<%BANNER%>

Articulating the Business and Ethical Arguments for Sustainable Construction

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110320_AAAAAC INGEST_TIME 2011-03-20T08:01:15Z PACKAGE UFE0010620_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 70707 DFID F20110320_AAABOY ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH griffin_l_Page_38.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
23f8a4dcbcc3d8d159a0a0c7ff4b85dc
SHA-1
2f468d99368f237995a6199823096dc676168a14
78355 F20110320_AAABHD griffin_l_Page_57.jp2
fabba4eefb9655551e11776b2c3eadb6
9337506942c973a78abffb499a77f0b34d148f6a
2004 F20110320_AAABTW griffin_l_Page_28.txt
5ac3a98f710642d07be63bb241529a07
1f3229d4a8b91ea8d5ae46981f033a8034a46a2e
22611 F20110320_AAABMA griffin_l_Page_46.QC.jpg
5c0e862d72ccca87c29ffe40946b669f
e067a34df079f6c4ec3d109d856cc9bcea486f44
70560 F20110320_AAABOZ griffin_l_Page_41.jpg
20afa7b88be0d7ca0978c2cb5f9ea6b7
67548c438d1b9355f7995ec813ff233373d39f57
1053954 F20110320_AAABHE griffin_l_Page_42.tif
a38462a8f1d67b266d0e407877ba6e62
6ac5e521120ba404a392958362901687f1bc9cf4
2002 F20110320_AAABTX griffin_l_Page_29.txt
703bf4e88ef23b08bdc7624e1efca850
17cad02ffe0e5d2f43296175786dcfbbb5f39d1e
F20110320_AAABMB griffin_l_Page_25.tif
322c8e8e4d7eec310df6d0dbb26df059
2ebeb851a9b2d6116fd741d9f6fd87f073bc763d
23049 F20110320_AAABHF griffin_l_Page_24.QC.jpg
6e8f3df454c1a58068dee5325244e759
9274bf423d65b41bc05c71a3c0341554e26da014
25271604 F20110320_AAABMC griffin_l_Page_62.tif
03fc3250a61a76d673165d95ccccf616
9b9241f25422455f7766c36425fea4c8719bb729
1959 F20110320_AAABHG griffin_l_Page_33.txt
ceb7c37feefc4c1e60741cf529cfe536
500b03caa5ae9ab1a356419e93c3ddc71161deea
F20110320_AAABRA griffin_l_Page_21.tif
8db304076c8dcb2b58e45adb9612b60d
22009874ddb46b1e728b87da55e515376bc5c92d
2044 F20110320_AAABTY griffin_l_Page_30.txt
fff206e9c59f6d6cbdc99ef31a6c48af
9a9dd97b9f2f90e4fbd5c5a98fd7ed5deb12bfee
1950 F20110320_AAABMD griffin_l_Page_40.txt
9ccdb6e6564223c3d6e60ad235f48777
0c9fb6bca13f1ba2fc20e79301de80876c22a507
F20110320_AAABHH griffin_l_Page_29.tif
6ace324c1ee51c6c64255f4ae17f06c4
04d414b4bc6ed0a30ef5122a143f43f63671d671
F20110320_AAABRB griffin_l_Page_22.tif
13feb522ac2dc6f2256a37e71029dcd1
da433175114ab7590c7dec1ea24bfd919d01bc52
2105 F20110320_AAABTZ griffin_l_Page_31.txt
b973add141e05218312f2638e66b5a51
7a3792da9d441b6689582ecf334ae6b23bf9d55c
72066 F20110320_AAABME griffin_l_Page_28.jpg
6ff8319873e90bfa3194c1f3bb659746
88d378d54323c24c5c857364d155bea21a802e53
107729 F20110320_AAABHI griffin_l_Page_36.jp2
a89d7cde4f70dce8fb475feaf1461aa7
b80fd518aebb3862932e2b18c206466af327664e
F20110320_AAABRC griffin_l_Page_24.tif
f41a455f49849638151c9bf9ea4f8d09
7160742eda621f283ba36b200ca0939a33c34f43
71156 F20110320_AAABMF griffin_l_Page_36.jpg
957c146282243e1e97911645f2230eed
c5f0d884e7808f950b40ca2918e37dc29c881cd5
23036 F20110320_AAABWA griffin_l_Page_28.QC.jpg
631ed91c8bf616def89b049a657fcfa7
2d62bc2064f8b5d5c4e3271071ff192359be4fb4
5219 F20110320_AAABHJ griffin_l_Page_57thm.jpg
41d72b7500c3b1b40a9137e6695c92ae
a99c341a391bb6bb6a29369680da7c149ec1edc3
F20110320_AAABRD griffin_l_Page_26.tif
883cd86f82c194cdae4ff9a701ee237f
690329569f932c25cde0ffcc0c69cdbbbd5d89b1
49500 F20110320_AAABMG griffin_l_Page_40.pro
17f4b507bd4c057a05b7a78c7ed6f5d5
0e2d9513948a4c09caf51663c70b1356a9f82dfa
23059 F20110320_AAABWB griffin_l_Page_09.QC.jpg
d8538cfd97d87ec6b808568687a0d515
32033bb92443a4a576496a55321f8a495feea4a1
49958 F20110320_AAABHK griffin_l_Page_29.pro
922fd23a5fd7842f6d74ab9ce7a078f2
2f931afdcc6b97bd56b6ffc9f717e93f040c4104
F20110320_AAABRE griffin_l_Page_27.tif
7b379607d24bb83b1006b6d45979af38
1349987b873c93594d954cf8202884e474972e21
95632 F20110320_AAABMH griffin_l_Page_35.jp2
9b36683d271cdb18f62290c2a42db6cf
70f29c27843ae94ecec93bc37cbee0be3f9fcff5
6539 F20110320_AAABWC griffin_l_Page_19thm.jpg
40aa037084161d10121697fb20e09242
c6968022b7fe4d43f606a430bb497b64b35683fa
71397 F20110320_AAABHL griffin_l_Page_40.jpg
b46d68e5e2a023f0dd298b8bd85877cf
551c1e2cd7695c8013549f43ea8e1f9455edb3f0
F20110320_AAABRF griffin_l_Page_30.tif
c9442150e4437bef990b3f47e32d33e6
d376bbf30b176f65ab9b5a5ac85e5d84ff6df533
6617 F20110320_AAABMI griffin_l_Page_53thm.jpg
f8c2f8d708b3fde1b58091da39e43de0
6b978d71579ec6a4e79695ec251b6164a1dd2eae
21831 F20110320_AAABWD griffin_l_Page_48.QC.jpg
4d58dfa2396fa607367f8228a94caa13
0711bd0a999b512c81642e5d05055ed4c635f7de
F20110320_AAABRG griffin_l_Page_31.tif
b213700b04a4ba25d1bb80d632adefed
7cabf5afc82420a5350c54c182d94f1d362a7367
25554 F20110320_AAABMJ griffin_l_Page_62.QC.jpg
36d2147ea7d5edd02d07110521b7fe43
8e21b34a5c0cc133a60d69f24f4644b5309c15c9
6302 F20110320_AAABWE griffin_l_Page_43thm.jpg
00fd6176fe3fd7d0b528d595057c012c
ab4f707412c92a799b82e9192f9c1f96ea8a11c0
F20110320_AAABHM griffin_l_Page_56.tif
a3a87979bb4e700a5180592576dd3c49
3976853b7aa76142dd3c6e0c96f8530eaf08bc5b
F20110320_AAABRH griffin_l_Page_33.tif
3408619aed255b230db7512271032b60
a976c3a2ea7b445198143709f463f33754eee563
4026 F20110320_AAABMK griffin_l_Page_10thm.jpg
6e16e5d7b5738b2e01ac0480f5488d56
f471dde083ab5881c992318a55be3f924f002eb9
6440 F20110320_AAABWF griffin_l_Page_36thm.jpg
866402ca1cad83bb588efdfeb5601ef9
936a64c61eb07117ac04ab4b42b40f473a6e3f6f
2066 F20110320_AAABHN griffin_l_Page_19.txt
e0d421a5a265f6fb15ba5ef35486adb9
ab66984e5932e96da44fe6069be3d566be7694d1
F20110320_AAABRI griffin_l_Page_34.tif
2a44c68156f671d3ad3e1bf6c487e339
f62eca4bf6ca0ef45cff7f969d573ff7bb9ca36a
6328 F20110320_AAABML griffin_l_Page_17thm.jpg
2ff35af00cbebaa4966a87bc64226f63
0a0cb282355e1ef2744632cfc4b43ceb3803f731
22392 F20110320_AAABWG griffin_l_Page_15.QC.jpg
348a6c0cca9b751506c1915142cce70e
48a57c7c61e843e0fdda371c0f56b54417c2b51e
105605 F20110320_AAABHO griffin_l_Page_15.jp2
f5ddcd2e76fc5294348a15ff525bc7ea
072767e6e64e52042b7a17216c1782ddb7053c73
F20110320_AAABRJ griffin_l_Page_37.tif
dd5b311715d5f95e3303eb283f659062
d9cf832b9df895046296110e10eff22a33fdd404
108 F20110320_AAABMM griffin_l_Page_02.txt
a7bd0c08ccfc75ed05249c3eabad82db
d0043e21d1cbf1f1a3cf3eb03bcde8df1b38bb4a
9798 F20110320_AAABWH griffin_l_Page_34.QC.jpg
ef861b3118ef004e718464ac352cb541
76bf2e12e91edeac89610284b31c245a0be60216
37050 F20110320_AAABHP griffin_l_Page_07.pro
1d3fe3e8ece1054e7059487a07c0da68
dbd636532283405cbac96488a9dd56128f7e4694
F20110320_AAABRK griffin_l_Page_38.tif
82bd33ab7b40f74151d1e1800781d069
c0a32eda89c049822f9ed5b50771e36f42c479d1
2060 F20110320_AAABMN griffin_l_Page_53.txt
adecf33af9847b4a9237fb2a55332471
8bd5d28ad50c9aea98d1eae403744e97b97237ba
6592 F20110320_AAABWI griffin_l_Page_09thm.jpg
ef5b905c8e0473e9b1b016b866f783fa
8e306dd1fdf11b0b49237dfab331a6eb6b389fba
96985 F20110320_AAABHQ griffin_l_Page_08.jp2
cea65ef0ce2f9b42ce28efb1ae0dd04e
c9692e2e63a59cf10466b21757a40aeab1d73442
F20110320_AAABRL griffin_l_Page_40.tif
e1d0c8a3307fbf636e1a5584f83d4e52
c6570846975221efe8fd113fd04b8beba3235afe
24141 F20110320_AAABMO griffin_l_Page_54.QC.jpg
b9b24d0b0e7c3f436f49f0b87917d521
fae7a6039a12c569a3901fc808aa99594520ea61
20736 F20110320_AAABWJ griffin_l_Page_35.QC.jpg
98483a695badb5f34e7f36a85c833595
e3723bac9e9307f64a9fe4588f686335e8d7203c
F20110320_AAABHR griffin_l_Page_01.tif
7f404510d9814727d1be0eb3ee4a468f
ea18d3dbb2d91d218bf5c7bbd693e87105079fd5
F20110320_AAABRM griffin_l_Page_41.tif
56801f3031eb2db5006c8f1a23faa1c2
3da5eddfa0fe47de0fff9f245ace0deec26ee168
107022 F20110320_AAABMP griffin_l_Page_32.jp2
68d94320ec52b5d6947f9682fb3dd1c6
917fdf8ca7778d0550c1456786e9a57bfe011342
22104 F20110320_AAABWK griffin_l_Page_30.QC.jpg
25e171214c6118cacb152d4c9bc1c342
d6ebf436c84e8e9cb5b54eadad72d3e1d9f2aa8c
23806 F20110320_AAABHS griffin_l_Page_42.QC.jpg
b3af8abcd235046b0359ca5e7b5f2855
bbd0d4807afbe7bdfab70b0467fd20bb15d8c284
F20110320_AAABRN griffin_l_Page_44.tif
39d3c63d9576cb246b68eb68876bf6a7
e265c6ffae545b6e17cdf07748905d057ff3609e
F20110320_AAABMQ griffin_l_Page_24.txt
8968b1c776c4aea06bcb79f04df47b36
e2814161cf12dd86efa9e21d89cae995cf4d62e9
7086 F20110320_AAABWL griffin_l_Page_62thm.jpg
391c658b75902dceab223d0c18afc54f
d0de2806587f592b086d382d654bdca9d4e476c0
6435 F20110320_AAABHT griffin_l_Page_28thm.jpg
338e56309a2d8815406e84c0f64edefd
ac99ea70a37be6a4ca1cc0fe2c96de3eaba88c00
F20110320_AAABRO griffin_l_Page_46.tif
3a07e01fd72e96edf82cb6f0ace17b21
56ade4eb02fd72a64650ac6ea78c5bd3c5412b87
5181 F20110320_AAABWM griffin_l_Page_05thm.jpg
075e8f3f0342238ccfef2d9709337f4c
a2fbba9f576ce99ab611c59ca0487b90eb34e032
106598 F20110320_AAABHU griffin_l_Page_26.jp2
e71ed978cbeaf56b9bbeb8a444c1b668
26c3c5693d68d40c2b0c311d061af199ace07fcf
F20110320_AAABRP griffin_l_Page_47.tif
cbcd7f59c4963fc967ffa562a1b46678
57b2bfe7c4b1785669100d9d29abff4e4e57adb9
24406 F20110320_AAABMR griffin_l_Page_31.QC.jpg
bcdef6e26a38f64dfbdf7090921a7fdd
40ad38af3d256eafc05c5b915d1126f75ef4dade
6203 F20110320_AAABWN griffin_l_Page_46thm.jpg
6466d428ff5e2559b876234289e494a9
4b46b11d35a8238c04de3ec9ff18dd250889842a
F20110320_AAABRQ griffin_l_Page_48.tif
91246cd4d3bddfa6e45e475df5d7c122
213466259ac80f26aae4a985d42f3fed88084b5b
72703 F20110320_AAABMS griffin_l_Page_37.jpg
9dd98fe01d8a28be50716444ee05fc88
4b6ec6cfe5a983da7591e032c030c4d4ff129455
F20110320_AAABHV griffin_l_Page_35.tif
174f98de986d0236d017961c24bf9cbd
dbf4e8e7ec82b1982d843d7ee459358245909e76
6244 F20110320_AAABWO griffin_l_Page_47thm.jpg
d33a9063e0ce958ea8c3e28f0051fa0e
b7096dc8dcbc0407b87b1c2c54065361d78dec0b
F20110320_AAABRR griffin_l_Page_49.tif
2ca3205825c9d4a5bcab959e1c6b06c2
bfe3979df868320b40098034375316a86a547976
87315 F20110320_AAABMT griffin_l_Page_49.jpg
bf733708b765ac297aae2989e354852c
008c2964e19b74fe7ee6e13b8936fc3102babfd2
2494 F20110320_AAABHW griffin_l_Page_27.txt
ecb4461116c8772b02e91ec297f4eb33
f5123f777fa1c3df91bf362b3004c6b8da630c77
6707 F20110320_AAABWP griffin_l_Page_31thm.jpg
990c6a38bafa7c75e637f219e56ad3c1
fdcb5c646179ebb0c55f4bc9a12564cceb07e9b7
F20110320_AAABRS griffin_l_Page_51.tif
a780a55874d577afd4650455e72b8376
1e6e854dcebd75faabdc725e71424566deff672e
69103 F20110320_AAABMU griffin_l_Page_46.jpg
d0ecfadc5cef75943d4fbc2e86b183aa
cdda6b1e86758d345d55eceae2a854d89005290b
70511 F20110320_AAABHX griffin_l_Page_17.jpg
bcb20a6b36955b4062465c01c30c544e
6a9c0024e30aa0f18f1ec03d7a70f88d15825e22
20161 F20110320_AAABWQ griffin_l_Page_12.QC.jpg
d425436ab561bea1522d0cd8a1b401ce
ff06ad05f17d72252508f241045ee92a96577cbf
F20110320_AAABRT griffin_l_Page_52.tif
c24245c8ace0af1fc1efe411283df29f
a0f57a4488dcded19408ab1a4b08a8f9b9d6acd0
71434 F20110320_AAABMV griffin_l_Page_09.jpg
c69ffbed979ceb855e58feebc7ccd2a8
ca32b192551799c686510fb25762fcba22083b05
1020 F20110320_AAABHY griffin_l_Page_64.txt
9bc73928ec3b72446577cf1e1e2453e7
73f7303056de4e45ca96d05f185337a44e3b4667
23071 F20110320_AAABWR griffin_l_Page_38.QC.jpg
da88cb2833c010fdf097603853825ec3
e960adc830cdca40ee209770885b92cda28800c8
F20110320_AAABRU griffin_l_Page_54.tif
a25d59a5b95efd6a8affbe9b48d7dc56
cc447e6900ed841ca8badf98b2a73c7318629bb2
106042 F20110320_AAABMW griffin_l_Page_55.jp2
f94d49226e17b0cafc131893b3e82bd3
f0668ec2810a070fc8b77f5640b5b3da050bb0be
49046 F20110320_AAABHZ griffin_l_Page_25.pro
e6846293b59f01ca03aefea03718d891
c26aca02822e94f1f9e5a61851546ea72169d0c8
6399 F20110320_AAABWS griffin_l_Page_32thm.jpg
56360cfb162be0fd7de9c18c73de394f
4906fc70ba962d0ee5906abab55786f0455e16fa
F20110320_AAABRV griffin_l_Page_57.tif
e3cfc7709e4223edc47c4da801e8765c
88f74b01f876c91f07681fa56449d3449032885d
39181 F20110320_AAABMX griffin_l_Page_04.jpg
e40cd19f86b33651a1ae870f8895f28e
b3d0fa1b94134a9abb6be107513d72cb0831f308
6330 F20110320_AAABWT griffin_l_Page_15thm.jpg
9982200faf0cd79f3aadd60a888e920c
17ff53642d910ca51233c5b4d052d54a05112738
6566 F20110320_AAABKA griffin_l_Page_16thm.jpg
0e91ab9769f875ee73b409673f5ceacd
58a47a0af86eb9fc3ece8e00e5ae2fa4e7ff8a5e
144 F20110320_AAABMY griffin_l_Page_03.txt
43ebfb63c73a5e5670e29ab589eea722
fcb6f2879e66c4e29c3dfd728c4d6ef3699530d5
6229 F20110320_AAABWU griffin_l_Page_26thm.jpg
936d3d901cbb8dc878073615767a1536
f72e015b620e90763d27879e42fc1c4ad39742af
F20110320_AAABRW griffin_l_Page_58.tif
52af940540e076583ba85e6d353b6e0a
6afcc84cd634ecc6709665d71cc34ed0261b9842
F20110320_AAABKB griffin_l_Page_32.tif
414a391ddada465b72ad5f8a2e66c92c
9d517191b55c533e21f011aba41f0a9f5c54179d
15599 F20110320_AAABMZ griffin_l_Page_06.pro
78d0264f82a17556cb51c32d70dec847
520c77018bffe539f9895427a85b6111c9a9f09f
24188 F20110320_AAABWV griffin_l_Page_53.QC.jpg
a36819d591c37a5e4bd5e8e21b503923
dd7bc058c0793312e2103b18ad2e4efaa9a5b457
F20110320_AAABRX griffin_l_Page_59.tif
2dc84b700de5cb21a479c7adcab3147e
105986e23cf831fb4c5a4dcce3736b30a6f57953
F20110320_AAABKC griffin_l_Page_18.tif
d82e82e734b919b93ea2b589542bfcfc
99579516ab465f6e258827bb6360ff178a56f345
4734 F20110320_AAABWW griffin_l_Page_11thm.jpg
99e8cd8dffb00adf30e997ea69abda2b
ff1c1fc709f2ea1836755344de99af9a140ea993
F20110320_AAABRY griffin_l_Page_63.tif
34b687f18d2198944a8b2abbe70a260e
dd4f847145b47cda95cf7a20e25699a6b5993a8f
1977 F20110320_AAABKD griffin_l_Page_20.txt
79a73345d54f1765f3a173cafea47f18
f5af4667a3a934d3e1c5bcebf582723ec338cd02
72163 F20110320_AAABPA griffin_l_Page_44.jpg
b7311456dcb7e732eab750c67290668b
fa99a8a473656297f7d5fc59a1cba4d8275c77b5
24200 F20110320_AAABWX griffin_l_Page_51.QC.jpg
896b8f84916d048bf53893dd24ec6606
049a134fdff5d04cb066045426fa4a8bb45536e6
F20110320_AAABRZ griffin_l_Page_64.tif
e7e287eb05cc27e0f1e2f8c15ef8cebb
db43062aa4cea337c1e23abc9d2c7f19cbbddc71
1051880 F20110320_AAABKE griffin_l_Page_60.jp2
d70f90d171720a7cbad613f89ac62637
baf771886d784a9cbd3a18b6fe7bae1a3738d066
70782 F20110320_AAABPB griffin_l_Page_45.jpg
5b71903c43bf1e4cf11397179df5f41e
c420d67718f728a5daefc9d931f2bef82efc461b
3237 F20110320_AAABWY griffin_l_Page_02.QC.jpg
a0f25847373f66a41f02d2909471b387
f375cd347c6d06702e243c7dbe689b60828b077a
1960 F20110320_AAABKF griffin_l_Page_38.txt
a6932986dac2cd2cd8e7651533bb9d9a
0f8218554c772789f3c210d752f4f3d4afc7da74
67954 F20110320_AAABPC griffin_l_Page_48.jpg
fac68a20238b3af5191367d67630c225
1857240660687dd225136d98d31788253a12b718
24801 F20110320_AAABWZ griffin_l_Page_61.QC.jpg
240e0bd3ce15d6ee4f9bf88b22fd1723
8d518d346b0d5c98f5772c86d8dc98c100daacc6
1895 F20110320_AAABKG griffin_l_Page_58.txt
d77e088698589c7e44676fe1454c9388
d6296b2abb0b07412b559e17ab85fd85014e31f3
1938 F20110320_AAABUA griffin_l_Page_32.txt
45b16bc0463a2b92b2ae3389791ca586
5ec69be96fab4a46bc6c78bf631cce1ad56caa6d
74190 F20110320_AAABPD griffin_l_Page_54.jpg
81c8262920637795566a3906b77b2ecd
9236b319373303cf385e588a6f980d73569ff30e
48860 F20110320_AAABKH griffin_l_Page_32.pro
258f843df257f1fc33ecc8faff7e399a
6daf44f71fa4e97a7a7e928b51ff741c6f1f0663
1862 F20110320_AAABUB griffin_l_Page_35.txt
cf7b9919796ff1118065db92c6c5a0ff
61f31009399811a54b8671163448e6e4c685c731
53112 F20110320_AAABPE griffin_l_Page_57.jpg
5a628f4d47b00551e170d9a140fc0471
8193cdb59ac8a6a088f33b92e8536fb7a63050dd
91221 F20110320_AAABKI griffin_l_Page_12.jp2
9cda13e8a12371433c775e3b9700b698
4981a001b18af9104d398bb948e0c0e028e7aac6
F20110320_AAABUC griffin_l_Page_39.txt
f5dcc0f6ca80877c5c7a5a7fd8a13998
af18fba88fa1b46c5c19768094710f73f9c88dca
67832 F20110320_AAABPF griffin_l_Page_58.jpg
a20e1d0ea9ef4ccfdaadce6fe2a5a482
19ebe0597c731a8f2e51e07b72f1a93d09d1a229
23102 F20110320_AAABKJ griffin_l_Page_55.QC.jpg
88bb179b6496d92ad74b013ac3fcebab
847fa9b5e2f5349b83172b9d72f674ec8f674edf
1948 F20110320_AAABUD griffin_l_Page_41.txt
4d15b46be0e0b9494dc7b558df18f667
1dc9994559b0eb5d16ccf7a4ea2a1bd51d8f757f
35309 F20110320_AAABPG griffin_l_Page_59.jpg
cc82ebc0c6c377a7a7052ec7355a0d82
502f9e3e528e635182550096f7c0fb44abab3208
55307 F20110320_AAABKK griffin_l_Page_07.jpg
d81c42b1fab83cb6525bbdb0f16e683f
38f3d4bc43d135ec4c24bcc18b4b8861bfe170ad
1954 F20110320_AAABUE griffin_l_Page_43.txt
126e750aed5d11b132a9ffbbd845f40b
79713a48d63c69bb36cd114811ca9f02bf56bf50
85865 F20110320_AAABPH griffin_l_Page_61.jpg
7efaa28051d3025e4c7d0b51558a6c51
786a2b17fe9409577f69f37861c27c84597fec11
F20110320_AAABKL griffin_l_Page_50.tif
d74183110c7e456141ee4b2fb4de1eae
2fb660518bcadf9cbb4342adfe0275ea8ac6f42f
2118 F20110320_AAABUF griffin_l_Page_47.txt
a4b7d283d7d4b609c8897a7cedec03c3
826c119fe6ba1896592666ffb35b0fa55e2f9368
94179 F20110320_AAABPI griffin_l_Page_62.jpg
3b808dd3c9efb41ff0858d631a675351
a81b9fe7a66beeaf0bdd92bf7423071f77c9d5c3
6489 F20110320_AAABKM griffin_l_Page_37thm.jpg
648fe642905f17ace8c4791ddc210a20
4cdbc78e68f38a89acdb07af763c31b69ee3bac5
1826 F20110320_AAABUG griffin_l_Page_48.txt
e60ac29eebabd2b55353355317fdd92a
0cf831270a5bdb824694c4351cd74bffcea7384f
86659 F20110320_AAABPJ griffin_l_Page_63.jpg
148ffab8604fa4039928fa8a917005e5
81ffd991c6b3f61c597928c4f7e63d331e870ff8
113711 F20110320_AAABKN griffin_l_Page_52.jp2
faf3c536545c293e976ebe81ab7e6a64
3a073a0064a1654729f0aba29b2d5dbccaa08e2f
2056 F20110320_AAABUH griffin_l_Page_50.txt
1cb58d062e29c681c638401e9a731e49
f85f77e258321981a8f37b59cea65510ec0786d4
40719 F20110320_AAABPK griffin_l_Page_64.jpg
58f654f7705bb5fac9db2e898f9252f5
a149ebe67ef5c70745769f6a888bde2d93620859
666 F20110320_AAABKO griffin_l_Page_34.txt
c348a7fb08c853f16bed6ba2a7eacd6f
e7af8ff440c643a5d631b81369932618e44cbf18
2037 F20110320_AAABUI griffin_l_Page_51.txt
0d2630f28ef77296078b13787eb42941
574828aa264e905ad6186161508904e3fafae6f9
24859 F20110320_AAABPL griffin_l_Page_01.jp2
f3b003db6115b9e0febe35dea98fe34f
ff619de75b1dc181705d23423880375af6269de8
2034 F20110320_AAABUJ griffin_l_Page_54.txt
ec81a614b7fe6411e15a599d0dfcd5ea
f95894626cc8b9c19a4c1bf2c322d842a5441df5
8089 F20110320_AAABPM griffin_l_Page_03.jp2
06e7ee4fe465569124cb1cda3cc25ab2
eb40f85fd440884913c00b265db3bd7ffd6b25ee
F20110320_AAABKP griffin_l_Page_23.tif
45071f312485696274b5c6f6b837f57b
422baa411f45e4284444dc8c928a5e273b244f86
1920 F20110320_AAABUK griffin_l_Page_55.txt
f2c18593f35d47ce540f826b3339a1e3
c770d6b8040b01f2e46498de8c2dbce905553af4
1051971 F20110320_AAABPN griffin_l_Page_05.jp2
09f1740eca3348f291d8a4bfd003b38d
88a0a6a0f8a64d629cd89f2038d636fe7d31ea5a
44480 F20110320_AAABKQ griffin_l_Page_35.pro
803d9ec5848311642113317c7de1553c
8189741841854125db39ff76db1afc20c78f326e
1455 F20110320_AAABUL griffin_l_Page_56.txt
473ca48bc5181f4b1960bc579d530abd
acc37e1f82e5d293cc9fa7e93a9ef6b66b306c3b
402119 F20110320_AAABPO griffin_l_Page_06.jp2
d311098570f6a8ec2623ba3a29560e67
9741506a349dd3a01fdd10178708034fcc838472
1491 F20110320_AAABUM griffin_l_Page_57.txt
c6154c81b4d3a24ffca2aa1f17b369d0
779cb8566ccab0b059558589c774be7f3b28f53e
108133 F20110320_AAABPP griffin_l_Page_09.jp2
5f923fc07aa64c10f8465f9660fc03c3
7cc8abbb8909167ebe7a48693161b3e62260d04d
F20110320_AAABKR griffin_l_Page_61.tif
095285d273c48969c3c8e63022da9fc6
3fb0800fe092501f5b24c392b0cadcf61a41f96d
977 F20110320_AAABUN griffin_l_Page_59.txt
443799027defdf885628ed4034f22ef6
8b7dc0fdf32c6d6dfefed2d33cb4a9473204dee8
72740 F20110320_AAABPQ griffin_l_Page_11.jp2
b736b61abf427740ef24e16c17e92ab1
2ab3d45d57fcff4457f85d017bbab2eef8fd1bef
51954 F20110320_AAABKS griffin_l_Page_53.pro
462e5921108a238ec355966254e661a3
c171d898c61ee43aac28891de5c733275a3bd17d
2216 F20110320_AAABUO griffin_l_Page_61.txt
8c532557c1a18aebebe018e7dc66176e
41e459bccaf24371a94f2b14a082862b66f26882
107652 F20110320_AAABPR griffin_l_Page_13.jp2
bc8f8d2a03ec2ff3020fd9b080c62c83
3b49fdc01ba866a4b6687fc289d68f77364436e7
68761 F20110320_AAABKT griffin_l_Page_15.jpg
1d30a07213acf877efcf2096bf68b8c7
642eb78874d5afb6af58eb69cd3d95adf3b58525
2204 F20110320_AAABUP griffin_l_Page_63.txt
d2875c5895554e99ae7a4046d9c2d82f
3e1934d64117b16ad3ab287b499eb178eb89493e
68757 F20110320_AAABFX griffin_l_Page_55.jpg
9cf7511997e44a4716a8a63bdf07b6e9
d98c9ddb255dbcc27036a4a3bfd588beb3626261
1051963 F20110320_AAABPS griffin_l_Page_14.jp2
5f7d8950209f18f0ad17a94ad200f703
34ad58dc60f0d43e4684c86a10028bc72fd28cfc
24257 F20110320_AAABKU griffin_l_Page_64.pro
2cd5af521b8df1755ca16d7e8405ab05
36241a32761857df99d45d5e171b26a5f25ec4e2
159179 F20110320_AAABUQ griffin_l.pdf
ecc92b9c0dbe407844a29b234a22c209
ca6b7e5cf53f51e5d7f09e730240e44e3e57e1f6
48668 F20110320_AAABFY griffin_l_Page_59.jp2
59c87540fa56d9df3a1adf1fab8c3aeb
7ec6b4141cce622e5cf106e4b0f381fc990f3934
110679 F20110320_AAABPT griffin_l_Page_16.jp2
9c14a53e6278553f1a83be4ac52d7d2a
50960e29f8477f781d238d722ff9bf0837234dcf
F20110320_AAABKV griffin_l_Page_28.tif
cb2657f0e401883a9e50d37929399923
ce324b7f81e73837641f27672362aa5bf5bee6e9
6671 F20110320_AAABUR griffin_l_Page_51thm.jpg
d9c0c226cb2eadfee8d9c754234ac755
b861c4eec7b7fe4b93e22bc2d65707e1abad9993
6941 F20110320_AAABFZ griffin_l_Page_61thm.jpg
b13fa340e9a91395a0e1375192ec4685
d31c5dc72548e695fd8dbe05028b73a47c9f4ec6
7287 F20110320_AAABKW griffin_l_Page_01.QC.jpg
9c3492a7fda93cc6d15e09ae1dee3c06
8144a421cf487f4dd282ffffd68d04e5726119b5
23165 F20110320_AAABUS griffin_l_Page_18.QC.jpg
c1918a0c5608e9cba0ba9b4019092b3d
9a0c269039b56af4ce2c127f1060fad101f44e02
107306 F20110320_AAABPU griffin_l_Page_17.jp2
48c52287636a417b39e59e024c373bc5
11ebf8ad4ecb90b2e5e7fe37533131efc41f2bee
49476 F20110320_AAABKX griffin_l_Page_13.pro
bc9c6638aa481dc1b860335e385b16ad
a20e34726389e9b09ed7c2a9857436cb64ccca53
23760 F20110320_AAABUT griffin_l_Page_44.QC.jpg
ce943b706009abe3c2bb3532a9dd50c9
e5224be9589451e4d9b1fcd6d6146eee147e0248
107489 F20110320_AAABPV griffin_l_Page_18.jp2
c76296298d9da1ceecff77b2915cf6f5
93ada78d42c395b73dcc2569fd546200c3ccd942
22852 F20110320_AAABIA griffin_l_Page_32.QC.jpg
637293580ee78896ae70f47ddec24aeb
ad80aa6ee09d176c8d13b2fe2b567f26288ae72d
19488 F20110320_AAABKY griffin_l_Page_05.QC.jpg
b35f8aed0b561f34dd1c87feb222ac26
e2a8b02649d60ba351a206f0d0e5b80c7af35eae
24122 F20110320_AAABUU griffin_l_Page_39.QC.jpg
17baa6aacf2bdfe12c1400146f43b48d
bd684cc28ad97194010c3147f36cef1e541ccdea
112035 F20110320_AAABPW griffin_l_Page_19.jp2
88bc5bbf37d0c3dd618a39c10fe74507
289dc476447e5611ded72fe219fb8b2b2eeeba0f
1989 F20110320_AAABIB griffin_l_Page_36.txt
07553d26359816f03347d02c23fed50b
3811bceb6d13fe4ce291c8ca082b53d55a1a9aa2
F20110320_AAABKZ griffin_l_Page_60.tif
73f9e039a97be27d8b6e610f25bac2c0
7b038f624963ec891ace37cbc115f39ab38e6c23
23257 F20110320_AAABUV griffin_l_Page_36.QC.jpg
cc8e003c858375182b34849ff871594a
73d7992a83858bebf0fe7548eca6e47892a1af27
108302 F20110320_AAABPX griffin_l_Page_20.jp2
19b442bf61f667e9fe0a7d2a9f9a518e
5afcc0d3e57a473ef542f455796199f9d5887b79
32377 F20110320_AAABIC griffin_l_Page_11.pro
4885cb0c34a1174f549396eaf35562b0
c45a9897c1cde08f2ab31254cf6fd3c39c326bac
13091 F20110320_AAABUW griffin_l_Page_04.QC.jpg
d404202477b7caa721d3615902862499
1a4ad4d2ac8c8674e84372ae71d3064ef60da935
1350 F20110320_AAABNA griffin_l_Page_02thm.jpg
79fc095317e3d202c3501d6a26cf6f91
f4e65664c596b49e0c1c2c92203cbe9853173fb9
105062 F20110320_AAABPY griffin_l_Page_22.jp2
5e7bdad6431abb7c8ca347fa831f852d
39b72d8c17a18e4f9aeff90a48386e2c8fcd3641
F20110320_AAABID griffin_l_Page_20.tif
ad930b84dcd889a318c3c832a25ae0f1
1274c7bb89e1495b84b0bf7482ffbafadf173328
6300 F20110320_AAABUX griffin_l_Page_23thm.jpg
5d9a661f7ac6781625e779623b63893f
f2e46b51c3a9de047a5e9fcb6ff6e2ae058f67d2
1992 F20110320_AAABNB griffin_l_Page_26.txt
559833438806a7846157c0825cc1a0c2
461bb3fb9989f11050eee5668cbf5f0feb67e8d5
105968 F20110320_AAABPZ griffin_l_Page_23.jp2
07276d22eb31aaa375f5c25e341a9626
b8723af3a20da237972a3d562fe3fd44990014ef
49383 F20110320_AAABIE griffin_l_Page_41.pro
a64815f7c45c1076c3df1de75b57c89c
0f24889e9065b28354a56edc59bdb10b8827174a
24087 F20110320_AAABUY griffin_l_Page_50.QC.jpg
1629454f456ce29fbccd30b0c09a1b28
3d077b98539d20de9e6ab191166bfe4e227a9836
6273 F20110320_AAABNC griffin_l_Page_20thm.jpg
0f98d06edb9ba78fde06c0956c377acb
d15d10ab7f153e1459decaa406f289862ef29d53
14192 F20110320_AAABIF griffin_l_Page_10.QC.jpg
86f14af7ea7917274a516c7a36051202
1878eb6a1d693f90223526deaa7ae7bf0207b629
17609 F20110320_AAABND griffin_l_Page_07.QC.jpg
81a2f150bf3b1f59d2e0a4969a16a74c
ae69f5fb404f6f9be6f0dbd727cf10bbf2cf30a7
48654 F20110320_AAABIG griffin_l_Page_45.pro
515b14999d69cde6bd8fcd4886133615
59bc645b4965a004acb4d23732d22d0305b620f2
8607 F20110320_AAABSA griffin_l_Page_01.pro
3f199b7d194b950277fa45a117860e1c
cd220554aa4919463cced916efb1ebff660a7df7
22055 F20110320_AAABUZ griffin_l_Page_47.QC.jpg
26116684fa175ab70056a20dd2207b51
ea43958f90d4353e0de6cf309bb866670eebbf4d
104828 F20110320_AAABNE griffin_l_Page_46.jp2
6ef19349c6e55b6828259242375627df
1170de092a8bf8fe7cd0668d0657545218425b9c
53658 F20110320_AAABIH griffin_l_Page_04.jp2
100476be83c0ae8de763cab12f57f6f7
e697c5c649de14306dd30fcb01f3ed373ce160b1
1096 F20110320_AAABSB griffin_l_Page_02.pro
8e8f4b80f019f326423e215cd7e9e391
4436f36b555c192347b71e1e570bcbe84e31df91
2025 F20110320_AAABNF griffin_l_Page_37.txt
5cb2c0b14965f522eb1b04cab975d7b0
d873ddcac3ffc68d30cf308d700167e1016d16c2
74345 F20110320_AAABII griffin_l_Page_51.jpg
e42bcd2765b7b39cf457d5b0d56483cd
965f7150a3f64f047836fe8cda23b3701fca226d
23722 F20110320_AAABSC griffin_l_Page_04.pro
958e4a235b41ca9cafd730b5329c7cee
1f76651bddff4906c62192158f5e1eadf2bce1b0
25544 F20110320_AAABXA griffin_l_Page_49.QC.jpg
1c78dd6ba2e29bd7eb3083b027998b66
210135a1ca53d767578661a06afa77e53521e740
1051918 F20110320_AAABNG griffin_l_Page_63.jp2
f535b07f45c023d4119a8fad7e8629bd
32ff8a3e6411380c9108fb220c74eccc30ec5c2c
2039 F20110320_AAABIJ griffin_l_Page_42.txt
540aa314b5f5d0b62b18f0edea2057ba
ec2f2b4f08fd10bb87e35cecf2ce940d32b09576
49394 F20110320_AAABSD griffin_l_Page_14.pro
cadec9e7b46bf9269c11e41bb14c9b2b
a90b94cb0b034006c1e15917fbe3b73042003d92
6775 F20110320_AAABXB griffin_l_Page_27thm.jpg
6b3f1ad46151622f656ed3534baef827
245ea79a1a1bc803788d7b8d6d9d1c609cb9e721
64821 F20110320_AAABNH griffin_l_Page_35.jpg
4831b5e444b544ccd891e33e6f752528
98e9e89c3789d2c563242abf2acc7dc54cdfddc1
F20110320_AAABIK griffin_l_Page_08.tif
236b3cc31c351cd3fa9ae24027e9b62f
e957a7d3c4f1f59e1ca036127c1273b0998f0494
48479 F20110320_AAABSE griffin_l_Page_15.pro
06c2950cbd0c8602af18fcac18b197ec
148c975c0c6a697611427b7e6afe7337c0771674
18087 F20110320_AAABXC griffin_l_Page_56.QC.jpg
3afd7702513cce336bf1dc83addf46fd
27b76cb9b42964794c342b66cd648f45e37207db
F20110320_AAABNI griffin_l_Page_02.tif
39abfacea53e72146931bfe8c9a56ab6
a350d7871e4edb820aa53eeade8c7a38e1e9ca09
49756 F20110320_AAABIL griffin_l_Page_16.pro
5c75cb1b5f9fc4252c3d469e884d8dbc
9844d8f76727b639bf7344425d1d9bf910b35c74
48912 F20110320_AAABSF griffin_l_Page_17.pro
adf559a4a689c2a5479d456ccb8e847b
2a4e41a3f612e39d9c91a338b63e0a781395dfdb
22998 F20110320_AAABXD griffin_l_Page_29.QC.jpg
b4f92f2fa62b39a0277b5501605dc1e8
4137e051809bd834b1c5b3866880dec16c95d932
1961 F20110320_AAABNJ griffin_l_Page_25.txt
608e93d29f08fc897440489d876f4776
f29ee9a3952c1fb8602267b2a47c8266e82efbf5
73341 F20110320_AAABIM griffin_l_Page_42.jpg
48ef5a88809b90225c171f4e9bcb5929
79c7d4cc0486a6db5dd424d3bd3aa33b9da390c8
48751 F20110320_AAABSG griffin_l_Page_18.pro
ef905e1968144633b0324c8596398ff0
f959b068d17e9ebef0aa35997cde8de4167ef7c0
105405 F20110320_AAABXE UFE0010620_00001.xml FULL
542577274cc27d2180a4c44447df4bcf
c241a5aff6d8b3c46a5cec16bbc3b2163df02e3f
74661 F20110320_AAABNK griffin_l_Page_50.jpg
eb223a31d696558cdec55a36ba3df8d7
d0910a7ec8d19b7d6ad93fed9e504fb4af974148
51623 F20110320_AAABSH griffin_l_Page_19.pro
