<%BANNER%>

Sustainable Practices in Residential Projects

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041256/00001

Material Information

Title: Sustainable Practices in Residential Projects
Physical Description: 1 online resource (103 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Hlad, Kristen
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: florida, green, residential, sustainability, sustainable
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES IN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS Although there is a trend to build green, most architects, builders, and owners see the initial costs as being high to implement sustainability in smaller scopes of work. Sometimes, when the budget s bottom line is not matching, the extra expenses toward making a building more energy efficient are the first to be cut. The study was conducted to understand the decision making process, from a builder s point of view, on residential sustainability. The procedure started by asking residential builders of North Central Florida belonging to the Builder s Association of North-Central Florida (BANCF) to assess various topics and concepts on sustainability. Residential sustainability survey was categorized into different levels related to experience with sustainability, familiarity with sustainable practices and concepts, frequency of use of sustainable practices and concepts, opinion on sustainability, and importance of sustainability within the company. The study was conducted to identify the apprehensions, cost conflicts, levels of integrations, and confusion associated with residential sustainability in the current housing market. The purpose was to compare developers and builders within the residential sector in the area of sustainability and green building. This study built upon existing research on the applicability of rating systems and other sustainable practices withstanding in the residential sector. The results of the study proved there are no significant differences between builders and developers on the trends of sustainability, except that developers are more familiar with sustainable concepts and techniques. The typical respondent agreed that cost was most important, but also agreed that sustainable design was important for the environment. The five parameters of the study, based on the literature review, indicated that the developers and the builders surveyed had sustainability experience, were familiar with sustainability, and actively trained employees in sustainability. They also believed that green homes are more complicated to build, cost more, and do not help their homes sell faster to consumers.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kristen Hlad.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Olbina, Svetlana.
Local: Co-adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0041256:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041256/00001

Material Information

Title: Sustainable Practices in Residential Projects
Physical Description: 1 online resource (103 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Hlad, Kristen
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: florida, green, residential, sustainability, sustainable
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES IN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS Although there is a trend to build green, most architects, builders, and owners see the initial costs as being high to implement sustainability in smaller scopes of work. Sometimes, when the budget s bottom line is not matching, the extra expenses toward making a building more energy efficient are the first to be cut. The study was conducted to understand the decision making process, from a builder s point of view, on residential sustainability. The procedure started by asking residential builders of North Central Florida belonging to the Builder s Association of North-Central Florida (BANCF) to assess various topics and concepts on sustainability. Residential sustainability survey was categorized into different levels related to experience with sustainability, familiarity with sustainable practices and concepts, frequency of use of sustainable practices and concepts, opinion on sustainability, and importance of sustainability within the company. The study was conducted to identify the apprehensions, cost conflicts, levels of integrations, and confusion associated with residential sustainability in the current housing market. The purpose was to compare developers and builders within the residential sector in the area of sustainability and green building. This study built upon existing research on the applicability of rating systems and other sustainable practices withstanding in the residential sector. The results of the study proved there are no significant differences between builders and developers on the trends of sustainability, except that developers are more familiar with sustainable concepts and techniques. The typical respondent agreed that cost was most important, but also agreed that sustainable design was important for the environment. The five parameters of the study, based on the literature review, indicated that the developers and the builders surveyed had sustainability experience, were familiar with sustainability, and actively trained employees in sustainability. They also believed that green homes are more complicated to build, cost more, and do not help their homes sell faster to consumers.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kristen Hlad.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Olbina, Svetlana.
Local: Co-adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0041256:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

SUSTAINABILE PRACTICES IN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS By KRISTEN HLAD 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 2009 1

PAGE 2

2009 Kristen Hlad 2

PAGE 3

To my husband and my parents 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my husband and pare nts for supporting me throughout my academic career, and, amazingly, still acting interested when I start telli ng them about architecture and construction. I owe much of the development of this thesis to my chai r, Dr. Svetlana Olbina, who was always there to answer questions, meet, a nd help guide me. I would also like to thank my co-chair, Dr. Raymond Issa, and my committee member, Dr. Robert Stroh, who both were always there to help me whenever I had any questions. I truly appreciate all your dedication to your students. I would also like to thank Gina Hill, the executive vice-president of BANCF, and all those who took the time to participate in the study because, without your contribution, the thesis would not have been possible. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................11 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .14 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........14 Problem Statement.............................................................................................................. ....14 Purpose of Study.....................................................................................................................15 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................16 Defining and Designi ng Sustainability...................................................................................16 Active Systems for Sustainable Resi dential Design and Construction...........................17 Passive Design for Sustainable Resi dential Design and Construction............................19 Rating Systems for Sustainable Resi dential Design and Construction...........................20 Refining Sustainability........................................................................................................ ...24 Pricing Sustainability..............................................................................................................25 Owning and Branding Sustainability......................................................................................27 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................30 Survey Objective....................................................................................................................30 Development.................................................................................................................... .......30 Explanation of Survey.......................................................................................................... ..31 Demographics..................................................................................................................31 Likert Scale Questions for Experience Importance, Opinion, Familiarity, and Frequency Responses towa rd Sustainable Design.......................................................31 Close-ended Questions for Familiarity Responses toward Sustainable Design..............32 Ordinal Questions for Importance Res ponses toward Sustainable Design.....................32 Open-ended Questions for Free Respons es toward Sustainable Design.........................32 Summary..........................................................................................................................33 Selection of Participants...................................................................................................... ...33 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... .........34 5

PAGE 6

Survey Response.....................................................................................................................34 Demographic Profile of Respondents.....................................................................................34 Survey Results................................................................................................................. .......35 Experience with Sustainable Practices............................................................................36 Typical respondent...................................................................................................36 Developer and builder..............................................................................................36 Importance of Sustainable Practices................................................................................37 Typical respondent...................................................................................................37 Developer and builder..............................................................................................40 Opinion about Sustainable Practices...............................................................................42 Typical respondent...................................................................................................42 Developer and builder..............................................................................................44 Familiarity with Sustainable Practices............................................................................46 Typical respondent...................................................................................................46 Developer and builder..............................................................................................47 Frequency of Use of Sustainable Practices.....................................................................48 Typical respondent...................................................................................................48 Developer and builder..............................................................................................48 Analysis of Results............................................................................................................ .....50 Experience with Sustainable Practices............................................................................50 Importance of Sustainable Practices................................................................................50 Opinion on Sustainable Practices....................................................................................51 Familiarity with Sustainable Practices............................................................................51 Frequency Use of Sustainable Practices..........................................................................52 Summary.................................................................................................................................52 5 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................... ....72 6 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................74 Recommendations................................................................................................................ ...74 Limitations and Further Research...........................................................................................74 APPENDIX A SUSTAINABLE AND RESIDENT IAL PRACTICES SURVEY.........................................75 Informed Consent Disclosure Agreement for Participants.....................................................75 Demographic Information......................................................................................................76 Perception of the Respondents................................................................................................77 Familiarity of Respondents..................................................................................................... 81 Ordinal Questions.............................................................................................................. .....82 B OVERVIEW OF LEED-H.....................................................................................................84 LEED for Homes Version 2008.............................................................................................84 C OVERVIEW OF NAHB MODEL GR EEN HOME BUILDING STANDARD...................88 6

