<%BANNER%>

Perceptions of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-New Construction (LEED-NC) Green Building Certification...


PAGE 1

PERCEPTIONS OF THE LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN-NEW CONSTRUCTION (LEED-NC) GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION SYSTEM AMONG LEED ACCREDITED PROFESSIONALS By MATTHEW W. COX 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 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Matthew W. Cox

PAGE 3

To those committed to improving the sustainability of the United States

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Charles Kibe rt for his dedication to teaching and implementing sustainable development practices at the University of Florida. In addition, Dr. Robert F. Cox and Dr. R. Raymond Issa have also been particularly valuable in their assistance and input throughout my entire graduate career an d while writing this thesis. I would also like to thank my parents for their support throughout my academic career. They have given me the means to overc ome all of the obstacles placed before me. I appreciate the sacrifices they have made on my behalf, and I hope to continue to make them proud of my accomplishments.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................x ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 1.1 U.S. Built Environment History.............................................................................1 1.2 U.S. Movement Towards Sustainable Development..............................................3 1.3 U.S. Construction Industrys Present Impact.........................................................4 1.4 U.S. Movement Towards Sustainable Construction...............................................5 1.5 U.S. Green Building System...................................................................................5 1.6 Problem Statement..................................................................................................7 1.7 Research Objectives..............................................................................................10 1.8 Limitations............................................................................................................10 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................12 2.1 Sustainable Construction......................................................................................12 2.1.1 Principles of Sustainable Construction.......................................................12 2.1.2 Drivers for Change within th e U.S. Construction Industry........................14 2.1.3 A Socio-Technical Perspective...................................................................16 2.1.4 Organizational Barriers..............................................................................17 2.2 LEED....................................................................................................................19 2.2.1 LEED Is Broken . Lets Fix It.............................................................19 2.2.2 LEED: Past, Present, and Future................................................................21 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................23 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................27 4.1 Overview...............................................................................................................28 4.1.1 General Background Information...............................................................28

PAGE 6

vi 4.1.1.1 Company age....................................................................................28 4.1.1.2 Company services............................................................................28 4.1.1.3 Annual volume.................................................................................29 4.1.1.4 Percent of annual volum e contributed to LEED..............................30 4.1.1.5 Percent of annual volume not LEED but green................................30 4.1.1.6 Number of company employees.......................................................31 4.1.1.7 Number of LEED Accredited Professionals in company.................32 4.1.1.8 Types of LEED APs in a company..................................................32 4.1.1.9 Number of LEED certified projec t based on certification level.......33 4.1.2 Personnel Background Information............................................................33 4.1.2.1 Professions of participants...............................................................33 4.1.2.2 Participant job titles..........................................................................34 4.1.3 Organizational and Financial Perspectives.................................................34 4.1.3.1 Collaboration of costs.......................................................................34 4.1.3.2 Adequacy of LEED budgets and schedules.....................................35 4.1.3.3 Collaboration, cost-efficiency, a nd reduced environmental impact.36 4.1.3.4 Environmental impact reduction and profit.....................................37 4.1.3.5 Authority to pursue LEED points by cost/benefit............................37 4.1.3.6 Green taxes and financial incentives................................................38 4.1.4 Organizational and Envi ronmental Perspectives........................................39 4.1.4.1 Level of integrated design................................................................39 4.1.4.2 United States Green Building Council (USGBC) receptiveness to feedback..................................................................................................40 4.1.4.3 Collaboration and certification level................................................40 4.1.4.4 Collaboration and point mongering..................................................41 4.1.4.5 Consensus-based rating system........................................................42 4.1.4.6 Improved web-based protocol / customer service............................42 4.1.5 Financial and Environmental Perspectives.................................................43 4.1.5.1 Cost-efficiency and certification level.............................................43 4.1.5.2 Future of life-cycle assessments (LCA) and life-c ycle costing (LCC) methods.......................................................................................44 4.1.5.3 Rationale to pursue LEED................................................................45 4.1.5.4 Ecological economics.......................................................................45 4.1.5.5 Soft cost of LEED value...................................................................46 4.1.5.6 Profitability of LEED projects.........................................................47 4.2 Analysis................................................................................................................47 4.2.1 Background.................................................................................................48 4.2.1.1 Company age in years......................................................................48 4.2.1.2 Annual volume.................................................................................48 4.2.1.3 LEED volume...................................................................................49 4.2.1.4 Number of LEED APs......................................................................50 4.2.1.5 Number of LEED certified projects.................................................50 4.2.2 Organizational and Financial Perspectives.................................................51 4.2.2.1 Collaboration of costs by company services....................................51 4.2.2.2 Adequacy of LEED budgets and schedules by company services...52

PAGE 7

vii 4.2.2.3 Collaboration, cost-efficiency, a nd reduced environmental impact by company services...............................................................................53 4.2.2.4 Environmental impact reduction and profit by company services...54 4.2.2.5 Authority to pursue LEED points by cost/benefit by company services....................................................................................................55 4.2.2.6 Green taxes and financial incentives by company services.............56 4.2.3 Organizational and Envi ronmental Perspectives........................................56 4.2.3.1 Level of integrated design by company services.............................57 4.2.3.2 USGBC receptiveness to feedback by company services..............58 4.2.3.3 Collaboration and certificatio n level by company services..............59 4.2.3.4 Collaboration and point mo ngering by company services...............60 4.2.3.5 Consensus-based rating system by company services.....................61 4.2.3.6 Improved web-based protocol / customer service by company services....................................................................................................62 4.2.4 Financial and Environmental Perspectives.................................................62 4.2.4.1 Cost-efficiency and certification level.............................................63 4.2.4.2 Future of LCA and LCC methods by company services.................64 4.2.4.3 Rationale to pursue LEED by company services.............................65 4.2.4.4 Ecological economics by company services....................................66 4.2.4.5 Value of LEED soft costs by company services..............................67 4.2.4.6 Profitability of LEED projects by company services.......................68 5 CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................69 5.1 Summary...............................................................................................................69 5.2 Recommendations for Future Study.....................................................................71 APPENDIX A LETTER OF CONSENT............................................................................................73 B SURVEY....................................................................................................................74 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................76 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................77

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Principles of sust ainable construction......................................................................13 2-2 Average ranking of 15 driver s, 1 being greatest importance...................................16

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Concept diagram of study illustratin g sustainable components within an organizational context..............................................................................................9 4-1 Company age in years (N=33)...............................................................................28 4-2 Distribution of comp any services (N=35).............................................................29 4-3 Distribution of annual volum e (N=28)..................................................................29 4-4 Distribution of annual vol ume LEED certified (N=35).........................................30 4-5 Percent of annual volume green but not LEED (N=5)..........................................31 4-6 Distribution of number of company employees (N=35)........................................31 4-7 Distribution of the number of LEED APs in company (N=36).............................32 4-8 Distribution of the types of LEED APs in companies (N=36)..............................32 4-9 Distribution of LEED certif ied project levels (N=36)...........................................33 4-10 Distribution of partic ipant professions (N=36)......................................................34 4-11 Distribution of partic ipant job title (N=36)............................................................34 4-12 Collaboration of costs (N=37)...............................................................................35 4-13 Adequacy of LEED budgets and schedules (N=36)..............................................36 4-14 Collaboration, cost-efficiency, and re duced environmental impact (N=37)..........36 4-15 Environmental impact reduction and profit (N=36)..............................................37 4-16 Authority to pursue LEED points by cost/benefit (N=37).....................................38 4-17 Green taxes & financial incentives (N=37)...........................................................38 4-18 Level of integrated design (N=37).........................................................................39

PAGE 10

x 4-19 USGBC receptiveness to feedback (N=36)...........................................................40 4-20 Collaboration and certif ication level (N=37).........................................................41 4-21 Collaboration and point mongering (N=37)..........................................................41 4-22 Consensus-based rating system (N=36).................................................................42 4-23 Improved web-based protocol / customer service (N=35).....................................43 4-24 Cost-efficiency and certification level (N=37)......................................................44 4-25 Future of LCA and LCC methods (N=35).............................................................44 4-26 Rationale to pursue LEED (N=37)........................................................................45 4-27 Ecological economics (N=37)...............................................................................46 4-28 Soft cost of LEED value (N=34)...........................................................................46 4-29 Profitability of LEED projects (N=37)..................................................................47 4-30 Company service vs. company age.........................................................................48 4-31 Company services vs. annual volume (N=28).......................................................49 4-32 Company services vs. LEED percent of annual volume........................................49 4-33 Company services vs. number of LEED APs........................................................50 4-34 Company service vs. number of LEED certified projects.....................................51 4-35 Distribution of company services and collaboration of costs by company services...................................................................................................................52 4-36 Distribution of company services and adequacy of LEED budgets and schedules by company services.............................................................................53 4-37 Distribution of company services and environmental impact reduction and profit by company services....................................................................................54 4-38 Distribution of company services and authority to pursue LEED points by cost/benefit by company services..........................................................................55 4-39 Distribution of company services an d green taxes and financial incentives by company services...................................................................................................56 4-40 Distribution of company services and level of integrated design by company services...................................................................................................................57

PAGE 11

xi 4-41 Distribution of company services and USGBC receptiveness to feedback by company services...................................................................................................58 4-42 Distribution of company services an d collaboration and certification level by company services...................................................................................................59 4-43 Distribution of company services an d collaboration and point mongering by company services...................................................................................................60 4-44 Distribution of company services and consensus-based rating system by company services...................................................................................................61 4-45 Distribution of company services and improved web-based protocol / customer service by company services..................................................................................62 4-46 Distribution of company services and cost-efficiency and certification level.......63 4-47 Distribution of company services and future of LCA and LCC methods by company services...................................................................................................64 4-48 Distribution of company services and rationale to pursue LEED by company services...................................................................................................................65 4-49 Distribution of company services and ecological economics by company services...................................................................................................................66 4-50 Distribution of company services an d value of LEED soft costs by company services...................................................................................................................67 4-51 Distribution of company services and profitability of LEED projects by company services...................................................................................................68

PAGE 12

xii 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 Building Construction PERCEPTIONS OF THE LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN: NEW CONSTRUCTION (LEED-NC) GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION SYSTEM AMONG LEED ACCREDITED PROFESSIONALS By Matthew W. Cox May 2006 Chair: Charles J. Kibert Major Department: Building Construction The traditional built environment practices within the United States have been devastating to the health of the environment for over a century. Decaying inner cities, congested freeways, rising natural-resource pric es, and an overall decrease in quality of life have increased the desire for change. The answer to societys problems, historically, has been through the invention of technologies. To sustain the future of the U.S., one of the major focuses should be on improving the application of building technologies. However, the major green bu ilding initiative, the United States Green Building Councils (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification system, has recently been labeled as a troubled success. The environmentally based structure of LEED lack s financial and social components that are potentially deterring the U.S. construction industry from adop ting the system. Therefore, this thesis presents the perspectives of LEED Accredite d Professionals with regard to financial, organizationa l, and environmental opportunities. A comprehensive survey of

PAGE 13

xiii LEED APs from Georgia and Florida was conducted, resulting in an analysis of 37 completed surveys. Many of the recently published concerns of LEED were tested and analyzed in this study including profitability, collaboration, and environmental impact issues.

PAGE 14

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 U.S. Built Environment History Prior to the industrial revolution in the United States the dynamics of the construction industry were much different. An agrarian economy dominated the landscape of our country. The sparsely developed population built their homes and places of employment with local timber. El ectricity did not exist and water was only accessible in minute quantities. Ventilation wa s used to cool buildings and fireplaces were used for heating. Streets were primar ily dirt but larger ci ties had cobblestone streets. As the industrial revolution with in the U.S materializ ed, so did the built environment and construction industry. In the early eighteen-hundreds the inven tion and use of the coal-powered steam engine made the distribution of labor and building materials more feasible. Cities expanded primarily around waterways or railroa ds since labor and materials were more accessible. Concrete, steel, and brick were becoming the preferred building materials due to the elements of fire resistance and availability. Improve d manufacturing and construction technologies drove the nations western expansion and economic prosperity dating back to the mid-nineteenth century. In the late eighteen-hundreds and early nineteen-hundreds water, gas, and electrical infrastructure bega n to support higher population densities in both urban and rural areas. However, the size of cities became limited by the increasing distance of travel from the economic centers that were acce ssible primarily by trains or street cars.

PAGE 15

2 This capacity of the built environment ch anged with the add ition of technological inventions and designs such as the elevator skyscraper, and automobile. This also increased the amount of materials and energy needed to sustain these booming cities within the United States. The Great Depression in the 1930s, however led to an overall economic decline in the nation. One of the major components of The New Deal, in 1937, was a $112 million dollar government backed investment in new construction that woul d create employment, expedite the shipment of materials, and create confidence in the utility field. The U.S. government depended on the construction i ndustry to jump-start the nations economy. As a result of the manufacturing boom of the Post WWII era, a large middle class developed within the U.S. who wanted gr andiose automobiles and spacious suburban estates. The Eisenhower Interstate System was implemented to promote the deployment of troops nationally and in turn establishe d the development pract ice now known as urban sprawl. The threat of nuclear holocaust am ong U.S. cities was also a driving reason to spread out populations as much as possible. The political and economic policies of the period further entrenched the nations traditi onal built environment practices that result in the wasteful consumption of vast amounts of material, land, and energy. The trends continued until the oil crisis of the 1970s ignited economic, environmental and social drivers for change. The government responded to the need to sustain our quality of life by addressing various energy, environmental, an d social issues. More power plants were built during the 70s. Environmental and growth management legislation were established to regulate po llution and urban sprawl.

PAGE 16

3 By By the 1980s the Industrial Age migrated across the pacific while the Information Age was emgering within the U.S. Computers and the internet took us out of a recession and into several years of economic prospe rity throughout the late 90s. One of the major industries that did not adopt the new information technolgies quickly was the construction industry though some of the larger organizations did. As economies around the world became globalized through information technologies, countries in the far-east such as China and India became increasingly industrialized and populated. Now China and India are consuming increasing amounts of building materials and energy in order to support the expansion of various infras tructure projects. The growth of middle-class citizens in those countries is already begi nning to rise. As a result, the demand for natural resources at the global level is predicted to continue to increase su bstantially over several decades. Since the Earth has a finite supply of natural resources available, th e costs of materials, land, and energy will increas e in proportion to demand. 1.2 U.S. Movement Towards Sustainable Development The realization that we can not sustain the traditional built environment practices within the U.S. for much longer due to: escala ting costs of natural resources, the degrading natural environment, and an overall decline in our quality of life has lead to the U.S. participation in the sustaina ble development movement. In 1987, Gro Harlem Brundtland, then Prim e Minister of Norway, chaired the World Commission on Environment and Developm ent, which resulted in the currently accepted definition of sustainable development, being development that meets the needs of the present without compromi sing the ability of future ge nerations to meet their own needs. This was a major political turning point globally that r eaffirmed that socioeconomic development and environmental prot ection were intimately linked, and that

PAGE 17

4 policies should reflect this relationship. Fi ve years later the Ri o Conference or Earth Summit was the largest-ever meeting of head s of state and government who focused on climate change, conservation of forests, a nd biological diversity. In 2002, the World Summit on Sustainable Developm ent in Johannesburg continue d to carry out the existing promises and commitments of previous age ndas. These conferences politically got countries from around the globe to develop sustainable initiatives. However, no politically driven sustainable development initiative would be successful if it did not radically increase resource effici ency through business and industry. 1.3 U.S. Construction Industrys Present Impact The amount of construction put in place in 2002 within the United States was over a trillion dollars. This is more than 10% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the U.S. The construction industry along with the built e nvironment is estimated to be growing annually by around 8% a year. These estimates provide clear evidence of the current magnitude of the financial impact the construction industry has on the natio n. However, as one of the traditionally largest GDP producers, the construction indus try is also one of the largest natural resource consumers. Many experts st ate that more than or equal to 50% of U.S. energy consumption is directly or i ndirectly related to buildings and their construction. In addition, it is believed that buildings cons ume one-quarter of the global wood harvest, one-sixth of its fresh water, and two -fifths of material and energy flows. The financial and environmen tal aspects of the construc tion industry are results of its organizational structure. The level of fr agmentation within the industry is unmatched when compared to any other industry. Player s from various disciplines and markets with different rule regimes coordinate in a decentr alized manner. This institutional structure

PAGE 18

5 has defined the traditional criteria within th e industry: performance, quality, and costs. This forces businesses to concentrate on ach ieving the largest shor t-term profit possible that meets the minimal performance and quality requirements allowed by law. How can we improve the performance and quality stan dards of the U.S. construction industry? 1.4 U.S. Movement Towards Sustainable Construction It should not be surprising that one of th e major subsets of sustainable development is sustainable construction. According to Kibert (2005), sust ainable construction addresses the role of the built environment in contributing to the overarching vision of sustainability. As a major focus of sustai nable construction, green buildings increase energy-efficiency, water conservation, indoor-a ir quality, and ecological conservation. Kibert (2004) stated, to ach ieve sustainable construction the traditional criteria of building materials, such as performance, cost, and quality, must be replaced with sustainable criteria includi ng resource depletion, environm ental degradation, and a healthy environment. Though green building practices have been increasing for years within the U.S. there was no consensus of what a green building consisted of among the industry. The requirements of a sustainable constructi on program within a developed country, such as the United States, include increased aw areness, production guidelines, and costsavings. The major green building initiative is the United States Green Building Councils (USGBC) Leadership in En ergy and Environmental Design (LEED) 1.5 U.S. Green Building System LEED is a voluntary consensus-based certi fication system and how-to guide for professionals pursuing sustainable construc tion. The USGBC was formed in 1993 as a coalition of industry leaders from a variety of professions to promote buildings that are environmentally responsible, profitable a nd healthy. As the ma jor product of the

PAGE 19

6 USGBC, LEED provides a complete framewor k for assessing building performance and meeting sustainability goals. LEED-NC 1.0 was piloted in 1999 and version 2.0 publicly launched in March 2000. Since then othe r LEED products such as existing building operations, commercial inte riors projects, core & sh ell projects, homes, and neighborhood development have emerged. Prof essionals from various disciplines can become LEED Accredited by passing an exam on the aspects and processes of the LEED system. This knowledge is useful during the documentation and re view periods of a LEED project. As the main concentration of th is research, it is important to understand the costs, environmental concentration, and structure of the LEED certification system. The LEED system includes additional soft and hard costs. The hard costs are associated with the additional materials or sy stems that are required to meet many of the points within LEED. This may include addi tional sky lightening, waterless urinals, advanced HVAC systems, or rainwater collecti on systems. The soft costs associated with a LEED project are required for certification. These include costs for energy modeling, commissioning, USGBC membership (recommen ded politically), project registration, and documentation. Schendler and Udall ( 2005) agreed that advanced design and coordination involved in LEED normally raises the cost of a project by 1-5 percent. The environmental aspects of LEED make up the vast majority of the point structure. The categories include: sustai nable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality. The last category is dedicated to innovation points. The vast majority of the LEED structure is weighted on purely energy and the environmental, whic h explains where the product/system name comes from.

PAGE 20

7 The organizational structure of LEED is fair ly complex. It is made up of a pointsystem consisting of a total of 69 possible points in six categories. The levels of certification available include : certified, silver, gold, and platinum. As mentioned previously, projects must be registered in order to apply for any certification level. Participants are encouraged to become memb ers of the USGBC. Once the prerequisites of a project are met through energy m odeling, commissioning, and preliminary documentation the remaining points pursued sh ould be identified and administered closely. With the completion of constr uction and documentation the project gets reviewed by the USGBC. If certain points do not get appr oved then applicants must make corrections before reapplying or seek a lower certification level than originally anticipated. 1.6 Problem Statement The problem is that the adoption rate of LEED by the U.S. Construction Industry is extremely poor. LEED is not even close to being mainstreamed within the United States. Primarily, it is only the super dedicated, politically -motivated, wealthy, or public sector that are pursuing LEED certification. LEED is str uggling. If LEED stagnates it will fail, ultimately setting back the already deficient sustainable development movement within the United States. This paper, therefor e, is in response to the recent call-to-arms within the green building community to refo rm LEED and mainstream sustainable built environment practices within the American construction industry. The recent demand for LEED reform has prompted the following questions. How do we get more people and companies to adopt LEED? What are the weakest links in the LEED system?

PAGE 21

8 Who has experienced LEED first-hand to provide feedback and suggest solutions? In a rough analysis, the three components of sustainable development were applied to LEED, consisting of environmental, economic, and social elements. Since LEED-NC is the original product of th e now expanded system it was used for analysis in this research. A quick glance of LEED-NC categor ies and point structure clearly illustrated that there were almost no economic or financial aspects weighted into the existing system. This makes the bottom-line of business and industry extremely diffi cult to achieve. In addition, the environmental aspects of LEED we re not proven to be the most effective environmental-impact reduction methods. W hy would anyone invest time or resources into a system that has not been proven? The final issue that preliminarily analyses raised was an even larger absence of social elements in the system. However, since this research focused primarily on business soluti ons rather than consumer concerns, the social aspects of the SD mode l were portrayed instead in an organizational context of the construction industry. A concep t diagram of this study is provided in Figure 1-1.

PAGE 22

9 Figure 1-1: Concept diagram of study illust rating sustainable components within an organizational context.

PAGE 23

10 1.7 Research Objectives The purpose of this study is to gaug e the perspectives of LEED Accredited Professionals regarding the financial, organizational, and environmental barriers to the LEED certification system. Based on the result s of a survey addressing the barriers to mainstreaming LEED, recommendations and co nclusions were developed that will encourage effective modification of future LEED versions. The specifics of the survey covered a broad range of published problems impacting the adoption rate of the LEED system. This research was conducted in order to cr eate a better understanding of the barriers that restrict the adoption of the LEED syst em within the U.S. construction industry. Specifically, this research covered financial, organizational, and environmental problems. Various questions on the cost-efficiency of LEED certification were asked. The concept of Life-Cycle Costing was addressed regardi ng use and value. The demand for green tax reform and other financial incentives for sust ainable construction pract ices were discussed. The use of ecological economics in LEED pr ojects were included in the data collection instrument. Life-Cycle Assessment issues was raised, including whether it should be used in future LEED versions. Professional collaboration factors of project success, environmental impact and profitability were questioned. The demand for a more integrated web-based LEED protocol was also raised. 1.8 Limitations The findings of this study are in many ways open to interpretation, as much of the data is based on the opinions of the indi viduals surveyed. Although this study was conducted in a scientific manne r, there are additional limita tions that also must be mentioned:

PAGE 24

11 1. Subjectivity of topicData obtained in th is study represents th e perceptions of the respondents. Some results were difficult to quantify. 2. Limited range of sample-Surveys were se nt only to LEED APs in Florida and Georgia because they were the two larges t concentrations of LEED APs in the region the graduate resear ch was being conducted. 3. Limited size of sampleThe results we re based on a relatively small portion of LEED APs and an even smaller portion of the overall construction industry. A more extensive sample might produce varying results. 4. Limited scope of topicLEED -NC was mainly used in th is research though other new and more reformed versions that a ddress the barriers mentioned in this study were emerging from the USGBC. In overview, the introduction provided an extensive historical background of the traditional built environment practices with in the United States. In addition, the sustainable development and construction move ment in relation to the U.S. construction industry was discussed. The recently published critiques of the LEED system were then discussed in the problem statement. Finally, the research objectives and limitations were described to address the elements of this study. In the next chapter, a review of literature was conducted on issues relating to sustainable construction and LEED.

PAGE 25

12 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Sustainable Construction The emerging concept of sustainable constr uction has been captured and applied in various recent studies. As mentioned in the previously, sustainable construction is a subset of sustainable development. Accord ing to Kibert (2005), the term sustainable construction most comprehensively addresses the ecological, social, and economic issues of a building in the context of its community. The following articles will elaborate on the meaning and ways to achieve sustainable construction. Sustainable construction can be better achieved by replac ing the traditional criteria of the built environment with sustainable cr iteria consisting of resource depletion, environmental degradation, and a healthy en vironment (Kibert, 2005) The traditional criteria create a linear process; sustainable criteria are cycl ical. Kibert (1994) proposed six principles of sustainable construction that consist of financial, environmental and organizational elements. 2.1.1 Principles of Sustainable Construction Apply Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and Tr ue Costs (Economics) is the primary principle that addresses environmental and fi nancial concerns of su stainable construction, listed in Table 2-1. Theoretically, LCA clos es the material loop by determining the environmental impacts of a material, product, or even a whole bu ilding in combination with a cost/benefit analysis over its entire life cy cle. It is a compre hensive approach that examines all impacts of material selection de cisions, rather than simply its performance

PAGE 26

13 in the building (Kibert, 2005). LCA can be broken down into two major components. The first is life cycle assessment (LCA) which is the measures a materials or systems environmental impact over the lif e span of the item. Life cycle costing (LCC) is the other component used that models the cost associ ated with the financial benefits or costsavings the material/system produces of the life span. Table 2-1: Principles of sustainable construction PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION 1. Minimize resource consumption (Conserve) 2. Maximize resource reuse (Reuse) 3. Use renewable or recyclable resources (Renew/Recycle) 4. Protect the natural environment (Protect Nature) 5. Create a healthy, non-toxic environment (Non-Toxics) 6. Apply Life Cycle Cost Analys is and True Costs (Economics) 6. Pursue quality in creating th e built environment (Quality) The principles of sustainable constructi on are primarily concerned with natural resource efficiency. Since economies and soci eties exist within an environment it should not be surprising that so many sustainable c onstruction and development principles focus on the environment. Principles one through fi ve focus on primarily environmental issues. The final principle of SC, proposed by Kibert (1994), touches on organizational aspects of industry and consumers, to pursu e quality in creating the built environment (Quality). This quality is listed as a sec ond number six because it is actually a traditional criterion of the built environment and was not an additional sust ainable principle. However, it is included because it is bei ng viewed with a new sense and importance attached to it (Kibert, 2004). In sustainable construction it is critical that the design excellence of a building is valued by the end-users. If it is no t then the resources used to create the structure will be wasted by disuse disrepair, and disorder within the built

PAGE 27

14 environment. Integrated design by all prof essions and parties involved in the product must be achieved to truly achieve theori es behind sustainable construction. 2.1.2 Drivers for Change within the U.S. Construction Industry The perspectives of the building indu stry towards sustainable construction initiatives within the United States are captured by Augenbroe and Pearce (1998). The momentum of new initiatives, methodological fr amework, and drivers for change within the construction industry are discussed. The demand for sustainable constructi on initiatives has emerged within the construction industry because of increas ing natural resource cost, degrading environments, and an overall loss in quality of life within America. According to Augenbroe and Pearce (1998), a variety of init iatives have been put into place to begin the change toward increased sustainability, some people have begun to realize that these initiatives are not sufficient to bring about the change that is needed. Some national U.S. sustainable initiatives incl ude LEED, Buildings for the 21st Century, and Energy Star. LEED more comprehensive in scope but the other two have more certified projects/participants. In the wide context of sustainable c onstruction a methodological framework is useful to identify, position, and measure the opportunities for improveme nt and priorities for change. Augenbroe and Pearce (1998) concluded, a methodological framework expresses that in different life cycle phases of a building, different ac tors are dealing with the designed or built artifact, each of them within distinct sy stem boundaries, while responsible for different sustainability aspects. To achieve sustainability it is critical to find the phases, actors, and system boundaries that have the greatest impact on sustaining

PAGE 28

15 the built environment. In addition, it is impor tant that sustainable task and objectives are coordinated seamlessly across system boundari es and levels by all actors involved. As the focus of the study, various driver s for change were identified and included in a survey sent out to over 800 green build ing professionals from various disciplines (Augenbroe & Pearce, 1998). They were asked to rank the drivers for change by importance to sustainable construction, pr ogress between now and 2010, and priorities for achieving sustainable construction. The resu lts of the on-going surv ey illustrated that education and environmental factors such as energy conservation measures, land use regulations, waste reduction, a nd resource conservation strate gies ranked highly across the board. In addition, better ways to meas ure and account for cost s and re-engineering the design process, ranked clos ely behind the education and envi ronmental factors. In the immediate progress of sustaina ble construction category, the product certification ranked highly. However, product certification ranke d extremely low in overall importance and as a long-term priority. A summary of the results c oncludes that financial and organizational drivers are only secondary to ed ucation and environmen tal drivers. What is somewhat surprising is that green buildi ng professionals ranked product certification as one of the least important factors and priori ties to achieving sustainable construction.

PAGE 29

16 Table 2-2: Average ranking of 15 dr ivers, 1 being greatest importance Sustainable Drivers for Change in the U.S. Construction Industry Sustainable Drivers Overall Rank Land use regulations and urban planning policies 1.7 Energy conservation measures 2.0 Education and training 3.0 Resource conservation strategies 5.7 Indoor environmental quality 5.7 Environmental-friendly energy technologies 6.3 Waster reduction measures 6.7 Better ways to measure and account for costs 9.0 Re-engineering the design process 9.3 Adoption of performance-based standards 10.0 Product innovation and/or certification (LEED) 10.0 New kinds of partnerships a nd project stakeholders 11.0 Adoption of incentive programs 12.7 Recognition of buildings as productivity assets 12.7 Proactive role of materials manufacturers 13.0 2.1.3 A Socio-Technical Perspective Many sustainable construction studies have focused on environmental technologies that will produce more resource efficiency within the built environment. However, Rohracher (2001) believes the major barrier to sustainable construction is the challenge of the socially interactive process of designing, constructi ng and using buildings. If a lack of interaction and collaboration occurs between actors then true sustainability will not occur since there will be missed opportuni ties that negatively affect the end users desire to maintain the property. The implem entation of more sophisticated technologies required in green building demand the actors to increasingly reorient and co-operate across the various system boundari es, levels, and processes. It is extremely difficult to accomplish this since the construction indus try is fragmented, market-driven, and regulatory in nature. According to Rohrach er (2001), the focus of social studies of

PAGE 30

17 technology on the intentional stra tegies of actors and simultaneously on the role of the institutional and organizational framework in the design and diffu sion of technologies should provide useful insights to better anal yze the barriers and perspectives for the development and dissemination of sustainabl e buildings. The pers pectives of actors involved, type of present collaboration a nd communication structures will help finds ways to achieve a better integration of actors and technical system requirements. 2.1.4 Organizational Barriers In a similar study, Van Bueren and Pr iemus (2002) state that the failed breakthrough of sustainable construction is not because of technical factors but institutional factors that influence the deci sionmaking of actors regarding whether or not to pursue sustainable practices. The definition of sustainable construction is reformulated by Van Bueren and Priemus (2002) as the design, development, construction, and management of real estate such that th e negative environmental effects of the construction, restructuring, and management of the built environment are reduced as far as possible. This definition illustrates that sustainable construction is a broad concept that requires collaborative a nd coordinated decisionmaking fr om all actors involved from designers to end users. The institutional cont ext consists of formal, planned institutions such as (state) organizations and regulations, and more informal, evolved institutions characterized by ground rules; inst itutions as interaction patter ns that structure, but do not determine, behavior, and define the space w ithin which actors act, select problems and solutions, and set priorities (V an Bueren & Priemus, 2002). To illustrate this, picture each player in the construction industry as a separate box. The relationships or interact ions between the players are represented by arrows between the boxes. Some examples of these play ers/relationships include: urban planner

PAGE 31

18 landowner, landowner-developer, developer-cont ractor, contractor-property manager, and property manager -end users. Rarely is th ere a director or coordinator to these relationships and interactions. Van Bueren and Priemus (2002) state that in a specific project this institutional setting allows for cost-efficient decisionmaking processes with outcomes that meet the minimum requires qual ity standards and from a sustainability point of view the lack of coordination betw een the various decisions contributed to many missed opportunities. To give an example of the consequen ces of segregated decision-making in sustainable construction various types of gaps that institutio nal structure can cause will be described. The first gap is between location development and building project development. This is evident in many of the new urbanism type development around the country. An urban planning consultant wo rking with the governm ental land-regulatory department and developer will create a de velopment with a sustainable layout that includes mixed-use town centers, varying si ngle family home densities, public transportation access, and open spaces. This in creases the desirability of the community by creating favorable environmental conditions that end users can enjoy for years. However, almost no builders within these su stainable communities have capitalized off the established environmental gains by constr ucting green or high performance buildings. The sustainability of these comm unities is half of what it co uld be because of a lack of collaboration. Another gap caused by institutional barri ers is one between construction and management/resident. Each player makes decisions based on their agendas and bottom line. According to Van Bueren and Priemu s (2002), the contractor wants to produce a

PAGE 32

19 product that meets legal requirements and that satisfies the demands of the principle customer, drawing as much as possible on pr esent knowledge and expe rtise. A property manager or resident may want a more ener gy efficient building that will provide costsavings through lower utili ty bills over time. In a revers ed scenario a resident may not make use of advanced green building syst ems because of a lack of knowledge or environmental concern. The underlying reason for the lack of co llaboration in sustainable construction initiatives like the examples mentioned above is because of an asym metric distribution of pluses and minuses relating to sustainable costs/benefit. For example, the owner is usually fixated on investment decisions related to the development or financing costs of a building, and much less on the l ong-term management and user costs. In market prices, typically, environmental costs ar e not usually internalized in the price formation. In labor and material markets, labor (income tax) is taxed more heavily th an are raw materials even though sustainable construction measur es often require more labor and less raw materials. The most practical way to elim inate the collaboration and asymmetric costs issues would be to create a cen tralized descionmaking process that would be in the hands of only a few individuals. This could be ach ieved through an integrated company such as a design-build-operate-transfer procedure. 2.2 LEED 2.2.1 LEED Is Broken . Lets Fix It This article by Schendler and Udall (2005) created controvers y within national green building circles. Prior to mentioning problems within the article, however, the successes of LEED such as the creation of a consensus-based green rating system of industry professionals where one did not ex ist before and the na tional buzz regarding

PAGE 33

20 sustainable awareness the USGBC create d through public relation efforts were recognized. Despite the success of LEED, the number of certified projects was less than one-tenth of a percent when compared to the other sustainable initiative programs within the U.S (Schendler & Udall, 2005). The pr oblems of LEED consist of culmination of financial, environmental, and organizational issues. The cost of LEED certification can be unpr edictable and potentially unprofitable. False reporting among the industry that LEED projects do not cost more than conventional projects is misleading. The abil ity to accurately predict and execute LEED project cost is difficult since there usually are unexpected outcomes in any new system or process. If you admit that LEED does add co sts it scares many clients away. Schendler and Udall (2005) estimated the soft costs of LEED for a small build ing will put you in the hole $68,450. These funds could be used to im prove the building in other useful ways. Many developers are leery of costs of LEED certification since it is too expensive and time consuming. A growing amount of developers feel it is just as useful to use LEED as just a guideline. Point mongering is another problem that happens when the design team places more emphasis on acquiring LEED points than ad ding environmental value to a project. The public relation campaign that the USGBC created with LEED is followed by its users in the decisionmaking process. In the orga nizational structure of LEED, all points are created equal. This directs LEED particip ants to pursue the cheapest points possible creating more bang-for-the-buck than envir onmental capital. Making LEED based on scientific analysis rather than on committ ee consensus may help the point inequality

PAGE 34

21 issues, according to Scheduler and Udall (2005). Increasing the required amount of specific creates is also suggested. 2.2.2 LEED: Past, Present, and Future In another article analyzing how LEED was faring after five years, Solomon (2005) provided not only insight to the existing probl ems of LEED but also explained how they came about and whether they will be resolved. Many of the original developers of LEED were not surprised by the existing problems. When the decision was made to release the first version of LEED many US GBC members knew that it was awkward and incomplete, and many wanted to wait until it could be put on more scient ific footing, but more wanted to get something out quickly (Solomon, 2005). The current problems of LEED that are mentioned include bioregional insensitivity a nd the relatively tenuous connection to lifecycle analysis. The first i ssue leads to impractical desi gn and also point-mongering. The Life-cycle analysis, or LCA, leads to the sc ientific discipline of measuring the material resources and energy consumed, and the envi ronmental impact create, by a particular product throughout its life (Solomon, 2005). A greater reduction in environmental impact could result using LCA but LEEDs one-point-per-credit structure does not encourage this more sophisticated method. Other concerns mentioned accuse LEED of being too bureaucratic. LEED certifiers get bogged down by technical deta ils and loss sight of good design. In competition with LEED, Green Globes, a Webbased sustainable design tool for new commercial construction is being used by many green building professionals as an alternative to the headaches of LEED. Green Globes is an online platform that links to energy-modeling and LCA software tools. Ho wever, it does lack the market base and public input that gives LEED its strength.