820006bc27b025ec129f62074354505f
4ec1dc9c90afc9f074e905d86b08b94cc0beb203
23376 F20110320_AAABXF griffin_l_Page_13.QC.jpg
c1a47e9d94b8bc77232aff21aa0a0745
010e6cf1621a533052f78d97aa668a527b3f306d
109674 F20110320_AAABNL griffin_l_Page_44.jp2
007e23ebfca060fb186a0cac28972d5c
a46c343c0d086d02d1cfba6d5dbe5f7b2e5dde5a
6294 F20110320_AAABIN griffin_l_Page_22thm.jpg
d479b3846f95c8523dcd2c9df46e2069
22ebac01170e02e82e0cbfaf9fc3014f2e3ee8be
50228 F20110320_AAABSI griffin_l_Page_20.pro
e50e513e17d0d9b6a4c77a391140a92f
de32b07dee78cfdf5941804cf0ffc91416ae8c78
6278 F20110320_AAABXG griffin_l_Page_48thm.jpg
89180b9153866334995fedcd1d092195
5ec1a2821145de468ea2bcb06c867048d75c1d2c
46027 F20110320_AAABNM griffin_l_Page_48.pro
6c4f92deeaad6d632ab61049e050eed6
3f5c5bd506e75700a27f7dc11d7a5fa14022db5e
78741 F20110320_AAABIO griffin_l_Page_05.jpg
100b2435404c758b14d587ec2e7546e9
68b2340a2bf504df1f01babc0e6fe4430cd2bd15
49169 F20110320_AAABSJ griffin_l_Page_21.pro
164e23f5994fea27afea9a9c06eb4caa
bbf95313bc31b7a7a3e33e1687cb58d275e9a9b5
6830 F20110320_AAABXH griffin_l_Page_49thm.jpg
e30721966faf4598c409169b377c4385
bc42e8b4ecd0d29ef1b809aed9a0f1076610e129
112347 F20110320_AAABNN griffin_l_Page_39.jp2
a6c4d38873aaf8c5cc54e69ab7e02e50
475768bd3da388c0ddf8a79b0294e645e499fe3b
F20110320_AAABIP griffin_l_Page_06thm.jpg
b582a22a9fbf4c1bb388114d32ee3b2f
fe7d2aa1cd8bcb2cb190c42dcf28d92ca47f0633
48154 F20110320_AAABSK griffin_l_Page_22.pro
dfee7855fa8b25e0fb0ea8452204b2dc
bba26a6acdf3553808664129096810dd886b5f1d
6559 F20110320_AAABIQ griffin_l_Page_40thm.jpg
cf33145d285570ed44d5dcf0faa980b2
d2826fa4dcb6d3bd054a8d46cfaa17bf409a6a6d
47961 F20110320_AAABSL griffin_l_Page_23.pro
079600b13087f35a058056c859765969
30f44e489e6b7b2435a6885b91091ee47ac9ca42
F20110320_AAABNO griffin_l_Page_14.tif
00fbcf2d7c7a426fb9f3e69b732d7425
9aa499cb12e6bb3eba673d2dcf55e1bfc423eacd
109540 F20110320_AAABIR griffin_l_Page_47.jp2
cc5aed2bb0f479c5b3c33d6d93a3671d
4942f133dbe089ad2ba1c19e3d7f2809f56ac95e
62281 F20110320_AAABSM griffin_l_Page_27.pro
94751dcf23f2574187ad0f8063818684
a83c32a8bc06faae8573a3766298ec94c887f832
F20110320_AAABNP griffin_l_Page_17.tif
a7705ebefd32f2ba9c626c4b9d2d88a9
fa8e85fa629b39003006c3622b392c70a65aa48a
F20110320_AAABIS griffin_l_Page_43.tif
e2b31adbb67fa94b6e86104d1d8f6c7a
ef4ce02e3afce30deade60b5cd6c04965095565e
50261 F20110320_AAABSN griffin_l_Page_28.pro
b712e5a5468476e75d507e88050ccaa9
fcb5c724226c9ceb9e53a1f0cf2a25bd2db8cd7c
81929 F20110320_AAABNQ griffin_l_Page_07.jp2
89237db6ec889c132b247ffaa7978826
0ef8b50f2a8d6c313d93e6a6298a3e135a36ff5e
54433 F20110320_AAABIT griffin_l_Page_56.jpg
d529055aab7edf5032b9710a44e1f0b8
265ec137a3da50f19af6c90ecdbba2cd322fce91
52304 F20110320_AAABSO griffin_l_Page_31.pro
9cc40bfe2a7c57b58cc1ad94240e1b8f
6a979056018e6b2051916f488d9139751f2a1a0e
5092 F20110320_AAABNR griffin_l_Page_56thm.jpg
4871db4e7777fb1819da574ebddb11db
cece646747ee90b99bcab033be7eefbee4913cd6
48539 F20110320_AAABIU griffin_l_Page_46.pro
12ee356ed8ae5635b168df4afbb5dc94
95600c4793c433fc41cf2224772c42ccf02cd16f
49738 F20110320_AAABSP griffin_l_Page_33.pro
a47dbd136b5535758dee81307ae097fa
e49fbad8f6da0198a29c1f107936d71dc4136471
6523 F20110320_AAABIV griffin_l_Page_44thm.jpg
c6e8d582af0c4ce7766b9fb013eac7f8
5fd670c4838e2b63e66a97d52867e1afd92a3791
16500 F20110320_AAABSQ griffin_l_Page_34.pro
5307694cd39c7bed714230dcb91ff9de
cfd07278854818429ee7f907faa575d45767fcb3
11718 F20110320_AAABNS griffin_l_Page_59.QC.jpg
be2f19e96bdb387a77b9ab65ed25d5d3
3c34a560a48102007f3cfd63487b34f74970b1d0
6343 F20110320_AAABIW griffin_l_Page_58thm.jpg
cd800a1b089e294b6cd803402b4f7ede
2de08a628b35e7a2fe60a24b77b12a7191145c07
51453 F20110320_AAABSR griffin_l_Page_37.pro
8c461d42e2e38b569144be343299c194
d21a66e89c2df448180cf27ce27efa0690602606
74072 F20110320_AAABNT griffin_l_Page_52.jpg
3a99d3fae920f976b1e91b8bffaa029e
e53d84723b3b685cd8a01c098c2e4ec0542db349
79178 F20110320_AAABIX griffin_l_Page_05.pro
254abd707f1d3d558e5a6c039051dcd8
bc28c7002b38ddb6bc64bc9310949eecc8fa8bbc
F20110320_AAABSS griffin_l_Page_38.pro
64b5d36899362b53a18e4ce246f4733c
a4a0e965b483083227717309e23965247b9ca531
6367 F20110320_AAABNU griffin_l_Page_24thm.jpg
9186808968389776f09671a27638a1d5
a4bcdda34387c2d0a18cbae1b5789278f6038476
23651 F20110320_AAABGA griffin_l_Page_01.jpg
96bc9318e3a3a7790e96941bac4ae525
dbb7d3b91b99847248abbb59efeaf7d4078ff0a7
61857 F20110320_AAABIY griffin_l_Page_10.jp2
3adb793cd2856798655f5a4ceb0f268e
61a5ce79e11cca7fe18e62db9f591bae19825d7e
52079 F20110320_AAABST griffin_l_Page_39.pro
e95fcbb4cb2bb24e2d2521b7d8edac6c
ffb4ad5567bf3b866c3d59430a075925b2dfe6f5
6418 F20110320_AAABNV griffin_l_Page_25thm.jpg
ce0e5ad74c1042a8d2c94d942c665a08
75b7804368b95ce3065e4e43ab8fe8cfe97b548f
22715 F20110320_AAABIZ griffin_l_Page_26.QC.jpg
a4a0f5ac11e110b8520b2665e142efd0
4f24525cff9fcdc452ac4162fd07171163af9479
49613 F20110320_AAABSU griffin_l_Page_43.pro
551c583d225462b712de5e9da46d78b2
9079fbdce16d3d36fa4de61ace2cadcff2914234
71277 F20110320_AAABNW griffin_l_Page_33.jpg
694a6a3edeef9fee5338c1b45c4a9e47
b145916bcb4ee617a4cb9f34a177294539a10155
51443 F20110320_AAABGB griffin_l_Page_42.pro
e47698cc1b8bd8c0a3c2b8f90cae0117
cb51f6b2f16daea422308b5169f94a758318a93b
50992 F20110320_AAABSV griffin_l_Page_47.pro
dbc019b4b1a0aa96518fc5fbc7613de2
e5e3b1ef690f9447ee926a060da0494127f35490
22492 F20110320_AAABNX griffin_l_Page_21.QC.jpg
7bffef828e3be2aba71199d3cc9a5ff7
90ccce58050f473d0d46b68d90c9a277cc26003e
2058 F20110320_AAABGC griffin_l_Page_60.txt
7b7836474f4227b223d607cf4577acc5
0880d61dba745502a202037a2b68232a0d353655
62887 F20110320_AAABSW griffin_l_Page_49.pro
9e6f758df10b828d5fc21eea74bcade7
cf250eb0815f26b53dc89e6694d6648411488364
113406 F20110320_AAABLA griffin_l_Page_42.jp2
f570c60451e62b58eef53a17364665ee
7264bae861aa83d54fc816b4f9d537bbaef594a9
6725 F20110320_AAABNY griffin_l_Page_29thm.jpg
62ad89b706cb45842b1fa9ae6369cda4
bbbb8323001c20589698e777f2f4bef34c7ffc63
1993 F20110320_AAABGD griffin_l_Page_16.txt
b0fb210253bc274ccde41f5872316ad3
018d3ac176a45917a5b44abd0bc27eb5ab5e2625
106919 F20110320_AAABLB griffin_l_Page_21.jp2
2e95705ad93ea41fe4235df1a917144d
5070d9d6ff2c09e28f2a861bf4ea59bdab2ceed1
51878 F20110320_AAABNZ griffin_l_Page_50.pro
24f3e9e330e8640c2f077bf248f038c3
ec0df78cbb5c26e6d35514323f6c8b687a929f81
105585 F20110320_AAABGE griffin_l_Page_45.jp2
70f1be0aaf6eb4f051ce847d921007d6
0707a192194251a51d05cccd2bb52aa0b8b69329
51799 F20110320_AAABSX griffin_l_Page_51.pro
2ac31eee72f644a094182144187722bf
e87c4301d74ec46044a7b9442ab4afae8b9c2971
49208 F20110320_AAABLC griffin_l_Page_09.pro
1e113f33112d1153df3ec711498cb0e0
3357c87f701512333f73753a03509e8d54d48665
112756 F20110320_AAABGF griffin_l_Page_51.jp2
9d4a14eabce8b287caaba0302d4c5a1a
3accfce363e0e3f2643d06e464882c9c2c22e167
106563 F20110320_AAABQA griffin_l_Page_24.jp2
4f891215f6336b815fcbdfb640be8001
282845f7a432ae9cffd36741e092c996234cb123
51650 F20110320_AAABSY griffin_l_Page_52.pro
f02717a0bcc5bd2196e1921c4ace6527
a0398ad0fef0f147a1c3321e92fb1fe7a35e82cc
1051966 F20110320_AAABLD griffin_l_Page_61.jp2
3d2c80f58558703c3703d17667c19e8c
d8a0edf3dde63048b9cce0e2f53d2ad8059a7cdb
22954 F20110320_AAABGG griffin_l_Page_23.QC.jpg
f21ab5564e0495468d1e0057edc12357
b2524db3a617bd36088ac18368770a5259d087dd
106372 F20110320_AAABQB griffin_l_Page_25.jp2
513f5cf0de10fe8cdab97540235e86fa
1cb6860bc23a4823b1e650908b2bd9a21f046861
51716 F20110320_AAABSZ griffin_l_Page_54.pro
a094b09cfccd759bee679d881e4f36ba
671f0accb19d029aa8a8f5002a06344e4c05a104
6444 F20110320_AAABLE griffin_l_Page_60thm.jpg
47c7140cf1f30005726f119f379c3551
5354fbc81f6783773e2f49266c3cdccc939bb485
17786 F20110320_AAABGH griffin_l_Page_57.QC.jpg
3d6a4cf350f3d2ab208243d2f9a5ede4
0476f710408511da536c0395c521bec356a82de7
109426 F20110320_AAABQC griffin_l_Page_28.jp2
973e226c899e398832898170aa7d85cb
41fc81379749dd216d9ced2bbfe67111d90a26bb
1981 F20110320_AAABLF griffin_l_Page_13.txt
143d515a673154752f80f6a555df8509
0d52fc7bf8fc589c0b906925516f2389a8006c18
73138 F20110320_AAABGI griffin_l_Page_19.jpg
2e8eabcc9bcd21062a7a7c6e93273628
2e69363c0a31bffe4b851afa5553fc936b69bd78
107503 F20110320_AAABQD griffin_l_Page_29.jp2
128bbd94b41a72d7fbf7d2e6c998d730
3f76dc47158b5450e43c382709b182da370949db
2551 F20110320_AAABLG griffin_l_Page_49.txt
a6153854c751e3bc06ce6d2c6bd7bf05
56b47cad62a30e5500f375f8edbdec6c5c707844
6351 F20110320_AAABVA griffin_l_Page_18thm.jpg
76ef7b83c0a45c53c5820ce1943a5800
b452814afe0af03d94cce5bbb742c4af1ce5de9b
6371 F20110320_AAABGJ griffin_l_Page_45thm.jpg
30caad122748ae6f9560f92ab048e98a
f94ee551005e0d4e095d4d7a90433faca5d9e0be
104200 F20110320_AAABQE griffin_l_Page_30.jp2
b9f931966a6fddc0b2c8f399e751d92c
d20e0359fd42208a83e7a45b592821d159822cc6
74470 F20110320_AAABLH griffin_l_Page_39.jpg
af31aad12a40e27c682cef50179a8c03
bd14dcfa542da2cda1e0802dbcd4b3992481b777
23150 F20110320_AAABVB griffin_l_Page_17.QC.jpg
f69806516c3bd525296a562a400024f4
c72b73583e704c248907456670592573300196a9
35366 F20110320_AAABGK griffin_l_Page_57.pro
53e8e96a16aedd01637a2b64e8d4e04f
e399ddd60d4c760ff8c8996dda1e3ceae2654a5d
112718 F20110320_AAABQF griffin_l_Page_31.jp2
4949515b27d13fc9b8d138e5d42529e4
c27aeaf2935c70f74ff64e1c9e09d4ea75de1bed
F20110320_AAABLI griffin_l_Page_06.tif
6fcf4b63ebedb6cb9691be4edb392220
d03dc5395d7ee9e5560c27cce411f68091cb433a
6456 F20110320_AAABVC griffin_l_Page_06.QC.jpg
2fe6f88a4d52fbcbe7fe485d4419af44
9a07b14759307becd3205d6e7083049dba72f7a5
40138 F20110320_AAABQG griffin_l_Page_34.jp2
e867fba7ace4dd351d685c93aadc4c01
fb45f3753f87aa2bc8e31a15eb9aee85ffd274bf
F20110320_AAABLJ griffin_l_Page_55.tif
52b6beb6f2143790bc9295c9b5b76fa5
551663f8942c1c0c97ceb380a55c5d4927fbec67
13496 F20110320_AAABVD griffin_l_Page_64.QC.jpg
20b8bb02026c1876c4d6c0d9ebfc4600
26659178c468e73c81dc9ed0559954defe267501
22890 F20110320_AAABGL griffin_l_Page_45.QC.jpg
85f898f8b76fd638abe3cf1731840b94
de84379b6d2b5cc8e0735f658ff6fd333abbfc9d
111635 F20110320_AAABQH griffin_l_Page_37.jp2
3fabe79a0324a7577628ced62f56d3ed
1e99da43e7b0219944ac672545b0a4cdf3db0bae
1921 F20110320_AAABLK griffin_l_Page_45.txt
f899711d0c8a8e2fe2bf01bbdc222b60
034de1fd1ef7b4d6b77db2aa0802116615bd219f
6495 F20110320_AAABVE griffin_l_Page_41thm.jpg
f3c2084b7de81b591818b1dd0332f8ee
660db298b365c3371e3fd4835424fe504eef7c67
6520 F20110320_AAABGM griffin_l_Page_13thm.jpg
3336f6a0b97af8a61dfefc1414018a2c
505781b493ea697a79cb10ace2df6d5607dc7a50
108770 F20110320_AAABQI griffin_l_Page_40.jp2
d3e1597c89fcf1f19bee44213ce13240
1152b52d9843806914a2f1e1ce80cdd21f1ab204
2063 F20110320_AAABLL griffin_l_Page_52.txt
6c3174b34032d9c73a0c487eb94147eb
5c38469ab2e268aefc60ebfe9fab025786f5c3e7
16378 F20110320_AAABVF griffin_l_Page_11.QC.jpg
e6e43d53cb26749d6c71daf5ec6ffbe1
99e13bf4f348b3da1a6b9f4d923bd896cc76a54e
27284 F20110320_AAABGN griffin_l_Page_10.pro
33260507f10ec693da2fe8ae4dd59df9
11e908465c53f3857b0d95180e68ab330520d02f
107235 F20110320_AAABQJ griffin_l_Page_41.jp2
417f5547b6ca4ef99269adbf34d8a76d
cdaaa19018475e19abf9d8c5a07db35f5e280149
49168 F20110320_AAABLM griffin_l_Page_24.pro
88bdc70eb7cbcf9f44a69ca02600d14d
9969966963adda976c80988bc70c5fc7c57d5ade
24006 F20110320_AAABVG griffin_l_Page_63.QC.jpg
c6675c06e9c3c163362d7a84ed0f0c93
2e17f1131aa1176f521df6509e23a14e0c806310
50039 F20110320_AAABGO griffin_l_Page_44.pro
d920f7e71bc917374268d8e994da25b4
04a4461a428e2b4e5db12727df5a00035e42a29e
22421 F20110320_AAABLN griffin_l_Page_22.QC.jpg
2c6065fcfce8a5e2ab7ab6f8174a0e0b
a73757d09d9ee29d9115ddba9466b407a4f3086b
23974 F20110320_AAABVH griffin_l_Page_19.QC.jpg
f2536f08dcf1108f412b1e668f802fa3
be4ebca529f3a82e2b05d833670bf7ceae7ade9d
F20110320_AAABGP griffin_l_Page_39.tif
f9abe8edafbfc9c3b562e06cc508de75
251eb7b3b4cf81d2d0c7d02dcf1dd4ea5c6a9d5c
108713 F20110320_AAABQK griffin_l_Page_43.jp2
bd860ebc6b14517d222925e518323f67
ab89bb58d0ed34ffba7cfe99a641afc09cf723d8
F20110320_AAABLO griffin_l_Page_45.tif
a0e8534a7aaa5667fbb7da883ddc7a3f
5083ca82fc5111a5504ab3d7d72edcd537f58cef
F20110320_AAABVI griffin_l_Page_21thm.jpg
a40ab9a7aa87629270c16ab15ec486b9
d996b1031780d26a2b251f98bf98cbbc7aa90c4f
5352 F20110320_AAABGQ griffin_l_Page_02.jp2
40ff5d9a8411e40e9bf7b8853b6571c1
7e57b114ef8254adf733ce192a619ade00e98075
102381 F20110320_AAABQL griffin_l_Page_48.jp2
cb4784197ed17ffd0d27dabae72423cd
edd65f85fbdd172fef1f79357f5ddc2dc506bfbd
5033 F20110320_AAABVJ griffin_l_Page_07thm.jpg
895ee71825ae49d1a2784f99d5f5574d
2b8cd3393c15e21f0b00ff6c0871c56669154cc3
3927 F20110320_AAABLP griffin_l_Page_64thm.jpg
04895020658332f23ba77515e150c46a
01092d30f3f692011b43947683e28ae518bda12d
6321 F20110320_AAABGR griffin_l_Page_63thm.jpg
df9f041384f4f50b57ad5f7c6c154bc0
3bfd04f5c37bb0c16467bbeaade843bbf53eb28c
132047 F20110320_AAABQM griffin_l_Page_49.jp2
3709060cb6232f0e8b446be87bca7623
f8e6087315cb010a87a65917eea553c7417738cd
6624 F20110320_AAABVK griffin_l_Page_42thm.jpg
b2956d1e53dd1277cc4628cd516e334c
1653c9fdc5733d6b24ff1317e788376ee12818aa
2396 F20110320_AAABGS griffin_l_Page_01thm.jpg
5df2153b4e6e080a9660240e476629aa
a5ae89147151d1869b49bdfa4058bfa844561b2d
112422 F20110320_AAABQN griffin_l_Page_53.jp2
4c030ea8c5674130c198ffb901bd926d
ae1ea84d2eda3ca1bfb1ff9fdf984b2701cb7795
3228 F20110320_AAABVL griffin_l_Page_34thm.jpg
5a2bb04b24747e65e9c863793cfb9de8
e5c058bb871e8a8f8b256883afec458f58595804
F20110320_AAABLQ griffin_l_Page_46.txt
fef12c1159e357abdcae50dc61a88842
cf512a7e0f08e09677099b6b14abe781dc92f820
6691 F20110320_AAABGT griffin_l_Page_52thm.jpg
69d461d035e81f41a9f6b7febf4245d6
0d0562ae6184eedd533d53c92671569ae96f8790
112510 F20110320_AAABQO griffin_l_Page_54.jp2
4059871bee31ac5e958196d0d7e5333f
76405d8c3ab183daf8cd5184c94bc80b87a53ad6
6824 F20110320_AAABVM griffin_l_Page_14thm.jpg
b7361bb050cf1db8dd4152a5821ebff1
f5c06dab88cd166e48b7f688148409c26dcb285a
3879 F20110320_AAABLR griffin_l_Page_04thm.jpg
bc02429234ce3074f82cc8dd9208a572
fa3998a18cf583a88e5d8f4f08a47565eaa68476
10176 F20110320_AAABGU griffin_l_Page_02.jpg
0c6a98c0b6ad4207a9017da4bf2c65e1
63518a2adf57e33dca010d4c057960c767c38ee0
1051979 F20110320_AAABQP griffin_l_Page_62.jp2
ee60c3a2d46b17676fe9b0a1933721d8
4cd2c10f7f6212b881663659e873b6665808ed39
6543 F20110320_AAABVN griffin_l_Page_55thm.jpg
c8ae3107b1d75bedb8d3d97f49e0a9b4
1020f77777632cab6ac00890ac917d4d070e44a8
71228 F20110320_AAABLS griffin_l_Page_43.jpg
cc3eedcc80ae64f6d4803848226facfe
d050a753ce2e2e64630082dfac87de92732f5f4f
453 F20110320_AAABGV griffin_l_Page_01.txt
13de4bbc8a61154e6982fb2d5c0aaac6
9a93a33387bb85b67101a8baca052fbb604fdc29
F20110320_AAABQQ griffin_l_Page_03.tif
41c9f798aaab7cf0a298209bdb6fd0bb
9c4f61fb65044280ff48a9a05c30e60d29d8afe8
3629 F20110320_AAABVO griffin_l_Page_59thm.jpg
103fd785d7310520d44f9606c31109b4
1ba87f3c163bfd4fe3581ee5fae4856da10a9852
2392 F20110320_AAABLT griffin_l_Page_03.pro
590a77de0e191abca9008b54938e2835
9fe6f6da985c8f9e1d88ebb027a9d8da3d9554ee
1466 F20110320_AAABGW griffin_l_Page_03thm.jpg
8febe404e66613387254bb18e263f493
33bc848701ea517a1fb0104c78a8183d18c02faa
F20110320_AAABQR griffin_l_Page_04.tif
8706b52795578234adc21dd777a25f69
0dd8363be81982401faeeb79786dcbedeaa37cad
24082 F20110320_AAABVP griffin_l_Page_16.QC.jpg
0fa8974c1e889c623c7584bdfc53fa04
f8975c018e65d7533ecce15d65629f9a2eb67295
F20110320_AAABLU griffin_l_Page_12.tif
3ed8bda542e8a40b80529beacd541b67
8fdc229590299e1bd717d12671d0b26402c57834
72010 F20110320_AAABGX griffin_l_Page_47.jpg
2ca361c22337f1dd7c7ab8e438e942dd
06d984213a2fadb083b8926a3d3e3b7a48490bcf
F20110320_AAABQS griffin_l_Page_05.tif
c1c1dce3791ef3d343c6d5870b6ac461
4ba4f3b2d9c084c671fd980920e8e4d7121913e4
5905 F20110320_AAABVQ griffin_l_Page_08thm.jpg
a85ad3c706c6674aa5b7937e3df74cf8
ecf7b1cd8c7dc8f548a6cae84b5d9372e12653f9
23410 F20110320_AAABLV griffin_l_Page_40.QC.jpg
0fb844c61f872314c26420dc371be118
00515ee1170b5e84606b48e74638807ce45a9022
49778 F20110320_AAABGY griffin_l_Page_11.jpg
21381265ac06a5c801510b96966acce9
7fed28474451c9d8616ed81f59faad70c580cdce
F20110320_AAABQT griffin_l_Page_07.tif
e8c4e470982d99f4fc22934dd41e0920
8246116cd4a345345e72e4a4031dc6b4f500ce2b
24766 F20110320_AAABVR griffin_l_Page_14.QC.jpg
0d8d710a0e8734d001a172f16ee1cb5d
0f6f06e1f98a863f45d45ebd009c4b277ae2bacb
107906 F20110320_AAABLW griffin_l_Page_33.jp2
0ae3670e0382be70fb9c66aa8433b9a8
c3351e2216658de5f34ae443cef78df3a13de76a
23540 F20110320_AAABGZ griffin_l_Page_33.QC.jpg
4d1f8b94b23236f3f0d50cc5d10b2455
8582064593325c0fbfcb4e28582bbaed42b74e59
F20110320_AAABQU griffin_l_Page_09.tif
f0408c0fc907ff7e21cafa5a41149fa9
75163b62e3c0ecc43e3f44f89c7a548a1a1b1b86
6114 F20110320_AAABVS griffin_l_Page_30thm.jpg
fb11c46f846d3ce948b7ccde65e22c97
863b36f923e98e0e00e198b46b035900b828b0ae
23685 F20110320_AAABLX griffin_l_Page_60.QC.jpg
59d3e15c2d6cb34313a5d5a322155a4d
f41e92ae6d6e398606f7f70fcfef4e65ba10b55c
6656 F20110320_AAABVT griffin_l_Page_54thm.jpg
fa46e474290b2c47ea1fe2f491fa2a3a
f375a40618b9c728e10929ee02fccc3557813991
73660 F20110320_AAABLY griffin_l_Page_53.jpg
b2c06fec54753f59460c2e6846ed1ee5
edb4dcd1eee9b222c1769c8493125c3389f8cee4
F20110320_AAABQV griffin_l_Page_10.tif
64768a2a71d9edde7540f04444f3bdef
9b3cdff8bc47bb2faf31e77756c795e99725620d
F20110320_AAABJA griffin_l_Page_53.tif
8b0e2f2f452960c7506715316dc4ff94
80c253b7c4a7e6729e56cbf521848820c658c9ab
23233 F20110320_AAABVU griffin_l_Page_43.QC.jpg
d9ccf6a949d52daab96dcf716d693f97
6edc96bd0f494ffa5b9f52c40cb4b099e5c7465a
F20110320_AAABLZ griffin_l_Page_13.tif
6c0b57b99320f92c20c1ce091d3bae3f
34afb961e643771a1df77c993f944d8aed88d708
F20110320_AAABQW griffin_l_Page_11.tif
a1be81e524114344e588aaa76444a9ae
a3f014c6dbce085ef5e488d06b53937ded630506
49667 F20110320_AAABJB griffin_l_Page_26.pro
b488e1ff30e7f115e6028613afba58ee
608681c0827fb8b4c4e197ef034326da3acc5e9b
6598 F20110320_AAABVV griffin_l_Page_33thm.jpg
d457c2cb98480c57baa00299ff9c9bc7
0ee1c93691bb60e933d58826a6f6c5fea3231c83
F20110320_AAABQX griffin_l_Page_15.tif
20c3a12a8a7cbbef750adeeae93e2c46
11bc6a024fbb807af1c96bc09506a36474630ad6
2343 F20110320_AAABJC griffin_l_Page_62.txt
39d07702a71a732cbdcc63b4b5222beb
a446f3f2a124d715e9205bb49da9b0af04148d08
3530 F20110320_AAABVW griffin_l_Page_03.QC.jpg
74f2013cd368a7150da74d9e9f94fcdf
2c0e6717aeb58ba8d9e8c9cf147d6512186d076c
21114 F20110320_AAABOA griffin_l_Page_08.QC.jpg
e21e70152f30b5949eaffa8661ffe91d
0adcd4440cad7a4fbecb3594d8fc00dbc033e5a5
F20110320_AAABQY griffin_l_Page_16.tif
a2ea876f1f44cb0132f6010f2b5dd8eb
8f9c27e7aa9d4650e29df846b6b18cec1a6f3506
22659 F20110320_AAABJD griffin_l_Page_25.QC.jpg
f19058730bf0b0708a70233304471f38
7f8a60e3e6e868b6a558efade301b9ee1789e08f
22046 F20110320_AAABVX griffin_l_Page_58.QC.jpg
2d556f263af9644583e65df8d08ccac2
c230ceb3f23e69093e49d4d8d9b8e5ab82c844b3
128898 F20110320_AAABOB griffin_l_Page_27.jp2
4dc7a1e542479604337561a0c9bf04c2
cff3e5c6c04b06c3edd2e38fb99e4d9cfdb43362
F20110320_AAABQZ griffin_l_Page_19.tif
54ae7b13908e2ab7b940bf0fdcaa3cf4
c758fabd7b2c2d2751d230a927af97e9484896d0
29359 F20110320_AAABJE griffin_l_Page_34.jpg
2f3c9eecb3673dc3e1a113ba83eb469d
66aa95deafbb19fe083000c8cd0711533b60f7c8
24269 F20110320_AAABVY griffin_l_Page_52.QC.jpg
2d28f7ab84000591673d665e6169765c
ab06497b08394c74d2bb5a8a1df02533dfd4f5ca
6513 F20110320_AAABOC griffin_l_Page_39thm.jpg
2adc9eb99c7f91a1b35065f62fdd50ad
128fec0d0371d943fa7911ad53f74216a58e2e9f
44474 F20110320_AAABJF griffin_l_Page_08.pro
ecaf32e9880de7d83251e58ccd7cbd0e
89aaad486c343d80bb9a110c983d4ec04061364a
5740 F20110320_AAABVZ griffin_l_Page_12thm.jpg
5b5395e305a789624fce974876737885
b608d5a1c031f7c48235c1a08ba19fedca9e2f86
48317 F20110320_AAABTA griffin_l_Page_55.pro
62e21f1bd73672c5084c5d7646d11979
2af8d912912ea799d13eea94e7a526c4d3402815
107956 F20110320_AAABOD griffin_l_Page_38.jp2
ac3ff4db5e6d39c455952e32294efb78
80e9b0e02044735a79d6d70117845cd84e2a3d70
21171 F20110320_AAABJG griffin_l_Page_06.jpg
85cb74a33997c8b23372675f3b28941f
ad6b283729b911ea2da4da3d2031b2586899ea29
36511 F20110320_AAABTB griffin_l_Page_56.pro
f67068d030d01080871675472c83f726
7dc6c74d7571b9bb8940dbdf45c45274a4c35ab7
76127 F20110320_AAABOE UFE0010620_00001.mets
ba272a5b38fa069afb1d9b819f57e614
06aad8fcee77f560b785ac02d70453976d5aa8b6
1986 F20110320_AAABJH griffin_l_Page_44.txt
e691150181860fec749d963e6319b5fe
ccfbbae6fc902e82b29cdeff6dcab99fae113b0a
48062 F20110320_AAABTC griffin_l_Page_58.pro
f1812c09dd0144262da34d9d40797ef5
d59e0587157eb16c0a02877fd3b4d95659a5b7ee
71491 F20110320_AAABJI griffin_l_Page_29.jpg
27ee0b0b223825520df17f5063115e9a
7c5b091b7f942fbf071b7339a13067d482f90814
21203 F20110320_AAABTD griffin_l_Page_59.pro
b196099cf57dd3310dba818d72876bda
7d9efadd96e0273aaa680111bb4973290b03846f
49866 F20110320_AAABJJ griffin_l_Page_30.pro
1ffb01990ec1e8fdfc996f2edbf3f981
205eb007aedf7b99b637def2cd54d4fe7447e127
50418 F20110320_AAABTE griffin_l_Page_60.pro
0405e80c2d90b74d8e3772cb0d5f8a31
1982a727f0d4b3f2bab145b759220441de829d92
11906 F20110320_AAABOH griffin_l_Page_03.jpg
bcd62eaeccf7aab5be668acbd3e80aa3
d0334ff133c06d983f659c4a412dfe4765d772d6
F20110320_AAABJK griffin_l_Page_36.tif
9a7dec240896f82f5a2df7673de1325f
1351668b982ea5996b2b5c1235a5db5d2dd30c9d
54463 F20110320_AAABTF griffin_l_Page_61.pro
f25d3ce703169632ed428cad48c992c4
9dee7aae8a9fa64f3b058799a9f837d0cdcf4b07
64659 F20110320_AAABOI griffin_l_Page_08.jpg
be0e0bb26cc86a45ddccbff628606b42
8ad82f80cdc83f237b3928bb6ba14f35fc93529c
113340 F20110320_AAABJL griffin_l_Page_50.jp2
60402026a6bf857bfb3a761f0c63fc55
6b5dd43f8d30b7e6b694c1a777f72cafd29fdae0
42759 F20110320_AAABOJ griffin_l_Page_10.jpg
cd03c82fdef4921fed80322ca1bc443b
89224259db802184fb52b5d95f96d9da198e21fe
41528 F20110320_AAABJM griffin_l_Page_12.pro
68d8b48e41671069e86fb100b46049b9
08f523abeb93c4666272192d6bad9fa3a175e1f6
57740 F20110320_AAABTG griffin_l_Page_62.pro
f05ddf4e0c3aa3d826ef5cbfe1a420ca
913ffaf27c5df65f21024838a8cfc7a1bad6108a
60206 F20110320_AAABOK griffin_l_Page_12.jpg
1a6fdb5cbe743cc2b90c721ee34fc198
b27a97f97d08dbada2c08e5c194848650b8642a8
23208 F20110320_AAABJN griffin_l_Page_20.QC.jpg
22a8600b82463eba38b29d2745aed47b
194907c46d512fa5f549ef10864117c1946b6419
53903 F20110320_AAABTH griffin_l_Page_63.pro
be0054e0c232a77b2adb41ce702dc5c6
d5aa40d38a0ba005bf864b416e096df92eb4cab2
79025 F20110320_AAABOL griffin_l_Page_14.jpg
c1c357edfe3365f2782c8137757ea7f6
fb7a04184dfb3f08cca0c78d46780337c5cbf14a
995 F20110320_AAABTI griffin_l_Page_04.txt
d0f4fff09869f140abcb8cc8b869fa91
c562fbb2253f645c59480f79b07a241751ae5eaa
73258 F20110320_AAABOM griffin_l_Page_16.jpg
d4ae789f8c175cb1027695f64758868f
a1b8d5da9967209565bff5ee11d1d216f7270584
70505 F20110320_AAABJO griffin_l_Page_13.jpg
ec96414c2721de86d75d1317f26f6931
5b3af121e10217609933ec6ade620863d300856a
624 F20110320_AAABTJ griffin_l_Page_06.txt
17f9c0322e422283ac1c84fd9be6344c
3c3d6547a54caba6d44403478d2abcb591249f1f
70870 F20110320_AAABON griffin_l_Page_18.jpg
5b7acd1444997c0bf4acbe65df3f0d48
1ad587fefeb38e327c8c3f0662e745de45b0b070
69318 F20110320_AAABJP griffin_l_Page_26.jpg
3738e485472a020a934369c20aafb8ce
0008b4b816bd6f326928f4df89f9f9d5852918fb
1644 F20110320_AAABTK griffin_l_Page_07.txt
fe2dfbe5bc0e8c619e53b5b17e48a7ba
4ff52e84ef2c2c839d215e17607dfbc05cb5495c
71186 F20110320_AAABOO griffin_l_Page_20.jpg
fa6ca107e58adac17e03cb2d1dc12db8
0f8c6e20957487d66f5e7cb57455fbba941af727
50425 F20110320_AAABJQ griffin_l_Page_36.pro
955ef2444349619510eb434f6974dfd7
5954d004a979de4dff3599f0a44e346c2cc6b537
1832 F20110320_AAABTL griffin_l_Page_08.txt
26b02bb89aa2de4bf16d6c450e6c84e7
8f534f94f0f40ef99b883df7693b24fdd6b9b746
69684 F20110320_AAABOP griffin_l_Page_21.jpg
8aa30f007312ec6fd5a2710b57162779
65e182bcaaa805339e73b903b4f89812bb923225
23710 F20110320_AAABJR griffin_l_Page_37.QC.jpg
c91deb315be52fdcb3e8eaf41182a294
e026a0238c8620c97edd01fd1aacd5abdfacd829
1937 F20110320_AAABTM griffin_l_Page_09.txt
46fdeff9972462e8b28efb8605e56682
f47fe59c544af9b9117fd516cde21f9ee089f702
69198 F20110320_AAABOQ griffin_l_Page_22.jpg
42270421a919f1814344cfc89db35c88
58d01d9ae7c286489b1eb5cbbea5aa07d2560f37
85176 F20110320_AAABJS griffin_l_Page_60.jpg
b4f42ac8fb002e03012a4e62f82ef049
a1bbed7d9f9f72851f8721cff9d5606f2a956a7d
1088 F20110320_AAABTN griffin_l_Page_10.txt
6eb139fe3e720eec8ebd52817baf9f84
d6a91352752080f31dee4190fd83709427ada2f4
70821 F20110320_AAABOR griffin_l_Page_23.jpg
7458f2a056f52957d8c4c7282458ef01
af4adb000138018451cee4e10e0568edad15e3bb
82102 F20110320_AAABJT griffin_l_Page_56.jp2
8e3ec2126e9087b86b399d7fd6ebb96b
18e6c0c7973a5620634ff7820d398b5923a947a7
1379 F20110320_AAABTO griffin_l_Page_11.txt
b015c6f60f46c64f3d85cf9bd83448d5
064d53bf1f035272f35be9f13056f1f1e66f0fff
70110 F20110320_AAABOS griffin_l_Page_24.jpg
9379e013af8a60214778ce098536158c
bad8a7601f53604aae550f0342f3b403c6aab077
3251 F20110320_AAABJU griffin_l_Page_05.txt
7137b39f833fe4a187f0a0c20fc457fc
c123273397aee8f775f53ee51d254105f2c01c4b
1714 F20110320_AAABTP griffin_l_Page_12.txt
97acaa136c6d5162037d3e07a7f1d710
6138a23c2cda7c97dd9967be494fe3438c7afedd
25402 F20110320_AAABJV griffin_l_Page_27.QC.jpg
a2dfd0da5d3c4d8c691a9d4222521bfe
33920ddf6736c3bb7df04284e360233dd5913dcd
1916 F20110320_AAABTQ griffin_l_Page_15.txt
623062451375cf4f705b28eb995c954f
a6abf3141b1a4786298ad7d1da7d389194384903
70282 F20110320_AAABOT griffin_l_Page_25.jpg
bc22a7cb44578d2f34662785626587b2
8d3a04b43142e9017e5c958da9176031c7d33dc4
22446 F20110320_AAABJW griffin_l_Page_41.QC.jpg
12882693e76fd898585354b64d17bca0
03f5c3d6c6507c245e1a21b3a7c8ac88182f0d33
1928 F20110320_AAABTR griffin_l_Page_17.txt
4953d22ba55eaf429927b0c6017e4f5e
bc84f977cf522507f522018a720abccc819a4c46
85698 F20110320_AAABOU griffin_l_Page_27.jpg
8401ceb1d84c5c7618ba96efbf1eece3
625ea47f5cb06140392c8577f15aa364ecfc09cb
6832 F20110320_AAABJX griffin_l_Page_50thm.jpg
6499d9f8459cb32ccf995f834c4761da
76f53cff828fbd1648b9566a62dcb9a5544e9624
1931 F20110320_AAABTS griffin_l_Page_18.txt
e24b681f01a5f26b3a3c8b9de0f2377f
4571aa28aa780f3c625f36cc4045929fd07fbafe
69755 F20110320_AAABOV griffin_l_Page_30.jpg
ed83ef4e58409249fe1f2201d8bcaa78
172f2cda836bfaa8dcec46538c5ee5428a2f74bb
1966 F20110320_AAABHA griffin_l_Page_14.txt
46129cb2b482c3b304dde1767ca2290f
cb150fec2b302e23d8642920e09fb280d250ca16
5782 F20110320_AAABJY griffin_l_Page_35thm.jpg
669f783a3b7ae1b4ca9d8f94251081b8
0be5769db8975ae257a53199a933b1b23bf76bf8
F20110320_AAABTT griffin_l_Page_21.txt
eb25aa5238c26915a32bd13777352fa2
bd5232cefbfe0662c569ae26b4b841ead26d2277
75533 F20110320_AAABOW griffin_l_Page_31.jpg
61248e1324908adb94e4ce0d02078cd5
8b8fe2354fabe49766c7fe0a9dcf48909ebdc89e
6605 F20110320_AAABHB griffin_l_Page_38thm.jpg
55d20e8ddc1ce1e2ba49b0b9a51316ee
c201bc797545aaa2be20ec26882f5a2001da83f4
55643 F20110320_AAABJZ griffin_l_Page_64.jp2
ad9477c176142281988082a38c6a752c
da3e83a09f65f6d08c6ca73ecc0afa401d2c316d
1904 F20110320_AAABTU griffin_l_Page_22.txt
76c3c206dd40a4e414e37bdc72e1a704
4111536b5f5d3537dc906dbf354656e328692137
70109 F20110320_AAABOX griffin_l_Page_32.jpg
775f60c967fd72f95c2a5ba521f31396
5f8bb451f93b067475c5bd2e6943508cf8ba7498
104431 F20110320_AAABHC griffin_l_Page_58.jp2
f5677e7857a98d3fc282fd50eeced3a8
393cc3a37fb6459b882015a7c613ed2ecfa483a1
1945 F20110320_AAABTV griffin_l_Page_23.txt
da742f39424ffe731b0d76e5490ecd6d
bc273125d49be45933552be679a97d02d471d72e



