 88258 @3338 Q50
23 38° .558 wows—ounce Room .3 mBU .Bofiom . 85> .80
6 «team: .3333 $8 on noun—0:8 05825 .
zoom PE is :58 SSH
“Ewe
mo . you .83 5:03.538 53» 3:308? 38 55
m0 . Hons 8:8528 ”E? 106683 Zoo :wE
mu . amaze—a 3538 55 233083 “moo am“:
@58in .8
m0 . WEBER .wEnwmmou 5S, @3308? $8 Ami
82858329
mu . 3:32 2:3 @3883 58 $5
HNOMOma . 53 co $838.56 mo 3:2 8 Snooqm
m0 £30 . . 85?:
AmOmOmE in \zoaomofioéwfimo om: mowmcaooam
8.5% m 5832??
FGmOmE . ES 363 _mansa so nouns 803qu
$882 . @523 ES 55.580 533 saga:
=3mn=uma nous—L552 agonoom “NEE—ESQ Eva—Ergam— 83:53.
..o 8.58

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

532.com $2 "gauges. 3: :33 "em 5.20 E»

251

WE Credit 3.2: Water Use Reduction: 30% Reduction Analysis:

The researcher found the important attribute for WE Credit 3.2 to be - encourages use of
high-efficiency/ dry fixtures. This attribute was identified by collaborative work session
and case studies and supported by the literature.

Intent of the Credit: Maximize water efficiency within buildings to reduce the burden on

municipal water supply and wastewater systems [USGBC-2].

Work Session: This credit was closely associated with WE 3.1 and the workgroups did
not seem to differentiate between them. Only one work group submitted the work sheet
separately from WE 3.1.and its responses were similar to those for WE 3.1. No quadrant

analyses were submitted. Table below shows the work session responses obtained for WE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credit 3.2
Question Response Grzup
1
What organizational benefits / 2
concerns do you foresee in 3
pursuing this credit-standard? 4
Design, technical and, political 1
strategies that could be used for 2
compliance with this credit- 3
standard. Tax increment. 4
Explain
What situational criteria might I
influence use of this credit- 2
standard? 3
Exp lain project size, utility cost, need to pump uphill, 4

 

 

Work Session Responses for WE Credit 3.2

Work session responses suggest the following attributes for WE Credit 3.2:

 

Encourages use of high-efficiency/ dry fixtures
_H_igh costs

Medium environmental benefits

Low health benefits

Attributes Identified for WE Credit 3.2 from Work Session

 

 

 

 

 

252

Case Studies: Case Study 1 installed composting toilet and grey water systems to achieve
this credit. The respondents indicated that there were significant cost increases associated
with designing, planning or engineering; material purchase; construction labor;
documentation and construction project management for complying with this credit. They
do not recommend use of this credit by govemmental/ institutional owners because of the
high cost associated with this credit. For Case Study 2, this credit has been achieved by
installing waterless urinals and 0.5 gpf lavatory aerators. Case Study 3 did not pursue this
credit and Case Study 4 may achieve this credit.

The interview responses suggest the following attributes for WE Credit 3.2:

 

Encourages use of high-efficiency/ dry fixtures

 

High cost increase associated with required documentation

 

High cost increase associated with designing, planning or engineering

 

High cost increase associated with construction labor

 

High cost increase associated with construction project management

 

 

 

High cost increase associated with material purchase

 

Attributes Identified for WE Credit 3.2 from Case Studies

Literature Review:

Literature Review indicates the following attributes for SS Credit 3.2:

 

Maximizes water efficiency within buildings [USGBC-2]

 

Reduces burden on municipal water and wastewater systems [USGBC-2]

 

Encourages use of flgh-efficiency/ dry fixtures LUSGBC-Z]

 

Encourages reuse of stormwater or graywater [USGBC-2]

 

Moderate costs [SWA 2004]

 

No cost increase [F PC 20011

 

Significant costs [Eijadi et al. 20021

 

Addresses local/ regional environmental impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

 

 

No health impacts [Eijadi et al. 2002]

 

Attributes Identified for WE Credit 3.2 from Literature Review

Matrix Showing Attributes Identified for WE Credit 3.2:

253

 

 

va

Na. :85 m3 3 use: 8.325.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

manque. .
533 32 cowfioeoo mBU .8023: m30 Room . mots» 83.5. £30m
. a a 63m:
£8: 8 3388 Room a a mama ..
mavens 35.32835 5338 wows—once .
$50 .8895 2358:0on :80me T50 flmwom . 303:: “85:60:30 3%“:ng
>82 8388 Room a a :35: a a 68m:
$80 awE docs—once mks can 380
38%? 8388 H88 .3 a... puma mac .5332 .
. 35> #00
.8858 58 on 39:25”. Soon Umh 05885 .
.Smoo Bungee 362250 fivoom 435$
“Ema. So .85
m0 . 533538 5.5 33.68? “moo swam
SAW—l
m0 . notogmnoo 5:» 33683 38 nwi
amuse—am
m0 . 3:038 £5 33683 38 emf
wqtoofiwco do wag—Ea
mo . .wfidmmmow at? 33683 58 awi
8:858:03.
m0 . @83on 5E 682083 38 nmi
%
HN-UmOwa . do 8835—on mo own»: $3.38an
mu £30 . . 35:5
ANOmOma be \zocomuaohwfi mo 8: 892325
£5.93 counts/cant:
fimémOma . Ea 523 138858 no 5an avoided
$5 5
fidmwmba . 85:? 55650 833 3&3”va
=£mm=uma nets—.552 252.com “ESE—:50 Eofineanm «finite.
.8 355m

 

 

536E 3% ”

 

5:38: 3: 55$ "an :35 m3

254

APPENDIX H

‘Proof of Concept’ Package

255

 

Introduction

This research developed a decision-making framework for aiding institutional owners
as they consider use of specific LEED-NC 2.2 Sustainable Sites (SS) and Water
Efficiency (WE) credits for their projects. This conceptual framework could be
incorporated with a decision-support system or a software program to automate the
methodology for selecting LEED credits for a project. Development of a working
computer program is beyond the scope of this thesis.