PAGE 35

22 The future of LEED is promising. The early success of LEED and adoption of it by the public sector overwhelmed the resources the USGBC has to refine and add depth to the original product. Instea d, they have focused on getti ng new products of LEED into the market place such as LEED-EB, LEED -ND, and LEED-H. LEED has already included and improved an online tool that pr omises to be more user-friendly and cut down on the paperwork. There will be some re finement in the credits themselves in the next LEED version. The USGBC is also planning on increasingly underpinning LEED with LCA-type thinking, although they are s earching for the right mix to use since LCA does not focus on local impact issues. This chapter reviewed some of the more significant publicat ions on sustainable construction and LEED. Existing studies were conducted that led to the conception of this study. In the next chapter a methodology of this research is provided including the development of the survey and the statistical measurements used for analysis.

PAGE 36

23 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Literature pertaining to the barriers of su stainable construction is abundant. Recent articles addressing the specifi c problems of LEED have also been published. However, there is very little data regarding the financ ial and organizational ba rriers of sustainable construction initiatives with in the United States. This study was conducted to help collaborate and document LEED Accredited Prof essionals perspectives on the financial, environmental, and organizational barriers of the LEED green rating system. Ultimately, the goal of this research is to contribute to making the next major version of LEED more accepted among the construction industry. To be gin this study, a review of periodicals pertaining to the subjects of sustainability, green build ing, and LEED was conducted, and internet websites were consulted as well. A survey was then developed with questions falling into five categories; company information, personal information, financia l-organizational pers pectives, financialenvironmental perspectives and environm ental-organizational perspectives. The questionnaire consisted of tw o types of questions; those th at required written answers dealing with general company/ personnel information and those that required a respondent to rate his/her level of agreement with the statement on a seven-point Likert scale with a response of 1 indicating total disagreement and 7 indicating total agreement. The number 4 within the Likert scale represented a neutral respons e to the statement allowing participants to not take a side or state an opinion. Afte r each category heading a space was provided for comment or clarification.

PAGE 37

24 In order to produce an eff ective survey, it was necessary to refine the survey several times. Numerous articles on LEED we re reviewed and analyzed. Each problem or critic of the system was listed acco rding to the environmental and economic components of sustainable development. In addition, organizational components were also listed such as bureaucratic or collabora tion issues between professionals. Repetitive issues were consolidated. Th e problems were then transposed into statements that fell into social-economic, social-environmental, or economic-environmental. Since the statements mainly addressed internal busine ss socialization rather than end-user or consumer topics of sustainability the term social was replaced by organizational to probably convey the focus on the institutional structure of the LEED system and U.S. construction industry. The broad area of economics was narrowed down and restated as financial since profitability was the major area of concentr ation in this study. Several expert LEED consultants then reviewed the su rvey drafts and made valuable suggestions and corrections. This process produced a two-page survey consisting of 18 questions not including the sections relating to company and personal information. It was necessary to include a letter of consent to participate with the su rvey explaining the privacy protocol and the purpose of the research. The IRB, consent, and survey forms were then submitted to the Institutional Review Board fo r approval. After receiving auth orization (see Appendix A), the survey and letter of cons ent were electronically mailed to LEED APs in the states of Florida and Georgia from the LEED AP directory web pages w ith instructions for their return via electronic mail or facsimile. The type of information gathered in each section of the survey is as follows:

PAGE 38

25 1. Company Information: this section request data such as company age, company services, annual volume, percent of vol ume that is LEED certified, percent of volume increase in LEED projects over the last 2 years, percent volume that is sustainable but not LEED certified, numb er of employees, number of LEED certified employees, and highest level of LEED certificati on any experienced project has received. This section provi ded general information helpful to the assessment of the survey. 2. Personal Information: this section consisted mainly of details pertaining to the individual participant. Th e profession and position were also asked to establish variances between professions. 3. Organizational Financial: this section wa s designed to establish perspectives on how coordination between organizations or i ndividuals affected the profitability of LEED projects. 4. Organizational Environmental: this secti on was designed to establish perspectives on how coordination between organizatio ns or individuals affected the environmental impact of LEED projects. 5. Financial Environmental: this section was designed to establish perspectives on how profitability of a LEED project aff ected the environmental impact of LEED projects. Before sending out the surveys, it was necessary to determine the sample size. With a 95% confidence level, a permissible error of .05, and an estimated sample size was calculated to be 47. A random selection of LEED APs from the states of Florida and Georgia was generated. With the assump tion that one out of every eight surveys would be completed and returned, 248 surveys were distributed via electronic mail. After the initial survey was sent, a period of 2 weeks was allowed for responses because of thesis deadline dates. The data sets that the surveys contained were then input into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for stratification and analysis The maximum, minimum, and average responses were calculated. Then the results were further analyzed to select the most appropriate data source to compare to the ot her answers to find the potential relations and

PAGE 39

26 conclusive insights of the research. Then the average responses of the selected categories were calculated for each question and used for comparison. This chapter discussed the procedures for developing the survey and data collection methodology, next in Chapter 4 a detailed look into data analyses is presented.

PAGE 40

27 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The results of this study were presented in two sections. Section 4.1 reviewed the responses to each survey question; the average, maximum, and minimum responses were also reported unless the ques tion structure calls for percen tage distribution breakdown. Where necessary the data results were stra tified to provide more useful comparisons. Section 4.2 analyzed the data based on the services of th e company. Where relevant the participants profession was s ubstituted in place of company services for statement analyses. This pr ovided insight to the various disciplines perspectives and organizational structures regarding fi nancial and environmental issues. One element of two questions caused a probl em when analyzing the results. In the Type of LEED APs question and the Profession of Partic ipant question the choice of Owner was available for selec tion. Owner was supposed to be classified as a principal investor or equity holder of a developm ent or construction project; however, many participants believed it referred to the ownership of a company. The other problem in the Results section of this study was because there were only 37 survey responses instead of the 48 needed to have a 95% confidence level for this study, the confidence level was re-calculate d using N=37, the new confidence level was 90%.

PAGE 41

28 4.1 Overview 4.1.1 General Background Information 4.1.1.1 Company age There were 33 responses to this question w ith 35 years old as the average. The maximum amount reported was 150 years old, and the minimum was 3 years. The largest amount of respondents were from comp anies 1 to 20 years in age, illustrated in Figure 4-1. Companies by Age0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 160 to 2021 to 50 > 51Age groups in yearsNumber of Companies N = 14 N = 10 N = 9 Figure 4-1: Company ag e in years (N=33) 4.1.1.2 Company services As shown in Figure 4-2, 35 respondents an swered this question. The largest percentage of services provided by a compa ny was Multi-discipline at 37%. Just over 31% provided only Design services. There were 11% Construction and 11% of Other services such as planning and business development.

PAGE 42

29 Company Services Provided0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14D e sign Con tr u c t i o n Dev elop me nt C onsultant Fina n cial Other Mu l ti D i sc i p Figure 4-2: Distribution of company services (N=35) 4.1.1.3 Annual volume There were 28 respondents with a to tal average annual volume of $369,835, 528. The maximum was $1.8 billion and the minimum was $300,000. As shown in Figure 43, the largest amount of res pondents were from companies with annual volumes of less than 20 million dollars. Company Annual Volume0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140 to 2021 to 400> 400In Million DollarsNumber of Companies Figure 4-3: Distribution of annual volume (N=28)

PAGE 43

30 4.1.1.4 Percent of annual volume contributed to LEED There were 35 respondents with an averag e of 2.2% of annual volume contributed to LEED. The maximum was 23% and the minimum was 0. The majority of respondents only had between 0 to 1% of their company s annual volume that contributed to LEED projects, shown in Figure 4-4. Percent of Annual as LEED Certified0 5 10 15 20 25 0 to 12 to 4> 5 Number of CompaniesAnnual Volume by Percent N = 20 N = 5 N = 4 Figure 4-4: Distributi on of annual volume LEED certified (N=35) 4.1.1.5 Percent of annual volume not LEED but green As shown in Figure 4-5, the number of re spondents was 5 and the average was onethird of a percent. The maximum was 2.5% and the minimum was 0.

PAGE 44

31 Percent Annual To Green (but not LEED Cert.)0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 to 12 to 4> 5 Annual PercentNumber of Companies N = 2 N = 1 N = 2 Figure 4-5: Percent of annual volume green but not LEED (N=5) 4.1.1.6 Number of company employees The number of respondents was 35 and the average was 985 employees. The maximum was 26,000 and the minimum was 3 employees. The majority of respondents were from companies with less than 50 employees, shown in Figure 4-6. Number of Companies by Number of Employees 0 5 10 15 20 0 to 5051 to 400> 400Number of EmployeesNumber of Companies N = 17N = 12N = 6 Figure 4-6: Distributi on of number of company employees (N=35)

PAGE 45

32 4.1.1.7 Number of LEED Accredited Professionals in company The number of participants was 36, with an average of 11 LEED APs. The maximum was a 100 and the minimum was 2 LEED APs. The majority of companies had five or less LEED APs, shown in Figure 4-7. Number of Companies by Number of LEED APs0 10 20 30 0 to 56 to 20> 20Number of LEED APsNumber of Companies N = 25N = 4N = 7 Figure 4-7: Distribution of the number of LEED APs in company (N=36) 4.1.1.8 Types of LEED APs in a company As shown in Figure 4-8, there were 36 respondents with Architects and Muitidisciplines of LEED APs each consisting of 25%. The next closest was GCs with 22% and the lowest percentage was Developers and Owners each making up 3%. Types of LEED APs in Company0 2 4 6 8 10 ArchEngGCOwnerDeveloperOtherMulti Discip Figure 4-8: Distribution of the types of LEED APs in companies (N=36)

PAGE 46

33 4.1.1.9 Number of LEED certified project based on certification level As shown in Figure 4-9, there were 36 respondents, with 22 Silver projects completed, 20 Gold, 14 Certified, and only 4 Platinum. LEED Certification Levels for years 2000 through 20050 5 10 15 20 25 CertifiedSilverGoldPlatinum Figure 4-9: Distributi on of LEED certified proj ect levels (N=36) 4.1.2 Personnel Background Information 4.1.2.1 Professions of participants As shown by Figure 4-10, the number of pa rticipants was 36, with the highest number being architects followe d by engineers. Construction was third then the rest of the professions feel significantly below. Survey Responders by Profession0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16B u s D e v D e v el o p er Educat o r Ow n er CM GC Eng. Arch. O t h e r

PAGE 47

34 Figure 4-10: Distribution of pa rticipant professions (N=36) 4.1.2.2 Participant job titles As shown by Figure 4-11, the number of re sponders is 36, and the largest amount of titles is in Project Management. President and VP are equally second in distribution followed last by Other miscellaneous. Participant Job Title0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 PresidentVice PresProj MgrOther Figure 4-11: Distribution of pa rticipant job title (N=36) 4.1.3 Organizational and Financial Perspectives This section was developed to ascertain the respondents pe rceptions of LEED regarding organizational and financial aspects. They read statements and were asked to rate the degree to which they disagreed or ag reed with the statement from one to seven on a Likert scale. One signifies Strongly Disa gree, four was a Neutral response, and seven was Strongly Agree. The averages of the ratings were then calculated for ease of comparison and are illustrated in each graph by a dashed black line. 4.1.3.1 Collaboration of costs All 37 respondents answered this ques tion. The question was established to determine the amount of cost collaboration by professionals. As shown in Figure 4-12,

PAGE 48

35 the average was 4.51, which indicates that re spondents tended to Somewhat Agree that they collaborate with professionals on LEED cost issues. I collaborate extensively with other professi ons on cost-related issues pertaining to LEED projects, such as budge ting, scheduling, design, and LCC. Question 10 2 4 6 8 10 12Stongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeRatingFrequency Figure 4-12: Collaboration of costs (N=37) 4.1.3.2 Adequacy of LEED budgets and schedules The number of responses to this statemen t was 36. As shown in Figure 4-13, the average of the ratings was 3.83, signifying th at respondents were Neutral with this statement. The budgets and schedules for LEED proj ects are just as adequate as for conventional projects.

PAGE 49

36 Question 20 2 4 6 8 10 12Stongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeRatingFrequency Figure 4-13: Adequacy of LEED budgets and schedules (N=36) 4.1.3.3 Collaboration, cost-efficiency, a nd reduced environmental impact There were 37 responses to this statemen t as well. As shown in Figure 4-14, the average response was 5.19, which corresponds to the Somewhat Agree category. The majority of respondents agreed overall that LEED promotes collaboration financially and environmentally. The LEED point system promotes collabor ation between professions resulting in cost-efficient designs that reduce environment impact. Question 30 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Stongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeRatingFrequency Figure 4-14: Collaboration, cost-efficiency, and reduced environmental impact (N=37)

PAGE 50

37 4.1.3.4 Environmental impact reduction and profit There were 36 responses to this statemen t. As shown by Figure 4-15, the average response was 3.42, which corresponds to the So mewhat Disagree category. The majority of respondents tend to disagree that environmental impact reduction and profit are not correlated. The more environmental im pact reduction measures on a LEED project the more profit my company will earn. Question 40 2 4 6 8 10Stongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeRatingFrequency Figure 4-15: Environmental imp act reduction and profit (N=36) 4.1.3.5 Authority to Pursue LEED Points by Cost/Benefit All 37 respondents rated th is statement. As shown by Figure 4-16, the overall rating fell into the Somewhat Agree category with an average of 4.59. The majority of respondents agreed that they have the author ity to decide what points are pursued based on cost in a LEED project. I have the authority to decide what LEED points are pursued based on cost/benefit analysis.

PAGE 51

38 Question 50 2 4 6 8 10Stongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeRatingFrequency Figure 4-16: Authority to pursue LEED points by cost/benefit (N=37) 4.1.3.6 Green taxes and financial incentives A shown in Figure 4-17, the average rating for this statement was 5.54, which places it in the category of Agree. All 37 res pondents rated this statement. The majority of respondents also Strongly Agreed to that the green building advocates should focus on crating more monetary incen tives for LEED participation. Green Building advocates should focus on creating more tax and financial incentives for LEED projects Question 60 5 10 15Stongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeRatingFrequency Figure 4-17: Green taxes & fi nancial incentives (N=37)

PAGE 52

39 4.1.4 Organizational and Environmental Perspectives This section was developed to ascertain the respondents pe rceptions of LEED regarding organizational and environmenta l aspects. Again, respondents read the statements and were asked to rate the degree to which they disagreed or agreed with the statement from one to seven on a Likert scale. One signifies Strongl y Disagree, four is a Neutral response, and seven is Strongly Agree. The averages of the ratings were then calculated for ease of comparison and illustrated in each graph by a dashed line. 4.1.4.1 Level of integrated design As shown in Figure 4-18, the average rating for this statement was 2.78, which places it in the category of somewhat disagr ee. The majority of respondents Disagreed with the statement that integrated desi gn does not substantially increase for LEED projects over conventional projects. The level of integrated design does not s ubstantially increase for a LEED project compared to a conventional project. Question 70 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Stongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeRatingFrequency Figure 4-18: Level of integrated design (N=37)

PAGE 53

40 4.1.4.2 United States Green Building Council (USGBC) receptiveness to feedback As shown in Figure 4-19, the average rating for this statement was 4.67, which places it in the category of Somewhat Agree. One respondent didnt reply regarding this question. The majority of respondents were Neutral in opinion whether the USGBC is receptive to feedback. Enough respondents ag reed pushing the average just into the Somewhat Agree category. The USGBC is receptive to feedback Question 80 5 10 15 20Stongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeRatingFrequency Figure 4-19: USGBC receptiveness to feedback (N=36) 4.1.4.3 Collaboration and certification level As shown in Figure 4-20, the average rating for this statement was 6.11, which places it in the Agree category. All 37 re spondents agreed to varying degrees that collaboration between professions during a LEED project increased the chances of achieving the desired certification level. Increased collaboration between profession s during a LEED proj ect increase the likelihood of achieving the de sired certification level

PAGE 54

41 Question 90 4 8 12 16Stongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeRatingFrequency Figure 4-20: Collaboration and certification level (N=37) 4.1.4.4 Collaboration and point mongering Every respondent rated this statement. As shown by Figure 4-21, the average of all the ratings was 3.97, putting the average re sponse in the Neutral category. The distribution of responses was very balanced to whether collabor ation on LEED projects leads to point-mongering rather than good design. Collaboration on LEED projects results in LEED point maximizing rather than good design Question 100 2 4 6 8 10Stongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeRatingFrequency Figure 4-21: Collaboration a nd point mongering (N=37)

PAGE 55

42 4.1.4.5 Consensus-based rating system Thirty-six of thirty seven respondents rate d this statement. As shown in Figure 422, the average of those ratings was 5.31. This average fell into the Somewhat Agree category. No respondents disagreed to any degree to the statement that LEED should remain consensus-based. LEED should continue to be a consensus-based rating system Question 110 4 8 12 16Stongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeRatingFrequency Figure 4-22: Consensus-base d rating system (N=36) 4.1.4.6 Improved web-based protocol / customer service There were a total of 35 res ponses to this statement. With an average rating of 5.11, respondents Somewhat Agreed. Figure 423 shows that the majority were either Neutral or in agreement with the statement that LEED needs to improve internet usage and customer service. LEED needs an improved interactive webbased protocol to improve customer support.

PAGE 56

43 Question 120 4 8 12 16Stongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeRatingFrequency Figure 4-23: Improved web-based prot ocol / customer service (N=35) 4.1.5 Financial and Environmental Perspectives This section was developed to determine the respondents pe rceptions of LEED regarding financial and envir onmental aspects. The Respondents read statements and were asked to rate the degree to which they disagreed or agreed w ith the statement from one to seven on a Likert scale. One signi fied Strongly Disagree, four was a Neutral response, and seven was Strongly Agree. The averages of the ratings were then calculated for ease of analysis and illust rated in each graph by a dashed line. 4.1.5.1 Cost-efficiency and certification level All respondents replied to this statement. As Figure 4-24 illustrates, the average rating was 4.59, which fell into the Somewhat Agree category. The majority of the responses were Neutral or agreed to this statement. The more cost-efficient a LEED project s budget and design are, the more likely that the desired certification level will be achieved.

PAGE 57

44 Question 130 2 4 6 8 10Stongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeRatingFrequency Figure 4-24: Cost-efficiency a nd certification level (N=37) 4.1.5.2 Future of Life-Cycle Assessments (LCA) and Life-Cycle Costing (LCC) methods Thirty-five of thirty -seven respondents rate d this statement. Figure 4-25 shows that the average rating of responses was 4.71, which states a Somewhat Agreement to whether LCA and LCC methods should be used in LEED. LCA and LCC methods should be include d in the future LEED 3.0 version. The average of this question is 4.71. Question 140 2 4 6 8 10 12Stongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeRatingFrequency Figure 4-25: Future of LC A and LCC methods (N=35)

PAGE 58

45 4.1.5.3 Rationale to pursue LEED All 37 respondents rated this statement. In Figure 426, the average is 4.22, which fell into the Neutral category. There was a balanced distribution of opinions in the corresponding degrees of di sagreement and agreement. The major consideration whether to pursue LEED Certification is based on cost/benefit analysis relative to environmental impact. Question 150 2 4 6 8 10 12Stongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeRatingFrequency Figure 4-26: Rationale to pursue LEED (N=37) 4.1.5.4 Ecological economics All 37 respondents rated this statement as well. Figure 4-27 illustrates that the average response was 5.76, which fell into the Agree category. The majority agreed to this statement that they considered envir onmentally pertinent as pects of a project. I consider the value of environmentally pe rtinent aspects of a project (ex. Natural ecosystems, green space, wetlands)

PAGE 59

46 Question 160 4 8 12 16 20 24Stongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeRatingFrequency Figure 4-27: Ecological economics (N=37) 4.1.5.5 Soft cost of LEED value Only 34 of the 37 respondents rated this statement. In Figure 4-28, the average rating was 3.79, making for an overall Neutral response to whether soft cost of LEED could be better used in LCC and LCA analyses The bell-shaped dist ribution illustrated a balance of opinions. The (soft) costs of LEED certification, such as commissioning, energy modeling, and documentation, could be better invested in LCC and LCA analyses. Question 170 4 8 12 16Stongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeRatingFrequency Figure 4-28: Soft cost of LEED value (N=34)

PAGE 60

47 4.1.5.6 Profitability of LEED projects The final question that was asked received ratings by all respondents. As Figure 429 illustrates, the average distribution was 3.59, which fell into the Neutral category as well. There were slightly more disagreement responses overall. LEED projects are more profitable for my company than conventional projects. Question 180 2 4 6 8 10 12Stongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeRatingFrequency Figure 4-29: Profitability of LEED projects (N=37) 4.2 Analysis This section examines the perspectives of LEED APs by Company Services. Company services were condensed into four aspects: Design, Construction, Other, and Multi-Discipline services. Design services cons ist of Architects or Engineers. The Other category of professional service companies consist of a culmination of developers, consultants, financial lenders, investors, and educators. The Multi Discipline category consists of any companies that had more than one professional service internally available to their clients. An example of this would be a design-build firm. Another example would be a company that finances, designs, builds, and operates a project. Distributing the responses by company services provided additional insight to the

PAGE 61

48 organizational and social agendas relating to both environmental and financial factors of sustainable construction and LEED First, the company servi ce data was compared to the background information within the survey. Then the company serv ice application was applied to a scatter plot char t to illustrate the correlat ions and differences of the perspectives regarding the ei ghteen statements. The averages of the responses closely followed the Multi-discipline and Design compan ies opinions since they were by far the largest groups of res pondents of the survey. 4.2.1 Background 4.2.1.1 Company age in years The average age of Design service comp anies was less than 30 years old. Construction companies were the youngest at an average of 19 years. Surprisingly the Multi-disciplines and Other companies were older. Company Average Age vs Services0 10 20 30 40 50 60 DesignConstrOtherMultiAvg. Age (years) Figure 4-30 Company service vs. company age 4.2.1.2 Annual volume As Figure 4-31 illustrates Multi-discipline serviced companies had an exponential amount of annual volume over all other compan ies. However, Design and Construction

PAGE 62

49 had averages of less than 5 million. This data may be skewed because of an unusually high volume by a specific survey participant. Annual Vol $ by Services0 2,000,000,000 4,000,000,000 6,000,000,000 8,000,000,000 10,000,000,000 12,000,000,000 DesignConstrOthersMulti DiscipDollars Figure 4-31: Company services vs. annual volume (N=28) 4.2.1.3 LEED volume As Figure 4-32 shows, the average percen ts of breakdown by company services and LEED % of Annual Volume. Multi Discipline and Design companies vary at 17% and 45%. LEEDs % vs Services0 10 20 30 40 50 DesignConstrOthersMulti DiscipPercent Figure 4-32: Company services vs. LEED percent of annual volume

PAGE 63

50 4.2.1.4 Number of LEED APs The comparison between number of LEED APs and company structure revealed that Multi and Design firms were above Cons truction and Other service companies in the number of LEED APs. Number of LEED APs vs Services0 50 100 150 200 250 300 DesignConstrOthersMulti Discip Figure 4-33: Company services vs. number of LEED APs 4.2.1.5 Number of LEED certified projects In Figure 4-34, the quantity of LEED certified projects by company services was illustrated. Design was the highest with 22 projects experienced; Multi was close behind with 21 projects. Other service company averaged around 16 while Construction was extremely low at 1 LEED AP.

PAGE 64

51 No. of LEED Cert. Projects vs Services0 5 10 15 20 25 DesignConstrOthersMulti Discip Figure 4-34: Company service vs. nu mber of LEED certified projects 4.2.2 Organizational and Financial Perspectives The following perspective questions were an alyzed through scatter plot graphs to insightfully illustrate the correlations betw een financial viewpoints versus company organizational structures. In many of the scenarios the C onstruction and Design companies had opposite concerns and opinions. In addition the Othe r classification of company services included planners, busine ss development manager, and manufacturers gave typically optimistic responses. 4.2.2.1 Collaboration of costs by company services The responses to this ques tion illustrated that Design companies collaborated the least with Other professions while Multidiscipline companies the most. If Multi companies have various types of professiona ls working under one roof then it could be easier for them to collaborate.

PAGE 65

52 I collaborate extensively with other professions on cost-related issues pertaining to LEED projects, such as budgeting, scheduling, design, and LCC 4.630 1 2 1234567 Likert ScaleQuestion # 1 Design Constr Other Multi Avg Figure 4-35: Distribution of company servic es and collaboration of costs by company services 4.2.2.2 Adequacy of LEED budgets and schedules by company services In this question responses were signifi cantly different. Construction companies disagreed the most and Design companies disa greed to a lesser extent. Multi and Other companies were very agreeable with the st atement. The possible reasoning behind the responses may have been because contractor s and designers had much more exposure and liability with regards to budgeti ng and time restraints than Ot her service companies in the industry.

PAGE 66

53 The budgets and schedules for LEED projects are just as adequate as for conventional projects1 2 3 1234567 Likert ScaleQuestion # 2 Design Constr Other Multi Avg Figure 4-36: Distribution of company serv ices and adequacy of LEED budgets and schedules by company services 4.2.2.3 Collaboration, cost-efficiency, and reduced environmental impact by company services In question 3, there were also a variety of responses based on company services. Construction disagreed again while Desi gn companies thought LEED collaboration did work. Design professionals collaborated the least but they said that LEED promotes collaboration. Designers can steer the cost and environmental impact since they make decisions early on in the chai n. Contractors must work w ithin the design professionals lines with a profit margin and with environmental requirements. It is interesting that Other companies truly believe LEED was cost -efficient and environmentally friendly. The company types that fell into this category were developers, planne rs, and educators.

PAGE 67

54 4.2.2.4 Environmental impact reduction and profit by company services The more environmental impact reduction measures on a LEED project the more profit my company will earn3 4 5 1234567 Likert ScaleQuestion # 4 Design Constr Other Multi Avg Figure 4-37: Distribution of company servic es and environmental impact reduction and profit by company services In Figure 4-37, the distribution was wide. Multi discipline companies stated that there was no relation between profit and environmental impact reduction Construction professionals though fairly Neutral in perspec tives stated a slight agreement with the statement.

PAGE 68

55 4.2.2.5 Authority to pursue LEED points by cost/benefit by company services I have the authority to decide what LEED points are pursued based on cost/benefit analysis4 5 6 1234567 Likert ScaleQuestion # 5 Design Constr Other Multi Avg Figure 4-38: Distribution of company servic es and authority to pursue LEED points by cost/benefit by company services This question was designed to determine who had the greatest impact or say in cost/benefit analyses on LEED projects. As no surprise Design prof essionals were early in the decision-making chain. Contractor s and Multi companies were Neutral while Other service companies Slightly Disagreed.

PAGE 69

56 4.2.2.6 Green taxes and financial in centives by company services Green Building advocates should focus on creating more tax and financial incentives for LEED projects5 6 7 1234567 Likert ScaleQuestion # 6 Design Constr Other Multi Avg Figure 4-39: Distribution of company services and green taxes and financial incentives by company services In Figure 4-39, the distribution showed that contractors Strongly Agreed to the demand for more financial incentives. This may indicate that c ontractors have had difficulty turning a profit on these technologically advanced buildings. This may be because of the tax system that taxes labor more than materials. Other causes may be because sustainable suppliers and subcontractor s were not affordable or available in the marketplace. 4.2.3 Organizational and Environmental Perspectives In this next section, the organizationa l and environmental perspectives are examined based on the same criteria of compa ny services. This will continue to show

PAGE 70

57 potential agendas of industry pr ofessionals that create barrie rs to the adoption of green building systems such as LEED. 4.2.3.1 Level of integrated design by company services The level of integrated-design does not substantially increase for a LEED project compared to a conventional project6 7 8 1234567 Likert ScaleQuestion # 7 Design Constr Other Multi Avg. Figure 4-40: Distribution of company services and level of integrated design by company services Question 7 showed that Construction, Ot her, and Multi service companies Strongly Disagreed with this statement. Design pr ofessionals only Slightly Disagreed. To designers it may not be that much additional trouble to add some level of complexity or efficiency to a building design. However, Contractors have vari ous additional hurdles such as documentation, energy modeling, co mmissioning and more specialized trade professionals to manage.

PAGE 71

58 4.2.3.2 USGBC Receptiveness to Feedback by company services The USGBC is receptive to feedback7 8 9 1234567 Likert ScaleQuestion # 8 Design Constr Other Multi Avg. Figure 4-41: Distribution of company servic es and USGBC receptiveness to feedback by company services As Figure 4-41 shows, Multi service compan ies Strongly Agreed while contractors and Designers where much more neutral. Multi service companies may have more comprehensive feedback or a well-rounded view which made there cri tics more useful to the USGBC. However, it also could be the ca se that they were less aware of specific faults in the system like sp ecialized companies would.

PAGE 72

59 4.2.3.3 Collaboration and certification level by company services Increased collaboration between professions during a LEED project increases the likelihood of achieving the desired certification level8 9 10 1234567 Likert ScaleQuestion # 9 Design Constr Other Multi Avg. Figure 4-42: Distribution of company services and collaboration and certification level by company services When company services responses were distributed for question 9 there was very little differentiation. Everyone Strongly Ag reed that collabora tion did increase the chances of achieving the desired certificat ion level on LEED projects. However, not everyone profits the same off LEE D projects so the incentives to collaborate will vary between professions. This question was key to this study, but did stil l not clarify how to increase and balance the distribut ion of profits in a LEED project.

PAGE 73

60 4.2.3.4 Collaboration and point mongering by company services Collaboration on LEED projects results in LEED point maximizing rather than good design9 10 11 1234567 Likert ScaleQuestion # 10 Design Constr Other Multi Avg. Figure 4-43: Distribution of company servic es and collaboration and point mongering by company services The distribution of company services re lating to question 10 about point mongering showed that Construction prof essionals believe point mongering is an issue; while Design professionals Slightly Disagree with the statement. Multidiscipline companies disagreed the most in reference to collaboration and point mongering. This may be because they have been responsible for more decision making aspects or long-term operation of a building. The average overall on this questi on was Neutral stating that point mongering was an individual opinion.

PAGE 74

61 4.2.3.5 Consensus-based rating system by company services LEED should continue to be a consensus-based rating system10 11 12 1234567 Likert ScaleQuestion # 11 Design Constr Other Multi Avg. Figure 4-44: Distribution of company servic es and consensus-based rating system by company services The company service distribution to que stion 11 was very narrow in range. Overall, all professions Agreed that LEED should remain consensus based.

PAGE 75

62 4.2.3.6 Improved web-based protocol / customer service by company services LEED needs an improved interactive web-based protocol to improve customer support11 12 13 1234567 Likert ScaleQuestion # 12 Design Constr Other Multi Avg. Figure 4-45: Distribution of company serv ices and improved web-based protocol / customer service by company services Once again, in question 12 the distribution of company services was also very narrow. The professions only Slightly Ag reed that LEED should improve web-based efforts and customer support. The power of the internet in business applications are typically underutilize d, however, in the entrenched c onstruction industry a Slightly Agreed response was significant. 4.2.4 Financial and Environmental Perspectives The final section within the results section illustrated the financial and environmental perspectives cate gorized by company services

PAGE 76

63 4.2.4.1 Cost-efficiency and certification level The more cost-efficient a LEED project's budget and design are, the more likely that the desired certification level will be achieved12 13 14 1234567 Likert ScaleQuestion # 13 Design Constr Other Multi Avg. Figure 4-46: Distribution of company services and cost-efficiency and certification level As Figure 4-46 shows, cost efficiency a nd certification chances have a correlation. Design professionals were Neutral in res ponse, however, Construction professionals Agreed overall. This may be because budgets and profit margins are thin and challenging to meet with the increased complexiti es of a LEED project. Usually, Design professionals do not have to worry about wh ether the project is competed on budget they get the same profit regardless.

PAGE 77

64 4.2.4.2 Future of LCA and LCC methods by company services LCA and LCC methods should be included in the future LEED 3.0 version13 14 15 1234567 Likert ScaleQuestion # 14 Design Constr Other Multi Avg. Figure 4-47: Distribution of company servic es and future of LCA and LCC methods by company services This important financial and environmental statement received interesting responses. Construction and Design compan ies actually were surp risingly both Neutral to the statement. Other service companie s and Multi companies agreed more to the statement. LEED is planning on implemen ting the right balance of LCA and LCC methods in LEED 3.0 version. However, there ar e concerns that restrict the use of such modeling that Construction and Desi gn professionals may be aware of.

PAGE 78

65 4.2.4.3 Rationale to pursue LEED by company services The major consideration whether to pursue LEED Certification is based on cost/benefit analysis relative to environmental impact14 15 16 1234567 Likert ScaleQuestion # 15 Design Constr Other Multi Avg. Figure 4-48: Distribution of company servic es and rationale to pursue LEED by company services As Figure 4-48 illustrates, the responses to this statement were Neutral. Construction and Design prof essionals once again were Neut ral in opinion. Multi service companies Slightly Disagreed whil e Other service companies Agreed.

PAGE 79

66 4.2.4.4 Ecological economics by company services I consider the value of environmentally pertinent aspects of a project.(ex. natural ecosystems, green space, wetlands...)15 16 17 1234567 Likert ScaleQuestion # 16 Design Constr Other Multi Avg. Figure 4-49: Distribution of company serv ices and ecological economics by company services This statement distribution was slightly boarder in range as shown by Figure 4-49. Construction professionals Slightly Agr eed to the economic ecology statement while Multi service companies Strongly Agreed. Design and Other professionals were inbetween the two. This may be the reason w hy Construction professi onals are lacking in interest and participation in LEED when compared to other professions. However, many contractors do not deal with ecosystems, green space, or wetland issues. They simply build the building they are hi red for. This lack of aw areness should be within the industry.