PAGE 1

ARTICULATING THE BUSINESS AND ETHICAL ARGUMENTS FOR SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION By LEAH GRIFFIN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Leah Griffin

PAGE 3

This thesis is dedicated to my friend Jim Sullivan—a small token for a big heart.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to thank a few important people that have helped me directly and indirectly succeed in completing this thesis. Of course this would not have been possible without the guidance and support of my committee. Ma ny thanks go to Dr. Charles Kibert, Dr. Raymond Issa, and Dr. Leon Wetherington. Dr. Kibert inspired my interest in green building two years ago. I hope I can make a green difference during my career in the construction industry. Dr. Issa has been my biggest supporter since my first semester in BCN, and I will be forever grateful for that I cannot imagine the Rinker School without Dr. Wetherington. He, too, has believed in me from the start. I will miss Doc’s hugs. The best part of this thesis has been making a new best friend, Bryce. I am thankful to her and Roy for truly being my best friends during this fi nal semester. And of course, love goes to Luke.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................v ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................4 3 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................5 Green Building Defined................................................................................................6 Environmental and Ecological Impacts of Building.....................................................7 Green Building Today..................................................................................................9 Barriers....................................................................................................................... 12 Costs.......................................................................................................................... .16 Contractors and Cost: Bidding Climate......................................................................18 Cost Recovery.............................................................................................................19 A Contractor’s Role in Green Building......................................................................20 More on Materials.......................................................................................................22 Life-Cycle Costs Applied to Whole Buildings...........................................................24 LEED and the Green CM...........................................................................................24 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................28 It’s the right thing to do..............................................................................................28 Green building guidelines are becoming legal mandates...........................................31 Sustainability enhan ces profitability...........................................................................35 Contractors who build green increase their market share...........................................37 Green buildings often cost the same or less than conventional buildings..................42 Builders can help develop th e economies of scale for green building materials........42 Building sustainably goes hand-in-hand with design-build........................................43 Green building government incentives can aid successful project delivery...............44 Constructing green buildings can improve a company’s image.................................45 Forward-looking companies attract quality employees..............................................45 Green practices reduce c ontractor liability.................................................................46 Green building can lower the health risks construction workers face........................48

PAGE 6

vi 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................50 APPENDIX LIST OF ARGUMENTS...................................................................................................52 Why should a contractor build green?........................................................................52 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................53 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................57

PAGE 7

vii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Bu ilding Construction ARTICULATING THE BUSINESS AND ETHICAL ARGUMENTS FOR SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION By Leah Griffin May 2005 Chair: Charles Kibert Cochair: Raymond Issa Major Department: Building Construction Environmentally conscious building and de velopment continue to infiltrate the mainstream as more people begin to unders tand the tremendous impact that the built environment has on nature. Building gr een can reduce the negative impacts of construction related to land, air, and wate r pollution. Sustainable buildings offer operating cost savings, and improved work ing and living conditions. These aspects appeal to owners, occupants, developers, a nd architects. But wh at about builders? Construction firms who adopt sustainable practices remain the exception. To many contractors, green constructi on is viewed as an unnecessar y, expensive add-on. Limited data are available as to whether it is in a bu ilder’s best interest to construct sustainable buildings. This research aims to determine the quantitative and quali tative benefits that green building may offer contractors. The object ive is to develop a comprehensive list of compelling arguments in favor of builders embracing sustainable construction.

PAGE 8

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Natural systems and resources are being rapidly destroyed an d depleted, and the construction industry plays a substantial ro le in that. The creation, operation, and disposal of the built environment dominat es humanity’s impact on the natural world (Kibert et al. 2000). Especially during the pa st decade, worldwide movements have been underway to address the environmental eff ects of construction. Green building is breaking into the mainstream, and the constr uction industry is slowly being forced to change its traditional practices—f or ethical and economical reasons. Buildings use 30 percent of U.S. energy a nd 40 percent of materials. Buildings consist of 90 percent of all extracted mate rials, and 135 million tons of construction and demolition waste is generated annually. Enviro nmental concerns include land, water, and air pollution. Green buildings aim to protec t the earth’s natural systems (Kibert et al. 2000). Construction, engineering, and de sign processes aim to reduce energy consumption and expenditures, decrease environmental impact, and boost workers’ health and productivity without adding substa ntial up-front costs. They do so, for example, by achieving significant reductions in energy consumption, using renewable resources, and incorporating re used or recycled materials. According to the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), a nonprofit organization that is one of the foremost authorities on th e subject, about 5 percen t of new construction starts in the United States are attempti ng to go green (Gonchar 2005). The USGBC’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental De sign (LEED) rating system certifies green

PAGE 9

2 buildings at four levels. In addition to expanding beyond th e U.S., the council is adapting LEED to more types of projects. In N ovember 2004, it released a version focusing on operation and maintenance of existing build ings and another addr essing tenant space construction and renovation. The new versions join LEED-NC, which primarily is geared to commercial and institutional new cons truction. Adaptations ta ilored to the core and shell of speculative buildings, re sidential construc tion, and neighborhood developments are in the works. The counc il itself has grown 1,000 percent in the past four years. There now are 5,300 member or ganizations, which include corporations, government agencies and nonprofits (Cassidy 2004). The main objective of this research is to provide arguments in favor of contractors embracing the sustainable building movement. A primary factor in doing so is that building green may not always be a choice; about 35 municipalities have laws in place requiring green building in new constructi on. Some area governments have outlawed construction waste from entering their la ndfills. In 2004, San Francisco and Boston announced requirements that city-owned projec ts achieve at least a silver LEED rating. Other users include Chicago, Austin, S eattle, and Portland. Many companies, government agencies, and academic institutions are aggressively adopting sustainable building techniques. Federal, state, and lo cal governments have bui lt 40 percent of the green buildings that are LEED certified. The U.S. Air Force, Navy, and most recently the Army require all new domestic structures to incorporate sustainable standards. Federal agencies that have adopted LEED include the General Services Administration and Department of State. Corporations building green facilities include Starbucks, Ford, and Toyota (Gonchar 2004).

PAGE 10

3 The push for green offers builders access to a rapidly growing niche market. Forward-thinking companies, like Turner Construction and Skanksa, are already incorporating sustainability into their ope rations. They are among the companies that have realized the economic value of buildi ng green, especially by adopting standardized construction waste management systems. Diverting materials from landfills offers costs savings in most cases, which can in turn increas e a builder’s profit. At the same time, the perceived value of high performance buildings is increasing, while financial costs are going down. Green schools and offices can cost an average of 0.5 to 6.5 percent more to build; however, owner costs decrease for en ergy, water, operations, and maintenance (Cassidy 2004). This offers a unique marke ting opportunity to builders, because owners will turn to contractors experi enced in green building. Accordingly, this research intends to illustrate it is in a builder’s best in terest financially to embrace sustainability.

PAGE 11

4 CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY An extensive literature review forms the ba sis for this research analysis. Current practices and case studies of sustainable building projec ts were considered and incorporated, as well as the most recent cost analysis studies available. The hypothesis was that constructing high-performance sustai nable buildings is in a builder’s best interest, ethically and economica lly. Data to support this hyp othesis exists, but it has not been compiled and considered from the perspective of a construction management organization. The objective of the research was to develop a comprehensive list of the reasons builders should practice su stainability, and this objective has been realized. It is intended for practical use primarily by co mmercial contractors. Barriers to green building from a builder’s pers pective also were analyzed. Limitations included the finite extent of th e research. Ample data was collected to support the hypothesis, but the information av ailable is extensive and ever-changing. Also, since the focus was placed primarily upon commercial builders, the analysis is limited accordingly; however, residential cons truction was not specifically excluded and is referenced when appropriate.