The researcher identified decision-making attributes (characteristics), which influence
a decision whether or not to use specific LEED SS and WE credits, through literature
review, data collected at a collaborative work session of design professionals held at
Michigan State University, and interviews of four case study projects, to address use of
SS and WE credits of LEED. The researcher identified and presented these attributes,
relevant to each credit according to their relation with the three global objectives of
sustainable construction — Environment, Community and Economic. Example attributes
identified for SS Credit 4.]: Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access and
WE Credit 1.1: Water'Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% are illustrated in Tables 1
and 2 of this review package.

The graphic depicting the framework for assisting institutional owners in deciding the
use of specific LEED-NC 2.2 Sustainable Sites (SS) and Water Efficiency (WE) credits
for their projects and its description are presented below, followed by five questions

regarding aspects of the framework.

256

 

 

Framework

Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework developed for assisting institutional owners
in deciding to select LEED SS and WE credits for their projects. The framework consists
of three main inputs required from the owner. The first is ‘List all SS and WE credits’,
the second input is represented by the module ‘Conceptual design and decision-making
parameters’ and the third is ‘Owner’s system of values’. Below is a description of each

module used in the framework.

Process 1: List all SS and WE Credits
This is the first step in the framework. Here, the owner is required to list all the SS and

WE prerequisite and credits.

Process 2: Conceptual design and decision-making parameters

The second input required from the owner consists of the conceptual design and decision-
making parameters that could influence pursuing or not pursuing specific credits. The
relevant parameters that describe the conceptual design are described, such as the site
selected is not a brownfield site. Then the decision-making parameters are described. For
instance, environmental benefits of pursuing LEED SS and WE credits could be the
determining factor in deciding to pursue certain credits. The owner might want to use
credits that yield high environmental benefits and have low cost of implementation. Such

conceptual design and decision—making parameters are required in this module.

257

 

Process 3: Knowledge Base
‘Knowledge Base’ helps in eliminating the credits that are clearly infeasible for the
project. For instance, if a brownfield site is not available, SS Credit 3: Brownfield

Redevelopment, cannot be achieved.

Process 4: Data Base

‘Data Base’ is the list of attributes identified for each LEED SS and WE credit by the
author in this research. These are decision-making attributes (characteristics), which
influence a decision whether or not to use specific LEED SS and WE credits. Table 1
gives an illustration of the example attributes identified for SS Credit 4.1: Alternative
Transportation, Public Transportation Access and Table 2 shows the example attributes
identified for WE Credit 1.1: Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50%. The source
of identification of each attribute is also shown in the tables. CWS indicate attributes
identified from the collaborative work session and CS indicate attributes identified from
the case studies. Each attribute is presented according to its relation with the three
objectives of sustainable construction — Environment, Community and Economic and the
relation is represented by ‘°’. The highlighted portions in both the tables indicate

attributes with low confidence level as seen in the ‘discussion’ column in both the credits.
Process 5: Credit Choice Generator

‘Credit Choice Generator’ with the help of Knowledge Base, Data Base and the

information provided by the owner generates a list of potential credits.

258

For instance, in the first step all the LEED SS and WE credits are listed. In the
‘Conceptual design and decision-making parameters’ module, the owner states that he/
she wants to use credits that yield high environmental benefits and have low cost of
implementation. The ‘Credit Choice Generator’ will integrate information provided by
the owner, information from Knowledge Base and Data Base and generate a list of
potential credits that yield high environmental benefits and have low cost of
implementation. Assuming that the site selected is not a brownfield site, then SS credit 3:
Brownfield Redevelopment, will be pruned from the set even though it meets the owner’s
requirements. The ‘Credit Choice Generator’ will then generate this list of potential
credits: SS Prerequisite 1, SS 1, SS 2, SS 4.1, SS 4.2, SS 5.1, SS 5.2, SS 6.1, SS 6.2, SS
7.2 and WE 1.1, since all of these credits yield high environmental benefits and have low

cost of implementation.

Process 6: Owner’s system of values

The next step in the framework is to evaluate the potential credits such that a ranking can
be developed according to the utility of the credit for a specific project. Based on
‘Owner’s system of values’, which is the third input required from the owner, first the
owner weights each attribute of sustainability according to the subjective importance or

utility which that attribute holds for the owner.

Process 7: Value Extractor

The module ‘Value Extractor’ extracts weightings for sustainability attributes from the

owner. Then, values for each of the sustainability attributes are determined for each credit

259

 

from other sources such as project team, architect, engineer, landscape architect,
designer, etc. and a normalized value between zero and one is calculated for each

attribute value.

Process 8: Evaluate each credit
In the module ‘Evaluate each credit’ after weights have been established and values
calculated for each attribute for a particular credit, the weights and normalized values are

multiplied and summed to create an index of subjective utility for that credit.

Process 9: Amalgamator
The next step in the framework is the ‘Amalgamator’ module, which amalgamates the
owner’s weightings with the attribute values for each credit and sorts them, resulting in a

relative ranking of the potential credits.

Process 10: List of selected credits
In the module ‘List of selected credits’ which represents the output of the entire process,
the owner can review the credits recommended by the framework and select credits from

the list.

260

 

$8.85 :2: How 3680 MB 28 mm Qmmq 820m 3 $3.63 E 80:30 1283339: 533‘ 8 Macaofifim Q 83mm

PDLPD

 

3620 @8028 we ES

§ .5

 

. £55 0895

 

\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/

 

  

 

 

        

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

@557:

.83 28a! wants:
@680 _mcaouom 8:553 3:196 Gama EBB c0523 :85
we am: @838 8355va @ Hm<m <H<G mm<m mODmEBOZM
mOH<E<OA<E< . . .
. . G "COCO...D...0.0IIII.I..C..O.: m
b:3m£8m=m
3:229: 822250
“605 some Bmfigm 85:0
am: 5:55 “6“qu
€330 80¢ 5:58..
$59.53 5252595 _
com mmEEwEB 32$me _ _
MOHOEHXmmDA<> n .IIIIIIItLIIItL .
I _ —
— p w
. .
822; 982580 wcflwfiéoioow 3680
G mo 52%? @5230 v5 swag 23:50:00 m? 98 mm 2a :5
. G