PAGE 80

67 4.2.4.5 Value of LEED soft costs by company services The (soft) costs of LEED certification, such as commissioning, energy modeling, and documentation, could be better invested in LCC and LCA analyses16 17 18 1234567 Likert ScaleQuestion # 17 Design Constr Other Multi Avg. Figure 4-50: Distribution of company services and value of LEED soft costs by company services This question distribution by company se rvice was the same across the board, shown in Figure 4-50. Every category of co mpany services was Neutral or Slightly Disagreed. This either illust rated that everyone feels soft costs of LEED projects were founded or just that LCC and LCA may not be a better alternative fo r the money. Either way the Slight Disagreement to the stat ement shows LEED does do a pretty good job with cost control and environmental impact.

PAGE 81

68 4.2.4.6 Profitability of LEED proj ects by company services LEED projects are more profitable for my company than conventional projects17 18 19 1234567 Likert ScaleQuestion # 18 Design Constr Other Multi Avg. Figure 4-51: Distribution of company servic es and profitability of LEED projects by company services The bottom line of companies was distribu ted by the company categories in Figure 4-51. Design and Construction companies both Slightly Disagreed here. Multi service Slightly Disagreed as well while Other se rvice companies actually Agreed to the statement in a slightly above Neutral way. The analyses of the results of this st udy illustrated the various perspectives of LEED APs regarding the LEED-NC rating sy stem. A summary of this study and recommendations for future study will be provided in the following chapter.

PAGE 82

69 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 5.1 Summary The results of this study revealed the perspectives of LEED Accredited Professionals regarding the barriers and opportunities of sustainable construction. Though some of the critics of LEED were re inforced by this study, many proved to be exaggerated and unfounded. However, this st udy directly illustrated many of the overall barriers to sustainable constr uction that pose a much larger concern for U.S. citizens, industry, and government. The major weaknesses found with the LEED system were related to financial aspects. The profitability of LEED was asymmetric. Overall, the USGBC goal to transform the market with th e introduction of LEED failed. LEED has captured less than one-third of one percent of the industry s annual volume. However, it has grown exponentially since its incepti on. It has also produced awareness of cost and environmental design issues, primarily within design and multi disciplined companies. Contractors do not have as much interest in sustainable c onstruction because they do not profit off complex designs or reduced long-te rm operating cost of buildings. More enduser demand for LEED projects would produce a monetary driver forc ing contractors to adopt more sustainable initiatives. From an organizational standpoint, the USGBC has done a good job overall with LEED. The survey illustrated that LEED s hould remain consensus-based. USGBC was slightly above average in feedback recepti veness. The USGBC already had plans to

PAGE 83

70 improve web usage and customer service as pects. Though LEED was a small percentage of the overall annual volume of the construc tion industry, it was st ill the dominant and most comprehensive green building system w ithin the U.S. However, it has not been able to simplify the process enough for sm aller businesses to implement it. The environmental aspects covered in this study were mainly tied to other concerns such as financial or organizational. Howeve r, the portions relating to the environmental aspects of LEED showed only positive things. All respondents agreed that LEED does promote good environmental design. In additi on, this study illustrated that a very high level of professionals valued environmenta lly pertinent aspects of a project. A more detailed anal ysis of the industry professi ons or disciplines portrayed differences in opinion regarding the financial and organizational barriers to sustainable construction. The majority of LEED APs worked for design or multi-disciplined companies. As no surprise, the greatest amount of LEED volume was also reported by these company types. Design professionals c oordinated the least, while multi-discipline companies the most. Design professionals re sponded that the cost-efficiency of a LEED projects budget and design was less important to accomplishing certification. Overall, design and multi-disciplined companies thought the LEED system was financially profitable and organizationally desirable. Construction professionals had very different opinions, especially when compared to design professionals. Cont ractors showed the smallest adoption rate of LEED out of any profession within the industry. They had a lower annual volume of LEED projects and fewer LEED APs on average. Why the lack of interest or participation? Builders, typically, make their profit by simplicity of design and materials. On the other hand,

PAGE 84

71 designers, typically, make profit based on the co mplexity of design and materials. Unless design-build is utilized, contractors have to accept the decisions or judgments of the designers. The added level of documentati on and management requirements of a LEED project will place more burden on the c ontractor profit margin. Construction professionals did not view LEED as financially profitable or organizationally desirable. It was found that different profit agendas hindered collaboration between professions restricting the adoption of sustainabl e construction practices, such as LEED. Overall, LEED is headed in the right direction. Even though LEED is far from being perfect or scientific, its core is strongly supported th rough the brightest and most experienced industry leaders. The green bu ilding community should not be concentrating on trivial environmental measurements or even the profitability of certification systems. The USGBC has already saturated the LEED pr oduct line with environmental standards and measurements. Next, in the hierarchy is the societal component that must be addressed. Societys problems have, historically, been re solved by the invention and implementation of technology. Advanced gr een building technologies already exist; however, a broad public awareness of the benefi ts of such technologies does not. More research, education, and training must be achieved at the institu tional levels. Universities and other public institutions set the example for industry to follow with regards to technological and social policy. These tren ds eventually filter down through ranks of consumers and businesses alike establishi ng the economic supply/demand relationship necessary to mainstream sustai nable construction practices wi thin the United States. 5.2 Recommendations for Future Study This was a relatively small study revi ewing responses from a total of 37 participants. A larger sample is recommended in order to get a more accurate picture of

PAGE 85

72 how the construction industry is truly res ponding to LEED and sustainable construction. A larger sample could also o ffset some of the responses given by some extremely large companies whose annual volumes and number of employees skewed some of the averages. The Likert scale proved usef ul, however, the neutral choice listed produced neutral responses to many questions. A no opinion option listed as 0, then a 5 point Likert scale may be more effective at distinguishing pe rspectives. Elimina ting the neutral or no opinion option altogether may also be a way to force respondents to agree or disagree. Direct variations of this study include su rveying only small businesses on financial, organizational, and environmental issues pert aining to sustainable construction. Another variation of this study would be to survey LEED APs on social issues relating to sustainable construction since this study left out those important elements by instead focusing on organizational aspects of the system. Green certification systems, such as LEED, are not as important or as high of a priority to achieving sustai nable construction as other t opics. Studies regarding the effectiveness of education and training curri culums on sustainable development practices would be extremely well founded. Research l eading to an interactive web-based system that could make the design process cyclical rather than linear would increase the symmetry of profits among industry actors. The advantages of de sign-build and other multi-disciplined organizations in implementi ng sustainable construction practices is a fairly untouched topic that also has vigor. Studying end-user awaren ess and perspectives regarding sustainable construction has an immediate need for research concentration.

PAGE 86

73 APPENDIX A LETTER OF CONSENT

PAGE 87

74 APPENDIX B SURVEY

PAGE 88

75

PAGE 89

76 LIST OF REFERENCES Augenbroe, G. L. M., & Pearce, A.R. (1998). Sustainable construction in the United States of America; A perspective to the year 2010 Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Kibert, C. J. (2005). Sustainable construction: Green building design and delivery Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Kibert, C. J. (1994). Sustai nable construction: What does it mean and how do we achieve it? Journal of Construction, 15 (3), 5-13. Rohracher, H. (2001). Managing the technical transition to sustainable construction of buildings: A socio-technical perspective. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13 (1), 137-150. Schendler, A., & Udall, R. (2005). LEED is broken . Lets fix it. Construction Record, 126 910-924. Solomon, N. (2006). How is LEED faring after five years in use? Architectural Record, 193.6 135-142. Van Bueren, E. M., & Priemus, H. (2002) Institutional barriers to sustainable construction. Environment & Planning B: Planning & Design 29.1 75-86.

PAGE 90

77 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Matthew W. Cox was born in Stuart, Florid a, to Russell E. Cox and Karen A. Cox. As a Martin County School District student, he l earned about the importance of the environment on annual field trips through the Environmental Studies Center. Af ter graduating from high school in 1999, he attended the Florida State University where he earned his Bachelor of Science in Management degree. The following year he attended the University of Florida where he earned his Master of Science degree from the School of Building Construction. Matthew plans to remain in Florida where he will pursue a career in construction management and sustainable development.