PAGE 12

5 CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW The construction industry’s overall imp act on people and society cannot be overestimated. People spend an average 90 percent of each day—working and sleeping—in the built environment. By pr oviding housing and infrastructure, the industry makes a vital contribution to the so cial and economical development of every country (Wallbaum and Buerkin 2003). The economical impact and influence of the construction industry is enormous. Accordi ng to the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Constructi on, one dollar spent on construction may generate up to three dollars of economic activity in other sectors (UNEP 2003). In North America alone, the design and construction market is a $358 billion industry responsible for building 20,000 commercial, industrial, in stitutional, and multifamily structures annually (Cassidy 2004). Construction represen ts 12 percent of the GDP in the United States (UNEP 2003). Having such an impact has its consequen ces, though. The construction industry is one of the largest destroyers of the natural environment (W oolley 2000). It is a major consumer of non-renewable resources, produces substantial waste, pollutes air and water, and contributes to land dere liction (Wallbaum and Buerki n 2003). “Buildings and the construction industry make the largest contribution to CO2 emissions and pollution and waste in general, yet the general public fa il to recognize the impact that buildings and building materials have on our health and the environment” (Woolley 2000).

PAGE 13

6 Industry leaders, however, have begun to not only recognize this impact but take responsibility for it as well. There is much potential—and much realized at that—for the construction industry to cause less damage. As an example, it is estimated that 90 percent of demolition and construction debris can be reused or recycling (Karolides 2002). As potentially the primary contributo r to achieving sustainable development, the industry should accept its responsibility to minimize negative environmental and social impacts and maximize positive contributions (Sustainable Development Task Force 2003). Green Building Defined In 1987, the World Commission on Envi ronment and Development defined sustainable development as “development th at meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generati ons to meet their own needs” (Strand and Fossdal 2003). A primary goal of sustainability is to reduce humanity’s environmental or ecological footprint on the planet. Canadian economist William Rees defines the ecological footprint of cities as the land required to supply them with food and timber products, and to absorb their CO2 output (Girardet 2000). Especially in the last decade, a push toward the development of sustainable construction industry practices has given rise to the green building movement. Green buildings offer the same quality or performan ce, if not better, but have a less negative impact on the environment. Most green building practices fall into seven basic categories: energy saving, water saving, land saving, stormwater runoff-reducing, material conservation, and pollution reduc tion (ECONorthwest 2001). Traditionally, attempts to minimize construction costs lead to higher energy bills and wasted materials. A green building uses an average of 30 per cent less energy than a conventional building,

PAGE 14

7 the primary factor in d ecreasing operating costs ( Economist 2004). What makes a building green? Material wast e generated during construction is reduced and/or recycled. Materials are reused. Energy efficiency is improved, perhaps by relying on the use of natural light and ventilation or solar power. Less water is used, or a rainwater harvesting system is installed to ensure wiser use. “Measures being taken to make buildings and construction more sustainable rely increasingly on life-cycle appro aches. Life-cycle thinking in the construction sector takes account of every stage—from a structure’s con ception to the end of its service life, and from raw material extraction to a building’s demolition or dismantling. It also takes account of all actors, from land-use planne rs and property developers through building owners and users to salvage firms and la ndfill operators” (UNEP 2003). The result: buildings that ensure occupant health and are more resource and cost efficient. Environmental and Ecological Impacts of Building Buildings have major environmental costs. If current expansio n patterns continue, the built environment will destroy or disturb na tural habitats and wildlife on more than 70 percent of the Earth’s land by 2032 (UNEP 2003 ). Around one-third of the energy used by humans is related to build ings and their utilization, a lthough a considerable proportion of this energy use could be avoided. C limate change associated with greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere is a significant, if not the most significant, threat to the global environment. The primary source of these emissions is the use of fossil fuels (Wenblad 2003). The built environment accounts for as much as 40 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The carbon dioxide emissions of U.S. buildings alone are second only to those of China (Kats 2003).

PAGE 15

8 Cement production in particular—through bur ning of fossil fuels and breakdown of raw materials—impacts global warming. If current patterns continue, carbon dioxide emissions from the cement industry will quadruple by 2050. Virtually all the cement industry’s output is used for construction, especially for concrete. Twice as much concrete is used worldwide than the total of all other building mate rials combined (UNEP 2003). Construction activities are estimated to consume about half of the resources humans take from nature (UNEP 2003). The construction industry is also estimated to generate 50 percent of total waste (Edwards and Bennett 2003) And half of all CFC and HCFC use is building related. “These figures relate to what buildi ngs are built of, and how we heat, cool, light and use them. If we add all the things we put into buildings, and use in and near buildings (which is nearly everything we buy) and the travel between buildings, the figures go up. Once we become aw are of the magnitude of the statistics, it becomes obvious that everything we build ha s major environmental repercussions” (Day 2000). In the United States, as per the Depa rtment of Energy, buildings consume 39 percent of the energy and 70 pe rcent of the electr icity (Cassidy 2004). According to the U.S. Geological Survey, constr uction accounts for 60 percent of all materials used in the U.S. for purposes other than food and fuel (EPA 2002). Meanwhile, construction debris accounts for 30 percent of all la ndfill material in the U.S. (Cassidy 2004). More than 136 million tons of building debris from constr uction and demolition sites is generated every year in the U.S., making it th e single largest source in the waste stream. According to EPA figures, a typical new commercial build ing generates an average of 3.9 pounds of

PAGE 16

9 waste per square foot of building area For example, a new 50,000-square-foot building—the average size of a college residence hall—produces almost 100 tons of waste. Demolition sites produce even more waste—an average of 155 pounds per square foot of commercial building area. For a 50,000-square-foot building, that translates to about 4,000 tons of waste ( C&D Recycling 2004). Construction-related polluti on is not always readily a pparent. “In addition to immediate emissions of air and water pollutants, dust a nd noise during construction, pollutant concentrations within buildings (stemming from finishes, paints, backing materials, and other components) can be over twice as high—in some cases as much as 100 times as high—as concentrations outside” (UNEP 2003). Hazardous substances used in construction can endanger both constr uction workers and building occupants. Green Building Today Sustainable design has its roots in the energy conservation movement of the 1970s and 1980s, when energy costs rose alongsid e concern for the environment and ‘sick building syndrome’ ( Economist 2004; ECONorthwest 2001). In 1993, 250 founding members founded the nonprofit U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) to promote environmentally responsible buildings. Today, the USGBC represents the nation’s leading authority and voice of gr een building. A coalition of industry leaders, the council has grown to more than 5,300 member companie s and organizations that include builders, architects, universities, and government agencies. Five years ago, the council introduced its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. LEED has become widely accepted as the standard measurement of sustainable bui lding, and it has been adopted nationwide by various federal agencies, stat e and local governments, and private companies. LEED is a

PAGE 17

10 feature-oriented rating system through whic h credits are awarded to certify green buildings at four levels: Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. The credits cover six categories: site selection; water efficiency; energy and atmosphere; materials and resources; indoor environmental quality; and innovation and design. A Gold building is estimated to have reduced its environmenta l impact by 50 percent in comparison to a conventional building of similar size; a Pl atinum building, by more than 70 percent ( Economist 2004). As of February 2005, more than 1,700 projects in 50 states were in the process of seeking LEED certification, representing abou t 5 percent of new construction starts. Another 167 buildings are LEED certified (Gonchar 2005). The USGBC is in the process of adapting LEED to more types of projects. In November 2004, it released a version focusing on operation and maintena nce of existing buildings and another addressing tenant space construction and re novation. The new versions join LEED-NC, which primarily is geared to commercial a nd institutional new construction. Adaptations tailored to the core and sh ell of speculative buildings, residential construction, and neighborhood developments are in the works (Cassidy 2004). Governments have created most of the in itial demand for sustainable buildings. Federal, state, and local governments have built 40 percent of the buildings that are LEED certified (Gonchar 2004). “The cost of f unds for government is low, and the time horizon for the average life of a public buildi ng is long. Buildings are typically owned, financed, operated and occupied by a governme ntal agency. Wearing these multiple hats makes it easier for governmental owners to design buildings to maximize their performance and occupant health on a l ong-term perspective” (Gottfried 2003).

PAGE 18

11 About 35 U.S. municipalities have laws in place requiring green building in new construction. Some area governments have outlawed construction waste from entering their landfills. In 2004, San Francisco a nd Boston announced requirements that cityowned projects achieve at least a silver LEED rating. Other users include Chicago, Austin, Seattle, and Portland. In the m ilitary, the Air Force and Navy require all domestic structures be green. Federal ag encies that have adopted LEED include the General Services Administration and Depa rtment of State (Gonchar 2004). Green building has been slowly gaining momentum in the private sector; Ford, Toyota, and Wal-Mart have constructed gr een buildings (Gottfried 2003) There is now sufficient real-world cost-benefit analysis available to verify the financial advantages of sustainable building, and as a resu lt, investors are increasingly r ecognizing the positive economic outcomes of sustainability (SDTF 2003). According to the EPA, building tenants can save 50 cents per squa re foot each year through no-cost, environmentally responsible operating and management practices ( Fortune 2004). Building commissioning—which se rves as a check to ensure building systems function as designed—can reduce build ing operating costs for heating, cooling, and ventilation as much as 40 percent, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Karolides 2002) Other economic benefits can include improved property values and rental returns, a nd the utilization of various national, state, and local green building incentive programs. The USGBC advocates that green building results in a triple bottom line—offering environmental, social, and quantifiable fina ncial benefits. Using less energy and water lessens both operating costs and a building’ s environmental impact. From a people

PAGE 19

12 perspective, occupant health and productivity improve. Ev idence shows that productivity rises and absenteeism falls in well-designed sustainable buildings (P itts 2004). Students in naturally lit classrooms perf orm up to 20 percent better ( Economist 2004). And at PNC Financial Services Group’s green h eadquarters in Pitt sburgh, sustainable improvements have helped lift personnel retention rates to 50 percent above those at a conventional workplace facility ( Fortune 2004). Barriers The barriers to sustainable building sp ecific to a contractor are numerous. A definite learning curve is i nvolved. “A lot of green build ing is predicated on making smarter decisions at every step” ( Fortune 2004). Green building requires more planning by the entire project team—builders, arch itects, engineers, and developers ( Economist 2004). For contractors new to LEED, the waste management requirements especially can seem daunting. Reusing, salvaging, and recyc ling materials requires additional planning; the contractor needs to designate staging and storage locations, allot time for sorting materials, find buyers or recycling centers, and possibly deliver materials to buyers (Karolides 2002). And all this must be carefully documen ted to meet LEED certification requirements. How much additional time and effort will be required at each project phase for both planning and documentation de pends on the experience of the project team. A Seattle-area contractor spent an estimated 400 hours documenting its first LEED project. But now, working on its third regi stered building, the contractor has cut the hours needed significantly—about 20 to 40 pr econstruction hours, five hours a week during construction, and anothe r 20 to 30 to prepare final submissions (Gonchar 2005). In terms of costs, there are perceptions of higher costs and actual higher costs involved in sustainable construction. “W hen presented with unfamiliar materials in

PAGE 20

13 project specifications, the fi rst reaction of construction or ganizations is suspicion—of potentially higher costs, more complex or unfamiliar jobsite handling and construction methods, and lower productivity. If they are given the opportunity to investigate the true impact of a new material on a project, c onstruction organizations can more accurately determine whether the material is best suited to the project and pr ovide realistic costing information, rather than prices inflated due to undefined potential risks” (Riley et al. 2003). Some contractors have realiz ed costs savings by incorpor ating recycling into their waste policies. However, the feasibility of recycling varies greatly according to project location. In most areas of the United States it is cheaper to la ndfill construction waste than it is to recycle it; profit margins at th e end of the recycling process remain low for many materials. The National Demolition Asso ciation identifies 14 recyclable building components. Of those, only three—me tals, aggregates, and wood—have current economic value in the United States (Cassi dy 2004). The market for recycled-content products is not fully developed. The infrastruc ture for recycling cons truction waste is in the very early stages of development as well, a nd even that is in limited areas (Riley et al. 2003). The major single limitation for recycling programs remains the nature of the local recycling infrastructure (Cassidy 2004). Another cost deterrent: many green building products still cost more than their traditional counterparts. Most producers of green products take advantage of a niche market, charging a value-added premium for materials with a green label. Americans pay more for organic food, shouldn’t the same hol d true for sustainable lumber? (Woolley 2000). Choosing green products as replacements involves research; if it difficult to find

PAGE 21

14 and price green substitutions, builders will continue to use what they are accustomed to using (Johnston 2000). Building green requires a more holistic appro ach. For contractors to recognize this, they must move past the common belief that gr een building is just a fad. Too much is at stake for it to be simply a fad ( Economist 2004). According to Wall Street Journal green is proving itself a potent tr end, and rising energy prices will continue to fuel the movement (Frangos 2005). In an industry resi stant to any type of change, some believe that environmental issues will be ignored by builders unless they must adhere to applicable legislation. Comp etition could also help bring about the appropriate changes in the industry’s psychology and infrastructu re. “If construction organizations are to maximize their contributions to green building projects, they must shift their paradigm— away from a fragmented and bid package perspective toward a more holistic and integrated view of projects. The inextricab le relationships between water, site, energy and indoor environmental quality issues mu st be woven into estimating and planning processes, subcontractor edu cation and overall business prac tices. Some organizations will make this shift voluntarily. Others will only do it when forced by competition” (Riley et al. 2003). The fragmentation of the construction i ndustry limits widespread acceptance and utilization of sustainable practices on seve ral levels. For one, it slows adoption patterns of new methods. Successful green building requires more collaboration among project team members, but traditionall y, designers, architects, engine ers, developers, and builders each make decisions that serve their own inte rests—regardless of whether this creates inefficiencies overall ( Economist 2004). What is considered desirable during

PAGE 22

15 construction may be viewed quite differe ntly by owner and designer (Pultar 2000). According to a Pennsylvania State University study, the potential of builders to enhance green projects can only be fully realized if they are part of the team during the design stage. “Broad change is hinde red by the fact that green bui lding efforts are largely being led by the design profession—the segment of the industry which is still most resistant to integrated teams that include the construction organizations. Perceive d as a threat to the design process, many design professionals ar e most comfortable when contractors are relegated to a low-price commodity on a buildin g project rather than a valuable service provider to a project team” (Riley et al. 2003). The study also found that many design and construction professionals believe a contractor’s green contribution is limited to jobsite recycling. Implementing a jobsite recycling plan just becaus e it is mandated is a “one-dimensional approach to sustainability.” That being said, a contra ctor’s role beyond jobs ite recycling is not always well defined, even on LEED projects. “More guidance is needed in defining the contracting methods, organizationa l structures and services th at enable green buildings. For example, the LEED system recognizes in clusion of a LEED accredited professional but does little to encourage integrated team s formed through design-build contracting and design-assist services by construc tion firms” (Riley et al. 2003). For a contractor to be successful in green building, all employees and trades people need to buy-in to the benefits of sustaina bility and actively contribute. This requires effort, education, and leadershi p—contractors cannot just tell their subcontractors to build green and expect full cooperation (Johnston 2000).

PAGE 23

16 Costs There are numerous examples of green bu ildings not costing more. And over the past two years, several thorough studies have been completed to attempt to quantify any cost differences between high performance a nd conventional buildings Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budge ting Methodology (July 2004) by Lisa Fay Matthiessen and Peter Morris of Davis Langdon Adamson, a cost consulting company, is one such study (Matthiessen and Morris 2004). The researchers compared the cost of 45 buildings seeking LEED certification against 93 similar, non-LEED-seeking buildings of comparable design and construction. They randomly selected 10 non-LEED buildings from those 93, then created a LEED checklist for each of those 10 to determine which, if any, credits each project would qualify for with its current design. The anal ysis concluded that the non-LEED projects achieved 15 to 25 credits with their establis hed designs; one project was estimated to qualify for 29—enough for a LEED Certified rating. More in-depth analysis of the nonLEED and LEED buildings suggested that an av erage of about 12 cred its could be earned without any design changes—“due simply to the building’s location, program, or requirements of the owner or local codes.” Up to 18 additional credits could be earned with minimal effort at little or no added cost (Matthiessen and Morris 2004). Consequently, the researchers found th at many green projects achieve their sustainable goals without additional funding, sugge sting that the cost per square foot for LEED buildings falls into the existing range of costs for buildings of similar program type. The researchers draw four main conclusions: There is a very large variation in costs of buildings, even within the same building program category.

PAGE 24

17 Cost differences between buildings are due primarily to program type. There are low-cost and high-cost green buildings. There are low-cost and highcost non-green buildings. Therefore, the researchers assert, bu ildings cannot be compared simply by averaging budgets because normal variations be tween buildings are significantly large. “There is no ‘one size fits all’ answer to the question of the cost of green….Comparing the average cost per square foot for one set of buildings to anothe r does not provide any meaningful data for any individual proj ect to assess what—if any—cost impact there might be for incorporating LEED and sustaina ble design” (Matthiess en and Morris 2004). Assessment of green building costs, accordi ng to the research, is more accurate if made on a project-specific basis. Taking into consideration the proj ect’s distinct goals and circumstances will reveal the impacts of the many factors that affect green building cost variations. The feasib ility and cost impacts of nu merous LEED credits can vary substantially, for better or worse, by how experienced the members of the design and construction teams are with sustainable bui lding. Was the team reluctant to adopt established green methods? To effectiv ely budget for sustainable buildings, highperformance features must not be seen as upgrades or additions that require additional costs. “Simply choosing to add a premiu m to a budget for a non-green building will not give any meaningful reflection of the cost fo r that building to meet its green goals. The first question in budgeting should not be ‘How much more will it cost?’, but ‘How will we do this?’” Establishing project goals during the programming stage and evaluating conformance at every stage of design and constr uction is critical to effective cost control (Matthiessen and Morris 2004).

PAGE 25

18 Contractors and Cost: Bidding Climate Contractors, as bidders, can have a subs tantial impact on the cost of sustainable projects. The researchers in the Davis Langdon study refer to the bidding climate as “perhaps the most significant single factor in the cost of sustainable design.” Specifically, how do builders respond to the gr een requirements in a contract? Are they even willing to bid? Measurable direct cost s of sustainable buildi ng for a contractor can include the cost of material credits documentation, implem enting construction indoor air quality credits, and schedule impacts of building flush-out (M atthiessen and Morris 2004). However, sustainable requirements percei ved as risky by the builder can have a much more substantial impact on bids than di rect costs. Some construction contracts specifically mandate that the contractor ensure the project achieves LEED—thereby making the contractor obligated to and respons ible for achieving the certification. This can introduce a ‘green premium’ into the bi d if the builder is unfamiliar with green building. “Firstly bidders are in clined to add contingencies or risk premiums to cover the perceived risk; secondly, the bid pool dimini shes, leading to poorer competition and higher bid prices.” The green premium will exist until contractors become more familiar with sustainable building and competiti on increases (Matthie ssen and Morris 2004). To lessen the green premium, the resear chers suggest designers write reasonable specifications and contracts a nd treat the contractor as a collaborator—“possibly even including training and bonuses for compliance, rather than transfe rring risks and applying penalties for failure.” An example: a contract that stipulates that the contractor shall “deliver a finished work product that assists the owner in achieving a LEED green

PAGE 26

19 building rating.” In this case, the builder may be less inclin ed to seek compensation for perceived risks (Matth iessen and Morris 2004). The amount of work available in a particular area must also be considered. If there is sufficient work available, contractors are less likely to bid and less motivated to bid low on work they consider unfamiliar and therefore more difficult (Matthiessen and Morris 2004). Cost Recovery If there is an increase in construction costs to go green versus conventional building, those costs are usually recovered quickly. According to the USGBC, the average 2 percent increase in construction costs required to reach LEED Gold typically pays for itself via lower operating costs within two years. The increas e in productivity of occupants in green buildings al so helps recover costs. Ab senteeism fell 15 percent after engineering firm Lockheed Martin move d 2,500 employees into a green building in Sunnyvale, California; the productivity increa se paid for the building’s higher upfront costs within a year. Stores with skylights have seen sales increase as much as 15 percent. And from a building lifetime pers pective, green buildings are not as apt to lead to ‘sick building’ lawsuits for the owners ( Economist 2004). The first concern of almost any owner considering green building is what the project will cost. Hence, the most comm on approach to choosing LEED points is on a first-cost basis by which the least expensive points are pursued to achieve the desired certification level. “Traditionally, construc tion dollars (first costs) are budgeted and spent with little regard for fu ture operating expenses. In fact, they should be linked. When life-cycle costs are taken into account it becomes apparent that lower operating costs can recoup higher first cost s in a reasonable time frame, often in one or two years.

PAGE 27

20 When considered as an investment rather than an expense, an increased first cost with a five-year payback period is a 20 percent ROI” (Deane 2004). A greater return on the expenses of new construction plays a major role in that economics is now driving the market toward su stainable design. Also contributing: green materials and techniques ha ve begun to fall in price ( Economist 2004). As the market continues to shift, the fina ncial benefits associated w ith building sustainably should increase. Home Depot and other building s uppliers already supply some green-certified building materials. “When builders use envi ronmentally harmful materials and practices, somebody eventually has to pick up the tab. As the tab gets larger, society will press for greater use of green building practices” (ECONorthwest 2001). A Contractor’s Role in Green Building Researchers at Pennsylvania State Univer sity and the Partnership for Achieving Construction Excellence conducted a study on th e role of constructi on organizations in the successful delivery of sustainable buildi ngs. Their objectives were to identify the value of a contractor on such projects and to develop proactive techniques for constructors to position themselves as valu ed contributors. The study was based on case studies of more than 20 green building projects in the United States and interviews with more than 40 construction professionals (Riley et al. 2003). “Successful sustainable building de sign and construction processes are characterized as collaborative and inte rdisciplinary. In many cases, however, procurement of construction services is not perceived as one of the necessary steps in the design and delivery of a sustainable building projec t. Contractors are often viewed merely as brokers of constructi on services, who simply follow drawings and specifications and are able to contribu te to sustainable bu ilding projects only through job-site recycling pl ans. The most significant ways in which construction firms can contribute include the most obvious, such as estimating and jobsite recycling. Nevertheless, case studies show clearly that construction firms, given the opportunity, have the poten tial to make useful cont ributions to all phases of green building projects including the areas of material selection, indoor air quality

PAGE 28

21 management, and the vast need to edu cate specialty contractors about green building methodologies and pro cesses.” (Riley et al. 2003) Though the researchers expect perceptions of the role of contractors in green project delivery to broaden as the industry ga ins experience, they highlight four key areas of contribution for constructors involved in green building: estimating, green building materials, waste minimization and recycl ing, and indoor air quality management. Estimating : Sustainable project features shoul d be selected based on the owner’s budget and priorities as well as up-to-date co st information. Preconstruction estimates calculated by the contractor are vital in provi ding the accurate cost information needed to make design decisions. Green building materials : Designers are not the only one s that can impact green building material selection; a variety of products used by general and specialty contractors should be selected using the same environmental standards applied to finish materials. Such items include caulk, jo int sealants, drywall compounds, fireproofing materials, adhesives, duct cement and insulati on. Contractors’ knowle dge can aid in this effort—and beyond. For instance, Sellen Constr uction of Seattle was among the first to suggest that money saved by diverting c onstruction waste from landfills should be incorporated in the project budget to offset any higher costs of us ing recycled content materials. This enables owne rs to choose recycled material s at no net cost increase, and drives the market for such materials. Waste minimization and recycling : Of the contractors experienced in jobsite recycling, many have incorporated into company policy based on their success. “Through experience and alliances with wast e haulers, many construction firms have become quite adept at recycling and the re lated jobsite psychology and infrastructure

PAGE 29

22 needed to fully implement a waste minimizati on and jobsite recycling plan. Often these company-based policies result in diversion ra tes of up to 80 percent, far in excess of a mandated recycling program” (Riley et al. 2003). Indoor air quality management : Construction activities have a direct impact on indoor air quality, which has a direct impact on the health of a building. To protect indoor air quality, contractor s protect HVAC systems from pollutants, incorporate building purges into their construction schedules, and sequence work to minimize material exposure to potential contamination. Making sure certain materials stay dry, for example, can help prevent mold growth (Riley et al. 2003). More on Materials How much of an impact do building mate rials have on the environment? Well, buildings consist of 90 percen t of all extracted materials (Kibert et al. 2002). “Most building materials today are synthetic and are derived either from the petrochemicals industry or are harvested from natural sour ces that cannot be replaced. Even small reductions in the vast consumption of res ources would significantl y reduce our negative impact on the planet” (Woolley 2000). Many paints and finishes c ontain volatile organic com pounds that can be harmful to construction workers and building occupants. And if a material pol lutes the inside of a building, it is likely to pollute the envir onment (Woolley 2000). With LEED and other green labels beginning to enter the mainst ream, choosing environmentally responsible construction products is becoming more vi able. The source a nd manufacture of a material must be considered to evaluate its sustainability, as there ar e distinct differences in the nature of materials and extraction and manufacturi ng technologies. Health and safety concerns for workers involved in th e product’s manufacture or installation should

PAGE 30

23 also be evaluated (Edwards and Bennett 2003). “Many archit ects specify tropical hardwoods with little concern about where they come from, or how the forests in Third World countries are being managed. To ch ange such a policy requires a principled decision by client, builder and specifier and a certain amount of openness from the supplier” (Woolley 2000). An environmentally responsible building f eatures products that are appropriate for the specific design and site. St ill, project teams must be car eful to not view the use of green materials as a single solution to sust ainability. “After all, timber accredited by the Forest Stewardship Council produces just as much methane in landfills as uncertified timber. The key to greener material use is to use the material in a way that changes the “one-way trip” mentality” (Edwards and Bennett 2003). Life-cycle assessment (LCA) of a produc t considers how the product is produced, how it is used, and what occurs when its ‘first life’ is over—can it be designed for deconstruction? Using the manufacture and use of a brick wall as an example, LCA would factor the environmenta l impacts associated with: Extraction and transport of clay to the brickworks; Manufacture and transport of ancillary materials; Extraction and distribution of na tural gas for the brick kiln; Mining and transport of fuels to generate electricity for use in the factory; Production and transport of ra w materials for packaging; Manufacture and transport of packaging for bricks; Manufacture of brick in the brickworks; Transport of bricks to the building site; Extraction of sand and production of cement for the mortar; Building of the brick wall; Maintenance of the wall, such as painting or repointing; Demolition of the wall; The fate of the products after demolition (Edwards and Bennett 2003)

PAGE 31

24 Life-Cycle Costs Applied to Whole Buildings “Green building is an economic responsibil ity to…investors, and a social one to society. It is rooted in the definition of value, quality, a nd performance over the life of the asset” (Gottfried 2003). Design and construction quality has great potential to reduce life-cycle costs, including costs-in-use and eventual disposal of a structure. The International Organization for Standardization defines life-cycle costing (LCC) as “the total cost of a building or its parts throughout its life, in cluding the costs of planning, design, acquisition, operations, maintenance and di sposal, less any residual value.” LCC can be used to determine whether higher initi al costs are justified by lower future costs, seeking to optimize life perfor mance of a building. By optim izing performance, future costs and risks are reduced. LCC of a build ing considers the follo wing: functional design in regard to building purpose; complete desi gn of the structure; detailed design of each assembly and component; the construction pr ocess; lifetime maintenance; ultimate disposal; and project costs, including c onstruction and life-cycle costs (Clift 2003). LEED and the Green CM Of the 69 possible LEED credits, more th an a dozen prerequi sites and credits depend directly or indirectly on the cons truction manager. Those dependent on the builder include: prerequisites Erosion and Sediment Control and Basic Commissioning; Additional Commissioning (1 credit); Indoor Air Quality During Construction and Preoccupancy (2 credits); Low-emitting Materials (4 credits); Recycled Content, Local and Regional Sources, Rapidly Renewable Material s, and FSC-certified Wood (6 credits). The construction organization also can provi de the project with a LEED Accredited Professional for 1 point, and be responsible for or help contribute to one or more of the four possible innovation credits (Deane 2004). The city of Portland, Oregon, for

PAGE 32

25 example, has proposed a new innovation point for green building proj ects that use cleanemission, low-sulfur diesel-powered construction equipment (Cassidy 2004). A construction manager (CM) experienced in sustainable building—a ‘green CM’—can make designing and building a LEED pr oject much easier and less expensive. For instance, a green CM has the ability to evaluate all costs fo r various construction options—first costs, life cy cle costs, and O&M costs—in order to help the owner comprehend the real costs and benefits of su stainability to prioritize LEED points based on value over time (Deane 2004). The CM can assist the design team with pricing methods that acknowledge the interlinked benefi ts of systems, or he lp the project team seek cost savings in a project’s less crucial ar eas to facilitate the higher initial cost of energy-efficient building systems and green materials (Riley et al. 2003). A CM knowing the current market costs and availabi lity of green materials also assists the project team in making cost-e ffective choices (Deane 2004). A green CM can contribute in the follow ing ways at the various stages of LEED project construction: Pre-construction : Involving the CM in the design process ensures accurate cost estimates and allows the CM to advise the pr oject team on the constructability of various options. The CM can identify products with recycled content and materials harvested or manufactured regionally. The CM can also evaluate MEP specifications for energy and water usage and their potentia l impact on indoor environmental quality (Deane 2004). Procurement : The CM should meet with all bidders to ensure they fully understand their trade’s green requirements and the sustainability goals of the project overall. Scopes of work can be develope d that specifically call out LEED requirements

PAGE 33

26 as applicable to each trade, such as documentation and submittal requirements. A green CM can assist subcontractors with procurem ent and documentation requirements, helping keep their costs down and passing savings on to the owner. Subcontractors understanding their role and res ponsibilities can result in ac curate, competitive bids and aid in project execution later. A green CM may also be able to provide a list of subcontractors that likewise offer experience in green building. “The CM will negotiate the best price, making sure it is not inflated with any ‘fear factor’ mark-up and will stop bidders from artificially infla ting the cost of allegedly ‘har d to find’ green materials” (Deane 2004). Construction : Since LEED documentation is submitted to the USGBC for review after construction is complete, the project team must keep in mind during design and construction the critical need for accurat e, complete documentation. The CM must closely monitor submittals for compliance with LEED requirements to ensure that no LEED points are lost due to carelessness. The CM shoul d meet with the selected subcontractors at regular intervals during the project—typically weekly—and until all documentation is submitted to guarantee full compliance. The CM must diligently track and report construction waste; by material category, percent recycled by material type, and final destination of all waste. And O&M manuals must be submitted to assist in the commissioning process. Construction activ ities need to be monitored to ensure compliance with site management protocol, construction waste management, erosion and sediment control, indoor air quality, a nd commissioning requirements (Deane 2004). The USGBC reports that LEED Silver and Gold submissions are many times easier to approve than those striving for Certified, perhaps because the project team is more

PAGE 34

27 experienced in green building processes a nd has a better understanding of credit and documentation requirements. “Less experienced teams aim lower because they have less confidence in their knowledge and have a harder time with compliance and documentation” (Deane 2004). The CM may be responsible for directly managing the LEED submission process. To help manage documentation, Bovis Lend L ease has developed spr eadsheets that track points and their status. Items are closed wh en all required documentation is complete, and the matrix is included in the contracto r’s monthly reports to its project owners (Deane 2004).