PAGE 7

NAHB Model Green Home Building Guidelines Version 2006............................................88 D FLORIDA GREEN HOME BUILDI NG CERTIFICATION STANDARD..........................89 Florida Green Home Designation Sta ndard of the FGBC, Version 6.0.................................89 E STATISTICAL ANALYSIS..................................................................................................91 Analyzed Data.................................................................................................................. ......91 Experience.......................................................................................................................91 Importance..................................................................................................................... ..91 Opinion............................................................................................................................95 Familiarity.................................................................................................................... ...96 Frequency........................................................................................................................99 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................100 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................103 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Responses to Likert scale questions related to experience in sustainable practices for typical respondents.............................................................................................................53 4-2 Responses to Likert scale questions related to experience in sustainable practices for developers and builders......................................................................................................54 4-3 Responses to Likert scale questions related to importance of sustainable practices for typical respondents.............................................................................................................55 4-4 Responses for Likert scale questions related on importance in sustainable practices for developers and builders................................................................................................55 4-5 Rating of importance of su stainable practices against ot her factors during the design phase for typical respondents.............................................................................................56 4-6 Responses related to ranking of import ance of sustainable practices during design phase between developers and builders.............................................................................57 4-7 Rating of importance of sustainable pr actices against other factors during the construction phase for typical respondents........................................................................58 4-8 Responses related to ranking of impo rtance of sustainable practices during construction phase between developers and builders........................................................59 4-9 Rating of importance sustainable practices against other factors during the marketing phase for typical respondents.............................................................................................60 4-10 Responses related to ranking of import ance of sustainable practices during the marketing phase between developers and builders............................................................61 4-11 Responses to Likert scale questions related to opinion of sustainable practices for typical respondents.............................................................................................................62 4-12 Responses to Likert scale questions related to opinion about sustainable practices for developers and builders......................................................................................................64 4-13 Responses to Likert scale questions relate d to familiarity with sustainable practices for typical respondents.......................................................................................................6 7 4-14 Responses to Likert scale questions relate d to familiarity with sustainable practices for developers and builders................................................................................................68 4-15 Familiarity with green building concepts and practices for typical respondents...............69 4-16 Familiarity with green building concepts and practices for developers and builders........70 8

PAGE 9

4-17 Responses to Likert scale questions re lated to frequency of use of sustainable practices for typical respondents........................................................................................71 4-18 Responses to Likert scale questions re lated to frequency of use of sustainable practices for developers and builders.................................................................................71 E-1 Data based on experience w ith sustainable practices usi ng a chi-squared test between developers and builders......................................................................................................91 E-2 Data based on importance of sustainable concepts and techniques with chi-squared test between builders and developers.................................................................................91 E-3 Data based on ranking of importance on su stainable concepts and techniques during the design phase with chi-squared test between builders and developers.........................92 E-4 Data based on ranking of importance on su stainable concepts and techniques during the construction phase with chi-squared test between builders and developers................93 E-5 Data based on ranking of importance on su stainable concepts and techniques during the marketing phase with chi-squared test between builders and developers....................94 E-6 Raw data based on opinion of sustainable concepts and techniques with chi-squared test between builders and developers.................................................................................95 E-7 Data based on familiarity with sustainable practices with chi-squared test between developers and builders......................................................................................................96 E-8 Data based on familiarity with sustainable concepts and techniques with chi-squared test between builders and developers.................................................................................97 E-9 Raw data based on frequency of sustai nable concepts and techniques with chisquared test between builders and developers...................................................................99 9

PAGE 10

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Three spheres of sustainability...........................................................................................1 7 4-1 Respondents position within their comp any, as a percentage of total typical respondents........................................................................................................................35 4-2 Ranking of importance of sustainable pract ices and concepts during design phase for typical respondents.............................................................................................................38 4-3 Ranking of importance of sustainable pract ices and concepts during the construction phase for typical respondents.............................................................................................39 4-4 Ranking of importance of sustainable pr actices and concepts during the marketing phase for typical respondents.............................................................................................40 4-5 Percentage of green building concepts and practices familiar to typical respondents.......49 10

PAGE 11

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ANSI American National Standards Institute BANCF Builders Association of North Central Florida BEES Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability BMS Building Management Systems D.f. Degrees of Freedom FGBC Florida Green Building Coalitions Green Home Desi gnation Standard HVAC Heating, Ventilation, an d Air Conditioning Systems IECC International Energy Conservation Code IRC International Residential Code LCA Life-cycle Assessment LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), provides standards for environmen tally sustainable construction. LEED-AP LEED Professional Accreditation distinguishes building professionals with the knowledge and skills to successfully steward the LEED certification process. LEED-H Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating system that promotes the design an d construction of high-performance homes NZEH Net-Zero Energy Home NAHB National Association of Home Builders PV Photovoltaic Rating Avg. Rating Average is a weighted av erage per column and row based on rated scale SIPs Structurally Insulated Panels VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds USGBC United States Green Building Council 11

PAGE 12

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 SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES IN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS By Kristen Hlad December 2009 Chair: Svetlana Olbina Cochair: Raymond Issa Major: Building Construction Although there is a trend to bu ild green, most architects, bu ilders, and owners see the initial costs as being high to implement sustainability in smaller scopes of work. Sometimes, when the budgets bottom line is not matching, th e extra expenses toward making a building more energy efficient are the first to be cut. The study was conducted to understand the decision making process, from a builders point of view on residential sustainability. The procedure started by asking residential bu ilders of North Cent ral Florida belonging to the Builders Association of North-Central Florida (BANCF) to assess vari ous topics and concepts on sustainability. Residential sustainability survey was categorized into different levels related to experience with sustainability, familiarity with sustainable practices and concepts, frequency of use of sustainable practices and concepts, opinion on sustainabil ity, and importance of sustainability within the company. The study was conducted to identify the apprehensions, cost conflicts, levels of integrations and confusion associated with residential sustainability in the current housing market. The purpose was to compare developers and builders within the residential sector in the area of sustainability and green building. This study built upon existing research on the applicability of rating systems and other sustainable practices withstanding in the residential sector. The results of the study proved there are no significant differences between 12

PAGE 13

builders and developers on the trends of sustainability, except that developers are more familiar with sustainable concepts and techniques. The typical respondent agreed that cost was most important, but also agreed that sustainable design was important for the environment. The five parameters of the study, based on the literature review indicated that the developers and the builders surveyed had sustainability experience, were familiar with sustainability, and actively trained employees in sustainability. They also believed that green homes are more complicated to build, cost more, and do not help th eir homes sell faster to consumers. 13

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction The worlds of construction and design are changing rapidly as the global demand for sustainable structures increases. Society is wavering on the edge of change after seeing the devastating effects of climate cha nge and depletion of natural resour ces. After all, sustainability not only adheres to the constructi on industry, but also to all soci etal infrastructures around the world. Changes in the construc tion industry practices are one wa y for sustainability in an unstable world, and contractors and owners are not clamoring quickly to meet the need for changes in the construction industry. A si ngle American home produces approximately 26,000 pounds of greenhouse gases each year, and ever y year more and more homes are being constructed (Schendler and Udall, 2005). Latest applications of sustainable design are cutting edge, most efficient, and, sometimes, most costly to the overall project. However, keeping up the latest, up-to-date green tec hniques and systems does come at a price to not only the builder and consumer, but also to the environment. Problem Statement Presently there is a debate over sustainability in the design and construction of residential structures. Residential structures are smaller scale and vary from site to site and project to project making it difficult to make cost estimates. Sustainable rating systems exist, but there still is a desultory commitment to sustainability. Such rating systems, like the United States Green Building Councils (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for homes (LEED-H), offer certification levels for residential structures, but builders and developers do not utilize them. The movement of building green could be attributed to a trend in building; however, this could also be the way of thinking is the future of building. But, why are builders 14