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 E20110218_AAAAAQ INGEST_TIME 2011-02-18T07:15:24Z PACKAGE UFE0014354_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 721945 DFID F20110218_AAAJEB ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH cox_m_Page_11.jp2 GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
b9515f7d10eee6ba8d48d02eee4db34a
SHA-1
8959f2a918e67d144bfde228999ae15879968536
51044 F20110218_AAAJDM cox_m_Page_86.jpg
e7ee7b786c700f8b9e5cedb3058f8191
9dfddfc9fe2155c3b5320c26a5ade4309feec886
10262 F20110218_AAAIYG cox_m_Page_01.QC.jpg
87be1b7b62a0984318389650d1025a2a
72483e70cabaa4d48207bc8620f89a4d79979364
17577 F20110218_AAAJCY cox_m_Page_77.QC.jpg
3c51aa85cc7e88ab418cc3df41be6aea
d7cb1a0b41e08bd42eacec930db8f61899e35d49
27571 F20110218_AAAIXS cox_m_Page_75.pro
e9081413917fa9f6ffb947a643418738
17cc35d9632e88d3fbd499cec0cb2b3c1ddd408b
959335 F20110218_AAAJEC cox_m_Page_12.jp2
8c2c5554a10e1c1c8c1d82f98648be44
303203849e2ce463140acf4565a1890bbe088cf2
13693 F20110218_AAAJDN cox_m_Page_86.QC.jpg
c765e3ca2f5ad30131c615d9c4be0f74
419cb47e6c6520aa6d4439c1b721c68a3309b6c0
4685 F20110218_AAAIYH cox_m_Page_02.jpg
7ccfc167cbb594cbdbf71c6c192231a0
2cebc2099f72e2a520c7d78a9672eee35ecebb72
38720 F20110218_AAAJCZ cox_m_Page_78.jpg
ec0f22162054643d78c97024e02898dd
239ced3c4f4ececcbddb267c84c072cf1abc3157
23831 F20110218_AAAIXT cox_m_Page_76.pro
cfabbfc1299c9f2343366d81ba4e0dbc
68d7e65f43ae6ff088b770102c27a01a074a75b4
165116 F20110218_AAAJED cox_m_Page_13.jp2
14505b0b3be2dde4dc7c003f7970d132
5f4d55aa70bd5a3263cbbb47d3bb974b7b403809
44355 F20110218_AAAJDO cox_m_Page_87.jpg
fe0776d82a777cde66ef185032797a42
582278ce5a8ca4a8c01a8adcd0198e82b1fd52bc
6824 F20110218_AAAIYI cox_m_Page_03.jpg
7d48017b54375258c3649857331a47cd
4eaf1c5fd03eff36190b40474ea2346a40736aa0
22432 F20110218_AAAIXU cox_m_Page_77.pro
57f2a770a2e5d3683e4a12db593e16e5
8816676b88054e721511e85e879b5bcec0289ad7
921632 F20110218_AAAJEE cox_m_Page_14.jp2
55a63aaa08c8c4204e302b7c317a2eb3
53dd298b6d904ed09d9239cf89ad5c47557639fd
13086 F20110218_AAAJDP cox_m_Page_87.QC.jpg
8b8a9290e34d3d50401f8c5ce0a748fc
322d537201c39203b45db70ac33f776b16965c0e
1690 F20110218_AAAIYJ cox_m_Page_03.QC.jpg
169090717534b194e681091923d9c61d
892ac7874e6b49212c8cedc6bc247e7dbf8de5cf
17579 F20110218_AAAIXV cox_m_Page_78.pro
9c561867e6c0d2fb5d0f3c2ad01565ef
3bc0be7d1e8aa8652ee01013c4dc8527ee1a9bf3
31884 F20110218_AAAJDQ cox_m_Page_88.jpg
39ca101a7e0a40a60e08a2a674c3b38d
79b4a3a1b3f3493e89428f4929e65d92902fe9bf
38195 F20110218_AAAIYK cox_m_Page_04.jpg
ec72f7cdd272ddf5079dec046cda9968
88ef96b3b6a817d6abe574b101d4d9e65b75edb8
28642 F20110218_AAAIXW cox_m_Page_79.pro
9e3cf3fab931c92f991b405efff39856
ff317e3b3f8f39d5876ff7fbddbd255103a28b9b
1050029 F20110218_AAAJEF cox_m_Page_15.jp2
b38499d967b4168ca755f164440c902b
7fdc081def67943895d6069a87f11260ddcc7cff
10911 F20110218_AAAJDR cox_m_Page_88.QC.jpg
74860da833a923ae3d319acf991cd11d
ae319cd45068b1c84cad121411e7f1a3c212a6ed
74566 F20110218_AAAIYL cox_m_Page_05.jpg
d2373c6f29b248a12f040b2a77286b8d
964c258667f78bef034764bd5b1706dff6486554
24097 F20110218_AAAIXX cox_m_Page_80.pro
fe09292cd5f5ab91cd7ad431578c8176
679d6e2dd9fa84d6d95c749c806169dabff206b0
1051986 F20110218_AAAJEG cox_m_Page_16.jp2
e944764bcf6ab6e7935e24a005811436
9c1b67931f61cf1674480bd8f47f0fc8fca5b90e
27235 F20110218_AAAIZA cox_m_Page_14.QC.jpg
87c76f99aacad6500d05ecf63dfe5e39
d12693b4113ce63c90e8bfdc0fc5f73f59a3cf01
40971 F20110218_AAAJDS cox_m_Page_90.jpg
1b981253dfccd11fce3181eb5135a4fa
f79d2258cbbb1d8a014cf57485e1b6ca72abad9f
17350 F20110218_AAAIYM cox_m_Page_05.QC.jpg
d76c5f274e1a8cf2edbec4e4dc7ebe91
743d70faa56cc277bb02889f644d51b48c9b22d1
23146 F20110218_AAAIXY cox_m_Page_81.pro
10e9c8fcd1944fb3d27d3f8325e2d8ee
64a294543c0ef3ba4bfb8b4a530ac28c31bdc737
1051918 F20110218_AAAJEH cox_m_Page_17.jp2
a5c9670635f7e26e96d03f01e052beb3
bed329ba20c660d52e1c9b635ff1e7561c8cf745
96379 F20110218_AAAIZB cox_m_Page_15.jpg
d4b34e670526710c35de19c2777d1563
586be3f044dd615670ca10ad7fa4e8904007df3e
13692 F20110218_AAAJDT cox_m_Page_90.QC.jpg
bd233edff08b28eec40a86729f2f0b02
673faed41c63c296e6d28f61e71744e4b33a5021
121778 F20110218_AAAIYN cox_m_Page_06.jpg
552dcc2a4c76bdacc881b8b7aa0f5854
1880b6d9ba3b85ca0335598a7063efb7a4b21d6a
39949 F20110218_AAAIXZ cox_m_Page_82.pro
fbefa1076542ea0fcd5769305a65da34
d2d66449673389bea450b6cb8b2ac6d1ad6b5c5f
1051966 F20110218_AAAJEI cox_m_Page_18.jp2
9da7ade095bcf1d97556096f7807028c
7a14880286e88af3b684f257c3134c651431e551
34366 F20110218_AAAIZC cox_m_Page_17.QC.jpg
c00171967ffa0e9bbd0dcd6915cd7459
9714e4a7d7537e0fc15815c62ccd7a085e8bd0f9
324248 F20110218_AAAJDU cox_m_Page_01.jp2
59937b47ae90033bd8ccabce0a0ca7ad
677a2f316360bc3be3e37edccd39141c89b45fea
84557 F20110218_AAAIYO cox_m_Page_07.jpg
209033cbcf4dea95a82ec8c42ee15e4a
7011abb3bdcffdb207763438661dac68325de0d2
105047 F20110218_AAAIZD cox_m_Page_18.jpg
464d7b158eabb14c003c000e16c34f64
714f2ab2a9eaab3ab40b91e2c78df873686ad3cf
47759 F20110218_AAAJDV cox_m_Page_03.jp2
d8fdbc31eacda377dc3a78547d1048f8
558c0360eec6f11c7b8cd3df4c411b5778c90897
20034 F20110218_AAAIYP cox_m_Page_07.QC.jpg
a5b7437e9fcb86f2f698b6053600f6cc
48776efd24525c53113ac20b37099758fac56067
1018930 F20110218_AAAJEJ cox_m_Page_20.jp2
ced889ea20ae5ac6957bafb0bb5b211f
6427fca507e61cc1f1f9a2ad1c975a7500886bab
34612 F20110218_AAAIZE cox_m_Page_18.QC.jpg
e2b911309544bbccafe94c28a4c266bd
d0c786520510cf9493657cde13b2b6ec6fcc5fdf
394618 F20110218_AAAJDW cox_m_Page_04.jp2
d59d67ef39a4e536cd5f6a085c28057b
cdd62112621875fa27efe90916d285d135ba9f62
3668 F20110218_AAAIYQ cox_m_Page_08.QC.jpg
4213b0680edbc71dd62dc20abf06abf8
0f378478d265ca2b322b5ef4dcf749297c1f9f2d
710472 F20110218_AAAJEK cox_m_Page_21.jp2
aef5986f9a4e4e04ae7f6461e9c4d637
b94ad14760a09b20bcedfc63448037f0ba35edf1
32890 F20110218_AAAIZF cox_m_Page_19.QC.jpg
2494b60972cd426076a68936ab0dcdc1
68a359728ea06b97eb5928184f4d98eb07f56d8b
739320 F20110218_AAAJDX cox_m_Page_05.jp2
d42f5e30dd14c09b06b891a30319e374
77d2912ea50f8e824d35667f6ea54ba3a265d4a7
72510 F20110218_AAAIYR cox_m_Page_09.jpg
a0cc61fecdf1f551777ce551764d21c2
d6f9901933de2c98b0cd0a561fb63e3230e11fb9
477075 F20110218_AAAJFA cox_m_Page_42.jp2
c65b7df1f5bbb825836004f842401347
1e249f2c581602bb6f2509842b079cd0bc658107
900377 F20110218_AAAJEL cox_m_Page_22.jp2
9f68cd766f01eed787c82543a4ff3f15
6ff3181ae0683f575783b0eb2efb3f1e79f9898d
93803 F20110218_AAAIZG cox_m_Page_20.jpg
d3fa5e121ac887efc2e673aa041d7390
29973fb8951ce11c8cf444cf5b6d1d119d19fa35
900093 F20110218_AAAJDY cox_m_Page_07.jp2
937e9411b0dbe052cba8515dde08c744
30632a9098c9b7d1f65d2d580c4d223c42af9f29
90127 F20110218_AAAIYS cox_m_Page_10.jpg
a3892fec37e680dc60d4d7d653228725
d26facd896edd0e63425fffc51d042be5cb9ca91
483323 F20110218_AAAJFB cox_m_Page_43.jp2
dc248db6915401c4e69b03e25ad3b28e
b8e9985b509b112bfe2dbd9d29736f7e891f15c3
1026671 F20110218_AAAJEM cox_m_Page_23.jp2
898db41e7a883615f12a00f1b010d6f3
95b2998b17b408748e43c09f4aead217c4fa1cba
30362 F20110218_AAAIZH cox_m_Page_20.QC.jpg
50cd0c1b2225881a06f784430cee7d64
0672048fafa6bef04b0aa3cccf504f1684299501
101584 F20110218_AAAJDZ cox_m_Page_08.jp2
c13f106b93b37fe162dc8594d0f0080a
e3d2d73e115df256c2ad6177ca6790459f317410
25779 F20110218_AAAIYT cox_m_Page_10.QC.jpg
d005273adeb2b2de250c120c27840482
af1699a6fcd9d46a33f58cd02765e2cfaa06e8a5
485769 F20110218_AAAJFC cox_m_Page_44.jp2
68f4c2bf37adf098e75cdfdef86a34ea
4be82ef060bdb5cfb8a8e6e23701935920486aef
783065 F20110218_AAAJEN cox_m_Page_24.jp2
edd85d55694f766d7a696178feb7b42a
8e0190998451b074e339557fc88ed7e63855f8de
65714 F20110218_AAAIZI cox_m_Page_21.jpg
385f63e51a7e8a669586fbb1266764ee
a425c6ce5a539ef2ec538fba2077489c0c7261aa
66063 F20110218_AAAIYU cox_m_Page_11.jpg
3c1cdd187f9c23f93cfb6050a2e1bfb9
21f920c3725b078f42cd670ee356f0ffb439851a
627519 F20110218_AAAJFD cox_m_Page_45.jp2
7ab775b8e75ef02fd481bafe6083a65b
608a4ca1b2c665baa0afc12bf3f8d73552baae08
931193 F20110218_AAAJEO cox_m_Page_25.jp2
8afe6c46f0da35911a8b61e7cb768791
d8daf4cbe131631fb364f662e831f82e87c1c7de
21509 F20110218_AAAIZJ cox_m_Page_21.QC.jpg
f2f4515a19bc5e93377d8b4758389d08
9fb45ee59a1ea7b75c9132ef80388179aa753066
18781 F20110218_AAAIYV cox_m_Page_11.QC.jpg
ca51577d5c5c792bf26c14a8b4c8afda
297fb689fc29f0e23e10b9985e6dba03f0220fdc
568188 F20110218_AAAJFE cox_m_Page_46.jp2
2119d791d24d39f438b250c34ce3afa2
0c7e6058e7b21de67ad5ada8fedd511f3fe650bc
868051 F20110218_AAAJEP cox_m_Page_28.jp2
f7aa4924ec0d3027bf53830dfe1cc47a
087cbd0d14a72cc744cf4bc90d595cc0aa367155
78902 F20110218_AAAIZK cox_m_Page_22.jpg
db30dcac2fa02ce0a7fe7cf2815c4fe2
5d65e3511c63bc63f8de97a4d429ed8020e6416c
89991 F20110218_AAAIYW cox_m_Page_12.jpg
63303d37af8d0d44bb93da8eaf31e964
b1c9f4763419084dd9f406e936bbb275b308534a
735402 F20110218_AAAJFF cox_m_Page_47.jp2
243ac8093d3702c678e1903d04626169
46e612de3a975459d22643435310c4f03945949a
1051917 F20110218_AAAJEQ cox_m_Page_30.jp2
77ddac7db78b1054d4b2144eaf3abe6c
719fcdef08cc0b8dbc1786c6e1bcf21e055b7547
26720 F20110218_AAAIZL cox_m_Page_22.QC.jpg
64219d38bd7b6d29c2c81ddbdd3beebd
2d00abf80ab7ccae6040792aca8092aec691733e
26913 F20110218_AAAIYX cox_m_Page_12.QC.jpg
0b783b89f8597c51540ae69ea8e9b512
91b0e942ab303cc62ccf78f276faa3da0fd3d436
536073 F20110218_AAAJFG cox_m_Page_48.jp2
ddf7ec4b9d563728e8d505bf2afa5ec9
4f4a5117217b14d34d401cf0d8161e4f048ffc5c
1051945 F20110218_AAAJER cox_m_Page_31.jp2
b0f54c80acafc69c30627bf41d40a573
99acdd46233c1a404ddc29c1e0c4dd123fc11cf9
94230 F20110218_AAAIZM cox_m_Page_23.jpg
1fdcf8687b6813add6be1033437df572
a91e2fa611c1cd861f2f4ddf540652846a71eaae
17748 F20110218_AAAIYY cox_m_Page_13.jpg
cb698b19df3364f168d99d7ec5642900
e99d7a974f1d7d3178ce5acc41367ec5217e3f1e
684634 F20110218_AAAJFH cox_m_Page_50.jp2
591b48322e0d795caccfe11ab12f9214
055743042654c4d55d5549b9ec75710c30aa5440
F20110218_AAAJES cox_m_Page_32.jp2
ea569f910307b2dd731f110286437b8a
efefa1ce052ac26a124fccc76ec464e62d10ffb1
30678 F20110218_AAAIZN cox_m_Page_23.QC.jpg
9781e2d331b1e3073029987fe79499e9
e1fd07f5de4872560c3d6b154a81dc52705b9c6a
85531 F20110218_AAAIYZ cox_m_Page_14.jpg
ac81e963859aba0a1e87101548fb5cc5
86e9f8fbd02d04690b840559a4e4993611ff43d2
591813 F20110218_AAAJFI cox_m_Page_51.jp2
911d8d7d34dbf03845111215584b4ea3
d8309d707b6952ba3965324fe7a71a52e1436d28
1051981 F20110218_AAAJET cox_m_Page_33.jp2
e2f46ddaec7f5d3747de167f6c9097f2
efac8b26829e7ae577597ea082d708be40544669
22496 F20110218_AAAIZO cox_m_Page_24.QC.jpg
99469a5e313cfa4e5283e3a2a4047c18
7fcb14f5b430703b6da35d8e0acce73c85ae6766
756678 F20110218_AAAJFJ cox_m_Page_52.jp2
d55dc6d97796917ebdbc958531b24dad
e1df8572d8a9d8b90b42bb135ae34adb05e2ac0a
622777 F20110218_AAAJEU cox_m_Page_35.jp2
243a4e61b8ed6e7988d8697a8e1b1c5b
d3b4216d0f73e3785c8ae2b9f78ba90539e2f3a0
85886 F20110218_AAAIZP cox_m_Page_25.jpg
71df8f05dd332658751154d24ca05bfd
c25609b83f8e141bcf47274386bdd09568afb897
992447 F20110218_AAAJEV cox_m_Page_36.jp2
90c972b41e4e76c0649850806b2bbb95
acd3756f939552f6ff8edf3b80a734bf72ee7a5d
27585 F20110218_AAAIZQ cox_m_Page_25.QC.jpg
5f292af47df23dddb1ee9a15f8cb8ed2
72888d1adae02bec72a9e1a56e23e41485537c69
569126 F20110218_AAAJFK cox_m_Page_54.jp2
53c0ede892671db8ff61430b30192258
069534abf1b4cdb93db3eda9cf63f73d60b1710a
1051972 F20110218_AAAJEW cox_m_Page_37.jp2
39e7a7b0fabaf4d564e8263371ae004d
93a443212eab5269ec00b6b4331fa3ee40709c19
98428 F20110218_AAAIZR cox_m_Page_27.jpg
683fe8c960cb4f2df82d1e9fcd27c1a0
5fbeee23cb6db0602b17a730c3bd7a0ec05a76cc
433869 F20110218_AAAJGA cox_m_Page_71.jp2
f2ab70e00922ed3a69afb5d2d226535c
9ef215f4e530be61e9f7696df6092b142a5196e6
628555 F20110218_AAAJFL cox_m_Page_55.jp2
01f85eb7ee699a48f623cae8abb23e60
7345ed02ceca5e129817f5bd9ebe184077d2147d
1051980 F20110218_AAAJEX cox_m_Page_38.jp2
f5a646a4fd42303bf530837126668c6c
de13f86f7b8df39cff29a273437dd12fc498659b
32206 F20110218_AAAIZS cox_m_Page_27.QC.jpg
9c58d9fa3fd14de1642863483f922395
41d0627a908555beef7429d32125acfde12f646f
533047 F20110218_AAAJGB cox_m_Page_72.jp2
05fde44ca5c76fa4f523468908d8f350
6209c2d83d9c2bab1b0a45abca4fa2e82d82ce3c
722759 F20110218_AAAJFM cox_m_Page_56.jp2
2f290198f81edf85e7a008c3c82b88bd
617cd4f15c8da7ed3f869a8204e8dbd448c968ec
194018 F20110218_AAAJEY cox_m_Page_39.jp2
1538fa38729345548e938634ae224365
7da80e53dac7a87996829f128ab0632630a7e444
80077 F20110218_AAAIZT cox_m_Page_28.jpg
61a56e4031216e12a2b98821c29861f4
b7ea526f91244137e5b20a40a5d1ac516d5cdcd8
549751 F20110218_AAAJGC cox_m_Page_73.jp2
a43ed4afcaa78c8179f0c24544643b7e
01fb221fe4080720e90e79e1041796df7bb5015f
569007 F20110218_AAAJFN cox_m_Page_57.jp2
16cf0406c4f2c55e0b6a0a5f4907ccc2
86e7ac2b38a236c3c442b78dc3fcee1aaef65184
512360 F20110218_AAAJEZ cox_m_Page_41.jp2
b6117f0c3e5eb1bdc1db4480a23c0bad
3b3c9ad481de4da8e0d7216eec6bdfa91b0af06f
26100 F20110218_AAAIZU cox_m_Page_28.QC.jpg
8bc9559c44774ded058c304aa0f08af0
24c406c123bd375235fb6d4079a884ec036fe072
292421 F20110218_AAAJGD cox_m_Page_74.jp2
c511bb75396cc8e4cfa9ac38ccb9660b
be3cc91f90387d769557ff2d452d4e346bc7dd31
632753 F20110218_AAAJFO cox_m_Page_58.jp2
fdda652fc4cdbf8dd241a30eaefb13b1
f764ff4f1a661b087f026f09d1c3eefe7f0bd3b3
100502 F20110218_AAAIZV cox_m_Page_29.jpg
d15857ee51f4e84c5439b22682c0ad73
9175311aa710407a22da04e1bb2137b8d49afc82
559763 F20110218_AAAJGE cox_m_Page_75.jp2
fb1b093cd4b66e86383689b8f7f90ead
fe1401129a75ab67dbaac8b1769384c7641db353
569543 F20110218_AAAJFP cox_m_Page_59.jp2
1105da2b19dc28207e35ef946793a4fd
ed709e13a1f7dcc2ee60baae23145436019cfce2
104939 F20110218_AAAIZW cox_m_Page_30.jpg
a39221c1a704a2cc9c2749279a1b6d5d
975e5f27872e34cc74c9c914b83a1f0b543f5b5d
497979 F20110218_AAAJGF cox_m_Page_77.jp2
8cac183b2479814c2e39912faa7f2f77
f421f4e0f1f52bc0bd7ec4483c96975ff609803c
830840 F20110218_AAAJFQ cox_m_Page_60.jp2
f27e1301c5177dfe2ec8a9c2dc296c78
acd4ec5ee4af2e16ea07389341927046ec2cbd15
34658 F20110218_AAAIZX cox_m_Page_30.QC.jpg
14fcefbf0e144b4070e10af92eb449d3
f38319c8877053081226cabbb43dd5aaf66dbaad
907936 F20110218_AAAJGG cox_m_Page_82.jp2
2a4c9258f9984a6bdbabbdc65d907987
9248dac8d6d7ede7f388a9da3ff8ec9b5e235f29
742752 F20110218_AAAJFR cox_m_Page_61.jp2
a7b864bb1b9fcbd5bb7692fab0e74a96
9de06b35a865fea51f59d6bdd486154788533691
98192 F20110218_AAAIZY cox_m_Page_31.jpg
ab26997ac7907e83c948a34fbd6de76e
1b2593779fb07e065c2aa1035fa65ddf23129bce
1051927 F20110218_AAAJGH cox_m_Page_83.jp2
d881582f72e1d3b58df447d9292f5075
49ee4fecf28ee2ed1ffc3b2c43eda949773b968b
485359 F20110218_AAAJFS cox_m_Page_62.jp2
1d9b2d2c5f9aa2ee4ee534b8c304700d
6e371771da280e45cb4241faa618c70d8359bbbf
31137 F20110218_AAAIZZ cox_m_Page_31.QC.jpg
b7787350e1427b54d6e8c83afdfbc04c
20fdf1fba5b72a0e166042c7e73b0d1dc366e7f3
1051959 F20110218_AAAJGI cox_m_Page_84.jp2
fde6faf62e85776b1b6ddc46af10e831
c08493d25aa5c57f8c06e75869fe04cbede282cb
459273 F20110218_AAAJFT cox_m_Page_63.jp2
def9f58e7786356678fb8c08de596de1
9ddf9c5445569acaed9953748d7e03c32c34659d
1045480 F20110218_AAAJGJ cox_m_Page_85.jp2
c2c70da9ea9c131c5604f76d24fa875e
236add228549a25bce25feba31b7962a938c82d7
511151 F20110218_AAAJFU cox_m_Page_65.jp2
53db169cc7ec760c534ac3375315eb70
022fc1984ee3170e64bb0cec8f2f97309556de6f
591176 F20110218_AAAJGK cox_m_Page_87.jp2
be2a62812a879ad6e0410f0ef0126c1b
1fd56c97678dd0a77db31492498ad7e61bfe67c0
650588 F20110218_AAAJFV cox_m_Page_66.jp2
4d8ed51b0bcec635cf5e4288c755c97d
6d31bda8f5b0e5b05a2266a5ce13055aca2a8865
397201 F20110218_AAAJFW cox_m_Page_67.jp2
a151c36e558bd78d5552306f485cd9a0
a820aac1b36ee8e7a1f514cafb525953a1b3e252
354382 F20110218_AAAJGL cox_m_Page_88.jp2
d2bc4636106fc27b15735dee57b4bed2
1e34986fc0db9af2d7f3d09d5baefd3f1730a3f2
418585 F20110218_AAAJFX cox_m_Page_68.jp2
c8c87b9cdc5c5e5ff1e77ac8bec6221c
c72aa362334d954fefccbf71710bf081f0df7887
8230 F20110218_AAAJHA cox_m_Page_18thm.jpg
025bfaff381a8bb8962d940c4fe17b20
e517ecaf39fa0e54dcc1ed41a908c472ac188c98
602312 F20110218_AAAJGM cox_m_Page_89.jp2
f90889e63e8d7d4b56603c9ae32eddc3
1860a1a45efd20ce795e80f638c78c1c540cdd54
611125 F20110218_AAAJFY cox_m_Page_69.jp2
f8105a4a3f46513c748d6ae61ddb1ed6
106368a2b808bc50dcf310574a2b93a98e58755c
7670 F20110218_AAAJHB cox_m_Page_20thm.jpg
575927147f8e89029f3a190933dc833b
d587bc2c678324d054887baca8b46db4d0e97e33
417417 F20110218_AAAJGN cox_m_Page_90.jp2
5659b3dc0921a37aff5a63fd0186c187
12833c7e6a074da764eae276329ea8ddabcb78ab
566397 F20110218_AAAJFZ cox_m_Page_70.jp2
8e93817d08270ed8752846765c7529a3
7e90b3b5d586426177ef4e1fbb31f5b8e26cd63f
6825 F20110218_AAAJHC cox_m_Page_22thm.jpg
74cb1eb7626e34fded61065f556817d0
b191f140f7a4c8582181810eb929f04be54db36a
2509 F20110218_AAAJGO cox_m_Page_01thm.jpg
bcf6c4327989a7b20481b3dbee22ee88
2372ad8210382710db208c438f9700ec30392bff
7392 F20110218_AAAJHD cox_m_Page_23thm.jpg
1ac416bba8b600d709897bf5095643e9
4d86ac7384d9c089cc389452a2a754236ac00685
628 F20110218_AAAJGP cox_m_Page_02thm.jpg
c9135d6e2035811ee2e34cff0d52e094
8e1870dcf745bc8383c81320813850b57684ee3f
6733 F20110218_AAAJHE cox_m_Page_25thm.jpg
557d0b14b19e76e6755dc7fcf43f93bc
b312147eda0a55ae98e846589976f04480363d99
711 F20110218_AAAJGQ cox_m_Page_03thm.jpg
e82dad19c2a4e5a2ba51928a5d829c44
1f1efc4bea9654e5ca6adf842d784c8d9d0bcdb4
8125 F20110218_AAAJHF cox_m_Page_27thm.jpg
c10da540d1f7cb765fb33623b4480ddc
8db1225e9cd3cea287ac48ceaf4dfd9d467896e4
6050 F20110218_AAAJGR cox_m_Page_06thm.jpg
9c2e9d8b17222b50d4cb9958cdd44557
42677093c49c57c29924f56c4b1ebbfd7ccdefe4
6436 F20110218_AAAJHG cox_m_Page_28thm.jpg
63a2ac089ff0b5d6ce514aba02b92b77
64660848f733eb485f2df6223ab2e4d63bed6389
4665 F20110218_AAAJGS cox_m_Page_07thm.jpg
207023f819b01cc10d940e43e290803b
ce01cc55f10410f29fc60850556647b077722e34
7680 F20110218_AAAJHH cox_m_Page_29thm.jpg
81424e5ec2d2d98b804ec3d97c5ed0be
9e74cc8c7b278e74a35418e61c1a3cd08bbf7e73
1263 F20110218_AAAJGT cox_m_Page_08thm.jpg
de921e79d31de576d678bf942bf3fc51
3df684b70936ea4ef70bb91b9830e912fd478ecd
8095 F20110218_AAAJHI cox_m_Page_30thm.jpg
3643be7a628be3de131c994fffa26281
02988c4d670befaf1ce654610f6c14a73c30d613
5394 F20110218_AAAJGU cox_m_Page_09thm.jpg
0607f0317be617ec03d250dcd0892c42
c76cae34a9c3219661324ab905fd18df9bd7bbf3
7889 F20110218_AAAJHJ cox_m_Page_31thm.jpg
55ea503109d9878398e3e2a72bc86a67
663c898b6ab028ba86b89e0fd4d56002960b5b4c
6368 F20110218_AAAJGV cox_m_Page_10thm.jpg
a997bc3097f688935f5869d2aecac339
1d11acb5ca0fb51066d4dab741ef83d76493ef33
7715 F20110218_AAAJHK cox_m_Page_32thm.jpg
829b03577c3451b2003da67ad5630a9c
23f86bc05b1b097ad54c0c73f6cb6fceca6e52e2
4753 F20110218_AAAJGW cox_m_Page_11thm.jpg
c737f73f5ff1c2696decfb0369a33488
e463bf1fc1e7a53e03dd4c560a7cd57f33bea49c
7771 F20110218_AAAJHL cox_m_Page_33thm.jpg
0a62d912bf039510e1e4b62e253bba72
d21d6b9717245edfcd097bb42ed271873858b8dd
1752 F20110218_AAAJGX cox_m_Page_13thm.jpg
1dd3944ebbafc03051b18cfe278e0da9
a87555c8bf1ce6f4f6784230f93e208d64e9a217
6568 F20110218_AAAJIA cox_m_Page_52thm.jpg
eb2398f6637f0aeca4bd3dcda6f6edc9
b9a93e152a3b89efd87f8e30591825811aff8744
6759 F20110218_AAAJGY cox_m_Page_14thm.jpg
e392a06187f4a9f8d753f7d7897443b9
d79d7153dccafc1698dd5af884d14ca4085b1911
6320 F20110218_AAAJIB cox_m_Page_53thm.jpg
2753bf15d078b361bc75117454147932
5a1709a1e5d0518bbbc90437640c7c376eff7baa
8315 F20110218_AAAJHM cox_m_Page_34thm.jpg
f03b3dcf7510a9b0414fd8cf1552e017
8eed78fb1ea32711e345af0ddd220a821898a2b2
8013 F20110218_AAAJGZ cox_m_Page_15thm.jpg
80d9377cfe5894509699935a086d6ff1
464cb0c23657730084444a3e50a88c3f2572f4a5
5644 F20110218_AAAJIC cox_m_Page_55thm.jpg
11a96775899f3c4057bc7976d4dc3962
08972003cccae505c8fa4d7c619db6b0466ca2ce
4895 F20110218_AAAJHN cox_m_Page_35thm.jpg
cb8492ec0843ebbf6a677b8d9fd379ec
bbbe0a0233dfa0f760103bef487ecff3e3a73851
6303 F20110218_AAAJID cox_m_Page_56thm.jpg
1be84cc6f959f9380613831a008a6957
77ae2a899cf8fe2e2b3676b8eaf10ac629d50bcb
7289 F20110218_AAAJHO cox_m_Page_36thm.jpg
164ce33648998bba5b0f62c1a2a3f3c0
ec5747a5235737a49e588528d6357bf392ddba9e
6526 F20110218_AAAJIE cox_m_Page_57thm.jpg
07faec5fd8296420465cac02c8b5e30e
24c11808f4e640a5dada3483280deae66a82c1ee
8059 F20110218_AAAJHP cox_m_Page_37thm.jpg
5ee81487ec8e26bd3fcd45f7caa0d1fc
a929de739d642e776a9c5a88e80c69cd1a84283c
5639 F20110218_AAAJIF cox_m_Page_58thm.jpg
fa6cb240af0237f4a95f3e2200540c3a
e1fa19aeaafe8d68c65d228c973ccc5914e0348a
7790 F20110218_AAAJHQ cox_m_Page_38thm.jpg
3e52b5c735626c5b5fc8ee81e0d668bf
d47991d6b3c5a7984ffc4863f82037045406bc5e
5953 F20110218_AAAJIG cox_m_Page_59thm.jpg
15bdfbfa66851560d4d8bcfd787560eb
60d285faec1e339094b58712566636484be85397
1940 F20110218_AAAJHR cox_m_Page_39thm.jpg
0d020094478cf7f9766e45b11e64c01e
c30e50907fbff96e58892af85a999a3fb030ad78
7038 F20110218_AAAJIH cox_m_Page_60thm.jpg
ee9234a40f4e4dd5f72b12171944836b
6e601f18a26f827e5e861a3fb7e306f4e6cc6349
6083 F20110218_AAAJHS cox_m_Page_40thm.jpg
163e47c3cfb5958196a1f6b639e3cae1
47206ff38bc723273c558bfde68a12e1b30b9039
5366 F20110218_AAAJII cox_m_Page_62thm.jpg
c23f0eb2edfcd7c2c9dfaf41e009797a
7997df3aab523a87a653ad47c8ca81bbba88e397
5432 F20110218_AAAJHT cox_m_Page_41thm.jpg
3abec155bfa493551fde68ba2bce27ab
2a038b682e2a9b68b15edc773239795c66db0e1b
4875 F20110218_AAAJIJ cox_m_Page_63thm.jpg
88e2f0a4d22deaf25f45176ea2f4cfd7
b5f5b0d97dfece97051d3b0432fee6aca5886988
5615 F20110218_AAAJHU cox_m_Page_42thm.jpg
528e773e4011da5ddecbcd25a381ad1a
950416613416d2a69b11e1130f2956f46c9e6118
5118 F20110218_AAAJIK cox_m_Page_65thm.jpg
c765306d044bffb7f0d07111b5ad2125
366333506e1f30bd83e4b396b386ac430af8e71a
5081 F20110218_AAAJHV cox_m_Page_43thm.jpg
fe893c742bb77cc05056e5f0d0d46b71
e8e6e54f27913e1eae7cd46945118343204fde9f
5960 F20110218_AAAJIL cox_m_Page_66thm.jpg
3ddadddb136d5fd541a61f6632069231
8b3f622ab01427c5a1da9fea31dde7fffbaddd66
6580 F20110218_AAAJHW cox_m_Page_46thm.jpg
40b5e274483807e022e61692e39c588a
288adea2bf554ee4393f18ee17bf9f326aada451
7902 F20110218_AAAJJA cox_m_Page_85thm.jpg
6cae12dd63fe92b72c075259edb866bf
b515993005984fd39c5763707bb8d985b9123752
4188 F20110218_AAAJIM cox_m_Page_67thm.jpg
ac29b2eadbcd7863b0f31c91f17378ea
455986a8b6cd6c3a0f2d772287c4a2c8556f491c
6428 F20110218_AAAJHX cox_m_Page_49thm.jpg
bbcd4794f2a30a377f15f4c777f8c397
aef2706d88894861a998f2deda8ef13e6461f51b
3401 F20110218_AAAJJB cox_m_Page_86thm.jpg
a1a63adb8f000d237c25f316055479cc
0c36b72fa1b2fef878e12d30a2dc4036356a5ff9
6137 F20110218_AAAJHY cox_m_Page_50thm.jpg
f200ccbd3c82f0e826a948ff1907ba65
98321aec80b9194497a1ebadee66226c45af708c
4216 F20110218_AAAJIN cox_m_Page_68thm.jpg
60ae2bdebc706ecf8590f103fa0cc29d
874492c11bd4fc8e8a77ce9d6091fe3549a42f0d
6239 F20110218_AAAJHZ cox_m_Page_51thm.jpg
3f173109e9124e74a060f76b0ac2bab3
d74cf2534f5c499442adad4abe2c7ff4132b0d44
3476 F20110218_AAAJJC cox_m_Page_87thm.jpg
5011a279997d0ba805e0e1ab14add110
9c618922f9ccb54b4ce297d6c97a2e5c5ee83109
5665 F20110218_AAAJIO cox_m_Page_69thm.jpg
644bf73a270afd3fadbe38e8afc8767e
0cde25a468868f015e6d68cb4a42e9a962f07ee0
2814 F20110218_AAAJJD cox_m_Page_88thm.jpg
02457f8989b9d66a0a2c21013f7b9e1e
96f4d6a5d9d0945477a570726b202ee6fd97847f
5149 F20110218_AAAJIP cox_m_Page_70thm.jpg
ffdfcce995bf80f6f82577477b4cb6ba
7f666c3e2f704f2e55f0a1c6f56ad172d22486a4
3555 F20110218_AAAJJE cox_m_Page_90thm.jpg
227990228fd6c0e2478a4a283fb3d24b
f185d6025ce28bb880054c4b4c3a91f6c21f99cd
4471 F20110218_AAAJIQ cox_m_Page_71thm.jpg
d774b39ad1522fba567566e91b6a2aac
5b0a59cebe3cf43ab87aaa67ee244c71bf645dea
105902 F20110218_AAAJJF UFE0014354_00001.mets FULL
196361195be958285640a1e2a1111be0
19d47263f987f9a47001668d171be6510bb89634
4693 F20110218_AAAJIR cox_m_Page_72thm.jpg
ad63c6323c20bdcfdac84a799ef72893
59f3520734abde0d994fd6c408cf4e961bf0f6a8
5205 F20110218_AAAJIS cox_m_Page_75thm.jpg
605e1d26c1f1830c6b13d015ff9e4840
f6dc587a85e6a369184cf6f76700ef8ca7a610da
4615 F20110218_AAAJIT cox_m_Page_76thm.jpg
20165e28ac49e62ccdd0051316f65db3
7dc69627e253821860b559491c59e78de84dbcf6
4783 F20110218_AAAJIU cox_m_Page_77thm.jpg
1fc7d00b6f1fd8ce790b040b7df88f5f
32563306fca2c1bb295d7ae289cc126e12d858a6
3847 F20110218_AAAJIV cox_m_Page_78thm.jpg
2b213c77734f7c4db2c61d508ecdc578
548d0616589783ad48ad582cc63e56ac566d0efb
5177 F20110218_AAAJIW cox_m_Page_79thm.jpg
596f118310e205f6531ed663601bfcc3
ec2c8e267dc863ffc79495cefa004594441145eb
4780 F20110218_AAAJIX cox_m_Page_80thm.jpg
84ba5b34106e533dce6ae8c6a98c25d4
ee473016f04c04169dccf016359421e50002ccf4
6897 F20110218_AAAJIY cox_m_Page_82thm.jpg
c7a3d9fc8d60074ad479011ed762ba0c
a7a2ccc8753789b299027a18b7b007cc8981a0d7
8443 F20110218_AAAJIZ cox_m_Page_84thm.jpg
37037558195eaa43d733d78f8ff1949d
170419492b5ebfef916487ba790a1d8aa38543e6
735159 F20110218_AAAILA cox_m_Page_53.jp2
2ae62553eef74b14ea5ed072968575bb
82ee9d6d3669efdb42508e1affe8df695d68ccd5
8182 F20110218_AAAILB cox_m_Page_17thm.jpg
935a5a6098f15693afe69c5f98aeaf6e
1864062bed745c884389d553ede7989a9dbf9271
578888 F20110218_AAAILC cox_m_Page_79.jp2
4bc738351331830280e8da392d88612d
939052578a58ee2a90bad99fcaf4428e4353f3d7
31408 F20110218_AAAILD cox_m_Page_21.pro
f91766128a0754b813309c42388a9a92
b34309095bcd6940ca17d32882a5abf35e590f81
17305 F20110218_AAAILE cox_m_Page_63.QC.jpg
d0e96c5ac2b6512bf9c14ed536fb3b6a
fb19f69ae5d47546b2d5aa8b0e17cf736e922a75
1372 F20110218_AAAILF cox_m_Page_80.txt
ef1c8541e483c7fc2c49b8cc91c2098b
66ad0afc4d14bb85d2c548dca75ef5ca7cc30ef4
46967 F20110218_AAAILG cox_m_Page_85.pro
11fc0f2784171775a3111817fa02abbc
1bfa0bbf8cec7a359631522b3cdd74fbadc68dba
104427 F20110218_AAAILH cox_m_Page_26.jpg
0658a49881902da6c21d9775a91b255d
51fd9564ddb8b88bbaf33f2ed9d4465b1fb15607
1573 F20110218_AAAILI cox_m_Page_02.QC.jpg
b846ff3087baf2b6660fb01775f43275
b2471f974e8acf0981678057be47a086899ee25b
1276 F20110218_AAAILJ cox_m_Page_21.txt
9a8fadaa3958cae38f4094915b904485
f420d7e70ce12a9855431a314fab21e71d3db3e3
52821 F20110218_AAAIKV cox_m_Page_84.pro
c58eea78f7658cfbb11ac5052df77f7e
18811bc21dc96e26e30f7f71340b1d07231e3393
6784 F20110218_AAAILK cox_m_Page_47thm.jpg
2a722a8e3ef13cdfeb94acee1f58f8c3
c79df9a6a973fcc8450769090e13ab3b524ef4e2
11594 F20110218_AAAIKW cox_m_Page_08.jpg
072fda347b5fd8e20fdff59c8e0925eb
b7a8e4315bdd3644a58e0946f954130495f72c78
8423998 F20110218_AAAILL cox_m_Page_07.tif
5947ac5a58867beeab5ca86667de59c9
e128ef4fac1feb64321707aead2e220b8dba0f70
F20110218_AAAIKX cox_m_Page_33.tif
4619bc8cdc6ed2abafbd7c9bec680a59
0d476e34215573ea6d877b0e6d7e7b03ce59c5b2
1988 F20110218_AAAIMA cox_m_Page_83.txt
acbe78034326194e162a94e3d4695426
7ff71037562a88fd0b1da9795798fe6bb1ced1f0
F20110218_AAAILM cox_m_Page_74.tif
6fedd976f663a2e46a814744544b0e0c
6c3b963f6dd64ca07efa2127bf451b1705cf67f5
49620 F20110218_AAAIKY cox_m_Page_76.jpg
089be64391b8d1709eafbbf141e2f4d5
e55d2b1dcaf18cb538e60366983894e10b96b1c1
21879 F20110218_AAAIMB cox_m_Page_51.QC.jpg
e1bf12dc113f298db922de6d9b5597df
21f5cdb567434727517cd909dd0594d4761f01a7
1344 F20110218_AAAILN cox_m_Page_49.txt
92033281107bc073fdf717fc23454748
726f6928c67ce28b9b313dcfe9d8fabe1ec665ca
7797 F20110218_AAAIKZ cox_m_Page_26thm.jpg
7f8250419a1463a0d9e9aa21cc0fda75
9e4fb7eb79787a5a5a3bf843be78fb01d9f469dd
22514 F20110218_AAAIMC cox_m_Page_50.QC.jpg
50fc3c6d952553c433bc5a42af55bab9
f1fe9fe3347e8277c05fbdf0ffd17fa212127908
26356 F20110218_AAAILO cox_m_Page_73.pro
dfab9901127a782bb19463ad343322a0
a8eddf4e9ee994c357f30420fd6e66c703e807f0
F20110218_AAAIMD cox_m_Page_55.tif
51095262eef630d9bdf6f11257bcfd98
323598212112d1b390a8df7ad275e3038500cd6c
31175 F20110218_AAAILP cox_m_Page_29.QC.jpg
86cc4965d82b83aecbea9f096b5b2023
61a569229d5f5be00a75558cc20bc26ed543c832
5620 F20110218_AAAIME cox_m_Page_64thm.jpg
ae0098ce09daab5c2b7853fea3d6ec3b
ae64af1e930d303e5a3f78f941abb49a2c8ec9ae
107225 F20110218_AAAILQ cox_m_Page_16.jpg
ddc561b160d539464e7ca06aa51b5179
884daee23cab4231b2abcba742eff8f5c18a35c8
1429 F20110218_AAAIMF cox_m_Page_70.txt
5e73c4f77b8688c553aa6b23bc9eab22
c6a36c77b8d6f4b639f0a1509b51334f04b93c62
1051973 F20110218_AAAIMG cox_m_Page_29.jp2
08dacebe0ec2e26010db17a881e35402
74b8e069b4ba6da8637f7183df7b5948e585797d
16532 F20110218_AAAILR cox_m_Page_89.QC.jpg
a35fea26f66fd1e0129486e994c2334e
0793efe44975e0b88d45217e4a53af0c8e1d7e58
30854 F20110218_AAAIMH cox_m_Page_33.QC.jpg
e641cc338a512fb46f31339369cad71a
7606278d79d26ae304dbf5e48636444aaba8d0f8
21502 F20110218_AAAILS cox_m_Page_09.QC.jpg
f7530250af8c731c457df899dd9ff116
b78d71659e9af9af4b1b86fe984c53bedadd38bd
F20110218_AAAIMI cox_m_Page_01.tif
237e87921692bf2b39f4379f97c327bc
fd1934e66c760643eb4b06224010265972f0796d
1325 F20110218_AAAILT cox_m_Page_41.txt
fcdf702a0d6aca4a82d362708d51a861
db79fe467bf792d37bdff144489913d85718a056
32452 F20110218_AAAIMJ cox_m_Page_74.jpg
861512de3e4077fe76a088e6f8291afc
88379474b1996551cd1e01582632449533ae5e3a
740620 F20110218_AAAILU cox_m_Page_86.jp2
8f1deaf6bca1086a585a3029544251d4
90cd631109932f8a8503b73588820561dccc0de9
4016 F20110218_AAAIMK cox_m_Page_05thm.jpg
8443114c194ecd43d9218763d6cb975b
6baab662fec661cf7c1ed6de65189a6722aaf8b4
1115 F20110218_AAAILV cox_m_Page_71.txt
3e01e54166d845047b0f175c87e45e71
e8f7f155c4ea5acc3cb9cb572d31f2ef439d8088
17792 F20110218_AAAIML cox_m_Page_80.QC.jpg
2f311600596a3efd591b36b71259ecc9
3a4a7a9cc356016a03ff1a922c5937ace262d337
5312 F20110218_AAAILW cox_m_Page_24thm.jpg
57091a37c73ca5cbe2e4e5a7d1435688
f7a61498f13f724243721068d97a98b426cac888
8186 F20110218_AAAINA cox_m_Page_19thm.jpg
3e1522ff20103a427e9b9872ba38cd69
5224c9b49f133798bb40414923514e9b689e3ccd
641341 F20110218_AAAIMM cox_m_Page_64.jp2
12ece7f8010240a0edad7017a4c4bf9a
926f9e53946b39edcd5e08de568a153819334df5
42463 F20110218_AAAILX cox_m_Page_67.jpg
027aba38f70cdf7468c9032f220e6054
2ec3dea89895067e595a41175b0570d4f4b3511c
6760 F20110218_AAAINB cox_m_Page_61thm.jpg
9b3650c559e893399ce1aeec88e3ed87
291a6b400f3456e9a4e576f16681b2960e409f0f
61448 F20110218_AAAIMN cox_m_Page_59.jpg
63abba2738809aff76bc78c8cd724762
2de4df01aea0b63cffdade8fde660102e903f72d
1702 F20110218_AAAILY cox_m_Page_82.txt
f79b12ed510c071fc6680d67a73899f0
5690a84821c911435717465ef5d7a0e235cb569c
976022 F20110218_AAAINC cox_m_Page_10.jp2
2a34b47b8bd7fa7c9938f22df43295a5
a83576fee6efe893864ee95b641679c6ea003fe5
27101 F20110218_AAAIMO cox_m_Page_06.QC.jpg
6a6d8ab669a8e9e801fcfaefbbc08f71
d91c4f4b9d2b631291240eb20d975c5fc70d1ace
1099 F20110218_AAAILZ cox_m_Page_89.txt
1705ebafe05bc50747ba7a47a8870af2
53e9682cc2c6ff1abab58206403551694a3248a3
76161 F20110218_AAAIND cox_m_Page_24.jpg
ad2e1db44520f62f16c1d9a919533642
543c34c27df1253c66353617dd9a0c9012b57b33
5104 F20110218_AAAIMP cox_m_Page_81thm.jpg
d323a29d5734729eb985fe861f659f76
b5d54271cff1e3dfd95345bd610955b04d356abc
55383 F20110218_AAAINE cox_m_Page_09.pro
2f1bfc195c672c56453a06cbd5a1247e
93686881cd5096d649880027335a25634389a1d3
48992 F20110218_AAAIMQ cox_m_Page_37.pro
3e870cb87b9b4877936872698e4dd3a3
3c9a3ca3337529523421418a6abce84bb8c5f49c
F20110218_AAAINF cox_m_Page_49.tif
1907b53d247059be1061c929b7f87d6d
5a43d8f0cd4421c24de4b1d0d87dae4a71a70b58
F20110218_AAAIMR cox_m_Page_21.tif
2ec9688f5b4f7c68493d89c66fed057c
19d9a7bada52d02e759ff5a5f9fe494b7e77220f
487900 F20110218_AAAING cox_m_Page_76.jp2
afa2ab8b6bf4bd5748dd556cb98f6cd7
a8ed532cd1de9a91c51041a8a13067ad60568fee
3372 F20110218_AAAINH cox_m_Page_74thm.jpg
0d2aac0db66459de1ec0792ce47d3b43
75556d6ac148764a60938ce41d62d5b98096cb64
F20110218_AAAIMS cox_m_Page_51.tif
e8cff74c3dcd6c14abcb81926e50c581
b89f79bb413976428f08fb1f152ee14138b7d1bc
32465 F20110218_AAAINI cox_m_Page_26.QC.jpg
75780699c9b33490e260c6839bd10fb6
90529976b991f6841f7570d3bfbc6cc3f3a68adb
368603 F20110218_AAAIMT cox_m_Page_78.jp2
a879a0c7f0cd3e2895f91876d230d900
6ac3b19e9af424204e12b3b7298103d069eb2679
18510 F20110218_AAAINJ cox_m_Page_63.pro
fcad8a173a6da09f9185fff6b96e3e6e
98a6cfdbfd3b89e12e3fa148f837617017891230
15949 F20110218_AAAIMU cox_m_Page_71.QC.jpg
d841135de552266d084269b4d9460783
f68f62f221752b99e7e1257023311385b371f631
5016 F20110218_AAAINK cox_m_Page_73thm.jpg
f3118ba6f793d8982d8fa3b2f2281bfc
115777d9bc38b4086d0a69ab73f73842b9f471c0
2292 F20110218_AAAIMV cox_m_Page_38.txt
48fa318a2d16876a37cff3e9489f037c
7e1e2406e378805f4eeec2f3463be0dfb0a101e9
913 F20110218_AAAINL cox_m_Page_43.txt
3e7039236386587e7068ecfd97c3936a
9790762916675c5437a5945256d76e1f765f9b3a
21143 F20110218_AAAIMW cox_m_Page_54.QC.jpg
eec54411714b6e9a8fd0df5db1bf9466
39d873d9b1eb52e8598ee9790d468235a2a01128
8374 F20110218_AAAINM cox_m_Page_16thm.jpg
6b69d845a7602354b2b2e7f1115d1955
b7e18942bb1a091ba1e5f9461a14dbdb5bf14b6c
27244 F20110218_AAAIMX cox_m_Page_35.pro
3f9e4753c975fb2e792b90b1ce204e62
d903e1aa99520b38dd38f44ab5e17f9b9a07e8dc
F20110218_AAAIOA cox_m_Page_32.tif
8d97a4fbd2a3a92cd802c6fbc421c39d
b9c86ae31942c5b6b191923349a5beb0843922f9
31797 F20110218_AAAIMY cox_m_Page_15.QC.jpg
ccc14e254159b2b6979291c5cfbff47a
cd037339614c45a34def1c3dffd909c3a9638a19
1888 F20110218_AAAIOB cox_m_Page_23.txt
848dae1578ec264e71080e1a3ae5850b
ed94690b11f03dcb25417642f5690bcefd7ae419
1051950 F20110218_AAAINN cox_m_Page_26.jp2
d731c136dceb78d1b290e5a2dbed1389
74cf1a646942767e943b427c0b53eccfc28f2ba9
1051915 F20110218_AAAIMZ cox_m_Page_27.jp2
12f05a2b9b1931a535e95c37c19f51ab
b900e3623caa901e8e4fa2066ce35208ed553722
26282 F20110218_AAAIOC cox_m_Page_50.pro
c8e1a7462e202cba238a3bef775b55f0
8bb44c8ef4413c2e8c14d3e3315453ec025d8094
F20110218_AAAINO cox_m_Page_39.tif
cc4ca8cb90ba2a4e1afce37687f6abc7
32c4bfe367021e789ba4cf06a707be71499fb72d
27570 F20110218_AAAIOD cox_m_Page_02.jp2
5db518cfef1d2b7fa6f84684ebd75c0d
390d7e22ff3a753df4c9bdfabac68aa7ea7ac4d8
66042 F20110218_AAAINP cox_m_Page_07.pro
a03f880f88219ac575a9616c60556019
7b40619aaff73309b2766ceab4902f1752282586
104909 F20110218_AAAIOE cox_m_Page_17.jpg
3b9a7f0f47c7c8535ea1b37ac7e08e07
7b817c94d54c9d21b3b4be8bc9d8a7280506248c
63592 F20110218_AAAINQ cox_m_Page_66.jpg
ff791c88971462326e073e0ccf3af85c
fe1394aa27e1528659aebd16458ad77d45965476
5416 F20110218_AAAIOF cox_m_Page_21thm.jpg
d513c68f662e66196b1663bcb9730c13
8a356f7db0b746f295c7fe7fba4aa49886a86073
103366 F20110218_AAAINR cox_m_Page_83.jpg
d4beaa4f97ad31c4346505259ba98690
d311253367b09e4c8168a12376d2b49609c86a4d
525264 F20110218_AAAIOG cox_m_Page_81.jp2
6f5f16e237be71c3d2bd7a4f6293467b
a72d9419b90a3cc983b1f42d83f9b17504926bd7
102729 F20110218_AAAINS cox_m_Page_19.jpg
004880a8576b920f2195e1249a919069
80dce0a472d5951430dd94a73f2eac1a600b35b4
8497 F20110218_AAAIOH cox_m_Page_83thm.jpg
67afde2d1ede2b3b1cc2b7b4c466d5b5
b7b57b8450086adc87119dc758403a27f3f47544
F20110218_AAAIOI cox_m_Page_26.tif
4f2d7d0462a3cce7b4b948b91c2d150f
3afe2a314985e22d04d2c2d6bffb7afa4a12fa1d
5589 F20110218_AAAINT cox_m_Page_44thm.jpg
09938e2f805451f0a610d45344a133d2
a754dd6dfd44e542dbc2180581c0f1877870b3c8
34904 F20110218_AAAIOJ cox_m_Page_16.QC.jpg
b6ed75a79d32c4acd3432116fbeda9cb
1c3a2ee1ad3ee8fc6aec2f59d34ec278dabbb137
3269 F20110218_AAAINU cox_m_Page_04thm.jpg
f962c163274607d72213fad6e2a5a553
064f86f6dbbb5b5f9f9dfffb9c2b8921010480e9
1051946 F20110218_AAAIOK cox_m_Page_34.jp2
5f4f56dcb462c71a22232c7386a9c82b
269c7bd3820b36f6a2c8cfe1ee01195a3d04867b
42025 F20110218_AAAINV cox_m_Page_25.pro
a898e5d6787205fd8402096a3eae9f9b
cf4293b9db9c2b69bcb9b6e4df39fcd998127cf4
3039 F20110218_AAAIOL cox_m_Page_05.txt
9c7e1c1c09f3ddc1cd5894518eb41ad1
2dc664ad4c4d97c0d1e1c225a732fafac9541fbf
7082 F20110218_AAAINW cox_m_Page_12thm.jpg
8bab3dec9c0091cc6fa91bc28cd98dd6
9281c2d213de6d25c0507598494fa9306d620ab1
F20110218_AAAIPA cox_m_Page_15.tif
3587362e00326f2d18f5012f8e121511
72c88028d612e2b58c2110734be958e5cfc4c761
4642 F20110218_AAAIOM cox_m_Page_89thm.jpg
01244ad8ea7236564f61836cfe2a267e
2aa26940b603bb978ce92860204a09355c046faf
55388 F20110218_AAAINX cox_m_Page_89.jpg
2e9f57ee5f82f9df69c48cfc2c098f55
b8122448bd8e5ff8ac073a23bf10bdeceb566f5c
F20110218_AAAIPB cox_m_Page_14.tif
ba06a1f55cda9a2b65140c951907beab
1152d3ed3d697cd5f69e949f1b981424078a7cfb
19237 F20110218_AAAION cox_m_Page_62.pro
9d7b5294f7f31b14f6076e11844fd7aa
1885fab26a854cb35b313898e89811728efde576
2807 F20110218_AAAINY cox_m_Page_87.txt
588b33c0fb8180f9a12314943104566d
3920817e2b2e98359dda9456a4a2277f2505e9a9
5274 F20110218_AAAIPC cox_m_Page_48thm.jpg
bf0f1181fc22ce104d4cb519b04c8036
3d74450cd177eb022d6fc8dc014c5431852287d2
798926 F20110218_AAAIOO cox_m_Page_40.jp2
2ed52f8fa3c918859ec20d08065aea99
b04e58f9a0dcf08b263042fd242ee9ea1cdd99e2
518395 F20110218_AAAINZ cox_m_Page_80.jp2
4b6b5073c2f560bf93cf80f0ff444d11
0e13eaf564defe8c1b5fc65685d85897b9003fc5
728710 F20110218_AAAIPD cox_m.pdf
ddff40469f93021d3798dace30a416f4
ba7dcce5bd41c3ac6e9f2cb962898f8eae219c45
50340 F20110218_AAAIOP cox_m_Page_83.pro
8de4d7467415c8ff2a80e5f66b02c3a4
117560380513e7fec5e7e4fce1ce27670105815b
24874 F20110218_AAAIPE cox_m_Page_47.QC.jpg
a2b930dec8e2685d90b3c6c28eeb6bfb
f829cbf8826e0e8ba8fda05492e0a781a654deb1
6477 F20110218_AAAIOQ cox_m_Page_45thm.jpg
10dd05b93aba689b2a84e0a59764fe17
ba277e75e25aeacca407544f50b8f1bb5eff5c4d
977 F20110218_AAAIPF cox_m_Page_46.txt
7ef94cf829a6b4ae3d069f2f0419456b
ab30c52844ae1aaf2e764959f61c930155727902
53007 F20110218_AAAIOR cox_m_Page_16.pro
7fb264aadd63d98ac09dbe0d9c80fb62
85e52dcfa86d4d0707c60c266aeb8aaeb3b03690