PAGE 35

28 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS It’s the right thing to do. The majority of builders are unaware of, a nd therefore take no responsibility for, the impact of buildings and construction activities on people and the environment. Applying ethics to the built environment calls for those involved in construction to take responsibility for their actions. As green bui lding enters more markets, contractors face increasing responsibility to le arn the environmental impacts of the materials they use (Riley et al. 2003). In general, humans th reaten the planet’s ecosystem by their behaviors. With respect to the built envir onment, buildings and the methods used to construct them threaten the health of both people and the environment (Kibert and Moretti 2004). When contractors decide to adopt ethical business practices, they take corporate responsibility—environmen tal and social—for their actions. Ethics considers “the dynamics of people in their relationships w ith one another.” It addresses these relationships by providing rules of conduct generally agreed to govern good behavior. “Sustainable development re quires a more extensive set of ethical principles to guide behavior because it questions relations hips between generations.” Sustainable development is defined as mee ting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their respective needs. The responsibility of one generation to future generations, as well as the rights of those future generations, are fundamental concepts of sustai nable development. “The al teration or destruction of nonhuman living and non-living systems affects the quality of life for fu ture generations by

PAGE 36

29 reducing their choices. The choices of a give n population in time will directly affect the quantity and quality of resources remaining fo r future inhabitants of Earth, impact the environmental quality they will experience, and alter their experience of the physical world” (Kibert and Moretti 2004). Builders play a very real role in these choices made, especially in terms of resource use. Several principles and facets of ethical theory may be applied to the built environment. Distributional e quity (or distributive justice) refers to the rights of all people to an equal share of resources su ch as materials, land, energy, water, and environmental quality. To ensure such equity in the future, responsibility is taken to ensure economic systems are moral and just, and meet obligations to future populations. Simarly, resource-based principles specify that all people shou ld have access to the same level of resources. Per the precautionary prin ciple, caution should be exercised when one makes a decision that may adversely affect hu man health or the environment—even if the cause and effect relationships are not fully recognized or understood. For example, the potentially catastrophic outcome of global wa rming should motivate people to cautiously limit carbon greenhouse gas emissions. (Critics a ssert that the precautionary principle is a threat to progress.) Like the precautionary pr inciple, the reversibility principle is to be considered prior to the a doption of a new technology. To respect the reversibility principle, a decision is made based on whether the action can be undone by future generations (Kibert and Moretti 2004). As opposed to considering the overall imp act of buildings, the potential health hazards of various construction products and building materials in particular has ethical implications. Laura Zeiher lists nearly 800 toxic substances common in building

PAGE 37

30 materials in her book The Ecology of Architecture Many health effects of building materials are linked to asthma. “While littl e research has been carried out on the links between indoor air quality and asthma, many of the toxic materials used in building cause occupational asthma in the factories wher e they are produced.” Many carcinogenic materials, chemical pesticides, and toxic timb er treatment chemicals are widely used in buildings (Woolley 2000). In the United States, gypsum waste accounts for 1 percent of the total waste stream. As a percentage of total construction and demolition waste, it accounts for 15 percent. As a general rule, 1 pound of gypsum board wast e is generated for every square foot of floor area. In 1984, the Great er Vancouver Regional District in British Columbia, Canada, stopped accepting construction and demo lition waste at its municipal landfills after studies discovered that gypsum-board wast e buried in landfills in high-rainfall areas, including British Columbia, was producing noxious hydrogen sulfide gas. Dangerous to humans at levels of greater than 1,000 part s per million, with a dist inct odor similar to that of rotten eggs, one landfill was found to have gas levels in excess of 5,000 PPM. Hydrogen sulfide gas is produced when buried gypsum (calcium sulfate) waste combines with anaerobic bacteria and or ganic matter, and, with high mois ture levels present, sulfate ions are released. The study found that the gas levels peaked between six and 15 years after burial. And gypsum-board waste was not the only danger at the landfills; other construction debris, such as metal, was emitting toxic leachates ( Walls & Ceilings 2003). Aside from construction materials disposed of in landfills, the materials that comprise a building itself can affect the heal th of future occupants. Sick building syndrome is the most well-known potential health risk associated with buildings. Though

PAGE 38

31 sick building syndrome has its critics, it has been attributed to tighter buildings and poor indoor air quality. Causes of poor indoor qua lity can include the following: off-gassing of volatile organic compounds ( VOCs) from modern finish materials such as paints, adhesives, carpet, and vinyl; poorly vented combustion appliances; use of equipment and chemicals such as copiers and cleaning products; tobacco smoke; soil gases such as radon, pesticides, and industrial site contaminants; molds and microbial organisms; and intake of outdoor air contaminated with pol len, pollution, or building exhaust. Those with compromised immune systems—children, el derly people, and people with allergies and asthma—are at high risk for sick buildi ng health hazards. Typical symptoms include headache, fatigue, congestion, coughing, sn eezing, dizziness, and nausea (Karolides 2002). Green building guidelines are becoming legal mandates. In a growing number of areas across the United States, green building is already mandated, leaving contractors no choice but to in corporate sustainable practices into their construction activities. Voluntary guidelin es are becoming legal requirements, and it behooves contractors to adapt now. The U.S. General Services Administrati on, which oversees the construction of all non-military government facilities, requires th at all new project and renovations must reach LEED status. The GSA is one of the larg est real estate owners and managers in the United States; it owns or leases 350 million square feet in which almost one million federal employees work. The GSA budgets 2.5 percent of the total cost for each construction project to cover extra expenses involved in achieving green goals, which it has found is more than offset by fuel efficien cies and other cost sa vings in a reasonable amount of time ( Fortune 2004).

PAGE 39

32 Ten cities require LEED certi fication for their public build ings, including Chicago; Portland, Oregon; Seattle; New York City; Sa n Francisco; Boston; and Austin, Texas. San Francisco’s ordinance went into effect in 2004 and applies to all city-owned projects, including renovations and additions The city’s long-term goal is to extend the ordinance to cover private projects as well (Post 2004). As in San Francisco, the city of Boston requires public projects to ach ieve at least a Silver LEED rating. In Arlington County, Virginia, LEED certification is not mandated fo r private projects, but the county requires all projects to complete a LEED scorecard in an effort to educate the building community and keep track of progress. As designed, mo st private projects are eligible for 21 LEED points; five more would qualify the pr oject for certifica tion (Cassidy 2004). Regulations in the residen tial arena should also be not ed. Boulder, Colorado, and Frisco, Texas, are among several cities that have code-mandated residential green standards; builders are required to show how their houses will earn certification before the city will grant them building permits (Cassidy 2004). Colleges and universities are also taking a proactive role in attempting to make sustainable building the norm. For example, Rinker Hall at the University of Florida achieved LEED gold; thanks to the project’s success, all new buildings on the campus are expected to meet or exceed LEED silver. Th e University of California Board of Regents has adopted a university-wide policy for green building as well (Amatruda 2004). For the most part, the above cities, schools, and agencies have issued ordinances or guidelines to ensure sustaina bility in new construction. Some governments and agencies are specifically incorporating their green sta ndards into their respective building codes. Such codes legally bind contractors to adhere to minimum acceptable standards intended

PAGE 40

33 to protect public health, safety, and welfar e (EPA 2002). The implication of green codes from the contractor’s perspective is obvious. Again, in such cases, building sustainably is not an option but the required way of conducting business. The city of Chicago is realigning its building code to accommodate sustainable design, and is considering creating a green building code (Cassidy 2004). In Portland, Oregon, building codes require th e recycling of materials gene rated onsite for all projects with costs exceeding $25,000, including construction and demolition. Santa Monica, California, requires C&D waste management. The code also requires the specifying of wood from sustainably managed sources a nd the use of low-emission finishes and materials. The U.S. Navy’s Sustainable Development Requirements for its family housing include the following: “All Navy Fa mily Housing Construction, Improvement, Repair and Privatization projects shall inco rporate Sustainable Development principles. Application of these principles will re duce consumption of energy, and other nonrenewable resources; minimize waste of wa ter and materials; prevent pollution and associated environmental impacts and liabiliti es, increase energy and resource efficiency, and improve human health. The result will reduce life-cycle ope rating costs for Navy Families” (EPA 2002). Construction waste in particular has b een addressed in various areas across the United States. Some landfills prohibit C&D waste, which has the potential to limit contractors’ options and increase their disposal costs. “As landfill becomes scarcer, states and local jurisd ictions are going to crack down on contractors to keep C&D waste out of their dumps. Better for the constr uction industry to take care of the problem voluntarily than to wait for the regulat ory hammer to strike” (Cassidy 2004).

PAGE 41

34 The EPA has urged every state to addre ss C&D waste disposal; 38 have done so (Cassidy 2004). Massachusetts is among the la tter. Designed to take effect in 2005, impending regulations in Massachusetts wi ll ban asphalt, brick, concrete, wood, and metal from landfills, and enforce an existi ng ban on corrugated cardboard. This is the first such statewide ban. Other materials are to be added to the ban later; the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Pr otection wants to divert 88 percent of all non-municipal solid waste from landfills by the year 2010. One million tons of waste goes from Massachusetts construction sites to landfills, accounting for approximately 25 percent of all Massachusetts landfill deposits and 95 percen t of all non-municipal solid wastes (Fournier 2004). The state of California also has taken a pr oactive approach to recycling, going so far as to mandate that every city or county r ecycle at least 50 percent of its waste. Under a program begun in 2001, the city of San Jose California, requires contractors to pay a recycling deposit before they can be grante d a building permit for most commercial and residential projects. Commercial demolition projects, where the steel and concrete can be easily recycled, are usually charged a lower de posit than a residentia l remodeling project, since roofing, carpet, applianc es, and other materials are not as easily recycled. The deposits range from 10 cents to $1.16 a squa re foot, depending on the project type. Contractors must prove they have diverted at least half of the construction and demolition debris from their projects from landfills to get their deposits back. San Jose officials have certified a dozen disposal facili ties that have agreed to recy cle at least 50 percent of the construction material they receive. The pr ogram is exceeding its goal: San Jose diverted

PAGE 42

35 about 62 percent of its waste through recy cling and reuse of materials in 2002 (Muto 2004). Sustainability enhances profitability. Perhaps the most powerful example of sust ainable practices increasing contractor profits is that waste management plans can and are saving contra ctors money. Depending on a contractor’s experience level and the loca l recycling infrastructure, diverting waste from landfills can offer significant cost savi ngs. At Toronto’s Pearson International Airport, recycling was to save the Termin al 1 replacement project an estimated $664,000. All concrete, asphalt, and metal products from the demolition of the 40-year-old, 156,077-sq-m terminal were recycled. The mate rials were being used as backfill for a 900-feet terminal pier and as subbase for a new apron, saving substantial trucking costs ( ENR 11/15/04). Consigli Construction Co. achie ved an overall C&D diversion rate of 97 percent at a $6.9 million, 100,000-SF office/wa rehouse project in Massachusetts. Source separation and recycli ng resulted in cost savings of nearly $260,000 (Cassidy 2004). In New Jersey, the average cost to r ecycle concrete rubble is $4.85 per ton vs. an average of $75 per ton to haul and dispose of the material in a landfill. Similar cost savings came from recycling asphalt ($5.70 per ton) and bricks and blocks ($5.49). Even recycling wood at $45.63 per ton is ec onomical compared to the $75 average transportation and disposal cost, according to the state’s Department of Environmental Protection. Several of the c oncrete and asphalt recyclers included in the study did not charge to dump clean, separated material at their sites, which is common practice in competitive recycling markets ( C&D Recycling 2004). Numerous similar examples exist. In a testament to the increased use of sustainable jobsite waste management, the Associated General Contractors released it s Environmental Management System program

PAGE 43

36 in 2004. The program, developed with the U.S. EPA, is designed to aid contractors in establishing waste management plans that in clude C&D recycling; the 148-page manual provides guidelines and templates (Cassidy 2004). Many design and construction organizations new to green building are faced with the need to rethink almost every aspect of th eir operations. What they discover in doing so is that sustainable practices “create in centives to adopt logical and much needed improvements to the traditional sequential design and construction process. In an industry that has clung to traditions of dysf unctional business practices and adversarial team relationships, many are beginning to r ealize that sustainable building projects might be more appropriately referred to as sensible building projects.” Sustainability incorporates lean principles proven by manufact urers to reduce waste and inefficiencies. Green and lean are closely aligned in maxi mizing total process efficiency and waste reduction (Riley et al. 2003). When attention is paid to wastes and inefficiency, future profitability is enhanced. Integrating sustainability can lead to better management processes and increased producti vity. It’s smart growth: “S mart growth is a key phrase frequently used to signify the types of de velopment to be purs ued in the future; it indicates an approach which permits economic advancement, but in a more sustainable way” (Pitts 2004). In essence, synergies exist between sustai nability and constructability. During the renovation of the Pentagon, for example, the design-build project team not only contributed to the sustainabl e design efforts, it observed significant savings in labor productivity through waste minimization and s implified construction methods (Riley et al. 2003). Overall, the process of rating bu ildings has revealed the inefficiency of

PAGE 44

37 traditional buildings and construction methods Traditional buildings can sometimes waste up to 30 cents on the dollar, thanks to energy and materials use, water waste, and inefficient subsystem choices ( Economist 2004). Sustainable pract ices can equate to resource and labor efficiency. And reduced in efficiencies can equate to increased profit for a builder. Builders can capitalize on a structure’s operating savings. Su stainable buildings offer lower future utility bills and other opera ting costs. Owners, therefore, can apply the lifetime savings of the build ing to construction costs (ECONorthwest 2001). The reduction in operating costs will pay for modest green upgrad es in a relatively short period of time (Pitts 2004). Owners that rec ognize these savings are willing to pay for green upgrades, and larger cont racts equate to greater prof it potential. Market surveys have found that if the expect ed utility savings are well documented, buyers will pay a premium the benefits and amenities associated with high-performance buildings (ECONorthwest 2001). (According to one su rvey of homebuyers, 55 percent were willing to pay an additional $5,000 to $10,000 for green features.) (Macaluso 2002) Green buildings are often more marketable in general. Th e market is demanding better quality buildings, and future owners and tenants are prepared to pay a premium (Pitts 2004). “Many potential buyers or tenants will pay more for the cachet of being in a building that can readily be identified as complying with the principles of green construction” (ECONorthwest 2001). Contractors who build green in crease their market share. Instead of waiting until forced to do so—by the market or government regulations—contractors that a dopt sustainable construction methods today can create a competitive advantage. Already, owners seek ing construction services on green projects

PAGE 45

38 are differentiating between prospective build ers based on their en vironmental policies (Riley et al. 2003) and experien ce in green building. “Good business is a lot more than building a good product at a reas onable price. You have to be different and better than the competition in order to get buyers’ attent ion…. Green builders are the change leaders in the building industry. By keeping one eye to the future and the other on the bottom line, you can learn how to do better business while creating a new market niche for your company” (Johnston 2000). Green building is not simply a fad; as ow ners continue to re alize its benefits, demand continues to increase. According to the USGBC, about 5 percent of all new construction project starts in the United Stat es have registered fo r LEED certification. Considering the rating system was introduced only five years ago, the green building industry has experienced tremendous growth. It is predicted that cumulative LEED registration totals will appr oach 5,000 by the end of 2007. If more than 1,200 project register for LEED certification in 2007, as per forecasted demand, that would represent about 20 percent of the commercial and in stitutional building market (Yudelson 2004). “The delivery of better performing buildi ngs is an economic and environmental necessity and an ever-increasi ng expectation. Within the deca de any new building that is not delivered green will likely be viewed as ‘under-perform ing’” (University of Buffalo 2004). Numerous economic incentives, such as rebates and tax credits, already are available to developers and owners. Highperformance buildings maximize future value while minimizing future risk, and this tran slates into demand. The improved design quality of high-performance buildings is appreci ated in a competitive market (Pitts 2004).

PAGE 46

39 Conversely, contractors who assume that green buildings cost more may avoid pursuing such work. And, if they do bid on a sustainable project, faced with unfamiliar materials or construction methods, they tend to add a premium to th eir bid to cover the learning curve and anticipated extra costs a ssociated with additional time and planning (Woolley 2000). But on a hard bid, this ‘gr een premium’ resulting from fear of the unknown can mean the difference between being aw ard the job or not. This potential loss in market share creates a strong argument for builders to at least research current sustainable construction practices so that if they are approa ched to bid or pursue green work, they need not add a green premium. Some of the largest contractors in the nation are leading the way. These organizations believe that to continue to lead their industry, they must incorporate principles of sustainable construction because it is in the best interest of their clients and the environment. In the last decade, Tu rner Construction Co., the country’s largest commercial builder, has completed more than 85 green projects valued at $7.6 billion. In 2004, Turner implemented jobsite recycling on all its projects, not just those seeking LEED certification. Initially, Turner will im plement C&D recycling at a 50 percent level; the end goal is to r ecycle 100 percent of C&D waste on all new projects (Cassidy 2004). Turner “played an unexpectedly valuable role” as the contractor for Toyota Motor Corporation’s new U.S. Financial and Cust omer Service Headquarters in Torrance, California. The 624,000-square-foot fac ility was awarded LEED Gold; Turner contributed by recycling 98 percent of c onstruction waste and provided detailed management of indoor air quality issues duri ng construction. Turner’s efforts to manage

PAGE 47

40 indoor air quality during construction sa ved significant time and money in the commissioning process (Riley et al. 2003). Skanska, one of the world’s largest c onstruction companies, has incorporated sustainability in its business practices for three primary reasons: to strengthen the Skanska brand, for risk management, and to benefit its current a nd future employees. “Many of our most important clients are ac tively engaged in addr essing sustainability issues, and they expect nothing less from thei r contractor.” Skanska is listed on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index for responsible investing, and in 2004 ranked third in the world on Fortune ’s list of Most Admired Companie s for engineering and construction (Wenblad 2003). Skanska was the first contract or in the United States to receive ISO 14001 certification—an internationa l standard that recognizes organizations who have a comprehensive environmental management system in place (Nelson 2003). The Environment section of Skanska’s Code of Conduct reads as follows: “Caring about the environment permeates all of our work. Compliance with relevant legal and other environmental requirem ents, especially from our clients, provides the foundation for our environmental ambition. We are committed to preventing and continually minimizing adverse environmenta l impact and to conserving resources. We think ahead to determine how our work will affect the environment and base our decisions on available relevant facts. We avoid materials and methods with envi ronmental risks when there are suitable alternatives available. We strive to recommend that clients use environmentally better alternatives whenever the circumstances permit. We do not engage in activities that have unacceptable environmental and social risks. We aim to identify such risks as early as possible to facilitate timely and adequate actions and decisions.” (Skanska 2005)

PAGE 48

41 Skanska advocates that with current t echnology, energy efficiency can be improved by at least 30 percent. To reduce use of the most hazardous substances used in construction, some groups within Skanska ha ve developed ‘black’ and ‘grey’ lists of substances to avoid and/or phase out (Wenblad 2003). DPR Construction, based in Redwood City, California, is another major U.S. contractor who embraces green constructi on. DPR’s office building in Sacramento, California, is a LEED Silver building. DPR boasts more LEED Accredited Professionals than any other general contractor in the na tion to help customers determine the best strategies for effectively de signing and constructing sustaina ble facilities. The company offers the following green services: Owner/A rchitect Training, Project Visioning and Goal Establishment, Charrette Facilitation, Preconstruction Analysis and Peer Reviews, Environmental Value Analysis, Life Cy cle Cost Analysis, MEP Analysis and Commissioning, and LEED Proj ect Management. To a ssist owners in LEED management, design, and construction, the co mpany developed its LEED Preconstruction Analysis Tool. DPR uses this tool to chart costs and pe rform cash flow analyses of potential savings and returns on investment over a building’s lifetime. The company used the program to determine that the payback of the additional firs t costs of 1.4 percent for its Sacramento office would be achieved in two and a half years with water and energy savings (DPR 2005). In a 2004 speech, Thomas Leppert, chairman and CEO of Turner, aptly described the competitive advantage that he forecasts his company will benefit from when green building becomes the norm. “When that day co mes, when it's not a choice, we can tell

PAGE 49

42 clients, “No problem. We've been doing this for years. We'll show you how.” (Leppert 2004) Green buildings often cost the same or less than conventional buildings. Concerns about green buildings costing more should not discourage construction organizations from considering adoption of sust ainable practices. It is shortsighted and simply not true that first costs associated with building high-performance structures must increase. “Capital costs of sustainable de sign can be similar or even lower than conventional figures through good design to m eet specification; additional design and specialist construction costs can be offset by reduced needs for building services systems and reduced wastage” (Pitts 2004). Three recen t studies in particular have compared costs of conventional versus high-performance buildings: A study of 33 green buildings conducted for th e state of California by Greg Kats of Capital E found a range of zero to 2 percen t incremental first cost, significant ROI attributed to lower operating costs, and no real correlati on between cost and level of sustainability (Kats 2003). A LEED cost study for the General Serv ices Administration that used GSA courthouse and office building design st andards identified the following: no correlation exists between poi nt value of LEED credits a nd their costs; a range of strategies often can be a pplied to achieve a specific individual LEED credit; the cost of several credits varies significan tly according to build ing type and program; and finally, some credit costs vary based on regional or project-specific issues (Amatruda 2004). Conclusions drawn from the Davis Langdon st udy (see Chapter 3) are similar to the GSA study findings. The Davis Langdon st udy compared construction costs of green buildings to comparable, non-LEED-seek ing projects and found that projects can achieve LEED certification within the same cost ra nge as non-LEED projects. The data indicates that many factors— such as building program type—affect building cost, and of those, LEED tends to have a lesser impact on total costs (Matthiessen and Morris 2004). Builders can help develop the economies of scale for green building materials. As sustainable building continues to beco me mainstream, the pr emium for buying green materials and products is lessening or has di minished. “Whether because of supplier

PAGE 50

43 competition for this new and growing market or because of contractor competition to get the job (and probably a combin ation of both), many products such as low-VOC paint, non-ureaformaldehyde particleboard, recycl ed carpet, and 100 percent recycled sheetrock, have all become virtually cost-n eutral and widely av ailable” (Deane 2004). Home Depot, for example, sells sustainably harvested lumber. As the demand and use of sustainable materials increases, prices will d ecrease (Woolley 2000). It is in the best interest of builders to help hasten this process by using environmentally responsible materials and developing relationships with distributors of such materials. Building sustainably goes hand-in-hand with design-build. As more construction firms begin to fa vor the design-build approach, they may want to heed that the integrative collaborat ion that marks successf ul sustainable project delivery lends itself to this approach. “T he very concept of designing, building, and operating a green building pushe s the designer, constructor, and owner to work in a collaborative way, often encour aging all three to ‘think outside the box.’” The process exposes all three actors to new technology and alternate methods, allowing them to acquire valuable knowledge and experience in su stainable building they can apply in later projects (Macaluso 2002). With design-build, contractors are involve d in project design. As such, they can position themselves as va lue-added contributors by bringing their green building experience to the table. “As more construction organizati ons gain design-build experience on green building projects, they wi ll be better equipped to align themselves and develop preconstruction serv ices that will enhance the gr een design process” (Riley et al. 2003). Government agencies and state and local governments represent the leading owners seeking high-performance buildings. Concu rrently, many of these owners are also

PAGE 51

44 moving toward the use of design-build (Riley et al. 2003). A design-build contract was used for the LEED Silver EPA National Comput er Center in North Carolina, and its use fostered cooperation, communication, and cr eativity among the project team. “This approach encouraged the team to consta ntly strive for and implement additional environmental enhancements to the facility in a cost-effective manner.” That is a primary benefit of design-build—architects and contract ors help, not work against, each other and work together to develop crea tive, less costly solutions (Nel son 2003). It is design-build teams that offer the broadest point of view in terms of defining the role of contractors in sustainable building (R iley et al. 2003). Green building government incentives ca n aid successful project delivery. Building sustainably can shorten the deve lopment time line, saving contractors as well as developers and owners money (ECONorthwest 2001). In Portland, Oregon, a streamlined permit review progress applies to su stainable projects. The city of Chicago is considering expedited reviews as well (Ca ssidy 2004). In general, builders are more likely to gain community and government suppor t for a green project, in turn helping them avoid legal delays and permitting pr oblems (ECONorthwest 2001). Builders may enjoy “green tape” as opposed to the trad itional “red tape” of permitting bureaucracy (Elefante 2005). Incentives are more established in the local green home programs. Builders participating in residential green building programs may enjoy improved relations with local government officials, who control zoning, construction permitting, and building codes. Builders in nearly 100 jurisdictions benefit from the following incentives: lower permit fees, faster plan checks, priority fiel d inspections, and compli mentary advertising. And some programs offer training in cost-eff ective green construction methods and green

PAGE 52

45 home marketing strategies (Ca ssidy 2004). It is likely that th e success of these residential incentives will soon cross over to the commercial building sector. Constructing green buildings can improve a company’s image. Contractors who practice sustainable met hods of construction are viewed more positively by the public. In a 2004 Associated General Contractors survey, 72 percent of contractors felt that C&D r ecycling improved their company’s public image (Cassidy 2004). Sustainability, therefore, is a marketab le asset companies can promote, especially at a time when more organizations are basi ng financial decisions upon ethical principles. “Companies, organizations, and individuals that are prepared to invest to create a strong perception of design quality and interest in sustainability and the future are likely to be more positively viewed by the public and ot her organizations when choices are made about spending, investment and other activities” (Pitts 2004). Sustainable practices improve a builder’s image in the community because builders are often seen as the major culprits behind unwanted growth and development, such as urban sprawl. People are attracted to a comp any with integrity and a higher purpose, and green builders can capitalize upon this prefer ence. The community will recognize the organization “as the builde r who cares” (Johnston 2000). Forward-looking companies attract quality employees. A company’s culture and values usually under line its recruitment goals and efforts. Companies that embrace the future trends of the construction indus try—namely the green building movement—are likely to attract employees that do so as well. Such employees may be more open-minded and receptive to ch ange, making them an asset to a forwardlooking organization and perpetuating green bu ilding growth. Turner Construction helps sponsor the USGBC’s Emerging Builders Prog ram to “help improve the sustainable

PAGE 53

46 building curriculum at colleges and recogni ze students who will promote future green building growth” (Cassidy 2004). As more universities incorporate sustainable construction into their curriculum and campus structures, more future builders become convinced of its positive qualities—and that becomes a factor in determining at which company they want to work. Skanska stri ves to be an environmentally responsible company, and keep and recruit the best employ ees. It recognizes that a company’s values must appeal to its employees. “Employees want to work for a company they are proud of, and with whose values they can id entify” (Wenblad 2003). When a company commits to building sustainably, employees feel their jobs and thei r company contribute to a greater purpose—not solely the bottom line—resulting in a more loyal, productive workforce. In turn, prospective employees ar e attracted to the comp any’s reputation as a great place to work (Johnston 2000). The future success of companies within the construction industry may reveal itself to be partially dependent upon a company’s will ingness to incorporate sustainability into its practices. Regardless, the success of a ny company depends upon its ability to attract the industry’s youth. And it is the young people within the building i ndustry that “are fervent about the adoption of thes e new principles” (Gillette 2004). Green practices reduce contractor liability. Green building addresses indoor air qu ality (IAQ) during construction. Though contractors may view keeping gypsum board dry on the jobsite as a hindrance, for example, they actually are reduc ing their liability. A number of lawsuits have been filed against contractors claiming that toxic mold in buildings they constructed causes health problems for occupants. In January 2003, plaintiffs suing de velopers, contractors, and the city of Carson City, Nevada, settled fo r $14 million in a case regarding mold present

PAGE 54

47 at a housing development (Salkever 2003). In 2001, a $12 million settlement was reached to conclude a two-year lawsuit re sulting from extensive mold growth at a courthouse in San Martin, California. The lawsuit was between Santa Clara County and the project team, including the general contract or, architect, the contractor's surety, and more than a dozen subcontractors and supplie rs. Of note, 12 cour thouse employees filed personal injury actions against the cont ractors, architects, and suppliers ( ENR 8/13/2001). Excessive moisture is usually to blame for mold growth in buildings. Although it remains unclear to what extent mold causes health problems, it does pose a risk to public health. Research has linked indoor mold to coughing, wheezing, and upper respiratory problems in otherwise healthy people and to asthma symptoms in susceptible people (Solomon 2004). Research also has shown an in creased risk of infec tion associated with hospital and laboratory constr uction (Riley et al. 2003). Mold has been called the asbestos of this generation. U.S. insurers awarded more than $3 billion in mold-related claims in 2002. As a result of the growing nu mber of claims, numerous companies that provide comprehensive general liability insu rance to contractors have begun excluding mold coverage from new policies (Solomon 2004). Builders who apply sustainable construc tion methods can decr ease potential risks associated with mold. For example, one LEED IAQ credit calls for installing materials in a sequence that will prevent contamination of absorptive material s such as insulation, carpeting, ceiling tile, and gypsum wallboard. Another green pract ice is to correctly size a building’s HVAC system—air-conditioning systems are typically oversized. Not only does this lead to unnecessary energy usage, it increases the probability of mold growth. If a unit is oversized, the cooling mode doe s not come on often enough or stay on long

PAGE 55

48 enough to allow for proper dehumidification—a leading factor in mold formation (Solomon, 2004). These examples of focu sing on IAQ management during design and construction reduce the risk of contamination a nd, therefore, contractor risk (Riley et al. 2003). Green building can lower the health risks construction workers face. Construction workers frequently are e xposed to many hazardous materials and practices: “Drillers, sandbl asters, drywall sanders, and brick masons risk inhaling particles of dust, sand, and crys talline silica, which can lead to lung cancers, tuberculosis, and silicosis. Asphalt used in paving and r oofing has been linked to throat irritation, nausea, and chronic lower respiratory inf ections. Workers doing finishing work can breathe in toxic fumes from paints, adhesives, floor finishes, and other materials. And renovation and demolition…can expose workers to lead paint, asbestos, and toxic molds” (Tibbetts 2002). As these risks have been researched and publicized, buildin g industry awareness has grown. Consumers have begun to demand the use of greener, safer materials, and government agencies specify their purchase. Interest in LEED has increased demand for green building materials, assi sting project teams in selec ting environmentally friendly materials and processes. Up to four LEED credits can be earned by the use of lowemitting materials. For one credit, adhesives and paints must not exceed designated VOC limits; for another, composite wood must not contain added urea-formaldehyde resins (Tibbetts 2002). Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are used frequently in such building materials as solvents, binding agents, and cleaning agents. High-VOC paint has traditionally been the industry standard; VOCs e nhance paint color and spreadability. But these organic

PAGE 56

49 chemicals become breathable vapors at room temperature, resulting in emissions during paint application and curing as well as after the paint dries. To construction workers and building occupants, these emissions can lead to headaches, respiratory problems, and allergic reactions. Formaldehyde is a VOC that has for decades been used to help bind wood chips and sawdust together to make particleboard and plywood. But exposure to formaldehyde can lead to brain impairment, with symptoms such as delayed reaction time, clumsiness, short-term memory loss, and elevated anger and conf usion. It also has been linked to a rise in lung a nd other cancers (Tibbetts 2002). Fortunately, most manufacturers have signi ficantly reduced the quantity of VOCs in their paints and other products during the last decade. The use of acrylicand waterbased paints lower in VOCs continues to b ecome more widespread, and their quality has greatly improved. Meanwhile, government re gulations and nonprofit trade groups have driven a reduction in formaldehyde levels in building products (Tibbetts 2002). In general, construction workers are handli ng fewer toxic materials. Construction organizations can help drive this trend. By using green building ma terials, contractors have the opportunity to both protect thei r workers’ health and help protect the environment. It is a matter of logic and ethics.