PAGE 15

and other larger scale residential projects not dedicating 100 % of their efforts toward green building? Builders, designers, and developers lo ok at budget, time, and costs, and sustainability is often the easiest to cut. The overlapping a nd complexity of the rating systems dilutes the meaning behind the programs to help the environmen t. However, there is a responsibility of the builder to bring change to the industry, and start the movement toward green homes. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study was to provide an understanding of the decision making process, from a builders point of view, on residential su stainability. The pro cedure started by asking residential builders of North Ce ntral Florida belonging to the Bu ilders Association of NorthCentral Florida (BANCF) to asse ss various topics and concepts on sustainability. Residential sustainability survey was categorized into different levels base d on frequency, opinion, importance, experience, and familiarity. The aim of the study was to identify the apprehensions, cost conflicts, levels of integr ations, and confusion associated w ith residential sustainability in the current housing market. This study built upon existing research on the applicability of rating systems and other sustainable pract ices in the residential sector. 15

PAGE 16

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Defining and Designing Sustainability Sustainability is a term with a many de finitions. Brandon (1999) points out there are existing definitions, but all are open to inte rpretation on key words or phrases. How can sustainability prove effective there are different interpretations of what is sustainability? There is a balance between economic, social, and e nvironmental factors, but the key is finding equilibrium (Figure 2-1). Due to the nature of the construction industry, green buildings have to be measured and quantified in order to prove th at sustainability has enoug h foreseeable benefits for the contractors and/or owners. With more than 40% of the total United States energy consumption going to buildings, there is a benefit for the environment to build more sustainably, but what about to the owner or to the contractor (Means, 2002)? There are risks associated with building green, as with all building projects, but these risks can carry a higher price tag. The construction industry is being hit by increased material prices. W ithin four years the costs of construction products have increased dramatically: asphalt increased 190%; iron and steel increased 114%; aluminum increased 72%; a nd concrete 36% (Cassi dy, 2008). These risks occur in the design phase and c onstruction phase of a project. A study by Kats (2003) confirms that the ear lier green design was brought into the design process, the lower the overall co sts of the project. Therefore, when poor green design occurs, the building may not reach its full potential. More directly, the building may never recoup the additional costs. To combat poor design, c ooperation between architects, contractors, developers, estimators, owners, and governmental officials needs to be established. In other words, integrated design needs to occur to successf ully develop applicable sustainable systems. 16

PAGE 17

Figure 2-1. Three spheres of sustainability (A dapted from 2002 University of Michigan Sustainability Assessment, Source: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/sustai nvu/images/sustainability_spheres.png) Helping designers minimize the risk to their investors is the CSIs Green Format. The green product database organize d around sustainable properties. The products in the database are entered based on the products composition, embodied energy, life-cycle properties, and operations-related performance. The level of cooperation between manuf acturers and designers will be greatly improved as manufactures put thei r products in the database (Barista, 2008). The designers will no longer have to wade through many specification sheets to find the best match when other projects have alrea dy tested and deciphered the products This leads to the need for changes on a larger scale in su stainability, and not just for isolated problems, as well as, integration earlier in the conceptu al and design phases (CII, 2006). Active Systems for Sustainable Resi dential Design and Construction Understanding where a home needs to change is one of the first steps toward sustainable residential design and constructi on. According to the NAHB Resear ch Center (2008), one of the 17

PAGE 18

first ways to save energy is to look at a home s heating and cooling of space and the heating of water. The next change should be the major a ppliances, equipment, and lighting in a home to ensure they are optimum efficiency. The microclimate of Florida area is mostly subtropical, and requires mechanical heating and cooling for optimum indoor temperature comfor t, however, the heating and cooling of space requires a large amount of energy (Brown & DeKa y, 2001). In order to achieve the goal of a sustainable residential project, the heating and cooling needs to be based on high-efficiency equipment as for a specified climate. One possible source for heating is a Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP). The GSHP extracts heat from the ground, and uses it to heat the home, reducing the amount of energy needed to heat the home. In the summer, the system runs in reverse to provide air conditioning, depositing heat from the home into the ground. The total control over active systems is culminated in the Net-Zero Energy House (NZEH). NZEH is a home that is capable of producing and consuming less energy than is co nsumed or purchased from energy utilities (NZEH Coalition, 2009). The United States De partment of Energy (NAHB, 2008) defines a NZEH as a house that is connected to the utility grid, but can be designed and constructed to produce as much energy as it consumes on an annua l basis. Just as the heating and cooling of space was initially a large burden, the heating of water presents as an initial energy consuming problem. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Resear ch Center (2008) suggested that a solar wa ter pre-heat system should be installe d to heat residential water. The subtropical climate permits for large amounts of sunlight in both the wi nter and the summer, making this as a viable option to Florida builder s. Another option, as mentioned before, is the GSHP for heating water. However, neither will be efficient if the water consumption is high. 18

PAGE 19

Therefore low-flow fixtures shoul d be installed on all faucets, toilets, and showerheads. The dishwasher and washer should be Energy Star compliant and co me with a variety of watersensing that decrease water usage with smaller loads. Passive Design for Sustainable Resi dential Design and Construction Construction of a green home does not require excessive use of new building techniques or computerized systems to reduce energy, but mere ly allows for an investigation into every opportunity to reduce energy needs. As mentioned before, a NZEH (Net-zero energy home) coalition denoted that certain ch anges in specific areas of a ho me yield the greatest return on energy savings. Even though every home is different from site location and climate factors, every home has an opportunity to save energy and produce renewable energy. Exterior walls are one of the largest co mponents of a home exposed to the outdoor elements. The walls are penetrated by all the piping, wiring, insulation, and windows but still should maintain a good amount of insulation. Hi gh energy efficient building envelop will permit for lower variations in temper ature conditions in the interior spaces and reducing solar gain (Brown & DeKay, 2001). For optimal performance, a structures floorplan should be slightly longer than it is wide. This allows for maximu m solar gain in each room (Chiras, 2003). Site specific window placement help alter the negativ e and positive pressure zones created around the building, and will induce wind flow through the windows (Brown & DeKay, 2001). In short, the effect is a comfortable environment with low energy costs, and, the owners claim, higher productivity. Progress Energy (2008) suggests that the range of R-values for ceiling insulation be between R-19 R-30 for homes in Florida. R-value is a measurement for insulation based on the resistance of heat flow, and is based on the in sulations material, thickne ss, and density. The higher the insulations R-value, the better the insulation is at regulating the mitigation of heat 19