631913 F20110218_AAAIPG cox_m_Page_49.jp2
1fea944da18acb9be5a5b442fd5720e9
e49a1f003380cc8d3615cd5558ecd607ff102e72
F20110218_AAAIOS cox_m_Page_19.jp2
89d0edc8fff820254ddf8911ee50b7a4
818c4647a404ee619f770b07de4b6321b50f6a0a
1939 F20110218_AAAIPH cox_m_Page_19.txt
ecd8cced31bdfea9a473e2f507dc6594
c79e8ed42d3aec924e4f8925264e39247a805530
90577 F20110218_AAAIOT cox_m_Page_36.jpg
5051edfe8219d3d2ef024c4f6b0bb2d8
cee529dfd2f5a87b495dfb0362719c60cb487185
F20110218_AAAIPI cox_m_Page_86.tif
d74ae7f47eec24e7dca451f74471bd5d
b9221210009aee00929b3ad1ccc0ec7b197e8866
26900 F20110218_AAAIPJ cox_m_Page_82.QC.jpg
d10a4a4c4df0ca5a98a986f404ac2e11
15703aa24cca3736f753ed3cc1e3ba603397e965
33374 F20110218_AAAIOU cox_m_Page_34.QC.jpg
035ce441e83e906d7e7c6de7be43d66c
a144eb34fb4bca1dff226d247bf1c67985884114
6261 F20110218_AAAIPK cox_m_Page_13.QC.jpg
6224945636e0fa93d6ad1176a3cb5f98
874246b920490d572c5a3f796ec7a0241b8bc04f
6023 F20110218_AAAIOV cox_m_Page_54thm.jpg
236f1b437f596d1d5f83a4a4ed152570
49626e6ae31576ffa408f06ea8eab50384d0f481
F20110218_AAAIPL cox_m_Page_48.tif
a14e12b079b4275b4a07873b2db25eca
ba09986b237ce5c5dfd5a369f15d293f09db7f12
21634 F20110218_AAAIOW cox_m_Page_57.QC.jpg
5b4545bd36ec9bcc99b9026f0097f320
b7182513de43d95174504f97d75993f5aeec7217
144142 F20110218_AAAIPM UFE0014354_00001.xml
4ca820189cc8d10f70adc73b071f01e0
b28ea3bf3ccce09dc3451aece269754839427335
12148 F20110218_AAAIOX cox_m_Page_04.QC.jpg
84acf68c9d4220cdc5b3a75e88600f09
7732038c1c4b3fb543dfd259de3bcb511a042aab
F20110218_AAAIQA cox_m_Page_16.tif
d0c6ce5808f66f9fc35f52b2d743e541
7283b8b227cc3efd4259d89c56369559b09dc069
1969 F20110218_AAAIOY cox_m_Page_11.txt
1fe11844c716b750a2d5c63fdf472d88
5a1eda08f7397640d468598ed5f1e40db6d24ba3
F20110218_AAAIQB cox_m_Page_17.tif
063dbd239b6011cceffe01b8ad7abfe5
442fc9720b0be4291dab4464829db06edf1678e0
1051820 F20110218_AAAIOZ cox_m_Page_06.jp2
7665a7160691f46d1480af23f4d97ac5
3d0b046a1c7cc9d0c6f11f8962aa3a6b83e954f2
F20110218_AAAIQC cox_m_Page_18.tif
701f1a7db6015bcee2248595343c90b7
f800660632dc46d6139b1bffc123fa8a26cf196d
F20110218_AAAIPP cox_m_Page_02.tif
75a04e72f4faf141ecd2427b74ef15c5
9643b2b6efe71665b6e1538ff95c19aaa2ed5d3f
F20110218_AAAIQD cox_m_Page_19.tif
f29b658e8304b184ab1382ccbdf74160
36a6aca0fbea5fcbb5a3ddf8efdc6bb8fd7a4fcc
F20110218_AAAIPQ cox_m_Page_03.tif
5b228da9de9e8925502ae1fffc90ec53
299059cdc122b957437331766204878d2ef9d451
F20110218_AAAIQE cox_m_Page_20.tif
20d408e5fba385ff7ceeb4aa01358582
8b8eecebf1e1764e0085a353b47628ff41580b84
F20110218_AAAIPR cox_m_Page_04.tif
a0b160011b1ea119a09c9d504e624b09
6b6cec9e8219c953c7d1348c94e1b066f746ecb9
F20110218_AAAIQF cox_m_Page_22.tif
3c8af5bcc2291a70b063135390c794a2
05a45d9d8f76d555ba16bda7b10a87fdcf4d2b67
F20110218_AAAIPS cox_m_Page_05.tif
49fd9c1617e6a67fff60da278cff884b
3f84220b6b46fd6cf2bf5528c79a95b7c0e8d151
F20110218_AAAIQG cox_m_Page_23.tif
d66b69da034449eb293c9a4b7afddc87
7da2ce3b77a90c7c1244b430af155f3ebf0ab76b
F20110218_AAAIPT cox_m_Page_06.tif
97cdafee936a4caa59de0fb8ecb8a2c6
93ea4060470184cc9bd9202795ca2d806569cc9d
F20110218_AAAIQH cox_m_Page_24.tif
fa333242de48af91314bbd7a8e2f55bf
a2fb13737c1028d44d16052ada2f344dd48be836
F20110218_AAAIPU cox_m_Page_08.tif
86e43bf6d687c26d4d5e1a645c5bf5e0
e56f6b32f6e543af9f51818bfc748193d93d2938
F20110218_AAAIQI cox_m_Page_25.tif
4bef546e4c1d206ef568c5773e319e99
60e01052f3ee656b98677fdffec4c4368ffc1435
F20110218_AAAIQJ cox_m_Page_27.tif
6d1946fbfbce039cdc030b5b227416e3
52a1949a9f863316e439f63d94f618f0ee1f0a3e
F20110218_AAAIPV cox_m_Page_09.tif
3c776ded68c2ec220b4a2eb219b6e958
eab547833eac711b071dd0594e246f5cccc9b250
F20110218_AAAIQK cox_m_Page_28.tif
a4a078840aacb3610358e35f32143bee
6cc478f4fb390aa59e76050f6a55022206115350
F20110218_AAAIPW cox_m_Page_10.tif
c468947818f49cd1e5e3c910dd0085cf
045c0fde2033100903ef76f94bc527bcba4dd46e
F20110218_AAAIQL cox_m_Page_29.tif
e29da4effce353e9e905d04e282671d1
fef0ef7cb84c233355063daf49d46fef17e11307
F20110218_AAAIPX cox_m_Page_11.tif
18d7ae2505e69de8c7113bc18b712485
c33a15c0f0207db4381ee702ea37134256133e58
F20110218_AAAIRA cox_m_Page_47.tif
da92a8adba41366ccb34649ad1fa5fe2
97d03da19977002b80ecb91e47b7ebf1b0bdc496
F20110218_AAAIQM cox_m_Page_30.tif
266b0126a1a3c8428b92edaea0d51753
be66a0696a0247e499f7fbbbd49ff9098552c9e2
F20110218_AAAIPY cox_m_Page_12.tif
e1c035c2cc0f1e66ae031cf5e22f082c
f41ecb02f144231c0430cb7a2064fe97df7dfee8
F20110218_AAAIRB cox_m_Page_50.tif
b317d960e526cb8b80f4be78a879541b
beafb816c8420655e0bd9e2ecf7fca37ba8edb93
F20110218_AAAIQN cox_m_Page_31.tif
14586a08737791dd6c95f057d07cd288
f63a908d3dfe5227c8846807e4a1b24f344a7218
F20110218_AAAIPZ cox_m_Page_13.tif
a01afa8c74497b08219ec7ccb7f6c65d
e6a3d8e2dbfac0b69403d22f179d65cef473a041
F20110218_AAAIRC cox_m_Page_52.tif
a15f0b0021b4bcac99a4643e48c3f68e
d4f42711401c3a5d79f7fb64eece47415a9b2445
F20110218_AAAIQO cox_m_Page_34.tif
cfaea07c98460dfebd345ceda26c178b
7616cbb904713b8d96b9c1a4071f4357d4052693
F20110218_AAAIRD cox_m_Page_53.tif
013dc9a8af4fab05d8d3bd22067d3def
c5ae6c15995eddf36d08c7a22f38a2695d913d67
F20110218_AAAIQP cox_m_Page_35.tif
9f8599a222a8a0e3c94e6c6f05eaf4b1
9081cc47119fc60b34b6269a9d77def96615c105
F20110218_AAAIRE cox_m_Page_54.tif
54db018946fe2a1c0a59ef1cf13c2174
4b7cf1903901e9dab250cdbe2483260b89fa8922
F20110218_AAAIQQ cox_m_Page_36.tif
65a9d3e8480df7cc8447cbda7e91b170
bdf4fd4cc7f2295b1c93569e439ef455b03b5070
F20110218_AAAIRF cox_m_Page_56.tif
2e0559d066d36b5b30e244215aa05499
6b680996b8448f3f87267cf482ea56a29e9946af
F20110218_AAAIQR cox_m_Page_37.tif
22589190702650e3424be0c049549dd3
428d082db9d4b6f5f750e08c815d641ea6a1ee64
F20110218_AAAIRG cox_m_Page_57.tif
284fc274ab8a82ec7feddf4d38dba3b2
6e7c1d961e42b78796665f28b8fd6e08f0e5ed2f
F20110218_AAAIQS cox_m_Page_38.tif
113bd5144141f7fd8af83095aee6b0ee
3db0de4a677b6cdc7c1370fe55c3d19d0892be6d
F20110218_AAAIRH cox_m_Page_58.tif
b926c0c03e6123cf5fb55e2f9a39d2a1
c1426e887cf93e408b758893004b4c89ac3dd05d
F20110218_AAAIQT cox_m_Page_40.tif
1985aacc5287e11e9d61408470237b21
6488d6691a0eb43a15f4e2b73de658fdfbc26356
F20110218_AAAIRI cox_m_Page_59.tif
7e33ac1802e2bdfb3639763aeb76ee05
c5097ab45d5d99f844fd6308a2aea8c5302aa7fe
F20110218_AAAIQU cox_m_Page_41.tif
f40688ec3cf61f2b13ebe7e800fb7721
64284db29b3ec1fd19fd2775dc0e18f9c5e26aae
F20110218_AAAIRJ cox_m_Page_60.tif
715e8929aa5e6383a0083553bcad2f4b
c6e8ad5aef044a53dffb9992e5e0a4f6c88e4326
F20110218_AAAIQV cox_m_Page_42.tif
d40cec8ee1a54aeb6af1229716bda741
dc63b3b1acc9b84bc33fed5b2dc63ada81083274
F20110218_AAAIRK cox_m_Page_61.tif
95fa6a97d45404801ecf958ddcfaf850
97f4116358215cc98bea564ecc6ee7ce6503baf4
F20110218_AAAIRL cox_m_Page_62.tif
43de80bf140f268d999a7d3bfaa59f14
5a7c24f926e8e9a38eff928aa43687bb3b7d9b6d
F20110218_AAAIQW cox_m_Page_43.tif
5add2bdf07a6b159f55a56f6c9138045
8099bca0b33c65fa4d086a9a3963c6b1d94e69a9
F20110218_AAAISA cox_m_Page_78.tif
19633c4ed6c8c65d33b2ae0b880ccb4f
6356b333d4fb7dc2731acc69ed0ebcdaa6bd8f04
F20110218_AAAIRM cox_m_Page_63.tif
1b298ee12c80b2daaea46e80b1d74695
3d70a3e6d2ccf92ae9238dc2c1198c1cf99b36c8
F20110218_AAAIQX cox_m_Page_44.tif
f00112dfb84c46a6b370ad1871ae8912
aed40b2c4275adac32aff00bcb2d281039a1c235
F20110218_AAAISB cox_m_Page_79.tif
cd636ab875c07ef14307bb08228e13b8
84f19ea31d1100e0ec36febde380f472f5a64a6c
F20110218_AAAIRN cox_m_Page_64.tif
a772d0774eefd2984c5d5f5831b5d35b
412f537c71ead1f500aad61d790ffffae2896b2b
F20110218_AAAIQY cox_m_Page_45.tif
08fcedcddf961d63f9b7ff278585035f
63e7b095f1837407646f5fbaca0199f009e9c4ac
F20110218_AAAISC cox_m_Page_80.tif
915e922a61cef5d80105829c11a2721f
ce6f12a700b81cdef80c53e9a6ab72d24cdf4094
F20110218_AAAIRO cox_m_Page_65.tif
8b14ace7bb2d99924bcfb81b6debb75f
bcf738ccb76d20ec7f36e563d12ff2f9c521984b
F20110218_AAAIQZ cox_m_Page_46.tif
1b44837ea565f432446e255c340a64a9
0269ceafe7fdc69a12c49d6c3b5d0105b9b433bd
F20110218_AAAISD cox_m_Page_81.tif
67f06c8eed15dbe8e9fc390cb35ae718
7e1f2ce7bb8dd901d43daae91aaf63b06682cbe5
F20110218_AAAIRP cox_m_Page_66.tif
ee342ed78b6647e685e6aa08cd6e8866
0bc11116829bac767de06da2838221a7fb995840
F20110218_AAAISE cox_m_Page_82.tif
94d906c065429256063bd186ac7700dc
31016115e3553a21688d9a8811de460fe5bba544
F20110218_AAAIRQ cox_m_Page_67.tif
5ea9e767333fad4504ba3dd4bedfb3bf
fe5a468cbf0b65012aa110ffe57718b83b8ad81e
F20110218_AAAISF cox_m_Page_83.tif
4a498345c3b9807f758df28f1999253c
0d1271c59f47b2c2bd0328edbe2e201848f36546
F20110218_AAAIRR cox_m_Page_68.tif
099c1a9f54933b9202da52585c651095
5414e738cab31f6626d019465167a5c4ea2f6b42
F20110218_AAAISG cox_m_Page_84.tif
c59b0583b71a9da93924814f12cffa20
dfb1fffddcd9de37195e4562a3172e70b5402c24
F20110218_AAAIRS cox_m_Page_69.tif
3fbdb1231dfa4f8376e137b0a3194381
36edea8505287ceee15baee8c6eeb220135d6443
F20110218_AAAISH cox_m_Page_85.tif
2cfc8f101cc11f5d5ac1b602400b210b
f3b2439540ea0ca0d10887d07a288f037aabff20
F20110218_AAAIRT cox_m_Page_70.tif
797be5c81ee14d3811abf6d49df8be20
88a0cf3b55ab6dc8eda440a1639ce64e61216ff4
F20110218_AAAISI cox_m_Page_87.tif
ddb60fa6659ffe7d05fc6fd75b0fc082
bf09f56ace67497be853f1e6c625c7dcaff12342
F20110218_AAAIRU cox_m_Page_71.tif
2c8cb523ea73509584ce0ad5c173f5fc
fee880f70e3b0c3922172f2c98ab89797e642b8a
F20110218_AAAISJ cox_m_Page_88.tif
e79c9f075751f03c10877b33554298ea
d852696d3b65b97cd247fe72c2d368f0935e0fe5
F20110218_AAAIRV cox_m_Page_72.tif
b4cc763916ba6400f1766419b1948274
a9e1a2f7a8c8257f5ca64f76937c41f71b2e810c
F20110218_AAAIRW cox_m_Page_73.tif
3f6aad962a45794f922472abcfc48fbf
72f5db4edfc2a9bd7e2edddfd1a8ed327eeb5277
F20110218_AAAISK cox_m_Page_89.tif
6ac32ce0397cc5971dfe654f3919c0da
80f7381d382b30959ca8f414eb47770ac6afe841
F20110218_AAAISL cox_m_Page_90.tif
295b9c006c9e3537dc5a0273aa165635
a253d959298c620951d9b25396fbed23c792d924
F20110218_AAAIRX cox_m_Page_75.tif
72b7f385f6910615862fe596738cf73a
768c68ae84474c157f220d0e92202ecad58a7b27
2058 F20110218_AAAITA cox_m_Page_17.txt
a6e66ce48b60ec8ff779698af8127df5
c622a779dd146acfca08491076bdbc388ca1d711
555 F20110218_AAAISM cox_m_Page_01.txt
06f557b1d2ece495d48909c0e46fd6ae
a800396a1c9ff8aec42a24c0e8761930dc7e05ac
F20110218_AAAIRY cox_m_Page_76.tif
43b9ffa5ef7210fdf7e127ca548a6d83
8518d07f766c357171bcf3dbe405ef10a05bf5f0
2090 F20110218_AAAITB cox_m_Page_18.txt
da541fee6281cc7a9c822ac1216c47bd
d0add4da3c344475178f9769f07e445e9901ab41
109 F20110218_AAAISN cox_m_Page_02.txt
1d3c559cd48a392a0656b28d361e0dea
fc0254640033b258195e87abbd0fb0244669343b
F20110218_AAAIRZ cox_m_Page_77.tif
d30ac26ac77df6d2aa7201bebe90abd4
ca5c459a931d499c7baf46227be1d8e04df63d71
1856 F20110218_AAAITC cox_m_Page_20.txt
fbad57e78e1e13b144a2c3900523259f
f4096a3bd63c61b562e5d528010c6fc084c66705
136 F20110218_AAAISO cox_m_Page_03.txt
9492a9083c5452b7a02ba9de958e4425
18d5cc255049a5be1d0e10f5a107398015d10e66
231 F20110218_AAAITD cox_m_Page_22.txt
6ff1b6749f77318339b27e80db63b4d0
57b65d657dd0acb076fa036a75cca165922de8d7
738 F20110218_AAAISP cox_m_Page_04.txt
d91eb92583f3cfa58c7f334cbb1c797b
a3fabddb1b7525cdbb60ae1ab4e0f41c9b255b9a
1457 F20110218_AAAITE cox_m_Page_24.txt
a8df386226cd52136ff0523b90edf13f
336d2a7aa79bddb817aa2f6366bd4201915b8b5e
4447 F20110218_AAAISQ cox_m_Page_06.txt
9b5c87f82b3ae19d811cc51826b83e51
dddaabf2c3ab6cbcca85e5ff376b258bf2131073
1766 F20110218_AAAITF cox_m_Page_25.txt
abcca239ca53fda36b744959dac40aed
ee2d7bc76fc8dfe0cf776d68afa9be24bfccf61b
2836 F20110218_AAAISR cox_m_Page_07.txt
b7716bee822781c4d1e99a898780b282
357760a7e9e3e4b5f1c272e2bac5200eb7280a72
1993 F20110218_AAAITG cox_m_Page_26.txt
a472c3bf8216eb63227a894d3bed9a2e
f5b97839bbe7e182a068ecd3fa531ac8b39a4a14
344 F20110218_AAAISS cox_m_Page_08.txt
08f0c13cc0d1c0b083490b6e7a51ba60
30a5699ea396c20aa0b59ab8078524463529444c
1910 F20110218_AAAITH cox_m_Page_27.txt
00cd3d0d61ba25fba4234c858899d295
fa4402bbd194d1c15198dc4cdbf6bcecf7a3db72
2216 F20110218_AAAIST cox_m_Page_09.txt
8376ed8082b41082a69087b29928c2f5
7b0f7b7080ce799adcbdb1f74659ac7388c8066c
1544 F20110218_AAAITI cox_m_Page_28.txt
0872add82c8f85a32bb86dadde5fe393
73ea56bb07405ace4231428e0403faf6c80949c9
2813 F20110218_AAAISU cox_m_Page_10.txt
b09c5f096e521beaa82542f4b400210c
1a7403aa33fe278015e82cee0d7a5bb1ad6c37d2
2234 F20110218_AAAITJ cox_m_Page_29.txt
bad8b16d65962befc8fac76ff80cb74b
bcd12db435e187f4605158ebb658438667d9e3a7
1844 F20110218_AAAISV cox_m_Page_12.txt
2b788e66b5ba19dc1761472406bf803d
a0371a37608a0ed985c536d83f94d34a7481018f
2077 F20110218_AAAITK cox_m_Page_30.txt
8604d2dd4ade5380d376ec3405b88660
a06d3cfe476ecc4bc76ca154a9e9337bac5a0c21
285 F20110218_AAAISW cox_m_Page_13.txt
d468e0b7789eae234464e10a2949e833
841827e75b24ac2a980ed6cfb1761a50200a3a0d
1902 F20110218_AAAITL cox_m_Page_31.txt
936508f4eb60febde960882a9fdbe46b
5910477e0950b4465c2e7addcbc9a6fea2d9c930
1758 F20110218_AAAISX cox_m_Page_14.txt
9ab074db3cdd4bb69ef71667985a59c0
e3108f72ffeb1cecdcf591724a2e2966957709db
1076 F20110218_AAAIUA cox_m_Page_51.txt
676e884d1abc241405ab7b61aff5a16e
83d6f4ed40c99775102ed2a76c2d96231df49916
1963 F20110218_AAAITM cox_m_Page_32.txt
478f5d1e207ebd91b750d91f9977f55e
69799a3f7c577b4da3cb128461c61a2992c17354
1319 F20110218_AAAIUB cox_m_Page_52.txt
485166ce957ed83ff2b41f7383793e4d
300446cfc29fd44dfd2d917674cd4e33fbaf974d
1859 F20110218_AAAITN cox_m_Page_33.txt
98286fa6dc46eeb8bce764e7193b4905
6c249f46a94ff2a7856ddf6a7b517416bbf5eeb7
1871 F20110218_AAAISY cox_m_Page_15.txt
6fc4bbee2fd51dd28cd0f68b0dc7bd35
efcfba675f9a7043afc4eed4add6fefcaa4adfc5
F20110218_AAAIUC cox_m_Page_53.txt
a1a1f157d5c9c450bcce352bfe1fef25
6b2197da6ac7b9255ef0b5ecc14e3d8c2ae5c4a2
1937 F20110218_AAAITO cox_m_Page_34.txt
10b90330aa49f9a504815ca2211a82fd
cec6018e54b25542d09417cb4cbb76c0b77bc573
2102 F20110218_AAAISZ cox_m_Page_16.txt
0039ebe956b0e12f9efde47dc0bd0289
a8587dc4c6f704d8364c1dbff177e104c4e52153
968 F20110218_AAAIUD cox_m_Page_54.txt
e1298c985d762eb6ceed807fd0521c71
ad3fc55dfc0e2bad7efa7dc32a3d59b3b0719916
1095 F20110218_AAAITP cox_m_Page_35.txt
3d50d0cfe5e77ba51c399236d8c29630
31253cd7306617d8456e9a41509907f5868351c4
1112 F20110218_AAAIUE cox_m_Page_55.txt
82b5afcaca9612fefa03499e704e65ac
617ad4eaad2ac8f31ac1a54a7dbdf6a53623fc07
1835 F20110218_AAAITQ cox_m_Page_36.txt
a375308e6944d1c6f3ecedddc6eb16e8
32d480a6723822a6bee0b599893c6b44285a1d7f
1373 F20110218_AAAIUF cox_m_Page_56.txt
8d910e404cb2bcd396c729d65e3b500f
4ff38c725642c882d2a48d771c0e183567143d0c
1934 F20110218_AAAITR cox_m_Page_37.txt
5cbe2b896b39d8bdfc5ab48b0e74295e
5e5bb77291e8cc8bb35c2708e93c87a441c5463c
97362 F20110218_AAAJAA cox_m_Page_32.jpg
1739c45c82d9e0aaa17434ce7517b000
b1ed13cbd83ac191f62f8c1831649c64f95cc09f
987 F20110218_AAAIUG cox_m_Page_57.txt
478f5da668e55924b904ce1cfd8501f9
f732e03f22c7ccf1fabd499ccbdadaedab571e15
388 F20110218_AAAITS cox_m_Page_39.txt
b61c33a0e37478504e9e107d0ea047fd
99a71007207b10610da9ebd3fe53c090e57beef7
32074 F20110218_AAAJAB cox_m_Page_32.QC.jpg
29cc8a05a9c0e8641039b9371b6b002b
96abf4c29951bdecd58cb6ac25c0125eeb6d1f26
1081 F20110218_AAAIUH cox_m_Page_58.txt
02f137a49e5a6b6f139bba7c9c272574
c3d0388bbdcfd09e7a79a7c01ee67c23a2c5c2c2
1508 F20110218_AAAITT cox_m_Page_40.txt
6b7e613fccb41ffde28f66299c248123
9436055fbc97c7c6466900a0ce8aad75ea1daa05
97599 F20110218_AAAJAC cox_m_Page_33.jpg
cf57b9e3df283b927cbd102e6d020efa
6e0fa8625e24986bd6ff28af0acb27c82a371c0d
1074 F20110218_AAAIUI cox_m_Page_59.txt
8069ccb17eaf85bb8c0f8cbefb71ec81
c57840adb52c0567ff8ba479e13947178045c273
778 F20110218_AAAITU cox_m_Page_42.txt
c2c4dddcaba7e38313bbbc60194f8a24
42a86243224cb56b680666667c630d775dd602b4
101712 F20110218_AAAJAD cox_m_Page_34.jpg
31dc913d507f0cb1b2a2183e5bbf169f
8c2ede7b49aa0af6840583d7889e8c0fc063dd56
1407 F20110218_AAAIUJ cox_m_Page_60.txt
a812b4a599040f992de741bdc0a91847
0eac9ce7414f441d8cd2d7515e17e1f2493092b6
1001 F20110218_AAAITV cox_m_Page_44.txt
f4b41141c1e0cffdd508c9774cd81950
9ccf2d9fd761ef50ebac134b434a9874033e6d68
59863 F20110218_AAAJAE cox_m_Page_35.jpg
b47dc48f2af4178fc071c700701327c9
dcca10db15f1cf2ca42c16c48b16f28fc0989d98
1313 F20110218_AAAIUK cox_m_Page_61.txt
fa567f677659922c9faef796b738bd5d
99c1da62f648e514d56afb4abe0508344d55f3f6
1174 F20110218_AAAITW cox_m_Page_45.txt
067ec8d3888ca1dc8c3ba74252989717
bea04a430ac52e4ff9f2d24908abf10e6419652f
858 F20110218_AAAIUL cox_m_Page_62.txt
4a8386545a64d32d694ed76fe23d5edf
ea47ebd0c9a220317c2fc407dd4ccd6014a0c7f8
1336 F20110218_AAAITX cox_m_Page_47.txt
cfaf3f1f09a697283c9a16d182cf38d6
28304e391302758e418680cc63d3a7570eca6b8e
19684 F20110218_AAAJAF cox_m_Page_35.QC.jpg
5bd0a979326bbd45cf078ba553418add
5c041430cfdc7a418b7cd80aa4a3421839ee909d
809 F20110218_AAAIUM cox_m_Page_63.txt
f8cc17b3b0a0e8a0be8a0765698c6239
4768658c05c462c3005538a1f1fdd5d34a315490
967 F20110218_AAAITY cox_m_Page_48.txt
d9973e22106ac4b9cceafb26003a92c0
7171bdef693ec0f0fab2c0c2acad18b9a7ce9049
29169 F20110218_AAAJAG cox_m_Page_36.QC.jpg
6f96f616f49ff3e6b8fbe56ed3cfdd2b
364d6c3fc6be62451bb0e1a278cf1cded9e2ce44
1526 F20110218_AAAIVA cox_m_Page_79.txt
0012c686b01612d63680ae1e7f2649ff
909eedf543c31c71c6df8f808e48510efd852f75
1143 F20110218_AAAIUN cox_m_Page_64.txt
e1ec1cca956c2b8134b377a27b486b5b
2aee2cddfa7177d96aa62e0f4704874d1d725fa0
99165 F20110218_AAAJAH cox_m_Page_37.jpg
4b7031911cf987cdd3d35fd2fbdfa4bb
a2dcb88bbd1cc59f7c9ab0249f51d9c8ec20d511
1413 F20110218_AAAIVB cox_m_Page_81.txt
fa1e7fa836a644b7b93fca6d533f9a54
39a8fc7757b018a5c3d52d29ce7ac7cc42da40e1
1455 F20110218_AAAIUO cox_m_Page_65.txt
76e996739632dd5d83361ee64791cb04
f3a3178ae5b346e8f17747778d174a4b31924fc6
1232 F20110218_AAAITZ cox_m_Page_50.txt
b56b8c2654c93c4f8e7558ab6e6cf654
93c351d25c25816bbd76adc76570ba35d30c682d
32429 F20110218_AAAJAI cox_m_Page_37.QC.jpg
714d7dbe0fd013d7584138f02b26a39a
db69e1b21769f38799d9d9c2aa4c3e362d953689
2100 F20110218_AAAIVC cox_m_Page_84.txt
c8fdcc2fab419ff493643560a7c32702
f729c27a67cfd249f5fdc0c6c56ba8c5c600bce5
1613 F20110218_AAAIUP cox_m_Page_66.txt
39f65310cab0204c90972aeb10691302
2e6d7189a845bf84745b0f08c82e2be364a88222
112569 F20110218_AAAJAJ cox_m_Page_38.jpg
94ae36918d201c5572016f6e34669d42
0d03f4fa9929949fdd69510e6f67154c79c0b56b
1862 F20110218_AAAIVD cox_m_Page_85.txt
849ab1ce2f23dfe8c9e4522adc0e188b
45170f49b025660cde298918777cd454a275646a
1272 F20110218_AAAIUQ cox_m_Page_67.txt
1be8291957864645a86fa3a44e91870a
470832960bef8b9734c005469a191a8daa91f929
32600 F20110218_AAAJAK cox_m_Page_38.QC.jpg
56dc748a80f8a24ba5158950570cbf61
8e3bd1d3f0b000cc99e89a5723f3a1fc516ba833
2479 F20110218_AAAIVE cox_m_Page_86.txt
31db9c46403eb30eb6b633045bcb1320
a2f1f43fd774216b8100f9016b27e194e4004f0b
F20110218_AAAIUR cox_m_Page_68.txt
9034e978ac4cb4cf634a7a2e57334fe0
df45cfac4add7920e319c88ff3a93a7c70f43206
23470 F20110218_AAAJBA cox_m_Page_46.QC.jpg
68fc752abcc56cbbc17934f15c2ea6c2
18689dec68b2eeab663c57de1481a48a4e528cc2
20189 F20110218_AAAJAL cox_m_Page_39.jpg
c1761ea98e9fe0f69f304e24ba2e7a3c
b228759773b8e0730ada610bb87338222031e776
2380 F20110218_AAAIVF cox_m_Page_88.txt
5b945f244c2ac38afa0fa45b3abff577
aacef5439285f23ab02cea1034aa37ea896e914f
F20110218_AAAIUS cox_m_Page_69.txt
797a87b0729afe7065724017020836e0
dc206648f1c7450e7398d28b48171f01a5c0d9f1
74552 F20110218_AAAJBB cox_m_Page_47.jpg
352ff98402232431078df074e6a30d62
feab111d2c4a71d6f995fa6be19f3ddf9e35f3e5
6590 F20110218_AAAJAM cox_m_Page_39.QC.jpg
b2b78b37c9c2f0dac8000eeefc08efdb
511acb05f1869e83765a5474f5c4f3011e502154
757 F20110218_AAAIVG cox_m_Page_90.txt
58aeb751605cdc376a66b7a7f416bc66
37567d1444be4e39d492734103f8ab882fdfa03e
1358 F20110218_AAAIUT cox_m_Page_72.txt
19e20ec8dad45fd3a19ece5ab65425fb
74a75f4e773a274ea299fa7b7cf9cc98e13a320d
54312 F20110218_AAAJBC cox_m_Page_48.jpg
909cbfd622998736ffcb2c91cc533a07
4a1f8607179c456ad1d390871f8ff79b0b79be27
73883 F20110218_AAAJAN cox_m_Page_40.jpg
6bfb507256ca63a17b5166a55c86162c
3a1d533c3a0427ff2782dd7957e126f891802ce7
10883 F20110218_AAAIVH cox_m_Page_01.pro
d0858c2b14526deec65b6deaea242dab
3f513952ad9eea7441b7105e710959a976199e11
1496 F20110218_AAAIUU cox_m_Page_73.txt
5cb169a988159790d146b553f01082ad
cae89f8c3466d8e4d4b461c5ba83c8637865eaa6
18481 F20110218_AAAJBD cox_m_Page_48.QC.jpg
bdcf0b29777ed4753f38748ce1c7d111
551502bcbbeb74b2e1d8afad298890d92aac9ec6
23464 F20110218_AAAJAO cox_m_Page_40.QC.jpg
54ccd60eb949a95b87529c8df784b26f
b8413a01c27fa20b62a2ba8eb8f3501e349504ab
1145 F20110218_AAAIVI cox_m_Page_02.pro
fe274ff47e87e75556e3f48484a290e7
934d37a134dbbba17471f6ebf530c441dbb9b4d2
547 F20110218_AAAIUV cox_m_Page_74.txt
142743afb9b435a62c9c33f70e3312df
7fd3b3e6c6462a2ffdfca78c65b15c928677ced2
67253 F20110218_AAAJBE cox_m_Page_49.jpg
07b1f49941882fcfc04c8217d043950a
6f0a63824d1a7a7c8a335225485c8583cc802700
53674 F20110218_AAAJAP cox_m_Page_41.jpg
74bf42b5327d86f68bd6abb9b533a3a4
305f9142f89e0d01a7f11eeb836a6e7028f968e7
2129 F20110218_AAAIVJ cox_m_Page_03.pro
02c6975550aabb6a8ec1c8d19a24c578
785a98bbcfb7a63ec8e91687a2c4a99a09dd7ae1
1531 F20110218_AAAIUW cox_m_Page_75.txt
6e1f08c08d43323e942f63c69521e6df
548eb1dcd3116a9c8c08606c6f5b661af74ad147
22495 F20110218_AAAJBF cox_m_Page_49.QC.jpg
2d035b8794d8cd1fac0d5b17c9e452dd
63a64c5bab92e892b1f97f496a8589043cef46f3
19288 F20110218_AAAJAQ cox_m_Page_41.QC.jpg
6af74036f695d71b97ca5d7fd56a2322
1294a6070800c204acfb75c89f0851c02cb7e5f8
17225 F20110218_AAAIVK cox_m_Page_04.pro
2daebaa8fd56ac4e70e0048d472c9fc8
6ffa2423372785f3a9cd68ed95ca26f983d2ff1c
1222 F20110218_AAAIUX cox_m_Page_76.txt
d6a88f0e95a5e0d3fdf81f11eaed428f
e9eb28cb74af6ebae08fc9b646dcd877aa2b7273
52253 F20110218_AAAJAR cox_m_Page_42.jpg
fc24c133031431392dc4d5ef576f76b8
fd94fb2878f637294d63eb0345674bba246deb70
72498 F20110218_AAAIVL cox_m_Page_05.pro
9eb664b522aee5c5610c08c76788c13a
93c052626ed32efcb98308c5cf24b825473bcf67
1379 F20110218_AAAIUY cox_m_Page_77.txt
81f323827f546985ceb2e161fa7963b9
25f540b65747ce8f188426ee849558f0f683cd1c
67792 F20110218_AAAJBG cox_m_Page_50.jpg
6ef016d0d1d59a736ad39f9a6080383e
935044d531e2f5d3e6b7dfdf19f1aec159b2ec9a
35569 F20110218_AAAIWA cox_m_Page_24.pro
37d5cfdb89f75af4a34332382ee03a71
6dd37116675ce8432744977669fe44804d20b944
18464 F20110218_AAAJAS cox_m_Page_42.QC.jpg
f9ce6f6f62049b60150adf67c505645d
bcaf5f60b906a97316c80c5b928fd0112abc8c6c
107563 F20110218_AAAIVM cox_m_Page_06.pro
c83ec1b0df0eef0328aa9a0a9db5212e
041272f46627bc803360a7a53ee86a9d48119db5
1189 F20110218_AAAIUZ cox_m_Page_78.txt
37bda63997100a7785e0d16d52580f39
9170362e7a9be0ab8494765517d28520ccca7480
62437 F20110218_AAAJBH cox_m_Page_51.jpg
7f1c57b7839a560b2ade09eadb29e62a
327c2229ec8a85c00010a7c254dba2d872bc56db
50662 F20110218_AAAIWB cox_m_Page_26.pro
22d5493bc73dd49feabeb013f10f3896
19fef10ce91515217a775c7bc55d8f17c5b00f3c
51558 F20110218_AAAJAT cox_m_Page_43.jpg
3fe012fd0d3561da94e532e9c920c5ea
670572f52d9de86d9d56a9e542a52b2e32940bec
7439 F20110218_AAAIVN cox_m_Page_08.pro
83ad68b889edb3258b019c6327129f10
0cb34e17f2578d98e16c1e4626b94c60b4ad6e78
73439 F20110218_AAAJBI cox_m_Page_52.jpg
1b1a082bbd5550ad05a558af2a4280d0
a18c065c4079803a0391a37f2f95204a9d277f65
48344 F20110218_AAAIWC cox_m_Page_27.pro
f59fe09d246ec7deff174261fb10ab22
c771e2747e78e177946a8c92ef358654bbf278a6
17349 F20110218_AAAJAU cox_m_Page_43.QC.jpg
e5acb0778d34099f41d41db5003b9c3e
0ee2c32ed968cb7ea0e82f0a26ba1d92136dcdc6
70813 F20110218_AAAIVO cox_m_Page_10.pro
75cee2b984aabc1858e511db2c47e26d
756270e9b1edc9179ffa33118a3bc3562218823e
24773 F20110218_AAAJBJ cox_m_Page_52.QC.jpg
37f087193fdc1fada7dce3de7460d6f6
bd04ecd553946a5880387327bb64873ddfbae71d
38822 F20110218_AAAIWD cox_m_Page_28.pro
196557c7a4969e8d68026cf2076e8bad
3199b333872bbe8cf84c7b68419164e11a02ff33
53705 F20110218_AAAJAV cox_m_Page_44.jpg
e72c50d3901236a80f90d847a772405b
6aae3db19c4f151a1d0b09a509e05a0a612fa629
48090 F20110218_AAAIVP cox_m_Page_11.pro
72f6e4428d98d629f7f60ec2a99430df
c5da5334489e650673a7391606fd197f0940a8be
71729 F20110218_AAAJBK cox_m_Page_53.jpg
71a11666956ad5a09374a23842d97f53
a48b1cdc36b7dec0017d4642e9f42709ff8062fb
52346 F20110218_AAAIWE cox_m_Page_29.pro
fcdf89253b5752cbebad3e4a928e54dd
1857e5c5006e00f6ef039caf8e2a8543801f68b4
19566 F20110218_AAAJAW cox_m_Page_44.QC.jpg
11561e4da679d385fc4cc02bd019ae55
a08cb5b697741c3f6988877a88660495194fc362
41541 F20110218_AAAIVQ cox_m_Page_12.pro
7b9a1ac778e534386d8e2d5aa734b3a9
940fca9a8c67f922e5be29f0fc72e7dcb1690109
23798 F20110218_AAAJBL cox_m_Page_53.QC.jpg
a6a288fea49927b57dc6ae4e8f1fec75
0163573489b6197b8acca75b6f284faafbfebc72
52863 F20110218_AAAIWF cox_m_Page_30.pro
a5a59e9daabab2a3b7a9d3128e85118a
8ba4f0ed72d350b0d18cfdd6dd64a515ce845bc8
68194 F20110218_AAAJAX cox_m_Page_45.jpg
ce8cfd74847f2e018405d20dfce1f57b
079ba1181402eeb5374561107b0b35111d871161
7062 F20110218_AAAIVR cox_m_Page_13.pro
baab79f2bd041a687e87f14a519e8e93
dd037082a90fec63e14f556f10a392931f840f78
19154 F20110218_AAAJCA cox_m_Page_62.QC.jpg
c2a3cf1b99d0b44bc7ed7f79ea8cf25c
75792aaf5dd6a3f48b59641f7b707ff5ac27a113
61045 F20110218_AAAJBM cox_m_Page_54.jpg
16a1e34077e6ce144eca82bd2cf15ac6
6ad97e1b2107459c777cb256babd3ff3f56b0a6d
48111 F20110218_AAAIWG cox_m_Page_31.pro
febc971b2fae72e0a25bc4b24da848dd
fdafbaa84098be407512cf8087548db11504f95e
23499 F20110218_AAAJAY cox_m_Page_45.QC.jpg
1826c08ec1d71a52bf2338e97bc80df9
6ceb9f23e6452d26d5bcf1d8498314b74f2d894b
41789 F20110218_AAAIVS cox_m_Page_14.pro
7bb6ca561bbad60b7c436eeaeb3b0978
61f0efaf00ecd9875020a6346900e24bdbb925c7
48884 F20110218_AAAJCB cox_m_Page_63.jpg
a9cd580c9a984a5dcc51d7611799bd9c
e04037a925df0565f472de9090fd757cf9dc3c23
62768 F20110218_AAAJBN cox_m_Page_55.jpg
0f0313502b16eeb252cf40ba6aa112c4
12001a0d4bc5706c89142ea5076cb94fbec45d13
48883 F20110218_AAAIWH cox_m_Page_32.pro
6fa99a7d1c387a733d29bf0d4f23c492
30e5d7f9c210a4fa9d5b61a8b0ebeb9ef15a5f77
65196 F20110218_AAAJAZ cox_m_Page_46.jpg
5ea8c06b241f4df8b4554ddfcf876d57
99a365a940e3c564ace40de2a35a25825d65060f
47269 F20110218_AAAIVT cox_m_Page_15.pro
dbae15cf8bd2d701b7d2544ff7569be2
4628da9b78ed4f862249d31fc5af48bbd5e2dc24
62923 F20110218_AAAJCC cox_m_Page_64.jpg
af689b3702c102ffb04de59f03793965
1f44e9b7b383f85a86e04f28f3e26d1957d1d8e2
20833 F20110218_AAAJBO cox_m_Page_55.QC.jpg
cad451a1163cde99668d4befb649686c
81e9c95b14a98d41636f0cbf11d07b46ab503cde
47023 F20110218_AAAIWI cox_m_Page_33.pro
4cf53aeb6e4aecaf8892ae1ad701b21b
e8ee7a73da3ac121350f41bbb2149682aac9fe35
51788 F20110218_AAAIVU cox_m_Page_17.pro
d08439d23d55613053b3b8b6dcddf548
3e5aa3e0a6f2903723dfab0044642757812e33fb
21330 F20110218_AAAJCD cox_m_Page_64.QC.jpg
ab978633eea1921df9fd6362b7732566
76c30977ce6e6335939f9378ca889e9c3f85c927
70341 F20110218_AAAJBP cox_m_Page_56.jpg
5451e4ee352ad5604a651ba8cd3024c7
7de869952458d7e7481664683a6c119ed2579e09
49155 F20110218_AAAIWJ cox_m_Page_34.pro
c7a03fc131e2fb4be7fce31fec40940c
7180dfde1dc9b6cb118d7cd98ced4f50b2f7c491
52043 F20110218_AAAIVV cox_m_Page_18.pro
2422d3541b070c77f529a45fb4df4f1e
c59ed7bca72f291023bd86ce00a814f35c558fb9
51454 F20110218_AAAJCE cox_m_Page_65.jpg
79f836f23063c47da3af075ff12a7351
a8ce30d75cfb6a4a6f76be4ccb5d78fcbd20fdaf
23610 F20110218_AAAJBQ cox_m_Page_56.QC.jpg
1cb893e2bdb84cbacf5b20d129e149b3
3bc7ed257792b7767f82bbf687208c3f973617d2
44615 F20110218_AAAIWK cox_m_Page_36.pro
59175403bc0df64def735ca9256bcf02
4b5d198e876a13684a4a979654ad7a977d47ed18
49088 F20110218_AAAIVW cox_m_Page_19.pro
53716dead28c8893a2a9a38b15c3eb79
e41441073ddf89ac738a9a061c002517fa81c6ff
17849 F20110218_AAAJCF cox_m_Page_65.QC.jpg
c68f3e45a69c78f606f85769ea02b476
c3c8363e0e60fa29179f907f457a307462bf7dd6
61535 F20110218_AAAJBR cox_m_Page_57.jpg
e3d90d944b92e72551847acb02da45ac
4671759d27c761c09fc102657f4b013a941c3ada
56104 F20110218_AAAIWL cox_m_Page_38.pro
2cd84ab7612eaaf2b5ed51657679a202
0661bfc775d0d68315a815433a41124727c80f69
45559 F20110218_AAAIVX cox_m_Page_20.pro
2ed7b32c6e1c8e949ac0beaf0a53b13a
3c3f62bb65b38efd2ab899f6e16510722828d489
21944 F20110218_AAAJCG cox_m_Page_66.QC.jpg
e0a9924952ab97461b8b46b85848461b
b97a7118cb67c701b67a41adb8df66d82a685857
18241 F20110218_AAAIXA cox_m_Page_54.pro
464dea488cba0411a797b340d660b733
aa29cdb9e4e27d095f5767d4b264b57a142599cf
63035 F20110218_AAAJBS cox_m_Page_58.jpg
0fda7e919ff5b969bf88ae00ffd1ba7a
89f00b31fbd4cdb5c30da118361f87eceebd081c
8552 F20110218_AAAIWM cox_m_Page_39.pro
12ccbf43cfeee5039dbdd9bea7fd0421
ac3ec036d104e0cae19cce6e91ea2a0592f0a7cf
4040 F20110218_AAAIVY cox_m_Page_22.pro
3e783b74bb5ccb70ddb1468b3061325c
f5a4e07194b0e5259b7cb136e2d2596aff4ce6fc
24284 F20110218_AAAIXB cox_m_Page_55.pro
59772e772e1e7096d7a28370345d166b
376901d103bb6247fe446fd367a9b0df5826dcd9
20656 F20110218_AAAJBT cox_m_Page_58.QC.jpg
1d439d4975947a988e8677c6a28f61f9
f5feca4d28a55b4b166dc305e307a4d54fc35e12
35366 F20110218_AAAIWN cox_m_Page_40.pro
61ca9468109c054d8e23395af927f9f5
cc38743c1a947b3ed6f68434bb034e15095f3aac
45871 F20110218_AAAIVZ cox_m_Page_23.pro
7bc490f00763ddbd89a1f83c7730f4f1
b23090fb4e26072d12a27f5ccf5ac3a228b8587c
14760 F20110218_AAAJCH cox_m_Page_67.QC.jpg
4da2829b290bd54a734aacf8c25a1c6e
41e0d47b03f499a747407cf7a607994476235642
29710 F20110218_AAAIXC cox_m_Page_56.pro
eef59dda52699faae93d2e7f5a1adf1b
3589e6b279a81d4c0a83483cbfe0485239835213
20784 F20110218_AAAJBU cox_m_Page_59.QC.jpg
b8f8b257d19ace7bb62ce2dfdaec3330
587c226358fffb4b43d2370ae2d6aa8a3d03e891
25743 F20110218_AAAIWO cox_m_Page_41.pro
75a0499505b9ea4f68b37aa672418bd3
708e651129b6a9e63797e93b479afe2603d684fa
43524 F20110218_AAAJCI cox_m_Page_68.jpg
cad968ba636e255478e74da818cd62ea
813027d21641ebb912b9ba696896787e54ba2fab
20020 F20110218_AAAIXD cox_m_Page_57.pro
d3bf0723375abfdcd28b43b7c75d857f
3a8d7b9eb3c4a04f3399442ac0b3b79aedea66a7
82055 F20110218_AAAJBV cox_m_Page_60.jpg
a854c7f49aeadcf726cd61f4171cede1
77eb129aa9e258d0d72f0711cd162ab4cd9cb33b
15894 F20110218_AAAIWP cox_m_Page_42.pro
1f7a5cda7e22bf7a57ff2a4a02178913
323ad7db733a84f23fd8d69d505364ebbfe43471
15599 F20110218_AAAJCJ cox_m_Page_68.QC.jpg
5210e6d995908acb1935b02083979b24
59a7c185c54f5496fccdd314b1255cb270b4ed53
23488 F20110218_AAAIXE cox_m_Page_58.pro
4c8a5672d5cd12078af5f36923b72932
758eb31165e31755ec43f040d85f7fdc27178e60
26404 F20110218_AAAJBW cox_m_Page_60.QC.jpg
0e19663888601268a9828be6f1db25bf
998ec9bf64a3b3892b054d09fdee0773801ea9bc
19491 F20110218_AAAIWQ cox_m_Page_43.pro
189f60d411bd97cbe873721ebb9f4e08
5058691354fd1cb73db9434f8ec739d6d0c27442
61274 F20110218_AAAJCK cox_m_Page_69.jpg
2adb668debf748d2df839be995424b6f
f14ee8118c3e6b909d671bc7da8e316ecbc4079a
19105 F20110218_AAAIXF cox_m_Page_59.pro
37b74f1b79f4ddabd9a50cb48b28802a
cdf6816194d333304555d0230e58914178412209
72035 F20110218_AAAJBX cox_m_Page_61.jpg
de34222f7db2e9f5c8c862468c4144d7
f1c6fb3a9f1f912166b2c62e57f48433a2234aed
18308 F20110218_AAAIWR cox_m_Page_44.pro
1e0db2d6de3ed67774ca857130888f2a
dd6347dcd650cb64a66f4bee1100653d23856210
13598 F20110218_AAAJDA cox_m_Page_78.QC.jpg
103eee771cd3bb1939619a31e2ff6788
8cc959ce489f5f9d6ca7cc0559e2c7da23c58aec
20873 F20110218_AAAJCL cox_m_Page_69.QC.jpg
4d572d54e19e4fcb2f6d46561e0b6bb2
5f82dd645b45d99eee6666c8fea96cbc0c5d0eb7
31723 F20110218_AAAIXG cox_m_Page_60.pro
f02b89032534390d0648139f8b88c2ae
3560aa19f0df57115910f3d86a435b4bf3d34b63
25027 F20110218_AAAJBY cox_m_Page_61.QC.jpg
5762903c855c45ef34ae1a0152dfad9f
8a1fee14101138d9a7bab5f388cfc036a671d430
24600 F20110218_AAAIWS cox_m_Page_45.pro
5e09c782e872750f64e06aea694499c5
b07ff529c3974984ced30fa0d703ef99b18a2ad0
58305 F20110218_AAAJDB cox_m_Page_79.jpg
06dbf0dab16f522db5e6dc1e0961f2a5
a891f123bf0b180e8709214a6071a5b56b46c970
57205 F20110218_AAAJCM cox_m_Page_70.jpg
4b6fe4e998cde82b7e2a9e2078a1afbd
596ff6dc19403d770a6a2b5247cbbf0dc94aae84
53502 F20110218_AAAJBZ cox_m_Page_62.jpg
f4e7411ca0b150b7be2a69e89c15684d
2251049d72cfbf19d1927872b904876a2e7f5a9c
20877 F20110218_AAAIWT cox_m_Page_46.pro
c8a9bbf43974e6637d5d61216fedf971
ad3a9b8619164c877f7d5755e953f8275d217d8f
19638 F20110218_AAAJDC cox_m_Page_79.QC.jpg
e06d990797eba7db3a3de1059de121d1
1f4109cfab086630daa1f53ed6d4bf519dc05151
19152 F20110218_AAAJCN cox_m_Page_70.QC.jpg
45fc3b58a8514c1532a9e517ddd87a68
d168c63b656193426431ebd9106a00d4ce04c2d4
30983 F20110218_AAAIXH cox_m_Page_61.pro
765a5e2ac156d88606c6bdd62a89b937
2b24b9667ebe49af4a43acd1c1c3da777ef939bd
31773 F20110218_AAAIWU cox_m_Page_47.pro
566cab117f6bf705645a7161284e3953
2483a5c24c5705db8c1698bff0c4f3026d7c0631
52909 F20110218_AAAJDD cox_m_Page_80.jpg
30ff09d16a07f7e6716a4dae190c6c6a
82f0fe5ef51e1b5fc185e5f00d742a4ab8ef8859
45469 F20110218_AAAJCO cox_m_Page_71.jpg
d6e231e8d83a044678878d123b2a675d
572130fd5e0550a82d8493a1ac0444552b9eb81e
26951 F20110218_AAAIXI cox_m_Page_64.pro
edbf498fbb89ec1f521bfe87fe378eea
4c2e7292adda214903892119130cb73d9eb41d70
19450 F20110218_AAAIWV cox_m_Page_48.pro
09e1d2082a2672476ddb0a04f1f794a1
e820805a5e714d4c10d2de71b47e401242f9298c
54712 F20110218_AAAJDE cox_m_Page_81.jpg
693b338b17f01373059c1b68c51a6243
d13e8846428b4f3b083fc8ab8dfa60625cc5dc18
52391 F20110218_AAAJCP cox_m_Page_72.jpg
b127ace202b219e92fc13311e1aa289d
6eed4396879b95e4488fe86b3169b15b99108387
23740 F20110218_AAAIXJ cox_m_Page_65.pro
33effa5b516eafcf8c2ffece32c55f07
3e88830cf5e4e4c14fd37c1768eea4fe83eade07
26328 F20110218_AAAIWW cox_m_Page_49.pro
ea5cf022fc1483dfbdff98908c8869de
8b39323ee6714ca43abd59011a7dab6073f9074d
18337 F20110218_AAAJDF cox_m_Page_81.QC.jpg
ac03daeea964f91475b3402bd483672a
e21e04573393e303863c18a530f564eda9a91b7a
18052 F20110218_AAAJCQ cox_m_Page_72.QC.jpg
5aed428daf56612b4e0d086ba0054fb8
b73c84a10c6c756740563bcff5dd302e082a8929
29572 F20110218_AAAIXK cox_m_Page_66.pro
814983f5d79d44305190bae92ed43f96
0b7f6c44faf503e5074f295cb98829675d22bb23
21134 F20110218_AAAIWX cox_m_Page_51.pro
448d8982c74a4ecbfd5e47cee3a07825
8dfc0236f00b1640cec71857d38217e37963632f
84607 F20110218_AAAJDG cox_m_Page_82.jpg
c9d4ad201c3778fab79dda5dbced6d32
050ce56295aaa83c2d1a9b957eec3af25ab4ce73
55726 F20110218_AAAJCR cox_m_Page_73.jpg
06856b32e6dc19171a7fdea1f2deb19e
f0e03fcc34df81aeaeeb10b3f88431c8db101630
20380 F20110218_AAAIXL cox_m_Page_67.pro
f6650393e20c42e7204db55727a7abde
a874a7559245df562415490f62ed32f549a407ae
29023 F20110218_AAAIWY cox_m_Page_52.pro
b3ff764c1693f1746784741bd450b492
0bb1aa82b48d4a88cb0832abaaa90015a309be32
33606 F20110218_AAAJDH cox_m_Page_83.QC.jpg
0fbffd969c3bb79674b977662e05bd5d
6a530cabb196884f67d4f5e419dc1d23eaed288b
53311 F20110218_AAAIYA cox_m_Page_86.pro
d22df73848a01a27ccd7a91feff3e2de
188ba3c69334a24d9473c2b2041ffc6b492bbf1b
18635 F20110218_AAAJCS cox_m_Page_73.QC.jpg
a719cf4d556db3b683a583cf58c931b9
543a379f10f70979000f5bcf7937805409aa3f4e
18156 F20110218_AAAIXM cox_m_Page_68.pro
0f4c250274c16de0863f92fe61dc7894
600aa7f0716c7abf579b0d3f04695fc3c43be754
28257 F20110218_AAAIWZ cox_m_Page_53.pro
128930263eb1485e586e80c405bffd13
60b01f11d968cc8b3e37ad39a0097a35e8a281c5
64447 F20110218_AAAIYB cox_m_Page_87.pro
6bd8a7a9099a2c16941bd291259086c3
7f91eaa728c86791954c3cb4910c8623cdb43c2e
11309 F20110218_AAAJCT cox_m_Page_74.QC.jpg
2ebe9d3af2f42a37e71cbeffc7be232c
e2720ea259b0cdc5c311ee0cee8325dca9dcb27c
28674 F20110218_AAAIXN cox_m_Page_69.pro
5133791db4d7ef829b7dd6df9fa7b8e4
e754ccb39685a2f8af7ec1dc219269cad033a273
108347 F20110218_AAAJDI cox_m_Page_84.jpg
2c04f9756d1997bad166364b47545f0e
e6de6a0f444e17ed876c98abd291960c37b04c3a
49880 F20110218_AAAIYC cox_m_Page_88.pro
5ecc695d6d6af27c8b2efe814018145c
d9324f1daa871d1b2a46679a4ad7eecb7fb51ab4
56848 F20110218_AAAJCU cox_m_Page_75.jpg
7780fcd32f3d362cc4b0e5b5bfd9710d
d8f20de458c1c6d22bf6c943466045a501cb7c2c
27091 F20110218_AAAIXO cox_m_Page_70.pro
91a410c3fccb7f9bf9bd934be26b0a55
9974ff8b4383dabe44f504c78a1d10f0c524272b
35558 F20110218_AAAJDJ cox_m_Page_84.QC.jpg
f87e1afc2bad2b0ce977c62d1a14a605
6833bacd2556bbe896a158d2f870a82ca417f2ac
25885 F20110218_AAAIYD cox_m_Page_89.pro
79002d95b566739779a4416ca064bc35
653db5ae3ec2cb479cbec3a01f2628a3b8e72b25
19951 F20110218_AAAJCV cox_m_Page_75.QC.jpg
9f90a84bf8e7512ccac1cca2792a36f4
4860e0d3735b7e3d2be778adb8574680ab6c7385
18929 F20110218_AAAIXP cox_m_Page_71.pro
7a6f209127063515d83340552f7d2b21
544b82f2ef651405546dbb52048ecdaea5b3561a
95063 F20110218_AAAJDK cox_m_Page_85.jpg
08b6d2727c89114af0b0a573948427cd
38a441ecca0a41b329032d8d1739875039380996
17813 F20110218_AAAIYE cox_m_Page_90.pro
fe499cdb4c8990c3ad30b70cc88c0811
970b280c3f0450278b42f652fc51cc9414e25135
16975 F20110218_AAAJCW cox_m_Page_76.QC.jpg
b33c9eccdae4c4210e449466e366e60d
9f3eee6975822cf60a7f9fe174a535b56d5c80ae
23783 F20110218_AAAIXQ cox_m_Page_72.pro
e1f9438984bcca644684c7b88c6d1de3
354395c16007b8ac9223bbdb8171f1beaa9b2269
757979 F20110218_AAAJEA cox_m_Page_09.jp2
42409fda87e88dadc6e9ef2451ed94f1
3e0b60237d2e339aa0ad35f125a8ffa77e6bc172
31295 F20110218_AAAJDL cox_m_Page_85.QC.jpg
ad278765e0c17630850db2587e430b79
4cbfbe43b3ea462742bedeb26083ea626dfc307d
34010 F20110218_AAAIYF cox_m_Page_01.jpg
3afd261e095e6ab95c2e9dba33689a08
856115670efdbda1fc864e96eb132d1e8241158a
51993 F20110218_AAAJCX cox_m_Page_77.jpg
67ceed284e4feb16dcaeb7b04b8323c0
dba2fbdec447798d8906c5e343f2d003af1a36c7
12081 F20110218_AAAIXR cox_m_Page_74.pro
2efa435ff080cf2f5d0ce58bc5c1e240
a3b16c5505a4f05aa7dcf745630dd9a61aaafd10