261

 

2. :85 mm 9 e222 3352 a 05¢

 

 

 

383 .28;
has 32080 $6 .3893

 

. mBO
H23: 39:88 Scam E . . 85> «can: 530m
3 Egonog .fiouaam n28: 3030M 83833
on @3288 Noon .3 8 Emma
Emu—Hop gauge...
:wE 336:8 mBO mBO . 3895 3552.833 momwo€c<

.fioaQE Egg?» $903
8388 ~88 .3 a gamma

#8” a a gamma

 

 

.«EwE ..Hoa ”mace 5S» 33683 8865 $8 02

 

 

 

 

marooflwao ..o

 

m0 .

m0 . Hons nouogmqoo 5:5 @828me 3355 «moo 02
m0 . 03:8: 3838 5:» 86683 03805 $8 02
mo . Managua .wfinmmmov HEB @8300me 3365 “moo 02
m0 .

5:858:08
web—52 at? 38683 03805 “moo oz

 

Room a .0 Emma

 
 

3mg “Em 5:033:00 REES :5 Echo
suave 33825 eczema «.8933 smacks... no>on<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dana Wyn“ Wrflwm . 888% 58 fireman \ a8 02
"30 . NOmOmD . . :ouéom in .8: 230893 moosnox
“BU . .mOmOmD . . 32 wee—Em moESESl
530 . NOmOmD . “GEE 32.: em: 2 85 :80 3233 we «.58ch

$on “65.5 mmafi wqummxo 9 mxaifia
NOmOma . 98 mag .mfiaBoEm mo ban—28>.“ 9 Sufism
m0 £30 . . 889$ nocmtonmqab 235m mo 3:526; 9 Sufism
HmdmOma . ficmmnooo wfivznnmo mvoon cease—ONES; o. Hoohadm
mu Amdm—Oma . 553 3a Boa 52:5 mo 85%;. 2 Subsm
noun—.85 net—85.52 ego—Sum “GEE—=55 anofinoh>nm 35:52.
.8 355m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$33. nozatemmnauh 335m "aeratenmuauh 9:353? :6 5.9.0 mm

262

 

2 €20 03 9 852 32352 “N 230.

 

0000 owns—ohm 3.5005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

awE «00.800 00 0 05 000 6000005 00.00 . m0 . 005

00 voowwmaxo 300“”? 0380 0000 05 m0 000 0800000 BESS: HEB 0000000000 0000.53 500
0320.0

.000 00000 000 003.000 >030 008 000 00000:? 02.03 00080005000

0005000508 0000000 55 00.80800 00000000 mo . 00.00000 00>» 00030080 800005 300
«000 00 000 800.85 >003 030 05 m0 000
060000

0:00: 05:08 00030000 $50 .8800: mg 35> .0300 00

£320 8388 058 .3 0 0333220 .308 .3 3 3%: . . . a: 0
.3895 £320 8 80288 Room .3 3 03.35
0.50000 30000000500

:03 30030000 mBO £03080 E00800§00 . . m5 . 800000 5008000300 m00m0000<

~88 3 3 33.03
3802 302 8388 Room .3 0 330a
300 “002.0%;

0000—0000 Room .3 ”0 mafia 0000005 500 00 050330 000M355 . more, 3.00

333:8 030 33 :08 00.: $8.” <33
8 . “00%

003250000 5.5» 00000030 0000003 300 02
m0 . 0002 005000008 5.03 02300me 00000000 0000 02

wqt0000w00 00 wfigflm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m0 . .m0_0w0m00 5:5 0000083 030005 300 OZ
$50 . 0 500 0 08002 _E0000 000: m
m0

3 . . $00 a 02am 0 00 02000 0 00: 00900000
mac 3-0002: _ . 3 . 0 m

- m0m0 0330 -000 00.0 2000,0000 000 a 0:0:
mm Umamh: . m an 0932000 003 000005 0033 m0 000 m0w05000m
HmOmOma . 00330303 029800 00 um: m0m80000m
mNOmOma . 00330000 @0530 mo 02.. m0 000000m
- 0033 000E033 00 000t=m .8300 0050
mm Umwma . 00 00033 03800 .00 00: 05 8.000020 00 9005

00.3000:— 003009.002 0:00 _00 000.0 00055:»
00 00.58 -000m— -5030 -0230”,—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

execm 0. 8330 "00080.50 £22.00 :33 0.0 0020 03

263

 

Questions regarding aspects of the framework

1. When considering the introduction, the framework graphic and the narrative
description of each step, how well do you feel you understand the intent, structure and
the intended use of the framework?

a. Do you need any additional discussion / background?

 

Response:

 

 

 

2. How useful is the framework in aiding institutional owners as they consider use of
specific LEED-NC 2.2 Sustainable Sites and Water Efficiency credits for their

projects. Explain.

 

Response:

 

 

 

3. Are there additional steps or processes, which you can suggest as key in deciding to

use Sustainable Sites and Water Efficiency credits. Explain.

 

Response:

 

 

 

264

 

4. When considering SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation
Access and WE Credit 1.1: Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50%, are the
attributes identified by the research comprehensive or are there other important

attributes you would suggest or are there some indicated which should be deleted.

 

Response:

 

 

 

5. Do you have any additional suggestions about the content and form of the

framework?

 

Response:

 

 

 

265

 

Proof of Concept Responses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. Questions Owner 1 Owner 2

1) When considering the I understand it well. The The framework, introduction and
introduction, the framework flowchart is a good the description looked good. The
graphic and the narrative approximation of the Credit Choice Generator, Value
description of each step, how decision-process that our Extractor, Evaluate Each Credit,
well do you feel you building planning Amalgamator is the gut of the
understand the intent, committee used in our framework where you decide
structure and the intended use deliberations. whether or not you are going for
of the framework? the credit. But owners system of
a. Do you need any values may differ since weighted
additional discussion / values come from a variety of
background? sources. There are varieties of

folks in MSU — Department of
Police and Safety may have
different views for assigning
weights to attributes of a certain
credit than the Department of
Grounds Maintenance.