PAGE 20

with the outdoors (U.S. Department of Energy, 2009) One example of a new insulation tactic is Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) SIPs consist of two outer skins and an insulated core that form a monolithic, nonstructural wall (Morley, 2000) SIPs of six inches thick will save up to 25% of the walls energy losses. The panels achieve this goal in two ways: 1) reducing heat loss, and 2) reducing air leaks (Oak Ridge, 2008; Morley, 2000). Another passive system option is green, or living, roofs. A green roof helps to mitigate the urban heat island effect and reduces the added en ergy demands to keep buildings cool and offers water management. A green roof can reduce water runoff and sewer overflows (USGBC, 2008). The vegetation and soil act as a sponge, absorbing and filtering water that would normally run down gutters, wash through polluted streets a nd overload the sewer sy stems. A properly maintained roof garden can reduce energy cost s by 10%, and reduce storm water runoff by 90% (Kibert, 2008). Retained water is then availabl e for use by the vegetation instead of being added to the storm system. The water is slowed down since it must percolate through the green roof system. An appropriate green design greatly influences how much energy buildings use and when they use it (American Hydrotech, Inc., 2008). The design must incorporate a myriad of environmental, lifestyle, and climatic contexts, which will dictate openings and wall placements. In other words, the design becomes a passive m echanism to heat and cool the building all year long. Rating Systems for Sustainable Resi dential Design and Construction Several options exist for developers and bu ilders to regulate sustainable design and construction. Many cover similar topics, issues and assessments scales (Table 2-1). One example is the United States Green Building Councils (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Homes (LEED-H) ra ting system. Like the other LEED rating systems, the buildings are rated on a whole-building point system th at covers performance in five 20

PAGE 21

areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site deve lopment, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality. LEED-H categories include: Innovation and Design Process, Location and Link ages, Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resource s, Indoor Environmental Quality and Awareness and Education. An overview of LEED-H can be found in Appendix B. The LEED levels of performance range from Certified, Gold, Silver, and Platinum, based on points earned, Platinum being highest (USGBC, 2008). Another option is NAHBs Model Green Buildin g Standard. Comparable to LEED-H, the Green Building Standard focuses on the whole-bu ilding view of sustainability from conception to operation. The parameters for the program cr iteria are energy and water efficiency, resource efficient building design and materials, indoor environmental quality, and environmental impact (NAHB, 2008). Points are given for Lot Design, Preparation, and Development, Resource, Energy, and Water Efficiency, Indoor Environm ental Quality, Operation, Maintenance, and Homeowner Education, Global Impact, and additiona l categories for individual projects. This rating system, from lowest to highest points, is bronze, silver, and gold (NAHB, 2006). In addition to NAHBs Model Green Building Standard is the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) approved ICC-700-2008 National Gr een Building Standard. Closely related to the Green Model Building Standards, the ANSI Green Building Standard allows for regional applications. The ANSI system covers energy, water, and resource efficiency, lot and site development, indoor environmental qualit y, home owner education, site design and development, and additional points. The ANSI sy stem is point based, and a building can achieve bronze, silver, gold, or emerald. The lowest point category must be at least 15% better than the 21

PAGE 22

2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) (NAHB, 2008). NAHBs Model Green Building Standard Guidelines can be found in Appendix C. Similarly, Florida Green Building Coalition s (FGBC) Green Home Standard guides the processes of selecting green feat ures that are most cost effective and most beneficial to the environment. FGBCs Green Home Standard is specific to residential struct ures in Florida, and adapts sustainability to Floridas ecosystems and climates. The major divisions are Energy, Water, Lot Choice, Site, Health, Materials, Disaster Mitigation, and General. The Green Home Standard has also has point divisions ranging fr om bronze, silver, gol d, and platinum (FGBC, 2009). However, there are some skeptics to the advantages of having a green building. A study of 286 LEED-certified buildings, 1,045 Energy Star bu ildings, and 29 dual certified buildings found LEED rating has no effect upon co mmercial rents, but Energy Star rating is associated with rents higher by 2.8% (Cassidy, 2008). The sticker price for being green doe s not always carry a premium price tag. There are some incentives available from city or other governmental agencies that can offset the higher prices. Muni cipalities around the globe are trying to curb the impact of construction, and those efforts have a major impact on construction activities (Wu et al., 2003). Case Study: Leeds City Office Park: The Leeds City Office Park, by Peter Foggo Associates, is an example of how integrated desi gn and the costs of green building can be offset by the operational cost savings dur ing the first few years. The program called for rental space, parking, complied with sustainabl e principles, and dealt with th e existing land contamination and had architects, engineers, and surveyors that worked together on the project. The engineers looked at the structural design, a nd reworked an exposed concrete structure to act as a climate 22

PAGE 23

modifier. The building took strides to maximize natural day lighting and natural ventilation by, for example, the use of atriums, sun shades, a nd a lighting control system. The result was a building that has many green features in the bu ilding management system that is simple to operate and understand. Even though the struct ural, glazed glass cost more than 20% of conventional cladding, the building boasts a 70% saving in fuel bill s compared to a normal fullyair conditioned office building (Edwards, 2003). Ov er the next few years, the building should have recouped all of the additional costs for the green systems. Table 2-1. Similarities and overlaps of categor ies in residential sustainable rating systems Category LEED-H NAHB Model Green Building Standard ANSI Green Building Standard FGBC Green Home Standard SITE Sustainable Sites Lot Design, Preparation, and Development Lot and Site Development Lot Choice MATERIALS Materials and Resources Resource Efficiency Resource Efficiency Materials ENERGY Energy and Atmosphere Energy Efficiency Energy Energy WATER Water Efficiency Water Efficiency Water Water INDOOR ENVIRONMENT Indoor Environmental Quality Indoor Environmental Quality Indoor Environmental Quality Health OWNER EDUCATION Awareness and Education Operation, Maintenance and Homeowner Education Home Owner Education General* SITE DESIGN Location and Linkages Global Impact Site Design and Development Site INNOVATION Innovation and Design Process Additional Points Additional Points General* MISC. N/A N/A N/A Disaster Mitigation General encompasses both Owner Education and Innovative design within its credits 23

PAGE 24

Refining Sustainability Predicting the impacts of certain design decisions with respect to environmental and economic is a task that must be tackled early in the design phases. Systems, such as Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES), help apply life-cycle assessment (LCA) to measure the environmental performance of a build ing. Also, BEES allows for the choosing of materials based on cost-effectiven ess and environmental impacts, which is important for owners and/or contractors (Kibert, 2008). The LCA assesse s all stages of enviro nmental impact. Means (2002) highlighted the stages of materials as stated below: (1) Raw Materials Acquisition (2) Product Manufacture (3) Transportation (4) Installation (5) Operation and maintenance (6) Recycling and waste management Similarly, Wu et al. (2003) summarized the basic environmental impacts to the competition of land between agriculture and c onstruction, the consumption of both renewable and non-renewable resources, th e volume of waste produced, and the air pollution from processing and transporting of materials. The fact ors all point toward looking at construction as continuous process and all the e ffects from start to finish. Movements to reuse and recycle have prompted designers to think a bout what happens to the materials at the end of a buildings life cycle. The raw materials are being depleted, and the landfills keep growing. In fact over 130 million tons of waste a nd debris is from construction jobsites and demolition, accounting for about 25% of all solid waste di scarded in the United States (Lennon, 2005; Tam, 2008). Extending the lif e of materials can help with emissions and 24