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014354/00001

Material Information

Title: Perceptions of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-New Construction (LEED-NC) Green Building Certification System among LEED-Accredited Professionals
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: UFE0014354:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014354/00001

Material Information

Title: Perceptions of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-New Construction (LEED-NC) Green Building Certification System among LEED-Accredited Professionals
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: UFE0014354:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












PERCEPTIONS OF THE LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
DESIGN-NEW CONSTRUCTION (LEED-NC) GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION
SYSTEM AMONG LEED ACCREDITED PROFESSIONALS
















By

MATTHEW W. COX


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


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Matthew W. Cox

































To those committed to improving the sustainability of the United States















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Charles Kibert for his dedication to teaching and

implementing sustainable development practices at the University of Florida. In addition,

Dr. Robert F. Cox and Dr. R. Raymond Issa have also been particularly valuable in their

assistance and input throughout my entire graduate career and while writing this thesis.

I would also like to thank my parents for their support throughout my academic

career. They have given me the means to overcome all of the obstacles placed before me.

I appreciate the sacrifices they have made on my behalf, and I hope to continue to make

them proud of my accomplishments.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

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

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................ .............. viii

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ......................... ...... ........ ............ ix

ABSTRACT .............. ............................................. xii

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

1.1 U .S. Built Environm ent H history ....................................................... ............... 1
1.2 U.S. Movement Towards Sustainable Development ..........................................3
1.3 U .S. Construction Industry's Present Im pact ........................................ ..............4
1.4 U.S. Movement Towards Sustainable Construction.................... ..............5
1.5 U .S. Green Building System .......................................................... .... ....5
1.6 Problem Statem ent ............................................. .. .......... .. ..........7
1.7 R research O objectives .................. .................. ...................... ... ... ............10
1.8 Lim stations ........................................................................ ....... ...... 10

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 12

2.1 Sustainable Construction .............. ............................................ .............. 12
2.1.1 Principles of Sustainable Construction..................................... 12
2.1.2 Drivers for Change within the U.S. Construction Industry ........................14
2.1.3 A Socio-Technical Perspective........................................ ............... 16
2.1.4 O organizational B barriers ........................................ ......................... 17
2.2 LEED ......................................................... .... .. ......... ............... 19
2.2.1 "LEED Is Broken ... Let's Fix It".....................................................19
2.2.2 LEED : Past, Present, and Future ........................................ .....................21

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................................................................ ................... 23

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................2 7

4.1 O overview ................................................................ .................... 28
4.1.1 General Background Information...................... ..................... 28



v









4.1.1.1 C om pany age ...................................... .... .... .. .... .. .. ............ 28
4.1.1.2 C om pany services ........................................ ........................ 28
4.1.1.3 A annual volum e ............... ....... ...... ............................ .... 29
4.1.1.4 Percent of annual volume contributed to LEED ...........................30
4.1.1.5 Percent of annual volume not LEED but green.............................30
4.1.1.6 Number of company employees.....................................................31
4.1.1.7 Number of LEED Accredited Professionals in company.................32
4.1.1.8 Types of LEED APs in a company .............................................. 32
4.1.1.9 Number of LEED certified project based on certification level.......33
4.1.2 Personnel Background Information....................................... ............... 33
4.1.2.1 Professions of participants ..... ......... .......................................33
4.1.2.2 Participant job titles............................................................. ........ 34
4.1.3 Organizational and Financial Perspectives.............................................. 34
4.1.3.1 Collaboration of costs............................ .............. ...34
4.1.3.2 Adequacy of LEED budgets and schedules ..................................35
4.1.3.3 Collaboration, cost-efficiency, and reduced environmental impact.36
4.1.3.4 Environmental impact reduction and profit .................................37
4.1.3.5 Authority to pursue LEED points by cost/benefit..........................37
4.1.3.6 Green taxes and financial incentives............................. .............38
4.1.4 Organizational and Environmental Perspectives.......................................39
4.1.4.1 Level of integrated design .......................................... ................. 39
4.1.4.2 United States Green Building Council (USGBC) receptiveness to
feedback ................. ..................... ...................... ... .......... 40
4.1.4.3 Collaboration and certification level.........................................40
4.1.4.4 Collaboration and point mongering.......................................41
4.1.4.5 Consensus-based rating system ................... ................ ...................42
4.1.4.6 Improved web-based protocol / customer service..........................42
4.1.5 Financial and Environmental Perspectives...............................................43
4.1.5.1 Cost-efficiency and certification level .......................................... 43
4.1.5.2 Future of life-cycle assessments (LCA) and life-cycle costing
(L C C ) m methods ................................ ............ ............ ...... .... 44
4.1.5.3 Rationale to pursue LEED .................................... ............... 45
4.1.5.4 Ecological economy ics................................... ......... ............... 45
4.1.5.5 Soft cost of LEED value........................................ ............... 46
4.1.5.6 Profitability of LEED projects .............. ......... ............... 47
4 .2 A n aly sis ........................................................................... 4 7
4.2.1 Background ............. .............................. ........ ..... ........... 48
4.2.1.1 Com pany age in years ........................................... ............... 48
4.2.1.2 A annual volum e ........................................ ........................... 48
4.2.1.3 L E E D volum e........................................................ ............... 49
4.2.1.4 Number of LEED APs........... .................................... ............... 50
4.2.1.5 Number of LEED certified projects ..................... .............. 50
4.2.2 Organizational and Financial Perspectives ............ ............................... 51
4.2.2.1 Collaboration of costs by company services.............. .....................51
4.2.2.2 Adequacy of LEED budgets and schedules by company services...52









4.2.2.3 Collaboration, cost-efficiency, and reduced environmental impact
by company services...................... ........................53
4.2.2.4 Environmental impact reduction and profit by company services...54
4.2.2.5 Authority to pursue LEED points by cost/benefit by company
serve ice s ................................... .. ............... .......................5 5
4.2.2.6 Green taxes and financial incentives by company services ............56
4.2.3 Organizational and Environmental Perspectives.................... ........ 56
4.2.3.1 Level of integrated design by company services ...........................57
4.2.3.2 USGBC receptiveness to feedback by company services..............58
4.2.3.3 Collaboration and certification level by company services..............59
4.2.3.4 Collaboration and point mongering by company services ..............60
4.2.3.5 Consensus-based rating system by company services ...................61
4.2.3.6 Improved web-based protocol / customer service by company
services...................................................................... ......... 62
4.2.4 Financial and Environmental Perspectives ........................................... 62
4.2.4.1 Cost-efficiency and certification level .......................................... 63
4.2.4.2 Future of LCA and LCC methods by company services ................64
4.2.4.3 Rationale to pursue LEED by company services...........................65
4.2.4.4 Ecological economics by company services ..................................66
4.2.4.5 Value of LEED soft costs by company services ............................67
4.2.4.6 Profitability of LEED projects by company services....................68

5 C O N C L U SIO N ......... ......................................................................... ........ .. ..... .. 69

5 .1 Su m m ary ............. ................................................................................................69
5.2 R ecom m endations for Future Study ........................................ .....................71

APPENDIX

A LETTER OF CON SEN T ......... ................. ................... .................. ............... 73

B SU R V E Y .............................................................................74

LIST OF REFEREN CE S ........................................ ........................... ............... 76

BIO GRAPH ICAL SK ETCH .................................................. ............................... 77
















LIST OF TABLES


Table pge

2-1 Principles of sustainable construction ....................................... ......................... 13

2-2 Average ranking of 15 drivers, 1 being greatest importance ............... ......... 16
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1 Concept diagram of study illustrating sustainable components within an
organizational context .................. .............................. .... .. .. .. ........ .. ..

4-1 C om pany age in years (N =33) .................................................................... .... 28

4-2 Distribution of company services (N=35) ............... .....................................29

4-3 Distribution of annual volume (N=28) ...................................... ............... 29

4-4 Distribution of annual volume LEED certified (N=35)........................................30

4-5 Percent of annual volume green but not LEED (N=5) .......................................31

4-6 Distribution of number of company employees (N=35).......................................31

4-7 Distribution of the number of LEED APs in company (N=36).............................32

4-8 Distribution of the types of LEED APs in companies (N=36) ............................32

4-9 Distribution of LEED certified project levels (N=36)........................................33

4-10 Distribution of participant professions (N=36)................................................34

4-11 Distribution of participant job title (N=36).................................................34

4-12 Collaboration of costs (N =37) ........................................ .......................... 35

4-13 Adequacy of LEED budgets and schedules (N=36) ......................................36

4-14 Collaboration, cost-efficiency, and reduced environmental impact (N=37)..........36

4-15 Environmental impact reduction and profit (N=36) ...........................................37

4-16 Authority to pursue LEED points by cost/benefit (N=37)............................. 38

4-17 Green taxes & financial incentives (N=37) ................................. ............... 38

4-18 Level of integrated design (N=37)........................................................ ... ........ 39









4-19 USGBC receptiveness to feedback (N=36) ................................. ............... 40

4-20 Collaboration and certification level (N=37)............................................. 41

4-21 Collaboration and point mongering (N=37) .................................. ............... 41

4-22 Consensus-based rating system (N=36).......................................................42

4-23 Improved web-based protocol / customer service (N=35)................................43

4-24 Cost-efficiency and certification level (N=37) ............................................... 44

4-25 Future of LCA and LCC methods (N=35)......................................................44

4-26 Rationale to pursue LEED (N=37) ............................................. ............... 45

4-27 Ecological economy ics (N =37) ........................................ .......................... 46

4-28 Soft cost of LEED value (N =34) ..................................... ............ ....... ........ 46

4-29 Profitability of LEED projects (N=37) ........................................................ 47

4-30 Com pany service vs. com pany age..................................... ........................ 48

4-31 Company services vs. annual volume (N=28).....................................................49

4-32 Company services vs. LEED percent of annual volume.....................................49

4-33 Company services vs. number of LEED APs ............................. ..................... 50

4-34 Company service vs. number of LEED certified projects ...............................51

4-35 Distribution of company services and collaboration of costs by company
se rv ic e s ...................................................................... 5 2

4-36 Distribution of company services and adequacy of LEED budgets and
schedules by com pany services ........................................ ......... ............... 53

4-37 Distribution of company services and environmental impact reduction and
profit by company services .......... ..... ................ ................... 54

4-38 Distribution of company services and authority to pursue LEED points by
cost/benefit by com pany services ............................................... ............... 55

4-39 Distribution of company services and green taxes and financial incentives by
com pany services ......... ...... ....... .... ................ .... ..... 56

4-40 Distribution of company services and level of integrated design by company
se rv ic e s ...................................................................... 5 7









4-41 Distribution of company services and USGBC receptiveness to feedback by
com pany services ....... .... .......... ...................... .. .................... 58

4-42 Distribution of company services and collaboration and certification level by
com pany services .......... .. ..... ............................ ...... ......... .... 59

4-43 Distribution of company services and collaboration and point mongering by
com pany services .......... .. ..... ............................ ...... ......... .... 60

4-44 Distribution of company services and consensus-based rating system by
com pany services ............ .. .......................... ... .... .... .... ......... .... 61

4-45 Distribution of company services and improved web-based protocol / customer
service by com pany services........................................... ........................... 62

4-46 Distribution of company services and cost-efficiency and certification level .......63

4-47 Distribution of company services and future of LCA and LCC methods by
com pany services .......... .. ..... ............................ ...... ......... .... 64

4-48 Distribution of company services and rationale to pursue LEED by company
se rv ic e s ...................................................................... 6 5

4-49 Distribution of company services and ecological economics by company
se rv ic e s ...................................................................... 6 6

4-50 Distribution of company services and value of LEED soft costs by company
se rv ic e s ...................................................................... 6 7

4-51 Distribution of company services and profitability of LEED projects by
com pany services .......................................................... ......... .... 68















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

PERCEPTIONS OF THE LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
DESIGN: NEW CONSTRUCTION (LEED-NC) GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION
SYSTEM AMONG LEED ACCREDITED PROFESSIONALS

By

Matthew W. Cox

May 2006

Chair: Charles J. Kibert
Major Department: Building Construction

The traditional built environment practices within the United States have been

devastating to the health of the environment for over a century. Decaying inner cities,

congested freeways, rising natural-resource prices, and an overall decrease in quality of

life have increased the desire for change. The answer to society's problems, historically,

has been through the invention of technologies. To sustain the future of

the U.S., one of the major focuses should be on improving the application of building

technologies. However, the major green building initiative, the United States Green

Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)

certification system, has recently been labeled as a troubled success. The

environmentally based structure of LEED lacks financial and social components that are

potentially deterring the U.S. construction industry from adopting the system. Therefore,

this thesis presents the perspectives of LEED Accredited Professionals with regard to

financial, organizational, and environmental opportunities. A comprehensive survey of
xii









LEED AP's from Georgia and Florida was conducted, resulting in an analysis of

37 completed surveys. Many of the recently published concerns of LEED were tested

and analyzed in this study including profitability, collaboration, and environmental

impact issues.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 U.S. Built Environment History

Prior to the industrial revolution in the United States the dynamics of the

construction industry were much different. An agrarian economy dominated the

landscape of our country. The sparsely developed population built their homes and

places of employment with local timber. Electricity did not exist and water was only

accessible in minute quantities. Ventilation was used to cool buildings and fireplaces

were used for heating. Streets were primarily dirt but larger cities had cobblestone

streets. As the industrial revolution within the U.S materialized, so did the built

environment and construction industry.

In the early eighteen-hundreds the invention and use of the coal-powered steam

engine made the distribution of labor and building materials more feasible. Cities

expanded primarily around waterways or railroads since labor and materials were more

accessible. Concrete, steel, and brick were becoming the preferred building materials due

to the elements of fire resistance and availability. Improved manufacturing and

construction technologies drove the nation's western expansion and economic prosperity

dating back to the mid-nineteenth century.

In the late eighteen-hundreds and early nineteen-hundreds water, gas, and

electrical infrastructure began to support higher population densities in both urban and

rural areas. However, the size of cities became limited by the increasing distance of

travel from the economic centers that were accessible primarily by trains or street cars.









This capacity of the built environment changed with the addition of technological

inventions and designs such as the elevator, skyscraper, and automobile. This also

increased the amount of materials and energy needed to sustain these booming cities

within the United States.

The Great Depression in the 1930's, however, led to an overall economic decline in

the nation. One of the major components of The New Deal, in 1937, was a $112 million

dollar government backed investment in new construction that would create employment,

expedite the shipment of materials, and create confidence in the utility field. The U.S.

government depended on the construction industry to jump-start the nation's economy.

As a result of the manufacturing boom of the Post WWII era, a large middle class

developed within the U.S. who wanted grandiose automobiles and spacious suburban

estates. The Eisenhower Interstate System was implemented to promote the deployment

of troops nationally and in turn established the development practice now known as urban

sprawl. The threat of nuclear holocaust among U.S. cities was also a driving reason to

spread out populations as much as possible. The political and economic policies of the

period further entrenched the nation's traditional built environment practices that result in

the wasteful consumption of vast amounts of material, land, and energy. The trends

continued until the oil crisis of the 1970's ignited economic, environmental and social

drivers for change. The government responded to the need to sustain our quality of life

by addressing various energy, environmental, and social issues. More power plants were

built during the 70's. Environmental and growth management legislation were

established to regulate pollution and urban sprawl.