2) How useful is the framework It’s very useful. This framework formalizes the
in aiding institutional owners process, which some folks may
as they consider use of need. We worked the same way
specific LEED-NC 2.2 without the framework and got
Sustainable Sites and Water input from everybody. It’s a
Efficiency credits for their good framework to decide
projects. Explain. whether or not to pursue certain

credits.

3) Are there additional steps or No, I don’t think so. No. You have explained the
processes, which you can framework very well.
suggest as key in deciding to
use Sustainable Sites and
Water Efficiency credits.

Explain.

4) When considering SS Credit Being an educational Attributes are covered fairly
4.1: Alternative institution, we had an well. I do not think any
Transportation: Public additional “value” important attributes are missed
Transportation Access and attribute for outreach and out.

WE Credit 1.1: Water community education for
Efficient Landscaping, the water efficient
Reduce by 50%, are the landscaping because we
attributes identified by the believed that the gardens
research comprehensive or are around the Bunker
there other important Interpretive Center would
attributes you would suggest serve as demonstration
or are there some indicated gardens in addition to their
which should be deleted. role in water conservation.
5) Do you have any additional No. Thank you for the It is a good framework to choose

 

suggestions about the content
and form of the framework?

 

chance to participate in the
original research and in
the validation of the
conceptual framework.

 

which credits to pursue or not.

 

266

 

APPENDIX I

Demonstrative Case Study Attribute Weightings

267

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mwd H 33.3 n fl 83:50.35 mm ..8 5?: baa—«£33m owauo>< "beam 8:0 033.5825:
9% u _ unease; mm 5 Ex: baausaaaw
Wm md m u 8.53 5:885:08 3th 63» @8200me 500
ON We n . 35> 8%
mmfi Duo 5 . $895 _SaoEuohEo mommo€w<
. . gaging]
mm m me o b . 80.83 nonogmaoo £5 33883 3.835 58 oZ
mmfi 36 N. . 58: :ofiwonbmaoo 5S» @8308? 3855 58 oZ
2.1m mud n . omega: E638 £5 33083 3355 “moo oZ
. . a
mm m we 0 b . no wag—a .38ng 5:5 US$083 $885 ”wow 02
mud mmd m . . Esau 2; 05 .«o 55qu”: 3:8”? 8:: 0M
. . 5:03.38
3. 0 mm o m . . wage 82m? uoEoEo—qn: «0 8:28.35: amE. mobngm
ON We m . Hop—.2 05 mo :05wa 65 B>o 8:8 Xv 23 333%
WNW mud n . . Eon: «on Soho“ can “3:588 “won on“ WEB—om
. . Ammono “mum sausage Ennis.
mm m mm o N. . :5 mtoto amine nomwouoflv coco—Em 3.225% .3385 vo>oEo<
mmw mud N. . 335% $8 garage :80 02
ON 90 w . move”. :82 m3 mgm <n~m Beige 8 5 «wow mob: M
mm.m Duo 5 . . :ouagflfl
Wm md m . wanna wEZooE 8 3on3 55% mo nocsschwom fluo>2nl
Wm m6 m . counsbmnon. EH3. =8 2 mo 82 355:1
2% Duo 5 . . 8228“ 853.538 Boa song—om wooavom
2:5» x man—ma? 2:3» 3:30?» FEE—Sum awn—5580 «58:235— 2:£.§<

 

 

net—55$ nor—5cm 5353.. noun—.5250 ”H 33:393.:— mm

. 268

 

mhd H 386m

u a 58.5 mm ..8 8?: bfiaaflfigw owa8>< ”tau—5m 8:0 o>€abm=efion

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

cém H _ £630 mm ..8 x39:— bans—€335
Wm We m . 85> 8388883 RE: 2 £5 88888 $00
Wm nd m o , 88> 8m Ed :2on
m Wm mm. b . 98 a: “Saogohxao 8322?.
m Wm m5. n . 0328“. 38 EEBom \ $8 oz
36 mm. b . 4338888 8885 58 02
find mu. N. . .892 nouuzbmuonv 5:» 8888mm 8885 “moo oZ
. . 8288 _mtofimfi M £82: .8
mm m mm o N. . 8 wanna—m .mfinwaow £5 “88883 8385 «moo oz
. . 380 “m5 885538 REES
mm m me o N. . :5 town amine vow—88:5 oocofim 88“.:me awsoht vo>oEo<
Wm m6 m . Eu 8% :88 23% 85.5
mud mud m o : Soc 2: 8E 888$ 36 88.5 85 8 m8 Eve 8 Esconm
Wm md m . 308 956:8 3385888 2: «0 83956 8%
. . .32 m 8038M as 832: E2588 2: a. 55588
mm m .2. o n . . 18020 3858832 9:58 near—80v 9 Bonwwwov mohavom
mud mmd m . banana: 26 9 803nm
. . 85%
m N m o m . mfigsn a Ho 8:82 05 Bob 83:: 38:80:ng 8.838%
m~.m 3.0 N. . . 8% 8889 «5 mo :88 23% 883..
2:5» x a: 83 2:5» 8.— 83 omfieneum BEE-BU EoE=oh>=m 8..£.E<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nerve—om 35 A HEP—U mm

269

 