PAGE 25

energy required to make new materials. The implementation of recycling construction and demolition debris (C&D) is a movement in dire ction of producing a sustainable building during all phases of construction and de molition (Kibert, 2008). The reus e of materials in construction is a worldwide industry change that needs to occur. Case Study: Glencoa Visitors Center: A building that is designe d with LCA in mind is the Glencoe Visitors Center in Scotland. The design of the building was focused primarily on the potential of recycling of the materials used in the building. The site was demolished and the materials from the existing site were used in th e construction of the build ing. The building uses local timber from the surrounding area and this timb er were not treated in order to avoid an offgassing. Almost all of the building can be di smantled for recycling later (Sassi, 2006). Pricing Sustainability Considering a building from start to finish ha s a direct effect on pr icing and overall cost analysis of a project. Accordi ng to the Construction I ndustry Institute (CII), at the University of Texas at Austin (2006), 80% of environmenta l and economic costs are already defined by the final stage of design. Because green materials are generally not mainstreamed, some materials lack scale to absorb manufacturing costs, or are sp ecial orders that come at an increased price. A study by the U.S. Department of Energys Building America Residential System (2006) demonstrated that lead builders could successfully provide 30% energy savings in homes on a cost-neutral basis. Yet, some green products are not under th e constraints of hazardous or toxic material compliance because they comply with LCA mode l. Malin (2000) emphasizes the advantage to using a more mainstreamed product with a higher in itial cost but that has lower life-cycle cost overtime. This provides a higher cost to the contr actor, but lower costs to the owner over time. 25

PAGE 26

By using mainstreamed green products, and then selecting higher priced green products to be used for the greatest environmental impact, costs can be lowered. Differing sustainable practices can aid in the pr icing of buildings. An analysis of green roofs by Nelms (2008) designated performance m easures based on parameters such as design forces, initial costs, and proj ect resources. The re sults found that for low-rise buildings application of a green ro of had a five time greater benefit than high-rise buildings. Green roofs, depending on the structure and soil, can capture between 50% and 90% of typical rain fall on the roof surface. The rain water can be retained a nd used in other applications to lessen costs (American Hydrotech, 2008). Si milarly, according to Langdon (M endler et al., 2006) higher points were given for integrated design during th e LEED evaluation of 60 buildings. The cost of the integrated design added to the overall budget, but had cost savings because the changes. In effect, the costs become almost negligible because the savings are recuperated during the life of the building. Another technique is the app lication of high-efficiency ap pliances. Using Energy Star and high energy efficient appliances, the struct ure should have a 30% decrease in energy use on utility costs (USGBC, 2007). For example, the average residentia l refrigerator of 17 cubic feet has an electricity usage of 1,460 kWh per year, wh ereas the average Energy Star refrigerator of the same size uses 254 kWh per year (Parker & Dunlop, 1994). The savings for refrigeration to the home owner are approximately 500% compared to the average home not using an Energy Star refrigerator. The home is said to be an Energy Star home because all the appliances are rated through Energy Star to be the most t echnologically advanced and energy efficiency appliances. These homes are at least 15% more energy efficient than homes built to the 2004 26

PAGE 27

International Residential Code (IRC), and incl ude additional energy-sa ving features that typically make them 20 to 30% more efficient than standard homes (Energy Star, 2008). Society has become more conscious of the consequences of bad design, including: sick building syndrome and hidden operation costs. Ellis and Partners (as cited by Edwards, 2002) found the movement to not only be initiated by ow ners, but by tenants who wanted change in their office dwellings. Building green forces more thought into the conceptual design, the selection of materials, and add to the overall cost. As a result, the building becomes more valuable in the eyes of the owners and the occ upants. Green buildings boast reductions in annual operating costs by a multiple of 10 (capitalization rate) to estimate the increased value of the building (Mendler et al., 2006). The buildings then gain a market advantage on the other older, conventional buildings. Owning and Branding Sustainability Even though most green buildings recoup the ex tra price of building green in the first few years, the average American homeowner is no t in a home long enough to see the cost saving effects (Edwards, 2003). There are many strategies to consider, but daily hab its and patterns that affect energy use in the home as well as proper maintenance of systems, equipment and appliances will determine the results. Mainte nance includes changing Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) filters, scheduling regu lar heating and cooling systems cleaning, including periodically checking the operation of solar systems (NAHB, 2008). Occupant awareness and education will ensure the performance. On the other hand, building green also can cause a companys image to the public to improve. According to Brandon (1999), there need s to be a clear consensus on the definition and understanding of sustainability, a comprehension of the relations hips between sustainability, client, and construction industry, a measurement of progress, and the pr oper protocols and a 27

PAGE 28

proper management framework to promote sustai nability in the public mind. This prompts companies to remake the way their company op erates. For example, Turner Construction Company became the first construction manageme nt firm to measure the companys current carbon footprint, and finding a way to reduce it. Recycling and tr aining of their workers to be LEED-AP status is also a way for Turner Constr uction Company to have a grassroots approach on being green (Cullen, 2008). When the choices arise over whether or not to include sustainable materials or products into a building, the initial costs can be daunting. Most green produc ts have higher initial costs, but can have overall lower costs overtime. Yet, positive aspects can outweigh the negative aspects. Edwards (2002) explains that benefits include: reduced investment risk; improved rental income; increased leasable area; improved bu ilding flexibility; lower construction costs; enhanced company image; and improved marketabili ty through improved working environment. The earlier the concepts of sustainable design are implemented, the better result and cost savings. Product selection is important duri ng the design phase because the decisions will dictate the overall project cost and delineation of the project budget. Appropriately finding solutions for designing green can be used to help lower the costs of usi ng non-green materials in a green way (Malin, 2000). An ex ample of rethinking sustainabilit y, a parking lot retrofit project in Bellingham, Washington used a rain garden vers us a conventional vault to collect rain water. Designers understood the value of using green materials to achieve the same result. Because of careful designing and planning, the city saved 80% on the rain garden, or a savings of $22,000 (EPA, 2008). Case Study: Building Research Establishment: The Building Research Establishment (BRE) design by Feilden Clegg Bradley Architects was designed to be green, while maintaining 28

PAGE 29

the demands of the owners and occupants. The program called for an office park that was a Low Energy Office and that focused on ventilation, da ylighting, and energy needs. The ventilation comprised of Building Management System (BMS ) that operated window s and small depth of the floor plates. But where ventilation could not occur because of site restraints, the designers created the wave floor. The wave incorporates a sound block from other offices while still letting ventilation move through the building. Ventilation routes move above and under the ceiling plane and under the above floor plane. The configuration allows an even distribution and night time cooling. Owners can l ook forward to decreased energy costs, operating costs, higher premiums, improved image, while the tenants ca n enjoy increased prod uctivity and healthier environment. And, not to cloud all the economic benefits, building green is also good for the environment and the sustainability of our future. 29

PAGE 30

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Survey Objective The objective for this study was to identify im petus for being sustainable as it applies it to the residential construction industr y. How the residential sector is implementing green design in a profitable and appropriate manner is part of th e analysis. With the advancement of technology, being green is becoming easier; but with a price tag that matches the new technology. The aim of this study was to investigate how building green is implemented by residential builders, contractors, developers, and designers based on: Overall experience with green building techniques, concepts, and practices. Importance to the company to be green during the design, cons truction, and market phases. Overall opinion of sustainabil ity and sustainable rating syst ems for residential projects. Overall familiarity with green buildi ng concepts, techniques, or products. Frequency of application of sustainable build ing concepts, techniques, or products in the design, construction, and marketing of their homes. Therefore, the targeted audiences for the study were developers and builders that dealt with residential sector that have or have not implemented green design. The study measured a companys experience, importance, opinion, famili arity, and frequency on sustainability. The aim of the study was to identify the apprehensions, cost conflicts, levels of integrations, and confusion associated with residential sust ainability in the curr ent housing market. Development The survey, found in Appendix A, was base d on a series of questions to gauge the sentiment of green design and the actions taken to implement green design. The questions fall into categorical themes: familiarity, general opi nion, frequency of applications, importance, and 30