By the 1980's the Industrial Age migrated across the pacific while the Information

Age was emgering within the U.S. Computers and the internet took us out of a recession

and into several years of economic prosperity throughout the late 90's. One of the major

industries that did not adopt the new information technologies quickly was the construction

industry though some of the larger organizations did. As economies around the world

became globalized through information technologies, countries in the far-east such as

China and India became increasingly industrialized and populated. Now China and India

are consuming increasing amounts of building materials and energy in order to support

the expansion of various infrastructure projects. The growth of middle-class citizens in

those countries is already beginning to rise. As a result, the demand for natural resources

at the global level is predicted to continue to increase substantially over several decades.

Since the Earth has a finite supply of natural resources available, the costs of materials,

land, and energy will increase in proportion to demand.

1.2 U.S. Movement Towards Sustainable Development

The realization that we can not sustain the traditional built environment practices

within the U.S. for much longer due to: escalating costs of natural resources, the degrading

natural environment, and an overall decline in our quality of life has lead to the U.S.

participation in the sustainable development movement.

In 1987, Gro Harlem Brundtland, then Prime Minister of Norway, chaired the

World Commission on Environment and Development, which resulted in the currently

accepted definition of sustainable development, being development that meets the needs

of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own

needs. This was a major political turning point globally that reaffirmed that socio-

economic development and environmental protection were intimately linked, and that









policies should reflect this relationship. Five years later the Rio Conference or Earth

Summit was the largest-ever meeting of heads of state and government who focused on

climate change, conservation of forests, and biological diversity. In 2002, the World

Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg continued to carry out the existing

promises and commitments of previous agendas. These conferences politically got

countries from around the globe to develop sustainable initiatives. However, no

politically driven sustainable development initiative would be successful if it did not

radically increase resource efficiency through business and industry.

1.3 U.S. Construction Industry's Present Impact

The amount of construction put in place in 2002 within the United States was over

a trillion dollars. This is more than 10% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the U.S.

The construction industry along with the built environment is estimated to be growing

annually by around 8% a year.

These estimates provide clear evidence of the current magnitude of the financial

impact the construction industry has on the nation. However, as one of the traditionally

largest GDP producers, the construction industry is also one of the largest natural

resource consumers. Many experts state that more than or equal to 50% of U.S. energy

consumption is directly or indirectly related to buildings and their construction. In

addition, it is believed that buildings consume one-quarter of the global wood harvest,

one-sixth of its fresh water, and two-fifths of material and energy flows.

The financial and environmental aspects of the construction industry are results of

its organizational structure. The level of fragmentation within the industry is unmatched

when compared to any other industry. Players from various disciplines and markets with

different rule regimes coordinate in a decentralized manner. This institutional structure









has defined the traditional criteria within the industry: performance, quality, and costs.

This forces businesses to concentrate on achieving the largest short-term profit possible

that meets the minimal performance and quality requirements allowed by law. How can

we improve the performance and quality standards of the U.S. construction industry?

1.4 U.S. Movement Towards Sustainable Construction

It should not be surprising that one of the major subsets of sustainable development

is sustainable construction. According to Kibert (2005), sustainable construction

addresses the role of the built environment in contributing to the overarching vision of

sustainability. As a major focus of sustainable construction, green buildings increase

energy-efficiency, water conservation, indoor-air quality, and ecological conservation.

Kibert (2004) stated, to achieve sustainable construction the traditional criteria of

building materials, such as performance, cost, and quality, must be replaced with

sustainable criteria including resource depletion, environmental degradation, and a healthy

environment. Though green building practices have been increasing for years within the

U.S. there was no consensus of what a green building consisted of among the industry.

The requirements of a sustainable construction program within a developed country, such

as the United States, include increased awareness, production guidelines, and cost-

savings. The major green building initiative is the United States Green Building

Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)

1.5 U.S. Green Building System

LEED is a voluntary consensus-based certification system and how-to guide for

professionals pursuing sustainable construction. The USGBC was formed in 1993 as a

coalition of industry leaders from a variety of professions to promote buildings that are

environmentally responsible, profitable and healthy. As the major product of the









USGBC, LEED provides a complete framework for assessing building performance and

meeting sustainability goals. LEED-NC 1.0 was piloted in 1999 and version 2.0 publicly

launched in March 2000. Since then other LEED products such as existing building

operations, commercial interiors projects, core & shell projects, homes, and

neighborhood development have emerged. Professionals from various disciplines can

become LEED Accredited by passing an exam on the aspects and processes of the LEED

system. This knowledge is useful during the documentation and review periods of a

LEED project. As the main concentration of this research, it is important to understand

the costs, environmental concentration, and structure of the LEED certification system.

The LEED system includes additional soft and hard costs. The hard costs are

associated with the additional materials or systems that are required to meet many of the

points within LEED. This may include additional sky lightening, waterless urinals,

advanced HVAC systems, or rainwater collection systems. The soft costs associated with

a LEED project are required for certification. These include costs for energy modeling,

commissioning, USGBC membership (recommended politically), project registration,

and documentation. Schendler and Udall (2005) agreed that advanced design and

coordination involved in LEED normally raises the cost of a project by 1-5 percent.

The environmental aspects of LEED make up the vast majority of the point

structure. The categories include: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and

atmosphere, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality. The last category

is dedicated to innovation points. The vast majority of the LEED structure is weighted on

purely energy and the environmental, which explains where the product/system name

comes from.









The organizational structure of LEED is fairly complex. It is made up of a point-

system consisting of a total of 69 possible points in six categories. The levels of

certification available include: certified, silver, gold, and platinum. As mentioned

previously, projects must be registered in order to apply for any certification level.

Participants are encouraged to become members of the USGBC. Once the prerequisites

of a project are met through energy modeling, commissioning, and preliminary

documentation the remaining points pursued should be identified and administered

closely. With the completion of construction and documentation the project gets

reviewed by the USGBC. If certain points do not get approved then applicants must

make corrections before reapplying or seek a lower certification level than originally

anticipated.

1.6 Problem Statement

The problem is that the adoption rate of LEED by the U.S. Construction Industry

is extremely poor. LEED is not even close to being mainstreamed within the United

States. Primarily, it is only the super dedicated, politically-motivated, wealthy, or public

sector that are pursuing LEED certification. LEED is struggling. If LEED stagnates it

will fail, ultimately setting back the already deficient sustainable development movement

within the United States. This paper, therefore, is in response to the recent call-to-arms

within the green building community to reform LEED and mainstream sustainable built

environment practices within the American construction industry. The recent demand for

LEED reform has prompted the following questions.

How do we get more people and companies to adopt LEED?

What are the weakest links in the LEED system?









Who has experienced LEED first-hand to provide feedback and suggest

solutions?

In a rough analysis, the three components of sustainable development were applied

to LEED, consisting of environmental, economic, and social elements. Since LEED-NC

is the original product of the now expanded system it was used for analysis in this

research. A quick glance of LEED-NC categories and point structure clearly illustrated

that there were almost no economic or financial aspects weighted into the existing system.

This makes the bottom-line of business and industry extremely difficult to achieve. In

addition, the environmental aspects of LEED were not proven to be the most effective

environmental-impact reduction methods. Why would anyone invest time or resources

into a system that has not been proven? The final issue that preliminarily analyses raised

was an even larger absence of social elements in the system. However, since this

research focused primarily on business solutions rather than consumer concerns, the

social aspects of the SD model were portrayed instead in an organizational context of the

construction industry. A concept diagram of this study is provided in Figure 1-1.









































Economic


Environmental


Figure 1-1: Concept diagram of study illustrating sustainable components within an
organizational context.









1.7 Research Objectives

The purpose of this study is to gauge the perspectives of LEED Accredited

Professionals regarding the financial, organizational, and environmental barriers to the

LEED certification system. Based on the results of a survey addressing the barriers to

mainstreaming LEED, recommendations and conclusions were developed that will

encourage effective modification of future LEED versions. The specifics of the survey

covered a broad range of published problems impacting the adoption rate of the LEED

system.

This research was conducted in order to create a better understanding of the barriers

that restrict the adoption of the LEED system within the U.S. construction industry.

Specifically, this research covered financial, organizational, and environmental problems.

Various questions on the cost-efficiency of LEED certification were asked. The concept

of Life-Cycle Costing was addressed regarding use and value. The demand for green tax

reform and other financial incentives for sustainable construction practices were discussed.

The use of ecological economics in LEED projects were included in the data collection

instrument. Life-Cycle Assessment issues was raised, including whether it should be

used in future LEED versions. Professional collaboration factors of project success,

environmental impact and profitability were questioned. The demand for a more

integrated web-based LEED protocol was also raised.

1.8 Limitations

The findings of this study are in many ways open to interpretation, as much of the

data is based on the opinions of the individuals surveyed. Although this study was

conducted in a scientific manner, there are additional limitations that also must be

mentioned:









1. Subjectivity of topic- Data obtained in this study represents the perceptions of the
respondents. Some results were difficult to quantify.

2. Limited range of sample-Surveys were sent only to LEED AP's in Florida and
Georgia because they were the two largest concentrations of LEED AP's in the
region the graduate research was being conducted.

3. Limited size of sample- The results were based on a relatively small portion of
LEED AP's and an even smaller portion of the overall construction industry. A
more extensive sample might produce varying results.

4. Limited scope of topic- LEED-NC was mainly used in this research though other
new and more reformed versions that address the barriers mentioned in this study
were emerging from the USGBC.

In overview, the introduction provided an extensive historical background of the

traditional built environment practices within the United States. In addition, the

sustainable development and construction movement in relation to the U.S. construction

industry was discussed. The recently published critiques of the LEED system were then

discussed in the problem statement. Finally, the research objectives and limitations were

described to address the elements of this study. In the next chapter, a review of literature

was conducted on issues relating to sustainable construction and LEED.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Sustainable Construction

The emerging concept of sustainable construction has been captured and applied in

various recent studies. As mentioned in the previously, sustainable construction is a

subset of sustainable development. According to Kibert (2005), the term sustainable

construction most comprehensively addresses the ecological, social, and economic issues

of a building in the context of its community. The following articles will elaborate on the

meaning and ways to achieve sustainable construction.

Sustainable construction can be better achieved by replacing the traditional criteria

of the built environment with sustainable criteria consisting of resource depletion,

environmental degradation, and a healthy environment (Kibert, 2005). The traditional

criteria create a linear process; sustainable criteria are cyclical. Kibert (1994) proposed

six principles of sustainable construction that consist of financial, environmental and

organizational elements.

2.1.1 Principles of Sustainable Construction

Apply Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and True Costs (Economics) is the primary

principle that addresses environmental and financial concerns of sustainable construction,

listed in Table 2-1. Theoretically, LCA closes the material loop by determining the

environmental impacts of a material, product, or even a whole building in combination

with a cost/benefit analysis over its entire life cycle. It is a comprehensive approach that

examines all impacts of material selection decisions, rather than simply it's performance









in the building (Kibert, 2005). LCA can be broken down into two major components.

The first is life cycle assessment (LCA) which is the measures a materials or systems

environmental impact over the life span of the item. Life cycle costing (LCC) is the other

component used that models the cost associated with the financial benefits or cost-

savings the material/system produces of the life span.

Table 2-1: Principles of sustainable construction
PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION
1. Minimize resource consumption (Conserve)
2. Maximize resource reuse (Reuse)
3. Use renewable or recyclable resources (Renew/Recycle)
4. Protect the natural environment (Protect Nature)
5. Create a healthy, non-toxic environment (Non-Toxics)
6. Apply Life Cycle Cost Analysis and True Costs (Economics)
6. Pursue quality in creating the built environment (Quality)


The principles of sustainable construction are primarily concerned with natural

resource efficiency. Since economies and societies exist within an environment it should

not be surprising that so many sustainable construction and development principles focus

on the environment. Principles one through five focus on primarily environmental issues.

The final principle of SC, proposed by Kibert (1994), touches on organizational

aspects of industry and consumers, to pursue quality in creating the built environment

(Quality). This quality is listed as a second number six because it is actually a traditional

criterion of the built environment and was not an additional sustainable principle.

However, it is included because it is being viewed with a new sense and importance

attached to it (Kibert, 2004). In sustainable construction it is critical that the design

excellence of a building is valued by the end-users. If it is not then the resources used to

create the structure will be wasted by disuse, disrepair, and disorder within the built









environment. Integrated design by all professions and parties involved in the product

must be achieved to truly achieve theories behind sustainable construction.

2.1.2 Drivers for Change within the U.S. Construction Industry

The perspectives of the building industry towards sustainable construction

initiatives within the United States are captured by Augenbroe and Pearce (1998). The

momentum of new initiatives, methodological framework, and drivers for change within

the construction industry are discussed.

The demand for sustainable construction initiatives has emerged within the

construction industry because of increasing natural resource cost, degrading

environments, and an overall loss in quality of life within America. According to

Augenbroe and Pearce (1998), a variety of initiatives have been put into place to begin

the change toward increased sustainability, some people have begun to realize that these

initiatives are not sufficient to bring about the change that is needed. Some national U.S.

sustainable initiatives include LEED, Buildings for the 21st Century, and Energy Star.

LEED more comprehensive in scope but the other two have more certified

proj ects/participants.

In the wide context of sustainable construction a methodological framework is

useful to identify, position, and measure the opportunities for improvement and priorities

for change. Augenbroe and Pearce (1998) concluded, a methodological framework

expresses that in different life cycle phases of a building, different actors are dealing with

the designed or built artifact, each of them within distinct system boundaries, while

responsible for different sustainability aspects. To achieve sustainability it is critical to

find the phases, actors, and system boundaries that have the greatest impact on sustaining









the built environment. In addition, it is important that sustainable task and objectives are

coordinated seamlessly across system boundaries and levels by all actors involved.

As the focus of the study, various drivers for change were identified and included

in a survey sent out to over 800 green building professionals from various disciplines

(Augenbroe & Pearce, 1998). They were asked to rank the drivers for change by

importance to sustainable construction, progress between now and 2010, and priorities

for achieving sustainable construction. The results of the on-going survey illustrated that

education and environmental factors such as energy conservation measures, land use

regulations, waste reduction, and resource conservation strategies ranked highly across

the board. In addition, better ways to measure and account for costs and re-engineering

the design process, ranked closely behind the education and environmental factors. In the

immediate progress of sustainable construction category, the product certification ranked

highly. However, product certification ranked extremely low in overall importance and

as a long-term priority. A summary of the results concludes that financial and

organizational drivers are only secondary to education and environmental drivers. What

is somewhat surprising is that green building professionals ranked product certification as

one of the least important factors and priorities to achieving sustainable construction.









Table 2-2: Average ranking of 15 drivers, 1 being greatest importance
Sustainable Drivers for Change in the U.S. Construction Industry

Sustainable Drivers Overall Rank
Land use regulations and urban planning policies 1.7
Energy conservation measures 2.0
Education and training 3.0
Resource conservation strategies 5.7
Indoor environmental quality 5.7
Environmental-friendly energy technologies 6.3
Waster reduction measures 6.7
Better ways to measure and account for costs 9.0
Re-engineering the design process 9.3
Adoption of performance-based standards 10.0
Product innovation and/or certification (LEED) 10.0
New kinds of partnerships and project stakeholders 11.0
Adoption of incentive programs 12.7
Recognition of buildings as productivity assets 12.7
Proactive role of materials manufacturers 13.0

2.1.3 A Socio-Technical Perspective

Many sustainable construction studies have focused on environmental technologies

that will produce more resource efficiency within the built environment. However,

Rohracher (2001) believes the major barrier to sustainable construction is the challenge

of the socially interactive process of designing, constructing and using buildings. If a

lack of interaction and collaboration occurs between actors then true sustainability will

not occur since there will be missed opportunities that negatively affect the end users

desire to maintain the property. The implementation of more sophisticated technologies

required in green building demand the actors to increasingly reorient and co-operate

across the various system boundaries, levels, and processes. It is extremely difficult to

accomplish this since the construction industry is fragmented, market-driven, and

regulatory in nature. According to Rohracher (2001), the focus of social studies of









technology on the intentional strategies of actors and simultaneously on the role of the

institutional and organizational framework in the design and diffusion of technologies

should provide useful insights to better analyze the barriers and perspectives for the

development and dissemination of sustainable buildings. The perspectives of actors

involved, type of present collaboration and communication structures will help finds

ways to achieve a better integration of actors and technical system requirements.

2.1.4 Organizational Barriers

In a similar study, Van Bueren and Priemus (2002) state that the failed

breakthrough of sustainable construction is not because of technical factors but

institutional factors that influence the decisionmaking of actors regarding whether or not

to pursue sustainable practices. The definition of sustainable construction is reformulated

by Van Bueren and Priemus (2002) as the design, development, construction, and

management of real estate such that the negative environmental effects of the

construction, restructuring, and management of the built environment are reduced as far

as possible. This definition illustrates that sustainable construction is a broad concept

that requires collaborative and coordinated decisionmaking from all actors involved from

designers to end users. The institutional context consists of formal, planned institutions

such as (state) organizations and regulations, and more informal, evolved institutions

characterized by ground rules; institutions as interaction patterns that structure, but do not

determine, behavior, and define the space within which actors act, select problems and

solutions, and set priorities (Van Bueren & Priemus, 2002).

To illustrate this, picture each player in the construction industry as a separate box.

The relationships or interactions between the players are represented by arrows between

the boxes. Some examples of these players/relationships include: urban planner -









landowner, landowner-developer, developer-contractor, contractor-property manager, and

property manager -end users. Rarely is there a director or coordinator to these

relationships and interactions. Van Bueren and Priemus (2002) state that in a specific

project this institutional setting allows for cost-efficient decisionmaking processes with

outcomes that meet the minimum requires quality standards and from a sustainability

point of view the lack of coordination between the various decisions contributed to many

missed opportunities.

To give an example of the consequences of segregated decision-making in

sustainable construction various types of gaps that institutional structure can cause will be

described. The first gap is between location development and building project

development. This is evident in many of the new urbanism type development around the

country. An urban planning consultant working with the governmental land-regulatory

department and developer will create a development with a sustainable layout that

includes mixed-use town centers, varying single family home densities, public

transportation access, and open spaces. This increases the desirability of the community

by creating favorable environmental conditions that end users can enjoy for years.

However, almost no builders within these sustainable communities have capitalized off

the established environmental gains by constructing green or high performance buildings.

The sustainability of these communities is half of what it could be because of a lack of

collaboration.

Another gap caused by institutional barriers is one between construction and

management/resident. Each player makes decisions based on their agendas and bottom

line. According to Van Bueren and Priemus (2002), the contractor wants to produce a









product that meets legal requirements and that satisfies the demands of the principle

customer, drawing as much as possible on present knowledge and expertise. A property

manager or resident may want a more energy efficient building that will provide cost-

savings through lower utility bills over time. In a reversed scenario a resident may not

make use of advanced green building systems because of a lack of knowledge or

environmental concern.

The underlying reason for the lack of collaboration in sustainable construction

initiatives like the examples mentioned above is because of an asymmetric distribution of

pluses and minuses relating to sustainable costs/benefit. For example, the owner is

usually fixated on investment decisions related to the development or financing costs of a

building, and much less on the long-term management and user costs. In market prices,

typically, environmental costs are not usually internalized in the price formation. In labor

and material markets, labor (income tax) is taxed more heavily than are raw materials

even though sustainable construction measures often require more labor and less raw

materials. The most practical way to eliminate the collaboration and asymmetric costs

issues would be to create a centralized descionmaking process that would be in the hands

of only a few individuals. This could be achieved through an integrated company such as

a design-build-operate-transfer procedure.

2.2 LEED

2.2.1 "LEED Is Broken... Let's Fix It"

This article by Schendler and Udall (2005) created controversy within national

green building circles. Prior to mentioning problems within the article, however, the

successes of LEED such as the creation of a consensus-based green rating system of

industry professionals where one did not exist before and the national buzz regarding









sustainable awareness the USGBC created through public relation efforts were

recognized. Despite the success of LEED, the number of certified projects was less than

one-tenth of a percent when compared to the other sustainable initiative programs within

the U.S (Schendler & Udall, 2005). The problems of LEED consist of culmination of

financial, environmental, and organizational issues.

The cost of LEED certification can be unpredictable and potentially unprofitable.

False reporting among the industry that LEED projects do not cost more than

conventional projects is misleading. The ability to accurately predict and execute LEED

project cost is difficult since there usually are unexpected outcomes in any new system or

process. If you admit that LEED does add costs it scares many clients away. Schendler

and Udall (2005) estimated the soft costs of LEED for a small building will put you in the

hole $68,450. These funds could be used to improve the building in other useful ways.

Many developers are leery of costs of LEED certification since it is too expensive and

time consuming. A growing amount of developers feel it is just as useful to use LEED as

just a guideline.

Point mongering is another problem that happens when the design team places

more emphasis on acquiring LEED points than adding environmental value to a project.

The public relation campaign that the USGBC created with LEED is followed by its users

in the decisionmaking process. In the organizational structure of LEED, all points are

created equal. This directs LEED participants to pursue the cheapest points possible

creating more bang-for-the-buck than environmental capital. Making LEED based on

scientific analysis rather than on committee consensus may help the point inequality









issues, according to Scheduler and Udall (2005). Increasing the required amount of

specific creates is also suggested.

2.2.2 LEED: Past, Present, and Future

In another article analyzing how LEED was faring after five years, Solomon (2005)

provided not only insight to the existing problems of LEED but also explained how they

came about and whether they will be resolved. Many of the original developers of LEED

were not surprised by the existing problems. When the decision was made to release the

first version of LEED many USGBC members knew that it was awkward and incomplete,

and many wanted to wait until it could be put on more scientific footing, but more wanted

to get something out quickly (Solomon, 2005). The current problems of LEED that are

mentioned include bioregional insensitivity and the relatively tenuous connection to life-

cycle analysis. The first issue leads to impractical design and also point-mongering. The

Life-cycle analysis, or LCA, leads to the scientific discipline of measuring the material

resources and energy consumed, and the environmental impact create, by a particular

product throughout its life (Solomon, 2005). A greater reduction in environmental

impact could result using LCA but LEED's one-point-per-credit structure does not

encourage this more sophisticated method.

Other concerns mentioned accuse LEED of being too bureaucratic. LEED

certifiers get bogged down by technical details and loss sight of good design. In

competition with LEED, Green Globes, a Web-based sustainable design tool for new

commercial construction is being used by many green building professionals as an

alternative to the headaches of LEED. Green Globes is an online platform that links to

energy-modeling and LCA software tools. However, it does lack the market base and

public input that gives LEED its strength.









The future of LEED is promising. The early success of LEED and adoption of it by

the public sector overwhelmed the resources the USGBC has to refine and add depth to

the original product. Instead, they have focused on getting new products of LEED into

the market place such as LEED-EB, LEED-ND, and LEED-H. LEED has already

included and improved an online tool that promises to be more user-friendly and cut

down on the paperwork. There will be some refinement in the credits themselves in the

next LEED version. The USGBC is also planning on increasingly underpinning LEED

with LCA-type thinking, although they are searching for the right mix to use since LCA

does not focus on local impact issues.

This chapter reviewed some of the more significant publications on sustainable

construction and LEED. Existing studies were conducted that led to the conception of

this study. In the next chapter a methodology of this research is provided including the

development of the survey and the statistical measurements used for analysis.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Literature pertaining to the barriers of sustainable construction is abundant. Recent

articles addressing the specific problems of LEED have also been published. However,

there is very little data regarding the financial and organizational barriers of sustainable

construction initiatives within the United States. This study was conducted to help

collaborate and document LEED Accredited Professional's perspectives on the financial,

environmental, and organizational barriers of the LEED green rating system. Ultimately,

the goal of this research is to contribute to making the next major version of LEED more

accepted among the construction industry. To begin this study, a review of periodicals

pertaining to the subjects of sustainability, green building, and LEED was conducted, and

internet websites were consulted as well.

A survey was then developed with questions falling into five categories; company

information, personal information, financial-organizational perspectives, financial-

environmental perspectives and environmental-organizational perspectives. The

questionnaire consisted of two types of questions; those that required written answers

dealing with general company/personnel information and those that required a respondent

to rate his/her level of agreement with the statement on a seven-point Likert scale with a

response of 1 indicating total disagreement and 7 indicating total agreement. The number

4 within the Likert scale represented a neutral response to the statement allowing

participants to not take a side or state an opinion. After each category heading a space

was provided for comment or clarification.









In order to produce an effective survey, it was necessary to refine the survey

several times. Numerous articles on LEED were reviewed and analyzed. Each problem

or critic of the system was listed according to the environmental and economic

components of sustainable development. In addition, organizational components were

also listed such as bureaucratic or collaboration issues between professionals. Repetitive

issues were consolidated. The problems were then transposed into statements that fell

into social-economic, social-environmental, or economic-environmental. Since the

statements mainly addressed internal business socialization rather than end-user or

consumer topics of sustainability the term social was replaced by organizational to

probably convey the focus on the institutional structure of the LEED system and U.S.

construction industry. The broad area of economics was narrowed down and restated as

financial since profitability was the major area of concentration in this study. Several

expert LEED consultants then reviewed the survey drafts and made valuable suggestions

and corrections.

This process produced a two-page survey consisting of 18 questions not including

the sections relating to company and personal information. It was necessary to include a

letter of consent to participate with the survey explaining the privacy protocol and the

purpose of the research. The IRB, consent, and survey forms were then submitted to the

Institutional Review Board for approval. After receiving authorization (see Appendix A),

the survey and letter of consent were electronically mailed to LEED AP's in the states of

Florida and Georgia from the LEED AP directory web pages with instructions for their

return via electronic mail or facsimile.

The type of information gathered in each section of the survey is as follows:









1. Company Information: this section request data such as company age, company
services, annual volume, percent of volume that is LEED certified, percent of
volume increase in LEED projects over the last 2 years, percent volume that is
sustainable but not LEED certified, number of employees, number of LEED
certified employees, and highest level of LEED certification any experienced
project has received. This section provided general information helpful to the
assessment of the survey.

2. Personal Information: this section consisted mainly of details pertaining to the
individual participant. The profession and position were also asked to establish
variances between professions.

3. Organizational Financial: this section was designed to establish perspectives on
how coordination between organizations or individuals affected the profitability of
LEED projects.

4. Organizational Environmental: this section was designed to establish perspectives
on how coordination between organizations or individuals affected the
environmental impact of LEED projects.

5. Financial Environmental: this section was designed to establish perspectives on
how profitability of a LEED project affected the environmental impact of LEED
projects.

Before sending out the surveys, it was necessary to determine the sample size.

With a 95% confidence level, a permissible error of .05, and an estimated sample size

was calculated to be 47. A random selection of LEED AP's from the states of Florida

and Georgia was generated. With the assumption that one out of every eight surveys

would be completed and returned, 248 surveys were distributed via electronic mail. After

the initial survey was sent, a period of 2 weeks was allowed for responses because of

thesis deadline dates.

The data sets that the surveys contained were then input into a Microsoft Excel

spreadsheet for stratification and analysis. The maximum, minimum, and average

responses were calculated. Then the results were further analyzed to select the most

appropriate data source to compare to the other answers to find the potential relations and






26


conclusive insights of the research. Then the average responses of the selected categories

were calculated for each question and used for comparison.

This chapter discussed the procedures for developing the survey and data collection

methodology, next in Chapter 4 a detailed look into data analyses is presented.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

The results of this study were presented in two sections. Section 4.1 reviewed the

responses to each survey question; the average, maximum, and minimum responses were

also reported unless the question structure calls for percentage distribution breakdown.

Where necessary the data results were stratified to provide more useful comparisons.

Section 4.2 analyzed the data based on the services of the company. Where

relevant the participant's profession was substituted in place of company services for

statement analyses. This provided insight to the various disciplines perspectives and

organizational structures regarding financial and environmental issues.

One element of two questions caused a problem when analyzing the results. In the

Type of LEED AP's question and the Profession of Participant question the choice of

Owner was available for selection. Owner was supposed to be classified as a principal

investor or equity holder of a development or construction project; however, many

participants believed it referred to the ownership of a company.

The other problem in the Results section of this study was because there were only

37 survey responses instead of the 48 needed to have a 95% confidence level for this

study, the confidence level was re-calculated using N=37, the new confidence level was

90%.











4.1 Overview

4.1.1 General Background Information

4.1.1.1 Company age

There were 33 responses to this question with 35 years old as the average. The


maximum amount reported was 150 years old, and the minimum was 3 years. The


largest amount of respondents were from companies 1 to 20 years in age, illustrated in


Figure 4-1.


Companies by Age

16

14

12













0 to 20 21 to 50 > 51
N=14 N=9 N=10

Age groups in years

Figure 4-1: Company age in years (N=33)

4.1.1.2 Company services
6
E
Z





0 to 20 21 to 50 > 51
N= 14 N=9 N= 10

Age groups in years

Figure 4-1: Company age in years (N=33)

4.1.1.2 Company services

As shown in Figure 4-2, 35 respondents answered this question. The largest


percentage of services provided by a company was Multi-discipline at 37%. Just over


31% provided only Design services. There were 11% Construction and 11% of Other


services such as planning and business development.











Company Services Provided


14
12
10 -
8
6
4
2
0


0V


Figure 4-2: Distribution of company services (N=35)

4.1.1.3 Annual volume

There were 28 respondents with a total average annual volume of $369,835, 528.

The maximum was $1.8 billion and the minimum was $300,000. As shown in Figure 4-

3, the largest amount of respondents were from companies with annual volumes of less

than 20 million dollars.


Company Annual Volume

14
12
o a) 10

EE 6
= 10 4 -i---------------



0

0 to 20 21 to 400 > 400

In Million Dollars

Figure 4-3: Distribution of annual volume (N=28)


I,,,









4.1.1.4 Percent of annual volume contributed to LEED

There were 35 respondents with an average of 2.2% of annual volume contributed

to LEED. The maximum was 23% and the minimum was 0. The majority of respondents

only had between 0 to 1% of their company's annual volume that contributed to LEED

projects, shown in Figure 4-4.


Percent of Annual as LEED Certified

S25





o
S15

S10

ci 5

0 0
0to 1 2to4 >5
N=20 N=5 N=4
Number of Companies
Figure 4-4: Distribution of annual volume LEED certified (N=35)

4.1.1.5 Percent of annual volume not LEED but green

As shown in Figure 4-5, the number of respondents was 5 and the average was one-

third of a percent. The maximum was 2.5% and the minimum was 0.










Percent Annual To Green (but not LEED
Cert.)

2.5
2 2-
o W
1.5
EE 1

0
0 to 1 2 to4 >5
N=2 N=1 N=2
Annual Percent

Figure 4-5: Percent of annual volume green but not LEED (N=5)

4.1.1.6 Number of company employees

The number of respondents was 35 and the average was 985 employees. The

maximum was 26,000 and the minimum was 3 employees. The majority of respondents

were from companies with less than 50 employees, shown in Figure 4-6.


Number of Companies by Number of
Employees

20
0 15

EE
o 5-

Oto 50 51 to 400 >400
N=17 N=12 N=6
Number of Employees
Figure 4-6: Distribution of number of company employees (N=35)









4.1.1.7 Number of LEED Accredited Professionals in company

The number of participants was 36, with an average of 11 LEED AP's. The

maximum was a 100 and the minimum was 2 LEED APs. The majority of companies

had five or less LEED AP's, shown in Figure 4-7.


Number of Companies by Number
of LEED APs

O 2 30
cc 20
EE 10

0 to 5 6 to 20 > 20
N=25 N=4 N=7
Number of LEED APs

Figure 4-7: Distribution of the number of LEED APs in company (N=36)

4.1.1.8 Types of LEED APs in a company

As shown in Figure 4-8, there were 36 respondents with Architects and Muiti-

disciplines of LEED APs each consisting of 25%. The next closest was GC's with 22%

and the lowest percentage was Developers and Owners each making up 3%.


Types of LEED APs in Company

10
8 -

6 -

4--

2--
0
Arch Eng GC Owner Developer Other Multi
Discip

Figure 4-8: Distribution of the types of LEED APs in companies (N=36)









4.1.1.9 Number of LEED certified project based on certification level

As shown in Figure 4-9, there were 36 respondents, with 22 Silver projects

completed, 20 Gold, 14 Certified, and only 4 Platinum.


LEED Certification Levels for years 2000 through 2005

25

20

15 -

10 -

5

0 -
Certified Silver Gold Platinum

Figure 4-9: Distribution of LEED certified project levels (N=36)

4.1.2 Personnel Background Information

4.1.2.1 Professions of participants

As shown by Figure 4-10, the number of participants was 36, with the highest

number being architects followed by engineers. Construction was third then the rest of

the professions feel significantly below.


Survey Responders by Profession
16
14
12
10l
8
6
4
2
0

\O 0 ( r Q
s3" o~ tP









Figure 4-10: Distribution of participant professions (N=36)

4.1.2.2 Participant job titles

As shown by Figure 4-11, the number of responders is 36, and the largest amount

of titles is in Project Management. President and VP are equally second in distribution

followed last by Other miscellaneous.


Participant Job Title

14
12
10 -
8
6
4-
2

President Vice Pres Proj Mgr Other

Figure 4-11: Distribution of participant job title (N=36)

4.1.3 Organizational and Financial Perspectives

This section was developed to ascertain the respondent's perceptions of LEED

regarding organizational and financial aspects. They read statements and were asked to

rate the degree to which they disagreed or agreed with the statement from one to seven on

a Likert scale. One signifies Strongly Disagree, four was a Neutral response, and seven

was Strongly Agree. The averages of the ratings were then calculated for ease of

comparison and are illustrated in each graph by a dashed black line.

4.1.3.1 Collaboration of costs

All 37 respondents answered this question. The question was established to

determine the amount of cost collaboration by professionals. As shown in Figure 4-12,









the average was 4.51, which indicates that respondents tended to Somewhat Agree that

they collaborate with professionals on LEED cost issues.

I collaborate extensively i ith other professions on cost-related issues pertaining to

LEED projects, such as budgeting, scheduling, design, andLCC.


Question 1

12

>10 I
6-
S4-
0


|< 2

Rating

Figure 4-12: Collaboration of costs (N=37)

4.1.3.2 Adequacy of LEED budgets and schedules

The number of responses to this statement was 36. As shown in Figure 4-13, the

average of the ratings was 3.83, signifying that respondents were Neutral with this

statement.

The budgets and schedules for LEED projects are just as adequate as for

conventional projects.










Question 2


12

E 8
6
4
L 2
0
12 L C ----------------------



22 22) a) 22 a)
U)i E, E o< U

Rating

Figure 4-13: Adequacy of LEED budgets and schedules (N=36)

4.1.3.3 Collaboration, cost-efficiency, and reduced environmental impact

There were 37 responses to this statement as well. As shown in Figure 4-14, the

average response was 5.19, which corresponds to the Somewhat Agree category. The

majority of respondents agreed overall that LEED promotes collaboration financially and

environmentally.

The LEED point system promotes collaboration between professions resulting in

cost-efficient designs that reduce environment impact.