PAGE 57

50 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following arguments can be made as to the advantages of contractors adopting sustainable construction methods. It’s the right thing to do. Green building guidelines are becoming legal mandates. Sustainability enha nces profitability. Contractors who build green increase their market share. Green buildings often cost the same or less than conventional buildings. Builders can help develop th e economies of scale for green building materials. Building sustainably goes hand-in-hand with design-build. Green building government incentives can aid successful project delivery. Constructing green buildings can improve a company’s image. Forward-looking companies attract quality employees. Green practices reduce contractor liability. Green building can lower the health risks construction workers face. Research focused on green building from th e contractor’s perspective is limited. As such, the arguments presented in this study offer opportunities for much further research. For example, contractors could be surveyed as to why many remain hesitant to embrace green building—is cost indeed the pr imary factor? There is a need for much more in-depth financial analys is of the costs associated with sustainable construction

PAGE 58

51 strictly from a contractor’s perspective. Furthermore, contractors experienced in green building are as yet an underut ilized resource source. Namely, what is the learning curve associated with such practices, do costs decr ease as experience levels increase, and are they recognizing the benefits as proposed in this study’s arguments? Surveying contractors whom are currently practicing sustainability has numerous practical implications. A sustainable construction re source guide specifical ly for commercial contractors could be developed, for example. Also, in terms of worker health, the need exists for further studies on the health e ffects of the use of conventional building materials. Research focused on green building from th e contractor’s perspective is limited. As such, the arguments presented in this study offer opportunities for much further research. For example, contractors could be surveyed as to why many remain hesitant to embrace green building—is cost indeed the pr imary factor? There is a need for much more in-depth financial analys is of the costs associated with sustainable construction strictly from a contractor’s perspective. Furthermore, contractors experienced in green building are as yet an underut ilized resource source. Namely, what is the learning curve associated with such practices, do costs decr ease as experience levels increase, and are they recognizing the benefits as proposed in this study’s arguments? Surveying contractors whom are currently practicing sustainability has numerous practical implications. A sustainable construction re source guide specifical ly for commercial contractors could be developed, for example. Also, in terms of worker health, the need exists for further studies on the health e ffects of the use of conventional building materials.

PAGE 59

52 APPENDIX LIST OF ARGUMENTS Why should a contractor build green? It’s the right thing to do. Green building guidelines are becoming legal mandates. Sustainability enha nces profitability. Contractors who build green increase their market share. Green buildings often cost the same or less than conventional buildings. Builders can help develop th e economies of scale for green building materials. Building sustainably goes hand-in-hand with design-build. Green building government incentives can aid successful project delivery. Constructing green buildings can improve a company’s image. Forward-looking companies attract quality employees. Green practices reduce contractor liability. Green building can lower the health risks construction workers face.

PAGE 60

53 LIST OF REFERENCES Amatruda, John. 2004. “Defining LEED costs for the U.S. General Services Administration.” The cost and benefits of high performance buildings ed. Pamela Lippe. Earth Day New York: 2004. Pages 27-32. C&D Recycling 2004. “The price is right.” Construction & Demolition Recycling September/October 2004. Vol. 6: No. 5. Cassidy, Robert, ed. 2004. “Progr ess report on sustainability.” Building Design and Construction November 2004. http://www.bdcmag.com/newstrends/bdc04White_paper.pdf Last accessed: March 1, 2005. Clift, Michael. 2003. “Life-cycle co sting in the construction sector.” Industry and environment: sustainable building and construction United Nations Environment Programme. April – September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 37-40. Day, Christopher. 2000. “Ethical build ing in the everyday environment.” Ethics and the built environment ed. Warwick Fox. Routledge, London: 2000. Pages 127-138. Deane, Michael. 2004. “The CM’s ro le in achieving LEED certification.” The cost and benefits of high performance buildings ed. Pamela Lippe. Earth Day New York: 2004. Pages 114-116. DPR Construction. 2005. http://www.dprinc.com/proj ects/greenbuild_techexp.cfm Last accessed: February 15, 2005. Economist 2004. “The rise of the green building.” December 4, 2004. Vol. 373: No. 8404. ECONorthwest. 2001. “Green building: saving money and the environment; Opportunities for Louisiana.” ECONor thwest, Eugene, Oregon: October 2001. http://www.leanweb.org/qoflife/Green.pdf Last accessed: March 19, 2005. Edwards, Suzy, and Philip Bennett. 2 003. “Construction products and life-cycle thinking.” Industry and environment: sustai nable building and construction United Nations Environment Programme. April – September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 57-61. Elefante, Carl. 2005. “Greening historic pr eservation.” Lecture at the University of Florida. March 15, 2005.

PAGE 61

54 Engineering News-Record 8/13/2001. “County and project team reach settlement in toxic mold case.” Engineering News-Record. 11/15/2004. “Construction we ek: waste not want not.” EPA. 2002. “Building for the future.” WasteWise Update U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: February 2002. http://www.resourcesaver.org/file /toolmanager/CustomO16C45F53196.pdf Last accessed: February 15, 2005. Fortune 2004. “Green building.” Special adver tising section in part nership with U.S. Green Building Council. Fortune October 18, 2004. Fournier, Paul. 2004. “On-site waste se paration: Consigli Construction adopts C&D source separation policy for all of its jobs.” New England Construction October 25, 2004. Frangos, Alex. 2005. “Greener and higher.” Wall Street Journal January 31, 2005. Gillette, Jim. 2004. “Perspective: th e transformation of an industry.” Environmental Design + Construction December 2004/January 2005. Girardet, Herbert. 2000. “Greening urban society.” Ethics and the built environment ed. Warwick Fox. Routledge, London: 2000. Pages 15-30. Gonchar, Joann. 2004. “‘Green’ builders tackling sensitive te chnical issues.” Engineering News-Record November 22, 2004. Gonchar, Joann. 2005. Rapidly evolving rating system draws applause and criticism. Engineering News-Record February 28, 2005. Gottfried, David. 2003. “A blueprin t for green building economics.” Industry and environment: sustainable building and construction United Nations Environment Programme. April – September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 20-21. Johnston, David. 2000. Building green in a black and white world Home Builder Press, NAHB, Washington, D.C.: 2000. Karolides, Alexis. 2002. “Green building approaches.” Green building: project planning and cost estimating ed. Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges RSMeans, Kingston, Massachusetts: 2002. Pages 3-21. Kats, Gregory H. 2003. “Green building cost s and financial benef its.” Massachusetts Technology Collaborative: 2003. http://www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F3481.pdf Last accessed: February 20, 2005.

PAGE 62

55 Kibert, Charles, and M. Moretti. 2004. “Towar d an ethics of sustainability.” University of Florida. Unpublished manuscript. Kibert, Charles, Jan Sendzimir, and G. Bradley Guy. 2000. “Defining an ecology of construction.” Construction ecology: Nature as the basis for green buildings, ed. Kibert, Sendzimer, and Guy. Spon Press, New York: 2000. Pages 7-28. Leppert, Thomas C. 2004. “Why is Turner ta lking green?” Vital Speeches of the Day. November 15, 2004. Vol. 71: No. 3. Macaluso, Joseph. 2002. “Economic incentives and funding sources.” Green building: project planning and cost estimating, ed. Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges. RSMeans, Kingston, Massachusetts: 2002. Pages 197-207. Matthiessen, Lisa Fay, and Peter Morris. 2004. “Costing green: a comprehensive cost database and budgeting methodology.” Davis Langdon: July 2004. http://www.dladamson.com/Attachment %20Files/Research /costinggreen.pdf Last accessed: March 5, 2005. Muto, Sheila. 2004. “From recycled rubble come roads, parking lots, savings.” Wall Street Journal May 26, 2004. Pitts, Adrian. 2004. Planning and design strategies fo r sustainability and profit: Pragmatic sustainable design on building and urban scales Architectural Press, Boston: 2004. Post, Nadine M. 2004. “Rating system makes headway.” Engineering News-Record November 8, 2004. Pultar, Mustafa. 2000. “The concep tual basis of building ethics.” Ethics and the built environment ed. Warwick Fox. Routledge London: 2000. Pages 155-169. Riley, David, Kim Pexton, and Jennifer Drill ing. 2003. “Procurement of sustainable construction services in the United States: th e contractor's role in green buildings.” Industry and environment: sustai nable building and construction United Nations Environment Programme. April – Sept ember 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 66-69. Salkever, Alex. 2003. “Ganging up on mold.” Business Week June 30, 2003. Skanska. 2005. Skanska code of conduct. http://www.skanska.com/files/documents/pdf/code_of_conduct.pdf Last accessed: February 19, 2005. Solomon, Nancy B. 2004. “Mold may not be a severe health menace, but it is still a complex problem.” Architectural Record September 2004. Vol. 192: No. 9.

PAGE 63

56 Strand, Sigrid Melby, and Sverre Fossdal. 2003. “Do standards and regulations supply the necessary incentive for sustainable building?” Industry and environment: sustainable buildi ng and construction United Nations Environment Programme. April – September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 33-36. Sustainable Development Task Force. 2003. “Drivers for sustainable construction.” Industry and environment: sustai nable building and construction United Nations Environment Programme. April – Sept ember 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 22-25. Tibbetts, John. 2002. “Building a safer industry.” Environmental Health Perspectives March 2002. Vol. 110: No. 3. UNEP. 2003. “Sustainable building a nd construction facts and figures.” Industry and environment: sustainable building and construction United Nations Environment Programme. April – September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3; p. 5-8. University of Buffalo. 2004. UB High Perfor mance Building Guidelines. University of Buffalo, State University of New Yor k. 2004. Last accessed: March 5, 2005. http://wings.buffalo.edu/ubgreen/leos/ubhpguidelines.pdf Wallbaum, Holger, and Claudia Buerkin. 2003. “Concepts and instruments for a sustainable construction sector.” Industry and environment: sustainable building and construction United Nations Environment Programme. April – September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 53-57. Walls & Ceilings 2003. “Lead by example: can waste gypsum really be recycled? One Canadian company proves it every da y.” March 2003. Vol. 66: No. 3. Wenblad, Axel. 2003. “Sustainable construc tion: a Swedish company's approach.” Industry and environment: sustai nable building and construction United Nations Environment Programme. April – Sept ember 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 70-71. Woolley, Tom. 2000. “Green buildi ng: establishing principles.” Ethics and the built environment ed. Warwick Fox. Routledge, London: 2000. Pages 44-56. Yudelson, Jerry. 2004. “Perspective: forecas ting market demand for green buildings 2004-2007.” Environmental Design + Construction December 2004/January 2005.

PAGE 64

57 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Leah Elida Griffin was born in Fort La uderdale on February 26, 1979, to Fred and Cindy Griffin. She and her younger sister, Amy, were raised in Davie, Florida. Their father passed away in 1990 after suffering a brain aneurysm. Leah graduated from Hollywood Hills High School before coming to the University of Florida in 1997. She earned her bachelor’s degree in journalism with highest honors in 2001. Later that year, she moved to Birmingham, Alabama, and worked as a copy editor at Cooking Light magazine. Leah is grateful to have chosen to retu rn to UF in January 2003 as a graduate student in the Rinker School of Building C onstruction. In the summer of 2004, Leah worked as a project engineer intern at Jame s B. Pirtle Construction in Davie, and also became a LEED Accredited Professional. U pon her graduation in April 2005, Leah plans to return to Pirtle to be gin her construction career.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0010620/00001

Material Information

Title: Articulating the Business and Ethical Arguments for Sustainable Construction
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0010620:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0010620/00001

Material Information

Title: Articulating the Business and Ethical Arguments for Sustainable Construction
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0010620:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












ARTICULATING THE BUSINESS AND ETHICAL ARGUMENTS FOR
SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION













By

LEAH GRIFFIN


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005

































Copyright 2005

by

Leah Griffin
































This thesis is dedicated to my friend Jim Sullivan-a small token for a big heart.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to thank a few important people that have helped me directly and indirectly

succeed in completing this thesis. Of course, this would not have been possible without

the guidance and support of my committee. Many thanks go to Dr. Charles Kibert, Dr.

Raymond Issa, and Dr. Leon Wetherington. Dr. Kibert inspired my interest in green

building two years ago. I hope I can make a green difference during my career in the

construction industry. Dr. Issa has been my biggest supporter since my first semester in

BCN, and I will be forever grateful for that. I cannot imagine the Rinker School without

Dr. Wetherington. He, too, has believed in me from the start. I will miss Doc's hugs.

The best part of this thesis has been making a new best friend, Bryce. I am

thankful to her and Roy for truly being my best friends during this final semester. And of

course, love goes to Luke.















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

ABSTRACT ............... ......................................... vii

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... .................................. ................... 1

2 M E TH O D O L O G Y .................................................................... .......................... 4

3 LITER A TU RE REV IEW .................................................. ............................... 5

G reen Building D efined................. ........................................................ ............... 6
Environmental and Ecological Impacts of Building ...............................................7
Green Building Today .................................................................. ....
B a rrie rs ...............................................................................1 2
C o sts ........................................ ...............................1 6
Contractors and Cost: Bidding Climate ....................................... ...............18
C o st R ecov ery .................. ...................................... ........... ................ 19
A Contractor's Role in Green Building................................................................... 20
M ore on M aterials............... ............ ..... ......................... .. .......... ......... ..............2 2
Life-Cycle Costs Applied to W hole Buildings .............. .. ... ............. ....................24
L E E D and the G reen C M ........................................ ............................................24

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................2 8

It's the right thing to do. ... ............ .................. ................... .. ........ .... 28
Green building guidelines are becoming legal mandates. ........................................31
Sustainability enhances profitability........................ ............................. 35
Contractors who build green increase their market share.................................. 37
Green buildings often cost the same or less than conventional buildings ................42
Builders can help develop the economies of scale for green building materials........42
Building sustainably goes hand-in-hand with design-build............................43
Green building government incentives can aid successful project delivery ..............44
Constructing green buildings can improve a company's image................................45
Forward-looking companies attract quality employees...........................................45
Green practices reduce contractor liability. .............. .................. ...............46
Green building can lower the health risks construction workers face......................48









5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 50

APPENDIX

L IST O F A R G U M E N T S ........................................................................ .....................52

W hy should a contractor build green? ............................................. ............... 52

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ....................................................................... ... ...................53

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ..................................................................... ..................57














Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction

ARTICULATING THE BUSINESS AND ETHICAL ARGUMENTS FOR
SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION


By

Leah Griffin

May 2005

Chair: Charles Kibert
Cochair: Raymond Issa
Major Department: Building Construction

Environmentally conscious building and development continue to infiltrate the

mainstream as more people begin to understand the tremendous impact that the built

environment has on nature. Building green can reduce the negative impacts of

construction related to land, air, and water pollution. Sustainable buildings offer

operating cost savings, and improved working and living conditions. These aspects

appeal to owners, occupants, developers, and architects. But what about builders?

Construction firms who adopt sustainable practices remain the exception. To many

contractors, green construction is viewed as an unnecessary, expensive add-on. Limited

data are available as to whether it is in a builder's best interest to construct sustainable

buildings. This research aims to determine the quantitative and qualitative benefits that

green building may offer contractors. The objective is to develop a comprehensive list of

compelling arguments in favor of builders embracing sustainable construction.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Natural systems and resources are being rapidly destroyed and depleted, and the

construction industry plays a substantial role in that. The creation, operation, and

disposal of the built environment dominates humanity's impact on the natural world

(Kibert et al. 2000). Especially during the past decade, worldwide movements have been

underway to address the environmental effects of construction. Green building is

breaking into the mainstream, and the construction industry is slowly being forced to

change its traditional practices-for ethical and economical reasons.

Buildings use 30 percent of U.S. energy and 40 percent of materials. Buildings

consist of 90 percent of all extracted materials, and 135 million tons of construction and

demolition waste is generated annually. Environmental concerns include land, water, and

air pollution. Green buildings aim to protect the earth's natural systems (Kibert et al.

2000). Construction, engineering, and design processes aim to reduce energy

consumption and expenditures, decrease environmental impact, and boost workers'

health and productivity without adding substantial up-front costs. They do so, for

example, by achieving significant reductions in energy consumption, using renewable

resources, and incorporating reused or recycled materials.

According to the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), a nonprofit organization

that is one of the foremost authorities on the subject, about 5 percent of new construction

starts in the United States are attempting to go green (Gonchar 2005). The USGBC's

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system certifies green









buildings at four levels. In addition to expanding beyond the U.S., the council is adapting

LEED to more types of projects. In November 2004, it released a version focusing on

operation and maintenance of existing buildings and another addressing tenant space

construction and renovation. The new versions join LEED-NC, which primarily is

geared to commercial and institutional new construction. Adaptations tailored to the core

and shell of speculative buildings, residential construction, and neighborhood

developments are in the works. The council itself has grown 1,000 percent in the past

four years. There now are 5,300 member organizations, which include corporations,

government agencies and nonprofits (Cassidy 2004).

The main objective of this research is to provide arguments in favor of contractors

embracing the sustainable building movement. A primary factor in doing so is that

building green may not always be a choice; about 35 municipalities have laws in place

requiring green building in new construction. Some area governments have outlawed

construction waste from entering their landfills. In 2004, San Francisco and Boston

announced requirements that city-owned projects achieve at least a silver LEED rating.

Other users include Chicago, Austin, Seattle, and Portland. Many companies,

government agencies, and academic institutions are aggressively adopting sustainable

building techniques. Federal, state, and local governments have built 40 percent of the

green buildings that are LEED certified. The U.S. Air Force, Navy, and most recently the

Army require all new domestic structures to incorporate sustainable standards. Federal

agencies that have adopted LEED include the General Services Administration and

Department of State. Corporations building green facilities include Starbucks, Ford, and

Toyota (Gonchar 2004).









The push for green offers builders access to a rapidly growing niche market.

Forward-thinking companies, like Turner Construction and Skanksa, are already

incorporating sustainability into their operations. They are among the companies that

have realized the economic value of building green, especially by adopting standardized

construction waste management systems. Diverting materials from landfills offers costs

savings in most cases, which can in turn increase a builder's profit. At the same time, the

perceived value of high performance buildings is increasing, while financial costs are

going down. Green schools and offices can cost an average of 0.5 to 6.5 percent more to

build; however, owner costs decrease for energy, water, operations, and maintenance

(Cassidy 2004). This offers a unique marketing opportunity to builders, because owners

will turn to contractors experienced in green building. Accordingly, this research intends

to illustrate it is in a builder's best interest financially to embrace sustainability.














CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY

An extensive literature review forms the basis for this research analysis. Current

practices and case studies of sustainable building projects were considered and

incorporated, as well as the most recent cost analysis studies available. The hypothesis

was that constructing high-performance sustainable buildings is in a builder's best

interest, ethically and economically. Data to support this hypothesis exists, but it has not

been compiled and considered from the perspective of a construction management

organization. The objective of the research was to develop a comprehensive list of the

reasons builders should practice sustainability, and this objective has been realized. It is

intended for practical use primarily by commercial contractors. Barriers to green

building from a builder's perspective also were analyzed.

Limitations included the finite extent of the research. Ample data was collected to

support the hypothesis, but the information available is extensive and ever-changing.

Also, since the focus was placed primarily upon commercial builders, the analysis is

limited accordingly; however, residential construction was not specifically excluded and

is referenced when appropriate.














CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW

The construction industry's overall impact on people and society cannot be

overestimated. People spend an average 90 percent of each day-working and

sleeping-in the built environment. By providing housing and infrastructure, the

industry makes a vital contribution to the social and economical development of every

country (Wallbaum and Buerkin 2003). The economical impact and influence of the

construction industry is enormous. According to the International Council for Research

and Innovation in Building and Construction, one dollar spent on construction may

generate up to three dollars of economic activity in other sectors (UNEP 2003). In North

America alone, the design and construction market is a $358 billion industry responsible

for building 20,000 commercial, industrial, institutional, and multifamily structures

annually (Cassidy 2004). Construction represents 12 percent of the GDP in the United

States (UNEP 2003).

Having such an impact has its consequences, though. The construction industry is

one of the largest destroyers of the natural environment (Woolley 2000). It is a major

consumer of non-renewable resources, produces substantial waste, pollutes air and water,

and contributes to land dereliction (Wallbaum and Buerkin 2003). "Buildings and the

construction industry make the largest contribution to CO2 emissions and pollution and

waste in general, yet the general public fail to recognize the impact that buildings and

building materials have on our health and the environment" (Woolley 2000).









Industry leaders, however, have begun to not only recognize this impact but take

responsibility for it as well. There is much potential-and much realized at that-for the

construction industry to cause less damage. As an example, it is estimated that 90

percent of demolition and construction debris can be reused or recycling (Karolides

2002). As potentially the primary contributor to achieving sustainable development, the

industry should accept its responsibility to minimize negative environmental and social

impacts and maximize positive contributions (Sustainable Development Task Force

2003).

Green Building Defined

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development defined

sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Strand and

Fossdal 2003). A primary goal of sustainability is to reduce humanity's environmental or

ecological footprint on the planet. Canadian economist William Rees defines the

ecological footprint of cities as the land required to supply them with food and timber

products, and to absorb their CO2 output (Girardet 2000).

Especially in the last decade, a push toward the development of sustainable

construction industry practices has given rise to the green building movement. Green

buildings offer the same quality or performance, if not better, but have a less negative

impact on the environment. Most green building practices fall into seven basic

categories: energy saving, water saving, land saving, stormwater runoff-reducing,

material conservation, and pollution reduction (ECONorthwest 2001). Traditionally,

attempts to minimize construction costs lead to higher energy bills and wasted materials.

A green building uses an average of 30 percent less energy than a conventional building,









the primary factor in decreasing operating costs (Economist 2004). What makes a

building green? Material waste generated during construction is reduced and/or recycled.

Materials are reused. Energy efficiency is improved, perhaps by relying on the use of

natural light and ventilation or solar power. Less water is used, or a rainwater harvesting

system is installed to ensure wiser use.

"Measures being taken to make buildings and construction more sustainable rely

increasingly on life-cycle approaches. Life-cycle thinking in the construction sector takes

account of every stage-from a structure's conception to the end of its service life, and

from raw material extraction to a building's demolition or dismantling. It also takes

account of all actors, from land-use planners and property developers through building

owners and users to salvage firms and landfill operators" (UNEP 2003). The result:

buildings that ensure occupant health and are more resource and cost efficient.

Environmental and Ecological Impacts of Building

Buildings have major environmental costs. If current expansion patterns continue,

the built environment will destroy or disturb natural habitats and wildlife on more than 70

percent of the Earth's land by 2032 (UNEP 2003). Around one-third of the energy used

by humans is related to buildings and their utilization, although a considerable proportion

of this energy use could be avoided. Climate change associated with greenhouse gas

emissions to the atmosphere is a significant, if not the most significant, threat to the

global environment. The primary source of these emissions is the use of fossil fuels

(Wenblad 2003). The built environment accounts for as much as 40 percent of the

world's greenhouse gas emissions. The carbon dioxide emissions of U.S. buildings alone

are second only to those of China (Kats 2003).









Cement production in particular-through burning of fossil fuels and breakdown of

raw materials-impacts global warming. If current patterns continue, carbon dioxide

emissions from the cement industry will quadruple by 2050. Virtually all the cement

industry's output is used for construction, especially for concrete. Twice as much

concrete is used worldwide than the total of all other building materials combined (UNEP

2003).

Construction activities are estimated to consume about half of the resources

humans take from nature (UNEP 2003). The construction industry is also estimated to

generate 50 percent of total waste (Edwards and Bennett 2003). And half of all CFC and

HCFC use is building related. "These figures relate to what buildings are built of, and

how we heat, cool, light and use them. If we add all the things we put into buildings, and

use in and near buildings (which is nearly everything we buy) and the travel between

buildings, the figures go up. Once we become aware of the magnitude of the statistics, it

becomes obvious that everything we build has major environmental repercussions" (Day

2000).

In the United States, as per the Department of Energy, buildings consume 39

percent of the energy and 70 percent of the electricity (Cassidy 2004). According to the

U.S. Geological Survey, construction accounts for 60 percent of all materials used in the

U.S. for purposes other than food and fuel (EPA 2002). Meanwhile, construction debris

accounts for 30 percent of all landfill material in the U.S. (Cassidy 2004). More than 136

million tons of building debris from construction and demolition sites is generated every

year in the U.S., making it the single largest source in the waste stream. According to

EPA figures, a typical new commercial building generates an average of 3.9 pounds of









waste per square foot of building area. For example, a new 50,000-square-foot

building-the average size of a college residence hall-produces almost 100 tons of

waste. Demolition sites produce even more waste-an average of 155 pounds per square

foot of commercial building area. For a 50,000-square-foot building, that translates to

about 4,000 tons of waste (C&D Recycling 2004).

Construction-related pollution is not always readily apparent. "In addition to

immediate emissions of air and water pollutants, dust and noise during construction,

pollutant concentrations within buildings (stemming from finishes, paints, backing

materials, and other components) can be over twice as high-in some cases as much as

100 times as high-as concentrations outside" (UNEP 2003). Hazardous substances used

in construction can endanger both construction workers and building occupants.

Green Building Today

Sustainable design has its roots in the energy conservation movement of the 1970s

and 1980s, when energy costs rose alongside concern for the environment and 'sick

building syndrome' (Economist 2004; ECONorthwest 2001). In 1993, 250 founding

members founded the nonprofit U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) to promote

environmentally responsible buildings. Today, the USGBC represents the nation's

leading authority and voice of green building. A coalition of industry leaders, the council

has grown to more than 5,300 member companies and organizations that include builders,

architects, universities, and government agencies.

Five years ago, the council introduced its Leadership in Energy and Environmental

Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. LEED has become widely accepted as

the standard measurement of sustainable building, and it has been adopted nationwide by

various federal agencies, state and local governments, and private companies. LEED is a









feature-oriented rating system through which credits are awarded to certify green

buildings at four levels: Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. The credits cover six

categories: site selection; water efficiency; energy and atmosphere; materials and

resources; indoor environmental quality; and innovation and design. A Gold building is

estimated to have reduced its environmental impact by 50 percent in comparison to a

conventional building of similar size; a Platinum building, by more than 70 percent

(Economist 2004).

As of February 2005, more than 1,700 projects in 50 states were in the process of

seeking LEED certification, representing about 5 percent of new construction starts.

Another 167 buildings are LEED certified (Gonchar 2005). The USGBC is in the

process of adapting LEED to more types of projects. In November 2004, it released a

version focusing on operation and maintenance of existing buildings and another

addressing tenant space construction and renovation. The new versions join LEED-NC,

which primarily is geared to commercial and institutional new construction. Adaptations

tailored to the core and shell of speculative buildings, residential construction, and

neighborhood developments are in the works (Cassidy 2004).

Governments have created most of the initial demand for sustainable buildings.

Federal, state, and local governments have built 40 percent of the buildings that are

LEED certified (Gonchar 2004). "The cost of funds for government is low, and the time

horizon for the average life of a public building is long. Buildings are typically owned,

financed, operated and occupied by a governmental agency. Wearing these multiple hats

makes it easier for governmental owners to design buildings to maximize their

performance and occupant health on a long-term perspective" (Gottfried 2003).









About 35 U.S. municipalities have laws in place requiring green building in new

construction. Some area governments have outlawed construction waste from entering

their landfills. In 2004, San Francisco and Boston announced requirements that city-

owned projects achieve at least a silver LEED rating. Other users include Chicago,

Austin, Seattle, and Portland. In the military, the Air Force and Navy require all

domestic structures be green. Federal agencies that have adopted LEED include the

General Services Administration and Department of State (Gonchar 2004). Green

building has been slowly gaining momentum in the private sector; Ford, Toyota, and

Wal-Mart have constructed green buildings (Gottfried 2003). There is now sufficient

real-world cost-benefit analysis available to verify the financial advantages of sustainable

building, and as a result, investors are increasingly recognizing the positive economic

outcomes of sustainability (SDTF 2003).

According to the EPA, building tenants can save 50 cents per square foot each year

through no-cost, environmentally responsible operating and management practices

(Fortune 2004). Building commissioning-which serves as a check to ensure building

systems function as designed-can reduce building operating costs for heating, cooling,

and ventilation as much as 40 percent, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory (Karolides 2002). Other economic benefits can include improved property

values and rental returns, and the utilization of various national, state, and local green

building incentive programs.

The USGBC advocates that green building results in a triple bottom line-offering

environmental, social, and quantifiable financial benefits. Using less energy and water

lessens both operating costs and a building's environmental impact. From a people









perspective, occupant health and productivity improve. Evidence shows that productivity

rises and absenteeism falls in well-designed sustainable buildings (Pitts 2004). Students

in naturally lit classrooms perform up to 20 percent better (Economist 2004). And at

PNC Financial Services Group's green headquarters in Pittsburgh, sustainable

improvements have helped lift personnel retention rates to 50 percent above those at a

conventional workplace facility (Fortune 2004).

Barriers

The barriers to sustainable building specific to a contractor are numerous. A

definite learning curve is involved. "A lot of green building is predicated on making

smarter decisions at every step" (Fortune 2004). Green building requires more planning

by the entire project team-builders, architects, engineers, and developers (Economist

2004). For contractors new to LEED, the waste management requirements especially can

seem daunting. Reusing, salvaging, and recycling materials requires additional planning;

the contractor needs to designate staging and storage locations, allot time for sorting

materials, find buyers or recycling centers, and possibly deliver materials to buyers

(Karolides 2002). And all this must be carefully documented to meet LEED certification

requirements. How much additional time and effort will be required at each project

phase for both planning and documentation depends on the experience of the project

team. A Seattle-area contractor spent an estimated 400 hours documenting its first LEED

project. But now, working on its third registered building, the contractor has cut the

hours needed significantly-about 20 to 40 preconstruction hours, five hours a week

during construction, and another 20 to 30 to prepare final submissions (Gonchar 2005).

In terms of costs, there are perceptions of higher costs and actual higher costs

involved in sustainable construction. "When presented with unfamiliar materials in









project specifications, the first reaction of construction organizations is suspicion-of

potentially higher costs, more complex or unfamiliar jobsite handling and construction

methods, and lower productivity. If they are given the opportunity to investigate the true

impact of a new material on a project, construction organizations can more accurately

determine whether the material is best suited to the project and provide realistic costing

information, rather than prices inflated due to undefined potential risks" (Riley et al.