PAGE 31

experience. Data collected was analyzed that fell into these categories. The methodology resulted from the grouping of those parameters. The procedures to reach the goals of the study were carried out through: A literature review was done to document how sustainability is defined, designed, priced, implemented, and marketed. The literature also provided a conceptual base for the survey and criteria for the studys parameters. Case studies were examined to exemplif y the aims of the study and parameters. Data was collected from web based survey a nd compared against the aims of the study. A final result was based from the procedures mentioned. Explanation of Survey Demographics The demographic section had a series of f illin-the-blank questions that would help quantify the respondent. The section includes: th e name of the company, the type of company, the typical scope of work, the amount of Work, typical size of residenc es, typical prices, and typical delivery method used. The responders name, title, and contact information was also requested. The purpose of the demographic inform ation was to categorize a companys size and volume of Work versus the practi ce green design and construction. Likert Scale Questions for Experience, Importance, Opinion, Familiarity, and Frequency Responses toward Sustainable Design The questions were targeted to have the re spondent answer pertaining to their companys attitudes and actions toward green design in th eir training and projects The Likert scale questions for sustainable practices pertaining to experience we re questions 1, 3, and 4. The Likert scale question pertaining to importance was question 2. The Likert scale questions pertaining to opinion were 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20. The Likert scale questions pertaining to familiarity were questions 11, 12, a nd 13. The Likert scale questions pertaining to 31

PAGE 32

frequency were questions 16 and 17. The questions were to determine if the green techniques, rating systems, and governmental laws are helping or hindering the dissemination of green design in the residential construction sector. Another aspect to the questions were to help determine the importance of green design in the companys overall mission and the degree whic h the company implements sustainability. Allowing opinion in the amount of effort put into green design helped identify why some design actions, rating systems, or products are not fu lly executed or used. Understanding if the proposed clients do not care fo r green design will help determine if the company deems it necessary to include in their projects. Close-ended Questions for Familiarity Responses toward Sustainable Design Knowledge of the respondents was examin ed through a checklist of green building techniques, practices, and concepts. The question for familiarity with sustainable practices was question 21. The range of possible choices was extracted from LEED -H guidelines, NAHB Green Home Standards, and the literature re view. The respondents were to choose from a variety of green building terms. Ordinal Questions for Importance Resp onses toward Sustainable Design Respondents were directed to place different items in numerical order of importance during the design, construction, and sales phases. The ranking scale questions for the importance of sustainable practices were questi ons 22, 23, and 24. By asking the re spondents to prioritize their companys main goals, a companys commitment to green building was determined. Open-ended Questions for Free Respon ses toward Sustainable Design The open-ended questions were used to disc over relevant issues and views from the expressed directly opinion of the responder, in the words of the responder. The open-ended questions were 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. The questions directly asked about rating systems, the 32

PAGE 33

reasons for sustainability, and what issues are coming up within a company pertaining to sustainability. The rationale for the questions wa s to permit the respondents to highlight their specific view of sustainability in the residential construction sector. Summary The survey included a distinction of per ception of green design, intention of green design, and the profitability of green design. The value of gree n design is also quantified in terms of what the company finds to be most prof itable. The different parts of the survey are grouped by the different t ypes of questions. Selection of Participants The survey was distributed electronically thr ough a web-based survey to residential home builders belonging to the Builders Association of North Central Florida (BANCF). The survey is directed to a competent, knowledgeable em ployee who knows the financial and clientele obligations of their company while maintaining a connection to the sustainable design decisions. The survey was voluntary with neither financial loss nor gain. There were no associated risks with participating in the survey. The respondents information was collected anonymously with no obligation to supply all inform ation and with the right to w ithdrawal from the study at any time. The data obtained from the survey helped identify the need for clarification in green building and construction in reside ntial projects. The informati on would be useful to the home builder industry to understand th e best aspects, practices, and c onfusions in sustainable design. In addition, the study helped identify the opinion of sustainability, frequency of use of sustainability, experience with green building, familiarity with green concepts, and the importance of sustainability within their company. 33

PAGE 34

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Survey Response Responses from the survey were returned via the internet from developers and builders in the North-Central region of the state of Florida. The respondents were members of the Builders Association of North Central Florida (BANCF). Sixteen resp onses were received of 150 distributed by email solicitation. Of the 16 res ponses, seven responses were from developers, eight responses were received from builders, and one respondent did no t specify trade. The response rate was approximately 11%. Th e response was lower than expected. Demographic Profile of Respondents The typical respondent was a residential builder (50%), developer (43.8%), and one unspecified trade (6.2%) who worked within NorthCentral Florida and is a member of BANCF. In this research, a developer is defined as a company or person that i nvests in, develops, and subdivides real estate for the purpos e of building and selling homes. In this research, a builder is defined as a company or person that builds or supervises homes under a contract or for speculation. The typical projects were single family homes and mi xed-use projects. The average size of residential projects was approximately 1,760 sq ft. The average annual contracted work of the respondents was $3.84 million. The range of the volume of work was $1.0 million to $8.0 million annually. Fifty percent of respondents pr ovided demographic information. The position of the respondent was the presid ent (62%), the vice-president ( 13%), the owner (13%), and the director (6%) of the company with one respondent (6%) not specifying a position or title (Figure 4-1). 34

PAGE 35

62% 13% 13% 6% 6% President Vice President Owner Director Unspecified Figure 4-1. Respondents position within their company, as a percentage of total typical respondents Survey Results The results of the survey were categorized and analyzed based on the following parameters: Experience with sustainabl e practices and concepts; Importance of sustainability within the company; Opinion of sustainability in residential design; Familiarity with sustainable practices and concepts; Frequency of use of sustainable practices and concepts. The responses were analyzed for a typical respondent and as a comparison between developers and builders. A typi cal respondent response is the average of a ll the responses from the survey. Within the familiar ity tier, the category was broken further down into the following: Familiarity with sustainable techniques; Familiarity with existing rating systems; Familiarity with sustainable concepts and techniques. The importance tier covered the importan ce of sustainability during the design, construction, and marketing phases. Along with the highest response count in the tables, the rating average is shown. The ra ting average is the weighted res ponse count divided by the total number of responses to highlight the highest, weighted response. 35

PAGE 36

Experience with Sustainable Practices Typical respondent Table 4-1 contains responses to questions 1, 3, and 4 that related to experience of the respondents with sustainable practices. The respon ses to these questions were used to quantify the amount of practical applica tion of green building done by each respondent. Questions were posed in a 5-point Likert rating scale format (1=No Experience; 2=Barely Experienced; 3=Somewhat Experienced; 4=Experienced; 5=Very Experienced). Question 1 asked about the level of experience with sustai nable practices within the resp ondents company. Ninety-four percent of respondents had experience in sustai nability. Of those 94% respondents, 38% were very experienced. The rating average was 4.0 or somewhat experienced in sustainability. Questions 3 and 4 about asked the experience of th e designers and contractors within the company, respectively. Forty-seven percent of th e respondents stated that their designers were very experienced (Table 4-1). Ni nety-three percent of respondent s noted that their designers had experience, whereas, 96% of res pondents indicated that their c ontractors had experience. The rating average for designer experience was 4.13 a nd the rating average for contractor experience was 4.19. Both rating averages indicated that co ntractors and designers have some experience with sustainable practices and design. Less th an seven percent of respondents for both groups felt that their designer and contractor have minimum experience. One respondent answered N/A for the question about design expe rience because of their company type. Developer and builder When asked about the companys experi ence with green build ing, the developer respondents responded with a rating average of 4.29 (between e xperienced and very experienced) and the builder group responded wi th 3.63 (between somewhat experienced and experienced) based on the Likert scale rati ng (1=No Experience; 2= Less Experienced; 36