Question 3


14
12
o 10
.8
6-
4



|< 2

Rating

Figure 4-14: Collaboration, cost-efficiency, and reduced environmental impact (N=37)
0 L L. CC .C) L






Figure 4-14: Collaboration, cost-efficiency, and reduced environmental impact (N 37)










4.1.3.4 Environmental impact reduction and profit

There were 36 responses to this statement. As shown by Figure 4-15, the average

response was 3.42, which corresponds to the Somewhat Disagree category. The majority

of respondents tend to disagree that environmental impact reduction and profit are not

correlated.

The more environmental impact reduction measures on a LEED project the more

profit my company will earn.


Question 4

10-
8 8
5, 6
4-
L. 2
0


u)O O 0
-) U)
Rating

Figure 4-15: Environmental impact reduction and profit (N=36)

4.1.3.5 Authority to Pursue LEED Points by Cost/Benefit

All 37 respondents rated this statement. As shown by Figure 4-16, the overall

rating fell into the Somewhat Agree category with an average of 4.59. The majority of

respondents agreed that they have the authority to decide what points are pursued based

on cost in a LEED project.

I have the authority to decide what LEED points are pursued based on c,\it blenept

analysis.











Question 5


10
8 I

So

0
M- MCC) 22

Oi5 0 E| E < O

Rating

Figure 4-16: Authority to pursue LEED points by cost/benefit (N=37)

4.1.3.6 Green taxes and financial incentives

A shown in Figure 4-17, the average rating for this statement was 5.54, which

places it in the category of Agree. All 37 respondents rated this statement. The majority

of respondents also Strongly Agreed to that the green building advocates should focus on

crating more monetary incentives for LEED participation.

Green Building advocates should focus on creating more tax and financial

incentives for LEED projects.


Question 6


15

c 10

5
L-
0


C)
0 [ ]


Figure 4-17: Green taxes & financial


z E<
0

Rating

incentives (N=37)


><

2
9C<


I









4.1.4 Organizational and Environmental Perspectives

This section was developed to ascertain the respondent's perceptions of LEED

regarding organizational and environmental aspects. Again, respondents read the

statements and were asked to rate the degree to which they disagreed or agreed with the

statement from one to seven on a Likert scale. One signifies Strongly Disagree, four is a

Neutral response, and seven is Strongly Agree. The averages of the ratings were then

calculated for ease of comparison and illustrated in each graph by a dashed line.



4.1.4.1 Level of integrated design

As shown in Figure 4-18, the average rating for this statement was 2.78, which

places it in the category of somewhat disagree. The majority of respondents Disagreed

with the statement that integrated design does not substantially increase for LEED

projects over conventional projects.

The level of integrated design does not substantially increase for a LEED project

compared to a conventional project.


Question 7

14
12
C
8
24



E Z E Z-

Rating

Figure 4-18: Level of integrated design (N=37)










4.1.4.2 United States Green Building Council (USGBC) receptiveness to feedback

As shown in Figure 4-19, the average rating for this statement was 4.67, which

places it in the category of Somewhat Agree. One respondent didn't reply regarding this

question. The majority of respondents were Neutral in opinion whether the USGBC is

receptive to feedback. Enough respondents agreed pushing the average just into the

Somewhat Agree category.

The USGBC is receptive to feedback


Question 8

20
615
10
5


22 22) L 2)



Rating

Figure 4-19: USGBC receptiveness to feedback (N=36)

4.1.4.3 Collaboration and certification level

As shown in Figure 4-20, the average rating for this statement was 6.11, which

places it in the Agree category. All 37 respondents agreed to varying degrees that

collaboration between professions during a LEED project increased the chances of

achieving the desired certification level.

Increased collaboration between professions during a LEED project increase the

likelihood of achieving the desired certification level









Question 9


16
12
S8
0"
S4
0


03 0

Rating

Figure 4-20: Collaboration and certification level (N=37)

4.1.4.4 Collaboration and point mongering

Every respondent rated this statement. As shown by Figure 4-21, the average of all

the ratings was 3.97, putting the average response in the Neutral category. The

distribution of responses was very balanced to whether collaboration on LEED projects

leads to point-mongering rather than good design.

Collaboration on LEED projects results in LEED point maximizing rather than

good design.


Question 10

10
> 8
= 6


0

|<
C/) ECE U) U)
Rating

Figure 4-21: Collaboration and point mongering (N=37)


I II










4.1.4.5 Consensus-based rating system

Thirty-six of thirty seven respondents rated this statement. As shown in Figure 4-

22, the average of those ratings was 5.31. This average fell into the Somewhat Agree

category. No respondents disagreed to any degree to the statement that LEED should

remain consensus-based.

LEED should continue to be a consensus-based rating system


Question 11


16
'12
9,-


0
F 4-



J Ez E c< Z

Rating

Figure 4-22: Consensus-based rating system (N=36)

4.1.4.6 Improved web-based protocol / customer service

There were a total of 35 responses to this statement. With an average rating of

5.11, respondents Somewhat Agreed. Figure 4-23 shows that the majority were either

Neutral or in agreement with the statement that LEED needs to improve internet usage

and customer service.

LEED needs an improved interactive web-based protocol to improve customer

support.


I










Question 12

16-
S12
8
-" I



.| | E | E |o< U)
U) U)
Rating

Figure 4-23: Improved web-based protocol / customer service (N=35)

4.1.5 Financial and Environmental Perspectives

This section was developed to determine the respondent's perceptions of LEED

regarding financial and environmental aspects. The Respondents read statements and

were asked to rate the degree to which they disagreed or agreed with the statement from

one to seven on a Likert scale. One signified Strongly Disagree, four was a Neutral

response, and seven was Strongly Agree. The averages of the ratings were then

calculated for ease of analysis and illustrated in each graph by a dashed line.

4.1.5.1 Cost-efficiency and certification level

All respondents replied to this statement. As Figure 4-24 illustrates, the average

rating was 4.59, which fell into the Somewhat Agree category. The majority of the

responses were Neutral or agreed to this statement.

The more cost-efficient a LEED project's budget and design are, the more likely

that the desired certification level will be achieved.












Question 13


10-





0



0| E E < U9
6 6






Rating


Figure 4-24: Cost-efficiency and certification level (N=37)

4.1.5.2 Future of Life-Cycle Assessments (LCA) and Life-Cycle Costing (LCC)
methods

Thirty-five of thirty-seven respondents rated this statement. Figure 4-25 shows that


the average rating of responses was 4.71, which states a Somewhat Agreement to whether


LCA and LCC methods should be used in LEED.


LCA and LCC methods should be included in the future LEED 3.0 version.

The average of this question is 4.71.


Question 14


12
> 10
E 8
6
S4
S2
0


> CD
e--
- 0
Si5


a)
CD
CC)
cc
.0
0


Figure 4-25: Future of LCA


CE E <
00 r

Rating


and LCC methods (N=35)


CD


CD

2
9) <


-HI









4.1.5.3 Rationale to pursue LEED

All 37 respondents rated this statement. In Figure 4-26, the average is 4.22, which

fell into the Neutral category. There was a balanced distribution of opinions in the

corresponding degrees of disagreement and agreement.

The major consideration i whether to pursue LEED Certification is based on

cost/benefit analysis relative to environmental impact.


Question 15

12
> 10
8 8
6
4-
2
0




Rating

Figure 4-26: Rationale to pursue LEED (N=37)

4.1.5.4 Ecological economics

All 37 respondents rated this statement as well. Figure 4-27 illustrates that the

average response was 5.76, which fell into the Agree category. The majority agreed to

this statement that they considered environmentally pertinent aspects of a project.

I consider the value of environmentally pertinent aspects of a project (ex. Natural

ecosystems, green space, wetlands...)










Question 16

24
>.20
c 16
12
S8
S4


0 I 1| I ,
0


/ 0|

Rating

Figure 4-27: Ecological economics (N=37)

4.1.5.5 Soft cost of LEED value

Only 34 of the 37 respondents rated this statement. In Figure 4-28, the average

rating was 3.79, making for an overall Neutral response to whether soft cost of LEED

could be better used in LCC and LCA analyses. The bell-shaped distribution illustrated a

balance of opinions.

The (soft) costs of LEED certification, such as commissioning, energy modeling,

and documentation, could be better invested in LCC and LCA analyses.


Question 17

16-
12
C I
0"


8 I
E z E<)




Figure 4-28: Soft cost of LEED value (N=34)










4.1.5.6 Profitability of LEED projects

The final question that was asked received ratings by all respondents. As Figure 4-

29 illustrates, the average distribution was 3.59, which fell into the Neutral category as

well. There were slightly more disagreement responses overall.

LEED projects are more profitable for my company than conventional projects.


Question 18

12
S10





Rating
S8
6 U
4




U) C) 0 0








This section examines the perspectives of LEED AP's by Company Services.

Company services were condensed into four aspects: Design, Construction, Other, and

Multi-Discipline services. Design services consist of Architects or Engineers. The Other

category of professional service companies consist of a culmination of developers,

consultants, financial lenders, investors, and educators. The Multi Discipline category

consists of any companies that had more than one professional service internally

available to their clients. An example of this would be a design-build firm. Another

example would be a company that finances, designs, builds, and operates a project.

Distributing the responses by company services provided additional insight to the









organizational and social agendas relating to both environmental and financial factors of

sustainable construction and LEED. First, the company service data was compared to the

background information within the survey. Then the company service application was

applied to a scatter plot chart to illustrate the correlations and differences of the

perspectives regarding the eighteen statements. The averages of the responses closely

followed the Multi-discipline and Design companies' opinions since they were by far the

largest groups of respondents of the survey.

4.2.1 Background

4.2.1.1 Company age in years

The average age of Design service companies was less than 30 years old.

Construction companies were the youngest at an average of 19 years. Surprisingly the

Multi-disciplines and Other companies were older.


Company Average Age vs Services

60
50
S40 -
3 30
20
10
0
Design Constr Other Multi

Figure 4-30 Company service vs. company age

4.2.1.2 Annual volume

As Figure 4-31 illustrates Multi-discipline serviced companies had an exponential

amount of annual volume over all other companies. However, Design and Construction








had averages of less than 5 million. This data may be skewed because of an unusually
high volume by a specific survey participant.

Annual Vol $ by Services


12,000,000,000
10,000,000,000
8,000,000,000
6,000,000,000
4,000,000,000
2,000,000,000
0


Design Constr Others Multi Discip

Figure 4-31: Company services vs. annual volume (N=28)
4.2.1.3 LEED volume
As Figure 4-32 shows, the average percent of breakdown by company services and
LEED % of Annual Volume. Multi Discipline and Design companies vary at 17% and
45%.


LEEDs % vs Services


u! I I
Design Constr Others Multi Discip

Figure 4-32: Company services vs. LEED percent of annual volume


I I


I










4.2.1.4 Number of LEED APs

The comparison between number of LEED APs and company structure revealed

that Multi and Design firms were above Construction and Other service companies in the

number of LEED AP's.


Number of LEED APs vs Services

300
250
200
150
100

50 -
0
Design Constr Others Multi Discip

Figure 4-33: Company services vs. number of LEED APs

4.2.1.5 Number of LEED certified projects

In Figure 4-34, the quantity of LEED certified projects by company services was

illustrated. Design was the highest with 22 projects experienced; Multi was close behind

with 21 projects. Other service company averaged around 16 while Construction was

extremely low at 1 LEED AP.










No. of LEED Cert. Projects vs Services

25

20 -

15 -

10 -

5

0
Design Constr Others Multi Discip

Figure 4-34: Company service vs. number of LEED certified projects

4.2.2 Organizational and Financial Perspectives

The following perspective questions were analyzed through scatter plot graphs to

insightfully illustrate the correlations between financial viewpoints versus company

organizational structures. In many of the scenarios the Construction and Design

companies had opposite concerns and opinions. In addition the Other classification of

company services included planners, business development manager, and manufacturers

gave typically optimistic responses.

4.2.2.1 Collaboration of costs by company services

The responses to this question illustrated that Design companies collaborated the

least with Other professions while Multidiscipline companies the most. If Multi

companies have various types of professionals working under one roof then it could be

easier for them to collaborate.







52




I collaborate extensively with other professions on cost-related issues
pertaining to LEED projects, such as budgeting, scheduling, design, and LCC









Design
U Constr
3 A Other
Multi
--- Avg



1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Likert Scale


Figure 4-35: Distribution of company services and collaboration of costs by company
services

4.2.2.2 Adequacy of LEED budgets and schedules by company services

In this question responses were significantly different. Construction companies

disagreed the most and Design companies disagreed to a lesser extent. Multi and Other

companies were very agreeable with the statement. The possible reasoning behind the

responses may have been because contractors and designers had much more exposure and

liability with regards to budgeting and time restraints than Other service companies in the

industry.











The budgets and schedules for LEED projects are
just as adequate as for conventional projects









04*Design
SConstr
M /\\IL A Other
SMulti
K Avg







1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Likert Scale

Figure 4-36: Distribution of company services and adequacy of LEED budgets and
schedules by company services

4.2.2.3 Collaboration, cost-efficiency, and reduced environmental impact by
company services

In question 3, there were also a variety of responses based on company services.

Construction disagreed again while Design companies thought LEED collaboration did

work. Design professionals collaborated the least but they said that LEED promotes

collaboration. Designers can steer the cost and environmental impact since they make

decisions early on in the chain. Contractors must work within the design professional's

lines with a profit margin and with environmental requirements. It is interesting that

Other companies truly believe LEED was cost-efficient and environmentally friendly.

The company types that fell into this category were developers, planners, and educators.







54


4.2.2.4 Environmental impact reduction and profit by company services


The more environmental impact reduction measures on a
LEED project the more profit my company will earn









*Design
.0 UConstr
o A Other
O *Multi
K Avg






1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Likert Scale


Figure 4-37: Distribution of company services and environmental impact reduction and
profit by company services

In Figure 4-37, the distribution was wide. Multi discipline companies stated that

there was no relation between profit and environmental impact reduction Construction

professionals though fairly Neutral in perspectives stated a slight agreement with the

statement.











4.2.2.5 Authority to pursue LEED points by cost/benefit by company services


I have the authority to decide what LEED points are pursued based on
cost/benefit analysis









*Design
SConstr
SOther
S0* Multi
X Avg






1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Likert Scale


Figure 4-38: Distribution of company services and authority to pursue LEED points by
cost/benefit by company services

This question was designed to determine who had the greatest impact or say in

cost/benefit analyses on LEED projects. As no surprise Design professionals were early

in the decision-making chain. Contractors and Multi companies were Neutral while

Other service companies Slightly Disagreed.







56


4.2.2.6 Green taxes and financial incentives by company services


Green Building advocates should focus on creating more
tax and financial incentives for LEED projects









CD
S*Design
O _______1_ Constr
A Other
C Multi
X Avg






1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Likert Scale


Figure 4-39: Distribution of company services and green taxes and financial incentives by
company services

In Figure 4-39, the distribution showed that contractors Strongly Agreed to the

demand for more financial incentives. This may indicate that contractors have had

difficulty turning a profit on these technologically advanced buildings. This may be

because of the tax system that taxes labor more than materials. Other causes may be

because sustainable suppliers and subcontractors were not affordable or available in the

marketplace.

4.2.3 Organizational and Environmental Perspectives

In this next section, the organizational and environmental perspectives are

examined based on the same criteria of company services. This will continue to show







57


potential agendas of industry professionals that create barriers to the adoption of green

building systems such as LEED.

4.2.3.1 Level of integrated design by company services


The level of integrated-design does not substantially increase
for a LEED project compared to a conventional project









S*Design
o0 Constr
SA Other
O Multi
XAvg.






1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Likert Scale

Figure 4-40: Distribution of company services and level of integrated design by company
services

Question 7 showed that Construction, Other, and Multi service companies Strongly

Disagreed with this statement. Design professionals only Slightly Disagreed. To

designers it may not be that much additional trouble to add some level of complexity or

efficiency to a building design. However, Contractors have various additional hurdles

such as documentation, energy modeling, commissioning and more specialized trade

professionals to manage.







58


4.2.3.2 USGBC Receptiveness to Feedback by company services


The USGBC is receptive to feedback









*Design
SA Constr
SA Other
S *Multi
)K Avg.






1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Likert Scale


Figure 4-41: Distribution of company services and USGBC receptiveness to feedback by
company services

As Figure 4-41 shows, Multi service companies Strongly Agreed while contractors

and Designers where much more neutral. Multi service companies may have more

comprehensive feedback or a well-rounded view which made there critics more useful to

the USGBC. However, it also could be the case that they were less aware of specific

faults in the system like specialized companies would.







59


4.2.3.3 Collaboration and certification level by company services


Increased collaboration between professions during a LEED project
increases the likelihood of achieving the desired certification level











A Other
0 Multi
XK Avg.






1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Likert Scale


Figure 4-42: Distribution of company services and collaboration and certification level by
company services

When company services responses were distributed for question 9 there was very

little differentiation. Everyone Strongly Agreed that collaboration did increase the

chances of achieving the desired certification level on LEED projects. However, not

everyone profits the same off LEED projects so the incentives to collaborate will vary

between professions. This question was key to this study, but did still not clarify how to

increase and balance the distribution of profits in a LEED project.











4.2.3.4 Collaboration and point mongering by company services


Collaboration on LEED projects results in LEED point maximizing rather than
good design









o
*Design
=All/ Constr
0
A Other
0 Multi
)KAvg.






1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Likert Scale

Figure 4-43: Distribution of company services and collaboration and point mongering by
company services

The distribution of company services relating to question 10 about point mongering

showed that Construction professionals believe point mongering is an issue; while Design

professionals Slightly Disagree with the statement. Multidiscipline companies disagreed

the most in reference to collaboration and point mongering. This may be because they

have been responsible for more decision making aspects or long-term operation of a

building. The average overall on this question was Neutral stating that point mongering

was an individual opinion.







61


4.2.3.5 Consensus-based rating system by company services


LEED should continue to be a consensus-based rating system


* Design
* Constr
A Other
* Multi
XAvg.


4
Likert Scale


Figure 4-44: Distribution of company services and consensus-based rating system by
company services

The company service distribution to question 11 was very narrow in range.


Overall, all professions Agreed that LEED should remain consensus based.


AmI/A.







62


4.2.3.6 Improved web-based protocol / customer service by company services


LEED needs an improved interactive web-based protocol to improve customer
support









I *Design
II Constr
0 A Other
Multi
SAvg.



1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Likert Scale



Figure 4-45: Distribution of company services and improved web-based protocol /
customer service by company services

Once again, in question 12 the distribution of company services was also very

narrow. The professions only Slightly Agreed that LEED should improve web-based

efforts and customer support. The power of the internet in business applications are

typically underutilized, however, in the entrenched construction industry a Slightly

Agreed response was significant.

4.2.4 Financial and Environmental Perspectives

The final section within the results section illustrated the financial and

environmental perspectives categorized by company services







63


4.2.4.1 Cost-efficiency and certification level


The more cost-efficient a LEED project's budget and design are,
the more likely that the desired certification level will be achieved









e *Design
U AConstr
to AOther
S0* Multi
X)Avg.






1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Likert Scale


Figure 4-46: Distribution of company services and cost-efficiency and certification level

As Figure 4-46 shows, cost efficiency and certification chances have a correlation.

Design professionals were Neutral in response, however, Construction professionals

Agreed overall. This may be because budgets and profit margins are thin and challenging

to meet with the increased complexities of a LEED project. Usually, Design

professionals do not have to worry about whether the project is competed on budget they

get the same profit regardless.







64


4.2.4.2 Future of LCA and LCC methods by company services


LCA and LCC methods should be included in the future LEED 3.0 version










*Design
Constr
A Other
a eMulti
X Avg.







1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Likert Scale

Figure 4-47: Distribution of company services and future of LCA and LCC methods by
company services

This important financial and environmental statement received interesting

responses. Construction and Design companies actually were surprisingly both Neutral

to the statement. Other service companies and Multi companies agreed more to the

statement. LEED is planning on implementing the right balance of LCA and LCC

methods in LEED 3.0 version. However, there are concerns that restrict the use of such

modeling that Construction and Design professionals may be aware of.











4.2.4.3 Rationale to pursue LEED by company services


The major consideration whether to pursue LEED Certification is based on
cost/benefit analysis relative to environmental impact










Design
Constr
0
A Other
a *Multi
)KAvg.







1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Likert Scale

Figure 4-48: Distribution of company services and rationale to pursue LEED by company
services

As Figure 4-48 illustrates, the responses to this statement were Neutral.


Construction and Design professionals once again were Neutral in opinion. Multi service


companies Slightly Disagreed while Other service companies Agreed.







66


4.2.4.4 Ecological economics by company services


I consider the value of environmentally pertinent aspects of a
project.(ex. natural ecosystems, green space, wetlands...)









*Design
._ Constr
w A Other
a Multi
X Avg.






1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Likert Scale


Figure 4-49: Distribution of company services and ecological economics by company
services

This statement distribution was slightly boarder in range as shown by Figure 4-49.

Construction professionals Slightly Agreed to the economic ecology statement while

Multi service companies Strongly Agreed. Design and Other professionals were in-

between the two. This may be the reason why Construction professionals are lacking in

interest and participation in LEED when compared to other professions. However, many

contractors do not deal with ecosystems, green space, or wetland issues. They simply

build the building they are hired for. This lack of awareness should be within the

industry.







67


4.2.4.5 Value of LEED soft costs by company services


Figure 4-50: Distribution of company services and value of LEED soft costs by company
services

This question distribution by company service was the same across the board,

shown in Figure 4-50. Every category of company services was Neutral or Slightly

Disagreed. This either illustrated that everyone feels soft costs of LEED projects were

founded or just that LCC and LCA may not be a better alternative for the money. Either

way the Slight Disagreement to the statement shows LEED does do a pretty good job

with cost control and environmental impact.


The (soft) costs of LEED certification, such as commissioning, energy
modeling, and documentation, could be better invested in LCC and LCA
analyses








*Design
S____ Constr
A Other
0 Multi
X)Avg.


2 3 4 5 6 7
Likert Scale







68


4.2.4.6 Profitability of LEED projects by company services


LEED projects are more profitable for my company than conventional projects










Design
Constr
A Other
0 Multi
X Avg.






1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Likert Scale


Figure 4-51: Distribution of company services and profitability of LEED projects by
company services

The bottom line of companies was distributed by the company categories in Figure

4-51. Design and Construction companies both Slightly Disagreed here. Multi service

Slightly Disagreed as well while Other service companies actually Agreed to the

statement in a slightly above Neutral way.

The analyses of the results of this study illustrated the various perspectives of

LEED AP's regarding the LEED-NC rating system. A summary of this study and

recommendations for future study will be provided in the following chapter.














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

5.1 Summary

The results of this study revealed the perspectives of LEED Accredited

Professionals regarding the barriers and opportunities of sustainable construction.

Though some of the critics of LEED were reinforced by this study, many proved to be

exaggerated and unfounded. However, this study directly illustrated many of the overall

barriers to sustainable construction that pose a much larger concern for U.S. citizens,

industry, and government.

The major weaknesses found with the LEED system were related to financial

aspects. The profitability of LEED was asymmetric. Overall, the USGBC goal to

transform the market with the introduction of LEED failed. LEED has captured less than

one-third of one percent of the industry's annual volume. However, it has grown

exponentially since its inception. It has also produced awareness of cost and

environmental design issues, primarily within design and multi disciplined companies.

Contractors do not have as much interest in sustainable construction because they do not

profit off complex designs or reduced long-term operating cost of buildings. More end-

user demand for LEED projects would produce a monetary driver forcing contractors to

adopt more sustainable initiatives.

From an organizational standpoint, the USGBC has done a good job overall with

LEED. The survey illustrated that LEED should remain consensus-based. USGBC was

slightly above average in feedback receptiveness. The USGBC already had plans to









improve web usage and customer service aspects. Though LEED was a small percentage

of the overall annual volume of the construction industry, it was still the dominant and

most comprehensive green building system within the U.S. However, it has not been

able to simplify the process enough for smaller businesses to implement it.

The environmental aspects covered in this study were mainly tied to other concerns

such as financial or organizational. However, the portions relating to the environmental

aspects of LEED showed only positive things. All respondents agreed that LEED does

promote good environmental design. In addition, this study illustrated that a very high

level of professionals valued environmentally pertinent aspects of a project.

A more detailed analysis of the industry professions or disciplines portrayed

differences in opinion regarding the financial and organizational barriers to sustainable

construction. The majority of LEED AP's worked for design or multi-disciplined

companies. As no surprise, the greatest amount of LEED volume was also reported by

these company types. Design professionals coordinated the least, while multi-discipline

companies the most. Design professionals responded that the cost-efficiency of a LEED

project's budget and design was less important to accomplishing certification. Overall,

design and multi-disciplined companies thought the LEED system was financially

profitable and organizationally desirable.

Construction professionals had very different opinions, especially when compared

to design professionals. Contractors showed the smallest adoption rate of LEED out of

any profession within the industry. They had a lower annual volume of LEED projects

and fewer LEED AP's on average. Why the lack of interest or participation? Builders,

typically, make their profit by simplicity of design and materials. On the other hand,









designers, typically, make profit based on the complexity of design and materials. Unless

design-build is utilized, contractors have to accept the decisions or judgments of the

designers. The added level of documentation and management requirements of a LEED

project will place more burden on the contractor profit margin. Construction

professionals did not view LEED as financially profitable or organizationally desirable.

It was found that different profit agendas hindered collaboration between professions

restricting the adoption of sustainable construction practices, such as LEED.

Overall, LEED is headed in the right direction. Even though LEED is far from

being perfect or scientific, its core is strongly supported through the brightest and most

experienced industry leaders. The green building community should not be concentrating

on trivial environmental measurements or even the profitability of certification systems.

The USGBC has already saturated the LEED product line with environmental standards

and measurements. Next, in the hierarchy is the societal component that must be

addressed. Society's problems have, historically, been resolved by the invention and

implementation of technology. Advanced green building technologies already exist;

however, a broad public awareness of the benefits of such technologies does not. More

research, education, and training must be achieved at the institutional levels. Universities

and other public institutions set the example for industry to follow with regards to

technological and social policy. These trends eventually filter down through ranks of

consumers and businesses alike establishing the economic supply/demand relationship

necessary to mainstream sustainable construction practices within the United States.

5.2 Recommendations for Future Study

This was a relatively small study reviewing responses from a total of 37

participants. A larger sample is recommended in order to get a more accurate picture of









how the construction industry is truly responding to LEED and sustainable construction.

A larger sample could also offset some of the responses given by some extremely large

companies whose annual volumes and number of employees skewed some of the

averages.

The Likert scale proved useful, however, the neutral choice listed produced neutral

responses to many questions. A no opinion option listed as 0, then a 5 point Likert scale

may be more effective at distinguishing perspectives. Eliminating the neutral or no

opinion option altogether may also be a way to force respondents to agree or disagree.

Direct variations of this study include surveying only small businesses on financial,

organizational, and environmental issues pertaining to sustainable construction. Another

variation of this study would be to survey LEED AP's on social issues relating to

sustainable construction since this study left out those important elements by instead

focusing on organizational aspects of the system.

Green certification systems, such as LEED, are not as important or as high of a

priority to achieving sustainable construction as other topics. Studies regarding the

effectiveness of education and training curriculums on sustainable development practices

would be extremely well founded. Research leading to an interactive web-based system

that could make the design process cyclical rather than linear would increase the

symmetry of profits among industry actors. The advantages of design-build and other

multi-disciplined organizations in implementing sustainable construction practices is a

fairly untouched topic that also has vigor. Studying end-user awareness and perspectives

regarding sustainable construction has an immediate need for research concentration.





















APPENDIX A
LETTER OF CONSENT








University of Florida
M. E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction
Powcll Center for Construction and Environment



February 20, 2006





Dear LEED Accredited Professional

Will you please help us with a very important project?

We are conducting a survey to learn more about your perspectives regarding the
financial, organizational, and environmental barriers to LEED certification. We value
your opinions as a green building professional Your answers to the attached
questionnaire will ultimately contribute to improving future LEED versions.

You are a part of a very small, scientifically selected sample being asked to
participate in this study, so your individual reply is extremely important to the accuracy
and success of the research. The maximum number ofparticipants recruited for th1s
research is a 1000 LEED Accredited Professionals. There will be no monetary-
compensation for participating in this survey. However, the immediate benefits of
participation include the potential to increase your knowledge and provide feedback
about LEED problems currently being addressed within green building circles. There are
no more than minimal risks to participating in this survey. Your answers, of course, will
be kept in strict confidence and no names will be associated with responses. In addition,
you have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence.

Would you please lake a few minutes now atnd complete the questionnaire?
Please print, complete, and fax the survey to (352) 846-2772 or please type in your
answers (not worrying about formatting issues), save, and attach in an mail reply back to
mwc7805@ufl.edu. Implied consent of your participation will be assumed by the
completion and return of the attached survey by facsimile or email.

Your prompt reply will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for your
help. We hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

.it- 51 Matthew W. Cox
Z-17-47 Principal Investigator
/ UF Grad Student

PO Box 115703 University of Florida Ginteviule, FL 32611-5703































APPENDIX B

SURVEY


Organizational, Financial and Enviroanmraral Analyss of LEED Certifcation Survey
Complete & Fax to 1352) 34n-272

nraBacknrd nrratan -General ftasacat.

Compary Age in V __

Compaer Servces (ccile all tha lM) [Desrqn Oarriei bon Dicpto'mer-i rtcttunt FerWai On1er(s31

Anicbf Vatine iOn 235 3_______

P 4ett ad Annual Valrme in 205 thail rcren d dC re ree a LEED c-tficaton *

P a Anrial Volume in o25 lhal dId na ahrthe LEEDl brt M u ad.u-aoahr p A n cilm oli anard '%
Vnnht bnow hron buiting cWrarn b~e LEED has L yur compare used n 5 20 (arcE r ra' app S -mig, snat 5hldn~alc tirth 2I1i
Crnlry, BEEs, Grwn GOkes, FGBC Stardard C(her

Number d Employes

Numb., ef LEcO Acndfed Pr. .onals in you Carmpary

Typedf LEED APs in ourci-omparry irle ant Iapp) H rh Enrg GC Own&r DeeI: lt O ahet {)

N-i.b oLE rc tn pIio. amh Iran, -rn baS ttrtraon i:r cftCniJ thrt .GWd .& Paanm 1j


-Bact:grund Irnfrntation Pf'ora. [Piiea Stln

Proe.on (- Arch. GCr Otrw, Eckafior. eC __

tdr



Phone U

rnali

Dflfnhrsr
QC9teosn lowae ton.hor., e-seivaltv in a ini IruieltedLai enon

Costa-cenl pduxactiu araecttra in jeLattat dn fIst

LorfcCgLna CJS a cashttlerafl analrt-tc a eacn M \ar af ea probblE clye rf t building lo Justdy
measure ih: mly req're eair mnlrl. caplal ISrrccrnrmll 1a ydt ar Brcanlly lmer opera inrln oc aEr oIrIr

It Ct sasserltnf CA1 o a mlhi hr difeninging t rrorrmrnal ar resource Imparls o a mnalrhia
pnltct ow oel a val ulkiuge Osntlire life

Dnrtctimrn Plnas diet* thr number which bnrc represents a a xteri a hto ht you rt wth Osr folllwing sltatmnt.


SFCTIMA: Ora!anilrmanirl fnincial

1 I coaborate extercsrveA wth cther prtefassarn o0 cJ- t 2
related en pefneininrg in LEED prooects suor as
tydgertr CrodWlag.on, gand LCC

2 The ovdolns and Cdces f tEED pnccoE amro ui aa 2
adoqubato i f corwenlnonal pqeaech

3 7TrEEDL E = ysn prrmateca W son bltwenr 1 2
prAetanet thing or onc-rtl dfnrrn trhaS rmcbte


4 Tfr mre earnoinnral impat roctrlon rnasun cr.a 1 t 2
LEED pct me me pA cmo n ar w r.

5 1t h aeuhrmy1& dloci de what LEED pnts ar prstu- 1 2
tasc on cstisenefi anarstc

6 Green iLdrgt a(ochlzhoulo Wunacreal n mwaelax 1 2
and inenrMl W c1irces ra LEED frcaoces


3 a4 5



3 4 5 6 7


3 4 5 6 7



3 4 5 6 a


3 4 5 6 7


3 5 6 7






















Section B: Oranlallfonlt EnvirOrentil


7 The eel f integrlAdrdMCgn does nl ublarlialy increase 1 2 4 5 6
Io a LEED project compared 1o a conrrentonal prwc'


8 The LFSGBC Isr freeptOe 1 feiedln k 1 2 3 4 ( 6 7


3 Irnreased cllabOalon ,etweei n podessrons dunrn a LEED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
projedl increases he lkdAeihood of aching lthe desire
certficaton losIl

10 Collaboralt on LEED projects result in LEE pont 1 2 3 4 5 5 7
fianlmizilng rathi than good dlign

11 LERO0shnwWchntineMtobeacuscm S-barSd rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
system

12 LEED needs an impoored intmradri wcoased prctlcollo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
imprwe customer support





Section: C inannlal Emnvlmnm nel
maenr i rm inimee nreio6 t
13 The more ml-enficent a LEED proets budget and design 1 2 3 4 5 $ 7
are, the more IIHkeT tl n 1he Si Cetfinnat ICo l roel i b


14 LCA and LCC melthlo shok be incluodd in the Mb re 1 2 3 4 5 6
LEED 3 0 t*rsiOn

15 Tr' mlor coonsiiMwaio whether to M tuue LEEO 1 a a 4 5 6 7
Cr~lifaticw is based oIn notbeMefr analysis relative to
environmental impt

1$ I Omnoidot thbnvoB OFle mrOnmennia pertiner tapecs of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
polpct (en narur ecosystems. reen space wetlands )


17 Tr (soft) costs e LEED articaleon, sdh as 1 2 3 4 5 6 T
crml ssromng. onrgy mode b,. and dnumenlatoon, ro
M better nrwested in LCC and LCA ana oses

18 LEED prquitsare more probable for rmy company 1 an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
mneneonal prects




Additiona Comments


I I
















LIST OF REFERENCES


Augenbroe, G. L. M., & Pearce, A.R. (1998). Sustainable construction in the United
States ofAmerica; A perspective to the year 2010. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.

Kibert, C. J. (2005). Sustainable construction: Green building design and delivery.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Kibert, C. J. (1994). Sustainable construction: What does it mean and how do we achieve
it? Journal of Construction, 15(3), 5-13.

Rohracher, H. (2001). Managing the technical transition to sustainable construction of
buildings: A socio-technical perspective. Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, 13(1), 137-150.

Schendler, A., & Udall, R. (2005). LEED is broken ... Let's fix it. Construction Record,
126, 910-924.

Solomon, N. (2006). How is LEED faring after five years in use? Architectural Record,
193.6, 135-142.

Van Bueren, E. M., & Priemus, H. (2002). Institutional barriers to sustainable
construction. Environment & Planning B: Planning & Design 29.1, 75-86.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Matthew W. Cox was born in Stuart, Florida, to Russell E. Cox and Karen A.

Cox. As a Martin County School District student, he learned about the importance

of the environment on annual field trips through the Environmental Studies Center.

After graduating from high school in 1999, he attended the Florida State University

where he earned his Bachelor of Science in Management degree. The following

year he attended the University of Florida where he earned his Master of Science

degree from the School of Building Construction. Matthew plans to remain in

Florida where he will pursue a career in construction management and sustainable

development.