2003).

Some contractors have realized costs savings by incorporating recycling into their

waste policies. However, the feasibility of recycling varies greatly according to project

location. In most areas of the United States it is cheaper to landfill construction waste

than it is to recycle it; profit margins at the end of the recycling process remain low for

many materials. The National Demolition Association identifies 14 recyclable building

components. Of those, only three-metals, aggregates, and wood-have current

economic value in the United States (Cassidy 2004). The market for recycled-content

products is not fully developed. The infrastructure for recycling construction waste is in

the very early stages of development as well, and even that is in limited areas (Riley et al.

2003). The major single limitation for recycling programs remains the nature of the local

recycling infrastructure (Cassidy 2004).

Another cost deterrent: many green building products still cost more than their

traditional counterparts. Most producers of green products take advantage of a niche

market, charging a value-added premium for materials with a green label. Americans pay

more for organic food, shouldn't the same hold true for sustainable lumber? (Woolley

2000). Choosing green products as replacements involves research; if it difficult to find









and price green substitutions, builders will continue to use what they are accustomed to

using (Johnston 2000).

Building green requires a more holistic approach. For contractors to recognize this,

they must move past the common belief that green building is just a fad. Too much is at

stake for it to be simply a fad (Economist 2004). According to Wall Street Journal, green

is proving itself a potent trend, and rising energy prices will continue to fuel the

movement (Frangos 2005). In an industry resistant to any type of change, some believe

that environmental issues will be ignored by builders unless they must adhere to

applicable legislation. Competition could also help bring about the appropriate changes

in the industry's psychology and infrastructure. "If construction organizations are to

maximize their contributions to green building projects, they must shift their paradigm-

away from a fragmented and bid package perspective toward a more holistic and

integrated view of projects. The inextricable relationships between water, site, energy

and indoor environmental quality issues must be woven into estimating and planning

processes, subcontractor education and overall business practices. Some organizations

will make this shift voluntarily. Others will only do it when forced by competition"

(Riley et al. 2003).

The fragmentation of the construction industry limits widespread acceptance and

utilization of sustainable practices on several levels. For one, it slows adoption patterns

of new methods. Successful green building requires more collaboration among project

team members, but traditionally, designers, architects, engineers, developers, and builders

each make decisions that serve their own interests-regardless of whether this creates

inefficiencies overall (Economist 2004). What is considered desirable during









construction may be viewed quite differently by owner and designer (Pultar 2000).

According to a Pennsylvania State University study, the potential of builders to enhance

green projects can only be fully realized if they are part of the team during the design

stage. "Broad change is hindered by the fact that green building efforts are largely being

led by the design profession-the segment of the industry which is still most resistant to

integrated teams that include the construction organizations. Perceived as a threat to the

design process, many design professionals are most comfortable when contractors are

relegated to a low-price commodity on a building project rather than a valuable service

provider to a project team" (Riley et al. 2003).

The study also found that many design and construction professionals believe a

contractor's green contribution is limited tojobsite recycling. Implementing ajobsite

recycling plan just because it is mandated is a "one-dimensional approach to

sustainability." That being said, a contractor's role beyond jobsite recycling is not

always well defined, even on LEED projects. "More guidance is needed in defining the

contracting methods, organizational structures and services that enable green buildings.

For example, the LEED system recognizes inclusion of a LEED accredited professional

but does little to encourage integrated teams formed through design-build contracting and

design-assist services by construction firms" (Riley et al. 2003).

For a contractor to be successful in green building, all employees and trades people

need to buy-in to the benefits of sustainability and actively contribute. This requires

effort, education, and leadership-contractors cannot just tell their subcontractors to build

green and expect full cooperation (Johnston 2000).









Costs

There are numerous examples of green buildings not costing more. And over the

past two years, several thorough studies have been completed to attempt to quantify any

cost differences between high performance and conventional buildings. Costing Green:

A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting Methodology (July 2004) by Lisa Fay

Matthiessen and Peter Morris of Davis Langdon Adamson, a cost consulting company, is

one such study (Matthiessen and Morris 2004).

The researchers compared the cost of 45 buildings seeking LEED certification

against 93 similar, non-LEED-seeking buildings of comparable design and construction.

They randomly selected 10 non-LEED buildings from those 93, then created a LEED

checklist for each of those 10 to determine which, if any, credits each project would

qualify for with its current design. The analysis concluded that the non-LEED projects

achieved 15 to 25 credits with their established designs; one project was estimated to

qualify for 29-enough for a LEED Certified rating. More in-depth analysis of the non-

LEED and LEED buildings suggested that an average of about 12 credits could be earned

without any design changes-"due simply to the building's location, program, or

requirements of the owner or local codes." Up to 18 additional credits could be earned

with minimal effort at little or no added cost (Matthiessen and Morris 2004).

Consequently, the researchers found that many green projects achieve their

sustainable goals without additional funding, suggesting that the cost per square foot for

LEED buildings falls into the existing range of costs for buildings of similar program

type. The researchers draw four main conclusions:

* There is a very large variation in costs of buildings, even within the same building
program category.









* Cost differences between buildings are due primarily to program type.

* There are low-cost and high-cost green buildings.

* There are low-cost and high-cost non-green buildings.

Therefore, the researchers assert, buildings cannot be compared simply by

averaging budgets because normal variations between buildings are significantly large.

"There is no 'one size fits all' answer to the question of the cost of green....Comparing

the average cost per square foot for one set of buildings to another does not provide any

meaningful data for any individual project to assess what-if any-cost impact there

might be for incorporating LEED and sustainable design" (Matthiessen and Morris 2004).

Assessment of green building costs, according to the research, is more accurate if

made on a project-specific basis. Taking into consideration the project's distinct goals

and circumstances will reveal the impacts of the many factors that affect green building

cost variations. The feasibility and cost impacts of numerous LEED credits can vary

substantially, for better or worse, by how experienced the members of the design and

construction teams are with sustainable building. Was the team reluctant to adopt

established green methods? To effectively budget for sustainable buildings, high-

performance features must not be seen as upgrades or additions that require additional

costs. "Simply choosing to add a premium to a budget for a non-green building will not

give any meaningful reflection of the cost for that building to meet its green goals. The

first question in budgeting should not be 'How much more will it cost?', but 'How will

we do this?'" Establishing project goals during the programming stage and evaluating

conformance at every stage of design and construction is critical to effective cost control

(Matthiessen and Morris 2004).









Contractors and Cost: Bidding Climate

Contractors, as bidders, can have a substantial impact on the cost of sustainable

projects. The researchers in the Davis Langdon study refer to the bidding climate as

"perhaps the most significant single factor in the cost of sustainable design."

Specifically, how do builders respond to the green requirements in a contract? Are they

even willing to bid? Measurable direct costs of sustainable building for a contractor can

include the cost of material credits documentation, implementing construction indoor air

quality credits, and schedule impacts of building flush-out (Matthiessen and Morris

2004).

However, sustainable requirements perceived as risky by the builder can have a

much more substantial impact on bids than direct costs. Some construction contracts

specifically mandate that the contractor ensure the project achieves LEED-thereby

making the contractor obligated to and responsible for achieving the certification. This

can introduce a 'green premium' into the bid if the builder is unfamiliar with green

building. "Firstly bidders are inclined to add contingencies or risk premiums to cover the

perceived risk; secondly, the bid pool diminishes, leading to poorer competition and

higher bid prices." The green premium will exist until contractors become more familiar

with sustainable building and competition increases (Matthiessen and Morris 2004).

To lessen the green premium, the researchers suggest designers write reasonable

specifications and contracts and treat the contractor as a collaborator-"possibly even

including training and bonuses for compliance, rather than transferring risks and applying

penalties for failure." An example: a contract that stipulates that the contractor shall

"deliver a finished work product that assists the owner in achieving a LEED green









building rating." In this case, the builder may be less inclined to seek compensation for

perceived risks (Matthiessen and Morris 2004).

The amount of work available in a particular area must also be considered. If there

is sufficient work available, contractors are less likely to bid and less motivated to bid

low on work they consider unfamiliar and therefore more difficult (Matthiessen and

Morris 2004).

Cost Recovery

If there is an increase in construction costs to go green versus conventional

building, those costs are usually recovered quickly. According to the USGBC, the

average 2 percent increase in construction costs required to reach LEED Gold typically

pays for itself via lower operating costs within two years. The increase in productivity of

occupants in green buildings also helps recover costs. Absenteeism fell 15 percent after

engineering firm Lockheed Martin moved 2,500 employees into a green building in

Sunnyvale, California; the productivity increase paid for the building's higher upfront

costs within a year. Stores with skylights have seen sales increase as much as 15 percent.

And from a building lifetime perspective, green buildings are not as apt to lead to 'sick

building' lawsuits for the owners (Economist 2004).

The first concern of almost any owner considering green building is what the

project will cost. Hence, the most common approach to choosing LEED points is on a

first-cost basis by which the least expensive points are pursued to achieve the desired

certification level. "Traditionally, construction dollars (first costs) are budgeted and

spent with little regard for future operating expenses. In fact, they should be linked.

When life-cycle costs are taken into account, it becomes apparent that lower operating

costs can recoup higher first costs in a reasonable time frame, often in one or two years.









When considered as an investment rather than an expense, an increased first cost with a

five-year payback period is a 20 percent ROI" (Deane 2004).

A greater return on the expenses of new construction plays a major role in that

economics is now driving the market toward sustainable design. Also contributing: green

materials and techniques have begun to fall in price (Economist 2004). As the market

continues to shift, the financial benefits associated with building sustainably should

increase. Home Depot and other building suppliers already supply some green-certified

building materials. "When builders use environmentally harmful materials and practices,

somebody eventually has to pick up the tab. As the tab gets larger, society will press for

greater use of green building practices" (ECONorthwest 2001).

A Contractor's Role in Green Building

Researchers at Pennsylvania State University and the Partnership for Achieving

Construction Excellence conducted a study on the role of construction organizations in

the successful delivery of sustainable buildings. Their objectives were to identify the

value of a contractor on such projects and to develop proactive techniques for

constructors to position themselves as valued contributors. The study was based on case

studies of more than 20 green building projects in the United States and interviews with

more than 40 construction professionals (Riley et al. 2003).

"Successful sustainable building design and construction processes are
characterized as collaborative and interdisciplinary. In many cases, however,
procurement of construction services is not perceived as one of the necessary steps
in the design and delivery of a sustainable building project. Contractors are often
viewed merely as brokers of construction services, who simply follow drawings
and specifications and are able to contribute to sustainable building projects only
through job-site recycling plans. The most significant ways in which construction
firms can contribute include the most obvious, such as estimating and jobsite
recycling. Nevertheless, case studies show clearly that construction firms, given
the opportunity, have the potential to make useful contributions to all phases of
green building projects including the areas of material selection, indoor air quality









management, and the vast need to educate specialty contractors about green
building methodologies and processes." (Riley et al. 2003)

Though the researchers expect perceptions of the role of contractors in green

project delivery to broaden as the industry gains experience, they highlight four key areas

of contribution for constructors involved in green building: estimating, green building

materials, waste minimization and recycling, and indoor air quality management.

Estimating: Sustainable project features should be selected based on the owner's

budget and priorities as well as up-to-date cost information. Preconstruction estimates

calculated by the contractor are vital in providing the accurate cost information needed to

make design decisions.

Green building materials: Designers are not the only ones that can impact green

building material selection; a variety of products used by general and specialty

contractors should be selected using the same environmental standards applied to finish

materials. Such items include caulk, joint sealants, drywall compounds, fireproofing

materials, adhesives, duct cement and insulation. Contractors' knowledge can aid in this

effort-and beyond. For instance, Sellen Construction of Seattle was among the first to

suggest that money saved by diverting construction waste from landfills should be

incorporated in the project budget to offset any higher costs of using recycled content

materials. This enables owners to choose recycled materials at no net cost increase, and

drives the market for such materials.

Waste minimization and recycling: Of the contractors experienced injobsite

recycling, many have incorporated into company policy based on their success.

"Through experience and alliances with waste haulers, many construction firms have

become quite adept at recycling and the related jobsite psychology and infrastructure









needed to fully implement a waste minimization and jobsite recycling plan. Often these

company-based policies result in diversion rates of up to 80 percent, far in excess of a

mandated recycling program" (Riley et al. 2003).

Indoor air quality management: Construction activities have a direct impact on

indoor air quality, which has a direct impact on the health of a building. To protect

indoor air quality, contractors protect HVAC systems from pollutants, incorporate

building purges into their construction schedules, and sequence work to minimize

material exposure to potential contamination. Making sure certain materials stay dry, for

example, can help prevent mold growth (Riley et al. 2003).

More on Materials

How much of an impact do building materials have on the environment? Well,

buildings consist of 90 percent of all extracted materials (Kibert et al. 2002). "Most

building materials today are synthetic and are derived either from the petrochemicals

industry or are harvested from natural sources that cannot be replaced. Even small

reductions in the vast consumption of resources would significantly reduce our negative

impact on the planet" (Woolley 2000).

Many paints and finishes contain volatile organic compounds that can be harmful

to construction workers and building occupants. And if a material pollutes the inside of a

building, it is likely to pollute the environment (Woolley 2000). With LEED and other

green labels beginning to enter the mainstream, choosing environmentally responsible

construction products is becoming more viable. The source and manufacture of a

material must be considered to evaluate its sustainability, as there are distinct differences

in the nature of materials and extraction and manufacturing technologies. Health and

safety concerns for workers involved in the product's manufacture or installation should









also be evaluated (Edwards and Bennett 2003). "Many architects specify tropical

hardwoods with little concern about where they come from, or how the forests in Third

World countries are being managed. To change such a policy requires a principled

decision by client, builder and specifier and a certain amount of openness from the

supplier" (Woolley 2000).

An environmentally responsible building features products that are appropriate for

the specific design and site. Still, project teams must be careful to not view the use of

green materials as a single solution to sustainability. "After all, timber accredited by the

Forest Stewardship Council produces just as much methane in landfills as uncertified

timber. The key to greener material use is to use the material in a way that changes the

"one-way trip" mentality" (Edwards and Bennett 2003).

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) of a product considers how the product is produced,

how it is used, and what occurs when its 'first life' is over-can it be designed for

deconstruction? Using the manufacture and use of a brick wall as an example, LCA

would factor the environmental impacts associated with:

* Extraction and transport of clay to the brickworks;
* Manufacture and transport of ancillary materials;
* Extraction and distribution of natural gas for the brick kiln;
* Mining and transport of fuels to generate electricity for use in the factory;
* Production and transport of raw materials for packaging;
* Manufacture and transport of packaging for bricks;
* Manufacture of brick in the brickworks;
* Transport of bricks to the building site;
* Extraction of sand and production of cement for the mortar;
* Building of the brick wall;
* Maintenance of the wall, such as painting or repointing;
* Demolition of the wall;
* The fate of the products after demolition
(Edwards and Bennett 2003)









Life-Cycle Costs Applied to Whole Buildings

"Green building is an economic responsibility to...investors, and a social one to

society. It is rooted in the definition of value, quality, and performance over the life of

the asset" (Gottfried 2003). Design and construction quality has great potential to reduce

life-cycle costs, including costs-in-use and eventual disposal of a structure. The

International Organization for Standardization defines life-cycle costing (LCC) as "the

total cost of a building or its parts throughout its life, including the costs of planning,

design, acquisition, operations, maintenance and disposal, less any residual value." LCC

can be used to determine whether higher initial costs are justified by lower future costs,

seeking to optimize life performance of a building. By optimizing performance, future

costs and risks are reduced. LCC of a building considers the following: functional design

in regard to building purpose; complete design of the structure; detailed design of each

assembly and component; the construction process; lifetime maintenance; ultimate

disposal; and project costs, including construction and life-cycle costs (Clift 2003).

LEED and the Green CM

Of the 69 possible LEED credits, more than a dozen prerequisites and credits

depend directly or indirectly on the construction manager. Those dependent on the

builder include: prerequisites Erosion and Sediment Control and Basic Commissioning;

Additional Commissioning (1 credit); Indoor Air Quality During Construction and Pre-

occupancy (2 credits); Low-emitting Materials (4 credits); Recycled Content, Local and

Regional Sources, Rapidly Renewable Materials, and FSC-certified Wood (6 credits).

The construction organization also can provide the project with a LEED Accredited

Professional for 1 point, and be responsible for or help contribute to one or more of the

four possible innovation credits (Deane 2004). The city of Portland, Oregon, for









example, has proposed a new innovation point for green building projects that use clean-

emission, low-sulfur diesel-powered construction equipment (Cassidy 2004).

A construction manager (CM) experienced in sustainable building-a 'green

CM'-can make designing and building a LEED project much easier and less expensive.

For instance, a green CM has the ability to evaluate all costs for various construction

options-first costs, life cycle costs, and O&M costs-in order to help the owner

comprehend the real costs and benefits of sustainability to prioritize LEED points based

on value over time (Deane 2004). The CM can assist the design team with pricing

methods that acknowledge the interlinked benefits of systems, or help the project team

seek cost savings in a project's less crucial areas to facilitate the higher initial cost of

energy-efficient building systems and green materials (Riley et al. 2003). A CM

knowing the current market costs and availability of green materials also assists the

project team in making cost-effective choices (Deane 2004).

A green CM can contribute in the following ways at the various stages of LEED

project construction:

Pre-construction: Involving the CM in the design process ensures accurate cost

estimates and allows the CM to advise the project team on the constructability of various

options. The CM can identify products with recycled content and materials harvested or

manufactured regionally. The CM can also evaluate MEP specifications for energy and

water usage and their potential impact on indoor environmental quality (Deane 2004).

Procurement: The CM should meet with all bidders to ensure they fully

understand their trade's green requirements and the sustainability goals of the project

overall. Scopes of work can be developed that specifically call out LEED requirements









as applicable to each trade, such as documentation and submittal requirements. A green

CM can assist subcontractors with procurement and documentation requirements, helping

keep their costs down and passing savings on to the owner. Subcontractors

understanding their role and responsibilities can result in accurate, competitive bids and

aid in project execution later. A green CM may also be able to provide a list of

subcontractors that likewise offer experience in green building. "The CM will negotiate

the best price, making sure it is not inflated with any 'fear factor' mark-up and will stop

bidders from artificially inflating the cost of allegedly 'hard to find' green materials"

(Deane 2004).

Construction: Since LEED documentation is submitted to the USGBC for review

after construction is complete, the project team must keep in mind during design and

construction the critical need for accurate, complete documentation. The CM must

closely monitor submittals for compliance with LEED requirements to ensure that no

LEED points are lost due to carelessness. The CM should meet with the selected

subcontractors at regular intervals during the project-typically weekly-and until all

documentation is submitted to guarantee full compliance. The CM must diligently track

and report construction waste; by material category, percent recycled by material type,

and final destination of all waste. And O&M manuals must be submitted to assist in the

commissioning process. Construction activities need to be monitored to ensure

compliance with site management protocol, construction waste management, erosion and

sediment control, indoor air quality, and commissioning requirements (Deane 2004).

The USGBC reports that LEED Silver and Gold submissions are many times easier

to approve than those striving for Certified, perhaps because the project team is more









experienced in green building processes and has a better understanding of credit and

documentation requirements. "Less experienced teams aim lower because they have less

confidence in their knowledge and have a harder time with compliance and

documentation" (Deane 2004).

The CM may be responsible for directly managing the LEED submission process.

To help manage documentation, Bovis Lend Lease has developed spreadsheets that track

points and their status. Items are closed when all required documentation is complete,

and the matrix is included in the contractor's monthly reports to its project owners

(Deane 2004).














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

It's the right thing to do.

The majority of builders are unaware of, and therefore take no responsibility for,

the impact of buildings and construction activities on people and the environment.

Applying ethics to the built environment calls for those involved in construction to take

responsibility for their actions. As green building enters more markets, contractors face

increasing responsibility to learn the environmental impacts of the materials they use

(Riley et al. 2003). In general, humans threaten the planet's ecosystem by their

behaviors. With respect to the built environment, buildings and the methods used to

construct them threaten the health of both people and the environment (Kibert and

Moretti 2004). When contractors decide to adopt ethical business practices, they take

corporate responsibility-environmental and social-for their actions.

Ethics considers "the dynamics of people in their relationships with one another." It

addresses these relationships by providing rules of conduct generally agreed to govern

good behavior. "Sustainable development requires a more extensive set of ethical

principles to guide behavior because it questions relationships between generations."

Sustainable development is defined as meeting present needs without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their respective needs. The responsibility of one

generation to future generations, as well as the rights of those future generations, are

fundamental concepts of sustainable development. "The alteration or destruction of non-

human living and non-living systems affects the quality of life for future generations by









reducing their choices. The choices of a given population in time will directly affect the

quantity and quality of resources remaining for future inhabitants of Earth, impact the

environmental quality they will experience, and alter their experience of the physical

world" (Kibert and Moretti 2004). Builders play a very real role in these choices made,

especially in terms of resource use.

Several principles and facets of ethical theory may be applied to the built

environment. Distributional equity (or distributive justice) refers to the rights of all

people to an equal share of resources such as materials, land, energy, water, and

environmental quality. To ensure such equity in the future, responsibility is taken to

ensure economic systems are moral and just, and meet obligations to future populations.

Simarly, resource-based principles specify that all people should have access to the same

level of resources. Per the precautionary principle, caution should be exercised when one

makes a decision that may adversely affect human health or the environment-even if the

cause and effect relationships are not fully recognized or understood. For example, the

potentially catastrophic outcome of global warming should motivate people to cautiously

limit carbon greenhouse gas emissions. (Critics assert that the precautionary principle is

a threat to progress.) Like the precautionary principle, the reversibility principle is to be

considered prior to the adoption of a new technology. To respect the reversibility

principle, a decision is made based on whether the action can be undone by future

generations (Kibert and Moretti 2004).

As opposed to considering the overall impact of buildings, the potential health

hazards of various construction products and building materials in particular has ethical

implications. Laura Zeiher lists nearly 800 toxic substances common in building









materials in her book The Ecology of Architecture. Many health effects of building

materials are linked to asthma. "While little research has been carried out on the links

between indoor air quality and asthma, many of the toxic materials used in building cause

occupational asthma in the factories where they are produced." Many carcinogenic

materials, chemical pesticides, and toxic timber treatment chemicals are widely used in

buildings (Woolley 2000).

In the United States, gypsum waste accounts for 1 percent of the total waste stream.

As a percentage of total construction and demolition waste, it accounts for 15 percent.

As a general rule, 1 pound of gypsum board waste is generated for every square foot of

floor area. In 1984, the Greater Vancouver Regional District in British Columbia,

Canada, stopped accepting construction and demolition waste at its municipal landfills

after studies discovered that gypsum-board waste buried in landfills in high-rainfall areas,

including British Columbia, was producing noxious hydrogen sulfide gas. Dangerous to

humans at levels of greater than 1,000 parts per million, with a distinct odor similar to

that of rotten eggs, one landfill was found to have gas levels in excess of 5,000 PPM.

Hydrogen sulfide gas is produced when buried gypsum (calcium sulfate) waste combines

with anaerobic bacteria and organic matter, and, with high moisture levels present, sulfate

ions are released. The study found that the gas levels peaked between six and 15 years

after burial. And gypsum-board waste was not the only danger at the landfills; other

construction debris, such as metal, was emitting toxic leachates (Walls & Ceilings 2003).

Aside from construction materials disposed of in landfills, the materials that

comprise a building itself can affect the health of future occupants. Sick building

syndrome is the most well-known potential health risk associated with buildings. Though









sick building syndrome has its critics, it has been attributed to tighter buildings and poor

indoor air quality. Causes of poor indoor quality can include the following: off-gassing

of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from modem finish materials such as paints,

adhesives, carpet, and vinyl; poorly vented combustion appliances; use of equipment and

chemicals such as copiers and cleaning products; tobacco smoke; soil gases such as

radon, pesticides, and industrial site contaminants; molds and microbial organisms; and

intake of outdoor air contaminated with pollen, pollution, or building exhaust. Those

with compromised immune systems-children, elderly people, and people with allergies

and asthma-are at high risk for sick building health hazards. Typical symptoms include

headache, fatigue, congestion, coughing, sneezing, dizziness, and nausea (Karolides

2002).

Green building guidelines are becoming legal mandates.

In a growing number of areas across the United States, green building is already

mandated, leaving contractors no choice but to incorporate sustainable practices into their

construction activities. Voluntary guidelines are becoming legal requirements, and it

behooves contractors to adapt now.

The U.S. General Services Administration, which oversees the construction of all

non-military government facilities, requires that all new project and renovations must

reach LEED status. The GSA is one of the largest real estate owners and managers in the

United States; it owns or leases 350 million square feet in which almost one million

federal employees work. The GSA budgets 2.5 percent of the total cost for each

construction project to cover extra expenses involved in achieving green goals, which it

has found is more than offset by fuel efficiencies and other cost savings in a reasonable

amount of time (Fortune 2004).









Ten cities require LEED certification for their public buildings, including Chicago;

Portland, Oregon; Seattle; New York City; San Francisco; Boston; and Austin, Texas.

San Francisco's ordinance went into effect in 2004 and applies to all city-owned projects,

including renovations and additions. The city's long-term goal is to extend the ordinance

to cover private projects as well (Post 2004). As in San Francisco, the city of Boston

requires public projects to achieve at least a Silver LEED rating. In Arlington County,

Virginia, LEED certification is not mandated for private projects, but the county requires

all projects to complete a LEED scorecard in an effort to educate the building community

and keep track of progress. As designed, most private projects are eligible for 21 LEED

points; five more would qualify the project for certification (Cassidy 2004).

Regulations in the residential arena should also be noted. Boulder, Colorado, and

Frisco, Texas, are among several cities that have code-mandated residential green

standards; builders are required to show how their houses will earn certification before

the city will grant them building permits (Cassidy 2004).

Colleges and universities are also taking a proactive role in attempting to make

sustainable building the norm. For example, Rinker Hall at the University of Florida

achieved LEED gold; thanks to the project's success, all new buildings on the campus are

expected to meet or exceed LEED silver. The University of California Board of Regents

has adopted a university-wide policy for green building as well (Amatruda 2004).

For the most part, the above cities, schools, and agencies have issued ordinances or

guidelines to ensure sustainability in new construction. Some governments and agencies

are specifically incorporating their green standards into their respective building codes.

Such codes legally bind contractors to adhere to minimum acceptable standards intended









to protect public health, safety, and welfare (EPA 2002). The implication of green codes

from the contractor's perspective is obvious. Again, in such cases, building sustainably is

not an option but the required way of conducting business.

The city of Chicago is realigning its building code to accommodate sustainable

design, and is considering creating a green building code (Cassidy 2004). In Portland,

Oregon, building codes require the recycling of materials generated onsite for all projects

with costs exceeding $25,000, including construction and demolition. Santa Monica,

California, requires C&D waste management. The code also requires the specifying of

wood from sustainably managed sources and the use of low-emission finishes and

materials. The U.S. Navy's Sustainable Development Requirements for its family

housing include the following: "All Navy Family Housing Construction, Improvement,

Repair and Privatization projects shall incorporate Sustainable Development principles.

Application of these principles will reduce consumption of energy, and other non-

renewable resources; minimize waste of water and materials; prevent pollution and

associated environmental impacts and liabilities, increase energy and resource efficiency,

and improve human health. The result will reduce life-cycle operating costs for Navy

Families" (EPA 2002).

Construction waste in particular has been addressed in various areas across the

United States. Some landfills prohibit C&D waste, which has the potential to limit

contractors' options and increase their disposal costs. "As landfill becomes scarcer,

states and local jurisdictions are going to crack down on contractors to keep C&D waste

out of their dumps. Better for the construction industry to take care of the problem

voluntarily than to wait for the regulatory hammer to strike" (Cassidy 2004).









The EPA has urged every state to address C&D waste disposal; 38 have done so

(Cassidy 2004). Massachusetts is among the latter. Designed to take effect in 2005,

impending regulations in Massachusetts will ban asphalt, brick, concrete, wood, and

metal from landfills, and enforce an existing ban on corrugated cardboard. This is the

first such statewide ban. Other materials are to be added to the ban later; the

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection wants to divert 88 percent of all

non-municipal solid waste from landfills by the year 2010. One million tons of waste

goes from Massachusetts construction sites to landfills, accounting for approximately 25

percent of all Massachusetts landfill deposits and 95 percent of all non-municipal solid

wastes (Fournier 2004).

The state of California also has taken a proactive approach to recycling, going so

far as to mandate that every city or county recycle at least 50 percent of its waste. Under

a program begun in 2001, the city of San Jose, California, requires contractors to pay a

recycling deposit before they can be granted a building permit for most commercial and

residential projects. Commercial demolition projects, where the steel and concrete can be

easily recycled, are usually charged a lower deposit than a residential remodeling project,

since roofing, carpet, appliances, and other materials are not as easily recycled. The

deposits range from 10 cents to $1.16 a square foot, depending on the project type.

Contractors must prove they have diverted at least half of the construction and demolition

debris from their projects from landfills to get their deposits back. San Jose officials have

certified a dozen disposal facilities that have agreed to recycle at least 50 percent of the

construction material they receive. The program is exceeding its goal: San Jose diverted









about 62 percent of its waste through recycling and reuse of materials in 2002 (Muto

2004).

Sustainability enhances profitability.

Perhaps the most powerful example of sustainable practices increasing contractor

profits is that waste management plans can and are saving contractors money. Depending

on a contractor's experience level and the local recycling infrastructure, diverting waste

from landfills can offer significant cost savings. At Toronto's Pearson International

Airport, recycling was to save the Terminal 1 replacement project an estimated $664,000.

All concrete, asphalt, and metal products from the demolition of the 40-year-old,

156,077-sq-m terminal were recycled. The materials were being used as backfill for a

900-feet terminal pier and as subbase for a new apron, saving substantial trucking costs

(ENR 11/15/04). Consigli Construction Co. achieved an overall C&D diversion rate of

97 percent at a $6.9 million, 100,000-SF office/warehouse project in Massachusetts.

Source separation and recycling resulted in cost savings of nearly $260,000 (Cassidy

2004). In New Jersey, the average cost to recycle concrete rubble is $4.85 per ton vs. an

average of $75 per ton to haul and dispose of the material in a landfill. Similar cost

savings came from recycling asphalt ($5.70 per ton) and bricks and blocks ($5.49). Even

recycling wood at $45.63 per ton is economical compared to the $75 average

transportation and disposal cost, according to the state's Department of Environmental

Protection. Several of the concrete and asphalt recyclers included in the study did not

charge to dump clean, separated material at their sites, which is common practice in

competitive recycling markets (C&D Recycling 2004). Numerous similar examples exist.

In a testament to the increased use of sustainable jobsite waste management, the

Associated General Contractors released its Environmental Management System program









in 2004. The program, developed with the U.S. EPA, is designed to aid contractors in

establishing waste management plans that include C&D recycling; the 148-page manual

provides guidelines and templates (Cassidy 2004).