PAGE 37

3=Somewhat Experienced; 4= Experienced; 5= Very Experienced) as in Table 4-2. The experience of primary designer with sustainabil ity for developers was 4.67 (experienced) and 3.63 (somewhat experienced) for builders. The expe rience of the contractor with sustainability for developers had a rating average of 4.29 (experi enced) and builders with a rating average of 4.00 (experienced). Importance of Sustainable Practices Typical respondent Table 4-3 contains responses to question 2 th at related to the impor tance of sustainable practices. The question was posed in a 5-point Likert scale form at (1=Not Important; 2=Rarely Important; 3=Somewhat Important; 4= Important; 5=Most Important). Forty-six percent of respondents felt sustainable practi ces were very important to their company. On the other hand, six percent felt sustainable practices were not im portant, and 12% felt sust ainable practices were somewhat important. The rating average of the typical respondent was 4.13 (important). In question 22, respondents were asked to rank answers related to importance of sustainable practices to their company during th e design phase (Figure 4-2). Questions were posed in a 6-point ranking rating scale format (6=Least Important; 5=Rarely Important; 4=Less Important; 3=Somewhat Important; 2=Important; 1= Most Important). Fifty-seven percent of respondents felt a marketable design was the most important aspect in the design phase with a rating average of 1.64 (Table 4-5). The next important aspect was an aesthetically pleasing design. Sixty-seven percent of t ypical respondents ranked it as the second most important, and it had a rating average of 2.08 (important). The ne xt important practice wa s low initial costs. Thirty-one percent of typical respondents agreed that it was thir d most important and had a rating average of 3.08 (somewhat important). Energy e fficient design was fourth important practice. Forty-three percent of typical respondents ranked it fourth mo st important, and it had a rating 37

PAGE 38

average of 3.21 (somewhat important). The ne xt aspect was energy rating system approved. Fifty percent of typical respondent s ranked it fifth most important, and it had a rating average of 4.64 (less important). Lastly, 69 % of all respondents chose an energy/sustainable certified designer as the least important aspect with a rating average of 5.54 (least important). Figure 4-2. Ranking of importance of sustainable practices and c oncepts during design phase for typical respondents In question 23, respondents were asked to rank answers based on importance of sustainable practices during the construction phase (Figure 4-3). Questions were posed in a 5-point ranking rating scale format (5=Least Important; 4= Rarely Important; 3=Somewhat Important; 2=Important; 1=Most Important). Table 4-7 shows that cost was the most important factor with 69 % of respondents ranking it first. Cost had a rating average of 1.38 (most important). Next was constructability of a project with 46 % of typical respondents ranking it second most important. Constructability had a rating averag e of 1.92 (important). Forty-seven percent of 38

PAGE 39

respondents ranked energy efficiency as third most important aspect. Energy efficiency had a rating average of 2.6 (somewhat important). En ergy rating system approve d was next with 40% of typical respondents ranking it as fourth most important. Energy rating system approved had a rating average of 4.27 (rarely important). Fi nally, a green certified contractor was least important. Twenty-nine of typical respondents selected it as least im portant with a rating average of 4.86 (least important). Figure 4-3. Ranking of importance of sustainable practices and c oncepts during the construction phase for typical respondents In question 24, respondents were asked to rank answers based on importance of sustainable practices during the marketing pha se (Figure 4-4). Questions we re posed in a 6-point Likert rating scale format (6=Least Important; 5=Rare ly Important; 4=Less Important; 3=Somewhat Important; 2=Important; 1=Most Important). As shown in Table 4-9, 73% of typical respondents selected cost as first most important practice. Cost had a rating average of 1.4 (most important). Next, 60% of typical respondents chose design of the building as second most important with a 39

PAGE 40

rating average of 2.2 (important). Sixty-four percent of respondent s chose options and extras as third most important aspect with a rating av erage of 3.06 (somewhat important). Next, 46 % respondents ranked energy efficiency of the entire building as fourth most important aspect with a rating average of 4.15 (rarely important). Fifty-eight percent of res pondents selected energy efficient appliances as fifth most important aspe ct with a rating average of 4.58 (less important). Lastly, 79% of respondents ranked energy rating system approved l east important aspect with a rating average of 5.43 (least important). Figure 4-4. Ranking of importance of sustainable practices and concepts during the marketing phase for typical respondents Developer and builder Table 4-4 contains responses fr om developers and builders to question 2 that related to the importance of sustainability to their company. Qu estions were posed in a 5-point Likert rating scale format (1=Not Important; 2=Rarely Im portant; 3=Somewhat Important; 4= Important; 40

PAGE 41

5=Most Important). Both developers and builders said that sustainability is important to their company. Developers agreed slightly stronger, with a rating average of 4.14 (experienced), as compared to builders rating average of 4.00 (experienced). Table 4-6 contains responses from developers and builders to questi on 22 that related to the most important aspects in the design phase of a building. Questions we re posed in a 6-point ranking scale format (6=Least Important; 5=Rare ly Important; 4=Less Important; 3=Somewhat Important; 2=Important; 1=Most Important). A developers ranking, in ascending rating average (most important to least important), was as follo ws: a marketable design (1.14), an aesthetically pleasing design (2.17), energy effi cient design (3.00), low initial costs (3.60), energy rating system approved (4.67), and energy certified desi gner (5.57). For builders, the most important aspects during the design phase, in ascending rati ng average (most important to least important) was aesthetically pleasing design (2.00), marketab le design (2.14), low initial cost (2.71), energy efficient design (2.75), energy rating system approved (4.63), and, least important, energy certified designer (5.50). Table 4-8 contains responses fr om developers and builders to question 23, which related to the most important aspects in the construction phase of a buildi ng. Question was posed in a 5point ranking scale format (5 =Least Important; 4=Rarely Important; 3=Somewhat Important; 2=Important; 1=Most Important). During the co nstruction phase, both developers and builders believed cost was the most important with a rating average of 1.33 and 1.43, respectively. In fact, both agreed that construc tability (a rating average of 1.67 and 2.14 respectively), then energy efficient building (a ra ting average of 3.00 and 2.50 respectively), then energy rating system approved (a rating average of 3.86 and 4.57 respectively), and fi nally, energy certified 41