Sam M 55.8

H N 23.5 mm ..8 51.: bfiaafiaumzm owsuo>< "xv—5m 3&0 guabmncfion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...? u N 5.20 mm .8 5...: bafissmsm
mnfi mud n . 39; “on g “283
mad mud n . 88 Em 552335 3383?.
ON We w . 35> “woo
m~.m 3.0 n . . om: @828 can “5892059”: 535 €255
mm.w mud n . . Sc 58 :58 o_o>ov m 0% 658% 0:5 mafia—FE
mad mud n . . egogmamfl: .«o commands 88055 303.0%
. . #4331:
mm m Q. o b . . Eon won: Augean 20:3 mwfiuom 3.258500 E «our: on Sham”
mmw mud \. . @5033 can mags? mowfizooam
mm.m mud n . . ow: 3
mm. m pd n . @300 35 862538 REEB—
Sn mtobo cwmmou vomaouofiv 3.:an c.2655 nwsefi no>oEo<
. . 823% an
m5 0 mm o m . wEEEn 05 50339 $008 55863 mo bzfiazga o.“ “ugh“:m
pd wad m . 80.5.3 223 Bob 25 mo 853% 2 $0.95“
mud mmd m . coofionnwmo: ho anon 335292 Bob 26 mo 8:9va 9 “8.33m
mm.m mud n o . .38 m 383% M 1585080 bigot 8382:
Ed wad m . 86 to 29,2. fiaoSuE mo bEns=u>m 8 80.33“
Wm Do w . mop—=88 E53: new “853 320on can manuoEw $885
On ho m obsosbmaafl
. magic 55 mans :35 9 Eon—@226“. £3530
2:5» x 3: 55 2:5» map—ME?» ago—Sum— NMEE=EoU Humanogam 8:553.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53:92:50 5:55:80 Q has: EoEQSoEQ ”N 5930 mm

270

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

vw.m H 0:03 .I. a... :130 mm ..8 «8?: baaaifigm owauo>< Scam 030 9595258an
WE u —.v 55.5 mm .3.“ ~36:— bfinafiaamsm
mud mud N. . mow—S» 8n «5 ~28:
mmd wN..o h . Sun as 355235 33.23%
mmfi mud n . .HEME ..85 “88 5?» 38683 3365 68 oz
wad mud N. . Noni 5325300 55 8.2083 028.55 88 oz
36 mud N. . 830.5 RIBS: HEB 33683 3853 68 OZ
mm m mm o N. . .8 mafia flaunt 55 @8300me 8855 “wow 02
Ram wN..o N. . 8:858:08 HE: 8 £3» Bummoo‘mmm 3355 58 oz
. . 938 SE 5:033:00 RENEE
mm m mm o N. . Sn. mtoto :3va E3236 coco—Na Emvcfim swnohu co>qu<
me mud n . 3,38% Eco _auaBom N 58 oz
mfim mN..o N. . . coca—Ba ha .8: 250883 82.8%
0% m3 5 . . gassed:
who wad m . 2955 22: own 9 35 38 £23.“— 3 Encoqm
. . 30% ESE mqu 5E5
mN. o mm o m . 9 mszx—Ss can magma .mfimBoEm NO @2538: 8 803nm
mN..o nmd m . o 80%.? :ocatommfiwb 0:95 we 3:52.85 8 HooBzm
mud mmd m . 8.89800 9:259 mo mwooa cocatommnab 9 80.35
mN..o nmd m . :mcmb mama Boa 5215.8 853va 9 Sufism
93.3 x 3:303 2:5» 3.. 55 2:85am “ME—.8590 ~=~E=ch>=fl 8:£.§<

 

 

mmuoo< :cuutcmmuauh 23.5 "E

 

.Uatommuauh 952:8? :6 «:55 mm

271

 

vo.N u dem

u Ni 500.5 mm 3.— 565 binaiflmaw 0w20>< $3.0m 030 033525509

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mg n N... :85 mm 5 3?: Ezaaausm
wmw who 5 . mung Swan: 5:8:
wm.w who 5 . 80m. .3 _Snoaaoh>ao mowmuuugw
w.N w.o w . 35> “moo
who wmo m . .
who who m . conzzo 0&8 8030M
a.“ m; N . . . 423
wmw who u . . . :osnzo is .02. 250882“ 803.0%
who wmo m . £20 0 Ho.“ $03 0 89m 20 03 0508 82>on
who who m . 825$ 530% How 03332“ 000% 8 80.3.6
035» x 8: _03 035» 2: EB gun—Sow “3:58:50 0:0E=o.._>:m 3.5203.

 

 

mEocm wEwEEU 0% 0&9.on 20.35 Ecuntcmmnfih 023587.. "N6 0:020 mm

272

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«hm u ENwdw n v.0 #6000 mm ..8 030.: mum—505325 0waho>< 23:5 0000 03005000809
w.ow H vi 300.5 mm ..8 x005 bfianfifigm
who wN.o m . m0t0> ~00 a: 0:00:
w.~ w .o w o 900 E_ 3008:8300 00000003..
w.n.w wh N. . E080 0:08 ..00 «0:00 55 000060090 0000005 $00 021
w .n.w wh N. . $325300 55 000060000 0000.83 300 oz
wnw wh h . 00055 300008 firs 020000000 0000005 0000 02
. g1
wN.w who 0 . .5 @0503 $03500 5.5» 0000000000 00000000 $00. 02
w~.w who u . 003000050000 00:: 00 0:3 00.060000 0000.05 «000 02
w .N w.o w o 00:03 00% 0300050 0008 055800 000—02
w N.w who 0 . . 023:0 00 80:00”—
wmw who N. . 3000 33
w .N w.o w . mos: 000038.800 0:0 000mb; 03030000: .«0 25080 m00=v0m
wmw w .. n . . 00:85 0005 0:0: mo 00: 00 00:000m
who w m. m . . 02m 05 9 0?:0 0. D003 E030 0098:: 8 000.00le
wh o w w. m . 0am ”Swag—@000— 9 000.33"
w .m w.o w . . a? 00 £0030 000305
wmw who u . . . 0N6 0920M >2 M00100 8200.502
020..» u 3&33 025» 3:30?» 0:50:00m NEE—0:000 0:05:00300— 305.530

 

 

mat—0900 wad—00m ”notatommugh 0300:0003. "0.0 «5000 mm

273

 

09m H otmdm

 