Many design and construction organizations new to green building are faced with

the need to rethink almost every aspect of their operations. What they discover in doing

so is that sustainable practices "create incentives to adopt logical and much needed

improvements to the traditional sequential design and construction process. In an

industry that has clung to traditions of dysfunctional business practices and adversarial

team relationships, many are beginning to realize that sustainable building projects might

be more appropriately referred to as sensible building projects." Sustainability

incorporates lean principles proven by manufacturers to reduce waste and inefficiencies.

Green and lean are closely aligned in maximizing total process efficiency and waste

reduction (Riley et al. 2003). When attention is paid to wastes and inefficiency, future

profitability is enhanced. Integrating sustainability can lead to better management

processes and increased productivity. It's smart growth: "Smart growth is a key phrase

frequently used to signify the types of development to be pursued in the future; it

indicates an approach which permits economic advancement, but in a more sustainable

way" (Pitts 2004).

In essence, synergies exist between sustainability and constructability. During the

renovation of the Pentagon, for example, the design-build project team not only

contributed to the sustainable design efforts, it observed significant savings in labor

productivity through waste minimization and simplified construction methods (Riley et

al. 2003). Overall, the process of rating buildings has revealed the inefficiency of









traditional buildings and construction methods. Traditional buildings can sometimes

waste up to 30 cents on the dollar, thanks to energy and materials use, water waste, and

inefficient subsystem choices (Economist 2004). Sustainable practices can equate to

resource and labor efficiency. And reduced inefficiencies can equate to increased profit

for a builder.

Builders can capitalize on a structure's operating savings. Sustainable buildings

offer lower future utility bills and other operating costs. Owners, therefore, can apply the

lifetime savings of the building to construction costs (ECONorthwest 2001). The

reduction in operating costs will pay for modest green upgrades in a relatively short

period of time (Pitts 2004). Owners that recognize these savings are willing to pay for

green upgrades, and larger contracts equate to greater profit potential. Market surveys

have found that if the expected utility savings are well documented, buyers will pay a

premium the benefits and amenities associated with high-performance buildings

(ECONorthwest 2001). (According to one survey of homebuyers, 55 percent were

willing to pay an additional $5,000 to $10,000 for green features.) (Macaluso 2002)

Green buildings are often more marketable in general. The market is demanding better

quality buildings, and future owners and tenants are prepared to pay a premium (Pitts

2004). "Many potential buyers or tenants will pay more for the cachet of being in a

building that can readily be identified as complying with the principles of green

construction" (ECONorthwest 2001).

Contractors who build green increase their market share.

Instead of waiting until forced to do so-by the market or government

regulations-contractors that adopt sustainable construction methods today can create a

competitive advantage. Already, owners seeking construction services on green projects









are differentiating between prospective builders based on their environmental policies

(Riley et al. 2003) and experience in green building. "Good business is a lot more than

building a good product at a reasonable price. You have to be different and better than

the competition in order to get buyers' attention.... Green builders are the change leaders

in the building industry. By keeping one eye to the future and the other on the bottom

line, you can learn how to do better business while creating a new market niche for your

company" (Johnston 2000).

Green building is not simply a fad; as owners continue to realize its benefits,

demand continues to increase. According to the USGBC, about 5 percent of all new

construction project starts in the United States have registered for LEED certification.

Considering the rating system was introduced only five years ago, the green building

industry has experienced tremendous growth. It is predicted that cumulative LEED

registration totals will approach 5,000 by the end of 2007. If more than 1,200 project

register for LEED certification in 2007, as per forecasted demand, that would represent

about 20 percent of the commercial and institutional building market (Yudelson 2004).

"The delivery of better performing buildings is an economic and environmental

necessity and an ever-increasing expectation. Within the decade any new building that is

not delivered green will likely be viewed as 'under-performing'" (University of Buffalo

2004). Numerous economic incentives, such as rebates and tax credits, already are

available to developers and owners. High-performance buildings maximize future value

while minimizing future risk, and this translates into demand. The improved design

quality of high-performance buildings is appreciated in a competitive market (Pitts 2004).









Conversely, contractors who assume that green buildings cost more may avoid

pursuing such work. And, if they do bid on a sustainable project, faced with unfamiliar

materials or construction methods, they tend to add a premium to their bid to cover the

learning curve and anticipated extra costs associated with additional time and planning

(Woolley 2000). But on a hard bid, this 'green premium' resulting from fear of the

unknown can mean the difference between being award the job or not. This potential loss

in market share creates a strong argument for builders to at least research current

sustainable construction practices so that if they are approached to bid or pursue green

work, they need not add a green premium.

Some of the largest contractors in the nation are leading the way. These

organizations believe that to continue to lead their industry, they must incorporate

principles of sustainable construction because it is in the best interest of their clients and

the environment. In the last decade, Turner Construction Co., the country's largest

commercial builder, has completed more than 85 green projects valued at $7.6 billion. In

2004, Turner implemented jobsite recycling on all its projects, not just those seeking

LEED certification. Initially, Turner will implement C&D recycling at a 50 percent

level; the end goal is to recycle 100 percent of C&D waste on all new projects (Cassidy

2004).

Turner "played an unexpectedly valuable role" as the contractor for Toyota Motor

Corporation's new U.S. Financial and Customer Service Headquarters in Torrance,

California. The 624,000-square-foot facility was awarded LEED Gold; Turner

contributed by recycling 98 percent of construction waste and provided detailed

management of indoor air quality issues during construction. Turner's efforts to manage









indoor air quality during construction saved significant time and money in the

commissioning process (Riley et al. 2003).

Skanska, one of the world's largest construction companies, has incorporated

sustainability in its business practices for three primary reasons: to strengthen the

Skanska brand, for risk management, and to benefit its current and future employees.

"Many of our most important clients are actively engaged in addressing sustainability

issues, and they expect nothing less from their contractor." Skanska is listed on the Dow

Jones Sustainability Index for responsible investing, and in 2004 ranked third in the

world on Fortune's list of Most Admired Companies for engineering and construction

(Wenblad 2003). Skanska was the first contractor in the United States to receive ISO

14001 certification-an international standard that recognizes organizations who have a

comprehensive environmental management system in place (Nelson 2003).

The Environment section of Skanska's Code of Conduct reads as follows:

"Caring about the environment permeates all of our work. Compliance with

relevant legal and other environmental requirements, especially from our clients, provides

the foundation for our environmental ambition. We are committed to preventing and

continually minimizing adverse environmental impact and to conserving resources.

* We think ahead to determine how our work will affect the environment and base
our decisions on available relevant facts.
* We avoid materials and methods with environmental risks when there are suitable
alternatives available. We strive to recommend that clients use environmentally
better alternatives whenever the circumstances permit.
* We do not engage in activities that have unacceptable environmental and social
risks.
* We aim to identify such risks as early as possible to facilitate timely and adequate
actions and decisions."
(Skanska 2005)









Skanska advocates that with current technology, energy efficiency can be improved

by at least 30 percent. To reduce use of the most hazardous substances used in

construction, some groups within Skanska have developed 'black' and 'grey' lists of

substances to avoid and/or phase out (Wenblad 2003).

DPR Construction, based in Redwood City, California, is another major U.S.

contractor who embraces green construction. DPR's office building in Sacramento,

California, is a LEED Silver building. DPR boasts more LEED Accredited Professionals

than any other general contractor in the nation to help customers determine the best

strategies for effectively designing and constructing sustainable facilities. The company

offers the following green services: Owner/Architect Training, Project Visioning and

Goal Establishment, Charrette Facilitation, Preconstruction Analysis and Peer Reviews,

Environmental Value Analysis, Life Cycle Cost Analysis, MEP Analysis and

Commissioning, and LEED Project Management. To assist owners in LEED

management, design, and construction, the company developed its LEED Preconstruction

Analysis Tool. DPR uses this tool to chart costs and perform cash flow analyses of

potential savings and returns on investment over a building's lifetime. The company

used the program to determine that the payback of the additional first costs of 1.4 percent

for its Sacramento office would be achieved in two and a half years with water and

energy savings (DPR 2005).

In a 2004 speech, Thomas Leppert, chairman and CEO of Turner, aptly described

the competitive advantage that he forecasts his company will benefit from when green

building becomes the norm. "When that day comes, when it's not a choice, we can tell









clients, "No problem. We've been doing this for years. We'll show you how." (Leppert

2004)

Green buildings often cost the same or less than conventional buildings.

Concerns about green buildings costing more should not discourage construction

organizations from considering adoption of sustainable practices. It is shortsighted and

simply not true that first costs associated with building high-performance structures must

increase. "Capital costs of sustainable design can be similar or even lower than

conventional figures through good design to meet specification; additional design and

specialist construction costs can be offset by reduced needs for building services systems

and reduced wastage" (Pitts 2004). Three recent studies in particular have compared

costs of conventional versus high-performance buildings:

* A study of 33 green buildings conducted for the state of California by Greg Kats of
Capital E found a range of zero to 2 percent incremental first cost, significant ROI
attributed to lower operating costs, and no real correlation between cost and level of
sustainability (Kats 2003).
* A LEED cost study for the General Services Administration that used GSA
courthouse and office building design standards identified the following: no
correlation exists between point value of LEED credits and their costs; a range of
strategies often can be applied to achieve a specific individual LEED credit; the
cost of several credits varies significantly according to building type and program;
and finally, some credit costs vary based on regional or project-specific issues
(Amatruda 2004).
* Conclusions drawn from the Davis Langdon study (see Chapter 3) are similar to the
GSA study findings. The Davis Langdon study compared construction costs of
green buildings to comparable, non-LEED-seeking projects and found that projects
can achieve LEED certification within the same cost range as non-LEED projects.
The data indicates that many factors-such as building program type-affect
building cost, and of those, LEED tends to have a lesser impact on total costs
(Matthiessen and Morris 2004).

Builders can help develop the economies of scale for green building materials.

As sustainable building continues to become mainstream, the premium for buying green

materials and products is lessening or has diminished. "Whether because of supplier









competition for this new and growing market or because of contractor competition to get

the job (and probably a combination of both), many products such as low-VOC paint,

non-ureaformaldehyde particleboard, recycled carpet, and 100 percent recycled

sheetrock, have all become virtually cost-neutral and widely available" (Deane 2004).

Home Depot, for example, sells sustainably harvested lumber. As the demand and use of

sustainable materials increases, prices will decrease (Woolley 2000). It is in the best

interest of builders to help hasten this process by using environmentally responsible

materials and developing relationships with distributors of such materials.

Building sustainably goes hand-in-hand with design-build.

As more construction firms begin to favor the design-build approach, they may

want to heed that the integrative collaboration that marks successful sustainable project

delivery lends itself to this approach. "The very concept of designing, building, and

operating a green building pushes the designer, constructor, and owner to work in a

collaborative way, often encouraging all three to 'think outside the box.'" The process

exposes all three actors to new technology and alternate methods, allowing them to

acquire valuable knowledge and experience in sustainable building they can apply in later

projects (Macaluso 2002). With design-build, contractors are involved in project design.

As such, they can position themselves as value-added contributors by bringing their green

building experience to the table. "As more construction organizations gain design-build

experience on green building projects, they will be better equipped to align themselves

and develop preconstruction services that will enhance the green design process" (Riley

et al. 2003).

Government agencies and state and local governments represent the leading owners

seeking high-performance buildings. Concurrently, many of these owners are also









moving toward the use of design-build (Riley et al. 2003). A design-build contract was

used for the LEED Silver EPA National Computer Center in North Carolina, and its use

fostered cooperation, communication, and creativity among the project team. "This

approach encouraged the team to constantly strive for and implement additional

environmental enhancements to the facility in a cost-effective manner." That is a primary

benefit of design-build-architects and contractors help, not work against, each other and

work together to develop creative, less costly solutions (Nelson 2003). It is design-build

teams that offer the broadest point of view in terms of defining the role of contractors in

sustainable building (Riley et al. 2003).

Green building government incentives can aid successful project delivery.

Building sustainably can shorten the development time line, saving contractors as

well as developers and owners money (ECONorthwest 2001). In Portland, Oregon, a

streamlined permit review progress applies to sustainable projects. The city of Chicago is

considering expedited reviews as well (Cassidy 2004). In general, builders are more

likely to gain community and government support for a green project, in turn helping

them avoid legal delays and permitting problems (ECONorthwest 2001). Builders may

enjoy "green tape" as opposed to the traditional "red tape" of permitting bureaucracy

(Elefante 2005).

Incentives are more established in the local green home programs. Builders

participating in residential green building programs may enjoy improved relations with

local government officials, who control zoning, construction permitting, and building

codes. Builders in nearly 100 jurisdictions benefit from the following incentives: lower

permit fees, faster plan checks, priority field inspections, and complimentary advertising.

And some programs offer training in cost-effective green construction methods and green









home marketing strategies (Cassidy 2004). It is likely that the success of these residential

incentives will soon cross over to the commercial building sector.

Constructing green buildings can improve a company's image.

Contractors who practice sustainable methods of construction are viewed more

positively by the public. In a 2004 Associated General Contractors survey, 72 percent of

contractors felt that C&D recycling improved their company's public image (Cassidy

2004). Sustainability, therefore, is a marketable asset companies can promote, especially

at a time when more organizations are basing financial decisions upon ethical principles.

"Companies, organizations, and individuals that are prepared to invest to create a strong

perception of design quality and interest in sustainability and the future are likely to be

more positively viewed by the public and other organizations when choices are made

about spending, investment and other activities" (Pitts 2004).

Sustainable practices improve a builder's image in the community because builders

are often seen as the major culprits behind unwanted growth and development, such as

urban sprawl. People are attracted to a company with integrity and a higher purpose, and

green builders can capitalize upon this preference. The community will recognize the

organization "as the builder who cares" (Johnston 2000).

Forward-looking companies attract quality employees.

A company's culture and values usually underline its recruitment goals and efforts.

Companies that embrace the future trends of the construction industry-namely the green

building movement-are likely to attract employees that do so as well. Such employees

may be more open-minded and receptive to change, making them an asset to a forward-

looking organization and perpetuating green building growth. Turner Construction helps

sponsor the USGBC's Emerging Builders Program to "help improve the sustainable









building curriculum at colleges and recognize students who will promote future green

building growth" (Cassidy 2004). As more universities incorporate sustainable

construction into their curriculum and campus structures, more future builders become

convinced of its positive qualities-and that becomes a factor in determining at which

company they want to work. Skanska strives to be an environmentally responsible

company, and keep and recruit the best employees. It recognizes that a company's values

must appeal to its employees. "Employees want to work for a company they are proud

of, and with whose values they can identify" (Wenblad 2003). When a company

commits to building sustainably, employees feel their jobs and their company contribute

to a greater purpose-not solely the bottom line-resulting in a more loyal, productive

workforce. In turn, prospective employees are attracted to the company's reputation as a

great place to work (Johnston 2000).

The future success of companies within the construction industry may reveal itself

to be partially dependent upon a company's willingness to incorporate sustainability into

its practices. Regardless, the success of any company depends upon its ability to attract

the industry's youth. And it is the young people within the building industry that "are

fervent about the adoption of these new principles" (Gillette 2004).

Green practices reduce contractor liability.

Green building addresses indoor air quality (IAQ) during construction. Though

contractors may view keeping gypsum board dry on the jobsite as a hindrance, for

example, they actually are reducing their liability. A number of lawsuits have been filed

against contractors claiming that toxic mold in buildings they constructed causes health

problems for occupants. In January 2003, plaintiffs suing developers, contractors, and

the city of Carson City, Nevada, settled for $14 million in a case regarding mold present









at a housing development (Salkever 2003). In 2001, a $12 million settlement was

reached to conclude a two-year lawsuit resulting from extensive mold growth at a

courthouse in San Martin, California. The lawsuit was between Santa Clara County and

the project team, including the general contractor, architect, the contractor's surety, and

more than a dozen subcontractors and suppliers. Of note, 12 courthouse employees filed

personal injury actions against the contractors, architects, and suppliers (ENR 8/13/2001).

Excessive moisture is usually to blame for mold growth in buildings. Although it

remains unclear to what extent mold causes health problems, it does pose a risk to public

health. Research has linked indoor mold to coughing, wheezing, and upper respiratory

problems in otherwise healthy people and to asthma symptoms in susceptible people

(Solomon 2004). Research also has shown an increased risk of infection associated with

hospital and laboratory construction (Riley et al. 2003). Mold has been called the

asbestos of this generation. U.S. insurers awarded more than $3 billion in mold-related

claims in 2002. As a result of the growing number of claims, numerous companies that

provide comprehensive general liability insurance to contractors have begun excluding

mold coverage from new policies (Solomon 2004).

Builders who apply sustainable construction methods can decrease potential risks

associated with mold. For example, one LEED IAQ credit calls for installing materials in

a sequence that will prevent contamination of absorptive materials such as insulation,

carpeting, ceiling tile, and gypsum wallboard. Another green practice is to correctly size

a building's HVAC system-air-conditioning systems are typically oversized. Not only

does this lead to unnecessary energy usage, it increases the probability of mold growth.

If a unit is oversized, the cooling mode does not come on often enough or stay on long









enough to allow for proper dehumidification-a leading factor in mold formation

(Solomon, 2004). These examples of focusing on IAQ management during design and

construction reduce the risk of contamination and, therefore, contractor risk (Riley et al.

2003).

Green building can lower the health risks construction workers face.

Construction workers frequently are exposed to many hazardous materials and

practices: "Drillers, sandblasters, drywall sanders, and brick masons risk inhaling

particles of dust, sand, and crystalline silica, which can lead to lung cancers, tuberculosis,

and silicosis. Asphalt used in paving and roofing has been linked to throat irritation,

nausea, and chronic lower respiratory infections. Workers doing finishing work can

breathe in toxic fumes from paints, adhesives, floor finishes, and other materials. And

renovation and demolition...can expose workers to lead paint, asbestos, and toxic molds"

(Tibbetts 2002).

As these risks have been researched and publicized, building industry awareness

has grown. Consumers have begun to demand the use of greener, safer materials, and

government agencies specify their purchase. Interest in LEED has increased demand for

green building materials, assisting project teams in selecting environmentally friendly

materials and processes. Up to four LEED credits can be earned by the use of low-

emitting materials. For one credit, adhesives and paints must not exceed designated VOC

limits; for another, composite wood must not contain added urea-formaldehyde resins

(Tibbetts 2002).

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are used frequently in such building materials

as solvents, binding agents, and cleaning agents. High-VOC paint has traditionally been

the industry standard; VOCs enhance paint color and spreadability. But these organic









chemicals become breathable vapors at room temperature, resulting in emissions during

paint application and curing as well as after the paint dries. To construction workers and

building occupants, these emissions can lead to headaches, respiratory problems, and

allergic reactions. Formaldehyde is a VOC that has for decades been used to help bind

wood chips and sawdust together to make particleboard and plywood. But exposure to

formaldehyde can lead to brain impairment, with symptoms such as delayed reaction

time, clumsiness, short-term memory loss, and elevated anger and confusion. It also has

been linked to a rise in lung and other cancers (Tibbetts 2002).

Fortunately, most manufacturers have significantly reduced the quantity of VOCs

in their paints and other products during the last decade. The use of acrylic- and water-

based paints lower in VOCs continues to become more widespread, and their quality has

greatly improved. Meanwhile, government regulations and nonprofit trade groups have

driven a reduction in formaldehyde levels in building products (Tibbetts 2002). In

general, construction workers are handling fewer toxic materials. Construction

organizations can help drive this trend. By using green building materials, contractors

have the opportunity to both protect their workers' health and help protect the

environment. It is a matter of logic and ethics.














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following arguments can be made as to the advantages of contractors adopting

sustainable construction methods.

* It's the right thing to do.

* Green building guidelines are becoming legal mandates.

* Sustainability enhances profitability.

* Contractors who build green increase their market share.

* Green buildings often cost the same or less than conventional buildings.

* Builders can help develop the economies of scale for green building materials.

* Building sustainably goes hand-in-hand with design-build.

* Green building government incentives can aid successful project delivery.

* Constructing green buildings can improve a company's image.

* Forward-looking companies attract quality employees.

* Green practices reduce contractor liability.

* Green building can lower the health risks construction workers face.



Research focused on green building from the contractor's perspective is limited.

As such, the arguments presented in this study offer opportunities for much further

research. For example, contractors could be surveyed as to why many remain hesitant to

embrace green building-is cost indeed the primary factor? There is a need for much

more in-depth financial analysis of the costs associated with sustainable construction









strictly from a contractor's perspective. Furthermore, contractors experienced in green

building are as yet an underutilized resource source. Namely, what is the learning curve

associated with such practices, do costs decrease as experience levels increase, and are

they recognizing the benefits as proposed in this study's arguments? Surveying

contractors whom are currently practicing sustainability has numerous practical

implications. A sustainable construction resource guide specifically for commercial

contractors could be developed, for example. Also, in terms of worker health, the need

exists for further studies on the health effects of the use of conventional building

materials.

Research focused on green building from the contractor's perspective is limited.

As such, the arguments presented in this study offer opportunities for much further

research. For example, contractors could be surveyed as to why many remain hesitant to

embrace green building-is cost indeed the primary factor? There is a need for much

more in-depth financial analysis of the costs associated with sustainable construction

strictly from a contractor's perspective. Furthermore, contractors experienced in green

building are as yet an underutilized resource source. Namely, what is the learning curve

associated with such practices, do costs decrease as experience levels increase, and are

they recognizing the benefits as proposed in this study's arguments? Surveying

contractors whom are currently practicing sustainability has numerous practical

implications. A sustainable construction resource guide specifically for commercial

contractors could be developed, for example. Also, in terms of worker health, the need

exists for further studies on the health effects of the use of conventional building

materials.














APPENDIX
LIST OF ARGUMENTS

Why should a contractor build green?

* It's the right thing to do.

* Green building guidelines are becoming legal mandates.

* Sustainability enhances profitability.

* Contractors who build green increase their market share.

* Green buildings often cost the same or less than conventional buildings.

* Builders can help develop the economies of scale for green building materials.

* Building sustainably goes hand-in-hand with design-build.

* Green building government incentives can aid successful project delivery.

* Constructing green buildings can improve a company's image.

* Forward-looking companies attract quality employees.

* Green practices reduce contractor liability.

* Green building can lower the health risks construction workers face.
















LIST OF REFERENCES


Amatruda, John. 2004. "Defining LEED costs for the U.S. General Services
Administration." The cost and benefits of high performance buildings, ed. Pamela
Lippe. Earth Day New York: 2004. Pages 27-32.

C&D Recycling. 2004. "The price is right." Construction & Demolition Recycling.
September/October 2004. Vol. 6: No. 5.

Cassidy, Robert, ed. 2004. "Progress report on sustainability." Building Design and
Construction. November 2004.
http://www.bdcmag.com/newstrends/bdc04White_paper.pdf Last accessed: March
1, 2005.

Clift, Michael. 2003. "Life-cycle costing in the construction sector." Industry and
environment: sustainable building and construction. United Nations Environment
Programme. April September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 37-40.

Day, Christopher. 2000. "Ethical building in the everyday environment." Ethics and the
built environment, ed. Warwick Fox. Routledge, London: 2000. Pages 127-138.

Deane, Michael. 2004. "The CM's role in achieving LEED certification." The cost and
benefits of high performance buildings, ed. Pamela Lippe. Earth Day New York:
2004. Pages 114-116.

DPR Construction. 2005. http://www.dprinc.com/projects/greenbuildtechexp.cfm Last
accessed: February 15, 2005.

Economist. 2004. "The rise of the green building." December 4, 2004. Vol. 373: No.
8404.

ECONorthwest. 2001. "Green building: saving money and the environment;
Opportunities for Louisiana." ECONorthwest, Eugene, Oregon: October 2001.
http://www.leanweb.org/qoflife/Green.pdf Last accessed: March 19, 2005.

Edwards, Suzy, and Philip Bennett. 2003. "Construction products and life-cycle
thinking." Industry and environment: sustainable building and construction.
United Nations Environment Programme. April September 2003. Vol. 26: No.
2-3, p. 57-61.

Elefante, Carl. 2005. "Greening historic preservation." Lecture at the University of
Florida. March 15, 2005.









Engineering News-Record. 8/13/2001. "County and project team reach settlement in
toxic mold case."

Engineering News-Record. 11/15/2004. "Construction week: waste not want not."

EPA. 2002. "Building for the future." WasteWise Update. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency: February 2002.
http://www.resourcesaver.org/file/toolmanager/CustomO 16C45F53196.pdf Last
accessed: February 15, 2005.

Fortune. 2004. "Green building." Special advertising section in partnership with U.S.
Green Building Council. Fortune. October 18, 2004.

Foumier, Paul. 2004. "On-site waste separation: Consigli Construction adopts C&D
source separation policy for all of its jobs." New England Construction. October
25, 2004.

Frangos, Alex. 2005. "Greener and higher." Wall Street Journal. January 31, 2005.

Gillette, Jim. 2004. "Perspective: the transformation of an industry." Environmental
Design + Construction. December 2004/January 2005.

Girardet, Herbert. 2000. "Greening urban society." Ethics and the built environment,
ed. Warwick Fox. Routledge, London: 2000. Pages 15-30.

Gonchar, Joann. 2004. "'Green' builders tackling sensitive technical issues."
Engineering News-Record. November 22, 2004.

Gonchar, Joann. 2005. Rapidly evolving rating system draws applause and criticism.
Engineering News-Record. February 28, 2005.

Gottfried, David. 2003. "A blueprint for green building economics." Industry and
environment: sustainable building and construction. United Nations Environment
Programme. April September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 20-21.

Johnston, David. 2000. Building green in a black and white world. Home Builder Press,
NAHB, Washington, D.C.: 2000.

Karolides, Alexis. 2002. "Green building approaches." Green building: project
planning and cost estimating, ed. Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges. RSMeans,
Kingston, Massachusetts: 2002. Pages 3-21.

Kats, Gregory H. 2003. "Green building costs and financial benefits." Massachusetts
Technology Collaborative: 2003.
http://www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/059F3481.pdf Last accessed: February
20, 2005.









Kibert, Charles, and M. Moretti. 2004. "Toward an ethics of sustainability." University
of Florida. Unpublished manuscript.

Kibert, Charles, Jan Sendzimir, and G. Bradley Guy. 2000. "Defining an ecology of
construction." Construction ecology: Nature as the basis for green buildings, ed.
Kibert, Sendzimer, and Guy. Spon Press, New York: 2000. Pages 7-28.

Leppert, Thomas C. 2004. "Why is Turner talking green?" Vital Speeches of the Day.
November 15, 2004. Vol. 71: No. 3.

Macaluso, Joseph. 2002. "Economic incentives and funding sources." Green building:
project planning and cost estimating, ed. Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges.
RSMeans, Kingston, Massachusetts: 2002. Pages 197-207.

Matthiessen, Lisa Fay, and Peter Morris. 2004. "Costing green: a comprehensive cost
database and budgeting methodology." Davis Langdon: July 2004.
http://www.dladamson.com/Attachment%20Files/Research/costinggreen.pdf Last
accessed: March 5, 2005.

Muto, Sheila. 2004. "From recycled rubble come roads, parking lots, savings." Wall
Street Journal. May 26, 2004.

Pitts, Adrian. 2004. Planning and design strategies for sustainability andprofit:
Pragmatic sustainable design on building and urban scales. Architectural Press,
Boston: 2004.

Post, Nadine M. 2004. "Rating system makes headway." Engineering News-Record.
November 8, 2004.

Pultar, Mustafa. 2000. "The conceptual basis of building ethics." Ethics and the built
environment, ed. Warwick Fox. Routledge, London: 2000. Pages 155-169.

Riley, David, Kim Pexton, and Jennifer Drilling. 2003. "Procurement of sustainable
construction services in the United States: the contractor's role in green buildings."
Industry and environment: sustainable building and construction. United Nations
Environment Programme. April September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 66-69.

Salkever, Alex. 2003. "Ganging up on mold." Business Week. June 30, 2003.

Skanska. 2005. Skanska code of conduct.
http://www.skanska.com/files/documents/pdf/code_of conduct.pdf Last accessed:
February 19, 2005.

Solomon, Nancy B. 2004. "Mold may not be a severe health menace, but it is still a
complex problem." Architectural Record. September 2004. Vol. 192: No. 9.









Strand, Sigrid Melby, and Sverre Fossdal. 2003. "Do standards and regulations supply
the necessary incentive for sustainable building?" Industry and environment:
sustainable building and construction. United Nations Environment Programme.
April September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 33-36.

Sustainable Development Task Force. 2003. "Drivers for sustainable construction."
Industry and environment: sustainable building and construction. United Nations
Environment Programme. April September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 22-25.

Tibbetts, John. 2002. "Building a safer industry." Environmental Health Perspectives.
March 2002. Vol. 110: No. 3.

UNEP. 2003. "Sustainable building and construction facts and figures." Industry and
environment: sustainable building and construction. United Nations Environment
Programme. April September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3; p. 5-8.

University of Buffalo. 2004. UB High Performance Building Guidelines. University of
Buffalo, State University of New York. 2004. Last accessed: March 5, 2005.
http://wings.buffalo.edu/ubgreen/leos/ubhpguidelines.pdf

Wallbaum, Holger, and Claudia Buerkin. 2003. "Concepts and instruments for a
sustainable construction sector." Industry and environment: sustainable building
and construction. United Nations Environment Programme. April September
2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 53-57.

Walls & Ceilings. 2003. "Lead by example: can waste gypsum really be recycled? One
Canadian company proves it every day." March 2003. Vol. 66: No. 3.

Wenblad, Axel. 2003. "Sustainable construction: a Swedish company's approach."
Industry and environment: sustainable building and construction. United Nations
Environment Programme. April September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 70-71.

Woolley, Tom. 2000. "Green building: establishing principles." Ethics and the built
environment, ed. Warwick Fox. Routledge, London: 2000. Pages 44-56.

Yudelson, Jerry. 2004. "Perspective: forecasting market demand for green buildings
2004-2007." Environmental Design + Construction. December 2004/January
2005.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Leah Elida Griffin was born in Fort Lauderdale on February 26, 1979, to Fred and

Cindy Griffin. She and her younger sister, Amy, were raised in Davie, Florida. Their

father passed away in 1990 after suffering a brain aneurysm. Leah graduated from

Hollywood Hills High School before coming to the University of Florida in 1997. She

earned her bachelor's degree in journalism with highest honors in 2001. Later that year,

she moved to Birmingham, Alabama, and worked as a copy editor at Cooking Light

magazine.

Leah is grateful to have chosen to return to UF in January 2003 as a graduate

student in the Rinker School of Building Construction. In the summer of 2004, Leah

worked as a project engineer intern at James B. Pirtle Construction in Davie, and also

became a LEED Accredited Professional. Upon her graduation in April 2005, Leah plans

to return to Pirtle to begin her construction career.