.I. 0w 000.00 mm 00.0 0000— b50080000m 0w000>< ”000% 0000 03000000809

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wdw u 0w 000.00 mm 00.0 00000— 00000080000m
wN w.o w . 00000> 0.00 8 0000:
w «w who 0 . 0.00080 300080000000 00000000<
w .N w.o w 00t0> .000
w~.w who 0 .890 0000 00000 0003 0000000000 00000000. .000 02
w N.w who 0 0000— 0000050000 003 00.060000 0000008 .000 02
w «w who 0. 00000000 00000008 0.05 00.060000 0000008 .000 02

g
wNw who 0 00 08000.0 0808000 0.05 0000000000 00000000 .000 oz
wmw who 0 00080080000 00000000 003 0000000000 0000008 .000 02
who who m . .0000: .0003 00000 0003000
w~.w who 0 . . 00000.0 0000B 0000000m
who wmo m . 0008090008 000000000 .00 0000000800000 030000.00 0000000
wNw who 0 . 00000000000 0080800008 00000090
w .N w .o w . 80.000000 000800 $000000 080.0002
w .N w.o w . 00.800000 M00280 0000000
. . 0.00
w N w o w . 00000050 30003000 00 0.00 0.00.8000» 00 0000000000 0.000.1—
w .N w.o w . 00000 0%000 0000.000 000 00000 .0080: m0000x0 00200000
0=_0> a 0.0 _03 0.05» 0.0 00>? 0080000m— N000880U 000800.020”.— 00:00.53N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000000: 0000030 00 0000000 "000800—9009 8% "0w 00000U mm

 

274

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fm u SENS u 3 5.20 mm 5 5?: baggagm “was; ":55 926 3322888
mndo H N.m 369.0 mm ..8 Nov:— Agassi—33m

Wm w.o m . motm> 8%
wmfi mud n . Sun E: 335835 momwofivxx
Wm w.o m . mo 8> “moo
mad mu. m . “$885 cocoabmuou 5:: 8368? $85: ion 07
m~.m mu. N. . 8&2 nouosbvdoo «23 922083 885: #60 oz
mmd mm. b . 839:. _mtouafi 5:: 8.208% 8885 3.8 oz
mud mud n . wmnu Ho MEEHE “wawcwfimov 55, US$083 3888 $8 02
mm.m 3.6 n . 20385833 3:: 8 5E? 33083 3885 38 oz
mud mmd m . 8m .5 :3?» 5:3 82>on
Wm w.o w . 5:8:me 53>» 393:2:
m N6 mud N. . . 322% mogofioi
3% Duo N. . . magma was? “we: @83qu
On w.o n . SE = an we E595 mommoBS
Wm w.o m . :ocmamwu BE 8583.2
Wm w.o m . 8me doggoi
Wm w.o m . Brace Eofimoggoc $260M

2:5» x 3:335 2:5» 3.— EB 259:8”.- NmEsfi—EVU «58:23.5 3=£uz<

 

 

3an EEO uni—€32 "Engage—3o: ozm ”N.m «EEO mm

275

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EN n Q08 u ..o 5.20 mm .8 3:: Qzfiasgm “was; 52% :5 $8555:
man u S €20 mm 5 5?: fiafisfimé
Wm w.o m . mung “can: H23:
mm.m mud \. . flow 2: 35:80:25 mommo€u< ,
Wm w.o m . 85> “moo
who mmd m . “moo omEoBm 308%:qu
Wm m. m . 829$ mo ooficowfima 98 a .83 _328 3:: m
2” m. m . tone 53ng .8 2:39» 2: E 03280
mg” .n. m . mooflgm 3220mm: BEEEE
Wm m. m . gush—mi 0:38 3882:
Wm w.o m . $206»; 833: we 5.5956 €85
2:5» a 3:93.? 2:5» 8:335 oaoneum “ME—SEED “55:233. 3.52:4»

 

 

 

3.550 53530 ":wfion nouatfihcum :6 5.20 mm

276

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

56 u 30% u S 5.20 mm 5 5...: baaaaaaam onus; 5.5 33 3:22:85:
m.mm u 3 :85 mm 3.. 5...: bangs“;
mm.m mud n . 85> 83:: £33:
mmfi 3.0 N. . mNoanEN Nnfiofidogao 83823:
Wm w.o m . 35> Non
9.6 mm: m . 3.8 03:05 :58 N: : NE
m wm mN.. N. . :5ng +on aoNNoPamaoQ 6N3 9.368% 888.: 68 02
m um mm. N. . Nonm— 8:05:38 5N3 36883 38683
m wm mN‘. b . 03:an 3:82: SN? @3208? 0382: N80 oZ
m mm pd n . no No 55:: N8: 5N3 33883 3888 58 oz
w mm mN‘d n . 50355883 v35 2 EN? 33683 38.85 68 02
ON w.o m . bone 533::on 80: £5333 £5083:
mud mN..o h . bone 583.5on 3883: ”55558.80 No $838 $33.55
ON w.o w . :oNNmbEE 0:25 3285:: “38%—am waoNEomEN moNNENqNE
mm.m mud n . . nous—No .883 322553 No 3263:
2:5» x afiwNoB 2:5» 8: N95 252.com NEEESU N=oE=oNN>=H 8=£.5<

 

 

3.5—SD %

 

5.30 "a Nmon houakfihcum ”w.o 5.9.0 mm

277

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bmfi H mzmév H NR. :fiohu mm bah game:— bm—ma—afimawmflm OWMHO>< rmU—zm OmaU 0>muah—mEO—flon
03 u S. 5.20 mm 5 5?: bafiflsmsm
mad mud n . 85> 8m Em ”Emu:
mmfi Sac h . 88 a: _Saoficohzs mommo€v<
Wm w.o m . mot? “moo
Tao mm. m . moo“ 5on 5:82: Ho.“ 68 a El
mad mm. b . E080 £58 ..8 532538 55 @8588?“ 8885 $8 oZI
Own mm. b . 892 nouoshwaoo 6;» 3368mm 88.85 “moo 07
36 2.. b . 8393 .25qu 5 B 83883 3383 “moo o7
mm.m 3.0 N. . $8 8 wing—a .mfi: «wow 5 3 33683 8853 58 02
On w.o m . 5:858:08. 3:: 2 5.5 83883 83:2: 38 552
who mad m . 8823 563::on @262 £02 mocha
who mmd m . . . £08 cfivnfim ~85 woumcuwamfi 532
98 Exam 285mg £5259 wag—55 0255 £08 520
mm.m mud n . . 55mg 052:» a. 58:: a. oEE=oEo§ :0 6w Em fining:
ON w.o m . £282 Eu: 3%
935» x 8: _03 2:5» 3: _03 Pane—Sum Ens—Eco 30:59:25 32:53.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wcom "Seam 6:22 “sol "NS .mcohU mm

278

 

wvé u m!m~.wm

u m «59.0 mm ..8 fit:— b‘EaaESmam owauu>< Nazi ome gtabmachn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mndm n a 5.9—0 mm .8.— 565 baaafifimam
22o mmd m . 39? Emma: 5302
Wm w.o m . gowns: 35:80:25 mommohuvxx
mad mud n . “anohoa cocosbmcg 53> 33683 3365 “moo oz
wmd mud N. . 8&2 :ocosbmcon. 5:5 33683 8885 $8 02
mad mud N. . 828:9 13538 55, cassava 03805 7.8 oZ
mm.m mud N. o 35 go wESBE .chdev 5.5» 3:583 3385 38 oZ
mm.m mud N. . 5:858:08 @0338 53> 33683 3885 E8 02
ON w.o m . $523 3958 E bommm 23:953.“. 58:8 oEom
m~.m mud N. . 338% 68 3.559 \ E8 02
mad mud n o . $528835 _mEBoo: :0 Emma: “583336 mooscom
wmh mud n o o :26an ohm—fifiwzogfliflmF 0:5 Em“: 835::
mad mud n . . 3.88 gm Ema 8385 9 32w4§m moosvom
mad mud n o o 26 can wan—:5 05 Goa mmame Em: mofiegva
255 x .3.—$03 «53> mEEoB 382.com 5:55:80 Eofiuegnm 3:£.5<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5:263. 525:...— mwfi ”a 5.20 mm

279

 

36 n v!m~.vv

 

n “a 5.9.0 95 ..8 noes bfinafifimsm ownho>< 233m 3&0 o>Uabm=chn

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.3 n E :85 m3 5 5?: baaaasmam

m. u m. n . 85> 838: 3588 .23 “.828me 8383 800
m. u w. m . wotg 5:858:08 web: 8 55, 3368mm 838E “moo
md m. m . 8.53 8a a: "Egon
26 3.0 N. . $8 a: ~8ao§o§5 mommo€c<
Wm w.o m . mar—g "moo
w Wm 2.. n . E080 “~de ..8 832538 at? 33883 3885 58 02
m “.m 2.. n . Hons :ouoabmuoa 5.5» 33683 03805 58 02
WE mu. m . so .5 Gang . En Got 5:» @228qu $3.85 68 oz
mhd mm. m . a 5% o Savan— Emobwo 3:: cm
Wm w.o m . 25: “5: sun go £93 90 8: 3 «Beam

. . mom: 058 .56 how =~qu0 one a
m N n o n . 333m m 3 33:8 9.8 “.23.: 533.8 3.: mommBOoam
Wm w.o m . “BmBBmmB 3.0.38.8 0%
Wm w.o m . BEBEE vegan—8-“;
m. . 53>» coatzmnam 5 089:3

N m o m . $53: 580 50 5.95 0388 mo 8: on“ flag—1.53 ho €85

2:5» x 3: _93 93.3 3: EB 91:283— Nmisafiou EoE:o.:>:m 33:53.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o\ecm an 8:qu “mafia—33.54 EoBEH .833 "a; 55.5 H3

280

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

can u 30% u 3 :35 m3 5 5?: hugs—:35 $205. $25 85 guabmgaoa
3.. u 3 £55 a? 5 5?: banassmsm
mud mNd m o 355 a;
mN w.o m . 3895 35:39:30 mommoégx
mN w.o n . 35> “moo
. . mg
N m mu 0 \l . 60.8.5 :ocosbmaonv 53» 38.683 38.85 3.8 oz
mN.m who u . “can“ coco—Emcee H23 @2208? 0382: 58 oZ
mN.m mud n . 330.5 _ntofiE 5S» @0388? 03805 $8 02
. . 95an
mN m w» o h . Ho magi "”5anme HE? @8388“ 33.83 “wow 02
me 25 N. . 5:955:08 3:: B 5:: 8388mm 0382: :8 02
ON w.o m o 39: o>u mg .0 03:8 mo 8: 8 «Beam
ON w.o m .
mN w.o m . 0558 you meow “an. mamanomvufl $5.335 wowfiaogm
. . noun .rE How mom: 0580 -ao: Sm =8Eoo m 28 a
m N n o m . 253 m 3 33250 28 @285 533 mo 8: wowmsooam
mN w.o m . 533833 @2983 no 3%
mN w.o m . 83358 “Shanna mo 8: a
. . $33 oomtzmnsm Ho 3&5;
n N m o m . 35:»: .550 .8 $33 0380; mo am: 2.: 335820 Ho £85
2:5» I Sammy? 925» “3395 35253— “ME—5:55 EaEcoEEm 8:£.—t<

 

 

not—«wt..— oz he 83 .333 03:qu cz "wfimaomenaq EQUEM .533 "NA 5.9.0 H3

281

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m2 n 25.3 n N :85 m3 5 52m banaagé Quasi. Exam 8.6 063.8985
mama n 5.9.0 m3 Sm x2e:— ban—«533m
m. H m. w . $9; a;
n.“ m. m . Sun a: 38:89:25 mommu€c<
m. n m. m . 8C? 600
mm. m H. m . 325 «5880.8 5:03.538 55 3.208% “wean .
mu. m u. m . Esm— EESSESU HEB 83883 68 a 5
mm. m n. m . 03:95 3568 5; 88683 68 a .
mm. m n. m . 5805 no .5 SEE . Bow 5; 33683 $00 a .
mud mm. m . confine—bacon tubs?! 2:5 83683 .80 n E
W.” w.o m . . ciao 5339
W." m. m .
W.” m. m o .
W.” m. m . o 5:08 5.2: n .82 2: 39885
ON w.o m . 988% $33 0382* can 8338mm? mo concuoaow woosuum
o=_a> a 3:393 2:5» 3:335 $52.93* HESS—.80 EoEEE>=m 355.55.

 

 

mafia—2538 ..8-“3833 9555::— ”N 5.20 H?»

282

REFERENCES

283

 

[ASTM 2004] — Meadows, D. (2004). “Keeping Pace with a New Global Market.”
ASTM International and Sustainable Development, URL:
http://www.astmorg/ggibin/SofiCart.exe/SNEWS/APRILi2004/meadows_apr04.
html?L+mvstore+vvip9910 (Visited — November 18, 2006)

 

[Eijadi et a1. 2002] — Eijadi, D., Vaidya, P., Reinertsen, J., and Kumar, S. (2002).
“Introducing comparative analysis to the LEED system: A case for rational and
regional application.” Report submitted for publication at ACEEE 2002 Summer
Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, URL:
http://wwwdclbl.gov/~kumar/Downloads/Introducing%20Comparative%20Anal
ysis%20to%20the%2OLEED%20$vstem.pdf (Visited — August 6, 2006).

[FPC 2001] — F PC Sustainability Guidelines (2001). URL:
http://www.facilities.ufl.edu/sustain/dePCPMChecklist.pdf#search=%22FPC°/o2
OSustainabilityo/oZOguidelines%22 (Visited - September 13, 2006).

 

[Frank and Engelke 2001] — Frank, L.D. and Engelke PO. (2001). “The Built
Environment and Human Activity Patterns: Exploring the Impacts of Urban Form
on Public Health.” Journal of Flaming Literature, Vol. 16, No. 2, 202-218

[Hendee 2006] —- Hendee, BA. (2006). “Sustainable Site Development.” J oumal of Green
Building, Vol. 1, No. 1, 9-20.

[Herkert et al. 1996] — Herkert, J., Farrell, A., and Winebrake, J. (1996). “Technology
Choice for Sustainable Development.” IEEE Technology and Society Magazine,
Summer 1996, URL:
hth/ieeexploreieee.org/iel1/44/10929/00507626.pdf?isnumber=&amumber=50
162—6 (Visited — August 6, 2006).

[Matthiessen and Morris 2004] — Matthiessen, L. F., and Morris, P. (2004). “Costing
Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting Methodology.” Davis

 

Langdon Adarnson, URL:
http://www.davislangdon.com/pdf/USA/2004CostingGreen.pdf Visited - August
6, 2006

[MICHIGAN 2004] — Major Project Design Manual (DMB-494 ROI/O4) for Professional
Service Contractors, State Universities, Community Colleges and State Agencies;
State of Michigan; Department of Management and Budget; January 2004, URL:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/finalDMB_78659 7.pdf (Visited - May 27,
2006)

[Mrozowski et al. 2006] — Mrozowski, T., Westphal, J., Khosla, N., and Yocca, D.
(2006). “Promoting Healthy Enviromnents through Application of LEED Site
Planning Standards to Cold Climate Institutional Settings.” Report submitted to
The MSU Land Policy Program, Office of the John Hannah Distinguished
Professor in Land Policy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI

284

 

[Nijkamp and Ouwersloot 1998] — Nijkamp, P. and Ouwersloot, H. (1998). “A Decision
Support System for Regional Sustainable Development: The Flag Model.” URL:
http://www.tinbergen.nl/discussionpapers/97074.pdf#search=%22DECISION%20
SUPPORT%2OSYSTEM%20flag%20modelW022 (Visited — September 13, 2006).

[Pearce et al. 1995] — Pearce, A.R., Hastak, M., and Vanegas, J.A. (1995). “A Decision
Support System for Construction Materials Selection using Sustainability as a
Criterion.” URL: http://mavengtri.gatech.edu/sfi/resources/pdf/CP/CP003.PDF
(Visited - May 28, 2006). ‘

[Piet et al. 2003] — Piet, S.J., Gibson, P.L., Joe, J.C., Kerr, T.A., and Nitschke, R.L.
(2003). “Making Sustainable Decisions Using the EONVERGENCE
Framework.” WM’03 Conference, February 23-27, 2003, Tucson, AZ.

[Pillai 2006] — Pillai, G.G. (2006). “Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes
Based on ‘Whole House’ and ‘LEED’ Approaches.” Masters Thesis, Construction
Management Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

[Presley and Meade 2004] — Presley, A., and Meade, L. (2004). “Sustainable Production
Systems Evaluation Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Abstract Number:
002-0417, Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM
Conference, Cancun, Mexico, April 30 - May 3, 2004.

[SWA 2004] — Steven Winter Associates (2004). “LEED Cost Study: Final Report.
Submitted to United States General Services Administration.” URL:
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/GSAMAN/gsaleed.pdf#search=%22GSA%20Cost%20
Study_%22 (Visited — September 13, 2006).

[Tonn et al. 2000] — Tonn, B., English, M., and Travis, C. (2000). “A Framework for
Understanding and Improving Environmental Decision Making.” Journal of
Enviromnental Planning and Management, 43(2), 163—183.

[UNEP 2001] — United Nations Environment Programme (2001). “Energy and Cities:
Sustainable Building and Construction.” [ETC Side Event at UNEP Governing
Council, 6 February, 2001 - Nairobi, Kenya. URL:
http://www.unep.or.ip/ietc/focus/Enerngities1.asp (Visited - May 20, 2006).

[USGBC-1] — US Green Building Council’s LEED-NC Technical Review Workshop,
May 2005.

[USGBC-2] — US. Green Building Council, LEED-NC Version 2.2 Reference Guide,
First Edition, October 2005.

285

 

[USGBC-3] - US Green Building Council, LEED-NC Version 2.2 Fact Sheet, URL:
https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.ag>x?DocumentlD=1100 (Visited - August 6,
2006)

 

[Vyas 2005] — Vyas, U. K. (2005). “Greening the Heartland Presentation.” June 6, 2005;
Session 600, Chicago, Illinois, URL:
http://www.greeningtheheartland.org/2ODS/presentationsOS/vyas 600.pdf (Visited
- August 6, 2006).

[WCED 1987] — United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development
(1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

286

 

ll[[l[[]fl[l[l[[lj[[l[W1