PAGE 42

designer or contractor (a ra ting average of 4.33 and 5.14 respec tively) were the order of importance from most important to least important. Question 24 related to the most important aspects during the marketing phase. Question was posed in a 6-point ranking scale (6=Least Im portant; 5=Rarely Important; 4=Less Important; 3=Somewhat Important; 2=Important; 1=Most Important). Developers and builders believed that during the marketing phase, the most importa nt aspects were options and extras (a rating average of 3.40 and 3.00 respectively), then ener gy efficiency (a rating average of 4.43 and 4.33 respectively), followed by energy efficient ap pliances (a rating average of 4.50 and 4.67 respectively), and, lastly, the least important was energy ratin g system approved (a rating average of 5.67 and 5.86 respectively). A maximu m of 13 respondents answ ered questions about the ranking of importance during the marketing phase as shown in the response counts as shown in Table 4-10. Opinion about Sustainable Practices Typical respondent Table 4-11 contains responses to questi ons 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 that related to a respondents opinion ab out sustainable practices. Ques tions were posed in a 5-point Likert rating scale format (1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3= Somewhat Disagr ee; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly Agree). The subcateg ories within the opinion group of questions were opinions on overall company view (Q5; Q20), perceived monetary value of sustainable practices (Q6; Q8; Q15), constructability of sustainable residen tial projects (Q7; Q14), and marketability of sustainable residential projects (Q 9; Q10; Q18; Q19). Question 5 asked the respondents if they believed that sustainability was actively practi ced. More than half of the respondents (56%) strongly agreed that their compa ny practiced sustainabi lity. Thirty-eight percent of respondents agreed their company actively practiced sustaina bility. The rating average for question 5 was 4.5 42

PAGE 43

(agreed). Question 20 asked the respondents if th ey believed sustainable construction benefited the environment. Sixty-two percent of respondent s strongly agreed that green building benefited the environment. However, 18% of respondents felt neutral or disagreed that green building benefits the environment. The rating average for question 20 was 4.31 (agreed). Question 6 asked if green practices equate to increased costs. Sixty-two percent of respondents strongly agreed that sustainable homes equated to in creased costs. All respondents agreed or strongly agreed that green building means increased costs. Question 6 had a rating average of 4.63 (agreed). Question 8 asked if green building should be sold at a premium. Forty-six percent of typical respondents strongl y agreed while 18% of respondents agreed home should sell at a premium. On the other hand, 30% of typical respondent s agreed that homes should not sell at a premium while 12% of typi cal respondents strongly disagreed. The rating average for question 8 was 3.63, that is, on averag e the respondents somewhat disagreed that homes should sell at a premium. Question 15 asked respondents how much they agreed that rating systems were worth the extra costs. Thir ty-one percent of typical respondents agreed the rating systems were worth the increase in fees Twelve percent of respondents strongly disagreed that rating sy stems were worth the increase. On ly 6% strongly agreed the rating systems justified an increase in costs. The rati ng average for question 15 was 2.94 (disagreed). Question 7 asked respondents if green design is more complicated to build than traditional designs. Thirty-eight percent of typical respondents agreed th at sustainable design was more complicated to build. Thirty-eight of typical respondents agreed that sustainable design was more complicated, however, none of the respondents strongly agreed. On the other hand, 12% of respondents strongly disagreed, and 31% disagreed with this statement. The rating average was 2.81 (disagreed). Question 14 asked typical respondents about the confusion over which 43

PAGE 44

sustainable rating system to use. Sixty-two percent of respondents strongly agreed that there was confusion over the different rating systems availa ble. However, 6% of all respondents disagreed that there was confusion. The rating average for question 14 was 4.31 (agreed). Question 9 asked if respondents agreed that there was a growing demand for green homes. Thirty-one percent agreed that there is a grow ing demand for green homes. Twelve percent of typical respondents st rongly agreed that there is a market and 18% strongly disagreed. The rating average was 3.00 (somewhat agreed). Qu estion 10 asked if respondents agreed that consumer demand for green homes is changi ng their home designs. Twelve percent of respondents strongly agreed that sustainability demand is changi ng the design of their homes. Fifty percent of typical respondent s agreed that there is an eff ect, but 18% disagreed there was any effect of sustainable consumer demand on th e design of their homes. The rating average was 3.38 (somewhat agreed). Question 18 asked res pondents if they agreed that there was a consumer preference for sustainable residences. Thirty-five percent of typical respondents strongly disagreed that th ere was a consumer preference. Thirty percent of respondents agreed that there was a preference. The rating average was 2.69 (disagreed). Respondents equally strongly disagreed (31 % of res pondents) and agreed (31 % of respondents) that green building made their homes sell faster (Q 19). Six percent strongly agreed that building green aided the ability of their homes to sell faster. The rating average was 2.69 (disagree). Developer and builder Table 4-12 contains responses to questi ons 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 that related a developer and builder responses opini on about sustainable practices questions. Questions were posed in a 5-poi nt Likert rating scale format (1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Somewhat Disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly Agree). Both rating averages for the belief that their company actively incorporates sustainabilit y were between agree and strongly agree with 44

PAGE 45

rating averages of 4.71 for developers and 4.25 for builders (Q 5). The same result applies for a ranking of the respondents agreem ent with the statement that bui lding green means higher costs. Developers rating average was 4.86 and builders rating average was 4.38 (Q6). When asked if sustainable homes were more complicated to build, developers somewhat agreed that green buildings were more complicated (Q7), with a rating average of 3.29. De velopers agreed that green homes should sell at a premium with a rating average of 4.14. Builders disagreed that green buildings were more complicated, with a rating average of 2.63, and somewhat agreed green homes should sell at a premium with a ra ting average of 3.50. Both groups disagreed that there was a growing demand for su stainable homes with rating av erages of 2.86 for developers and 2.88 for builders (Q9). If there were any design changes made, as a result for consumer demand for sustainable homes, both developers (rating average of 3.57) and builders (rating average of 3.00) somewhat agreed (Q10). The confusion over rating systems was similar with both groups agreeing to strongly ag reeing that there is confusion as asked in question 14. Both developers (rating average of 4.29) and builders (rating average of 4.38) agreed with this statement. Likewise, both groups disagreed that those rating systems were worth the extra costs (Q15). Developers and builders responses were closely related with rating averages of 2.86 and 2.88, respectively. Again, both de velopers (rating average of 2.57) and builders (rating average of 2.50) disagreed that there is a consumer preference for sustainable homes (Q18). Both developers and builders disagreed, with the rating averages of 2.71 and 2.38, respectively, that building green helps their homes sell faster (Q 19). However, both groups agreed or strongly agreed that sustainable design benefits the environment with developers rating average of 4.43 and builders rating average of 4.13 (Q20). 45

PAGE 46

Familiarity with Sustainable Practices Typical respondent Table 4-13 contains responses to questions 11, 12, and 13 that rela ted to a respondents familiarity with sustainable practices. Questions were posed in a 5-point Likert rating scale format (1=Unfamiliar; 2= Less Familiar; 3=Somewhat Familiar; 4=Familiar; 5=Very Familiar). These responses were used to quantify the typi cal respondents familiar ity with residential sustainable rating systems, c oncepts, and techniques. Question 11 asked respondents to rate thei r familiarity with USGBCs LEED-H rating system. Equally, respondents were somewhat familiar (31%) or very familiar (31%) with LEED-H. Six percent of total respondents were unfamiliar with the LEED-H rating system. Respondents familiarity with USGBCs LEED -H had a rating average of 3.69 (somewhat familiar). Question 12 asked respondents to rate their familiarity with NAHBs Green Building Standard. Equally, respondents were somewhat fa miliar (31%) or familiar (31%) with the rating system. Twelve percent were very familia r with NAHBs Green Building Standard. Respondents familiarity with NAHB Green Ho me Standard had a rating average of 3.31 (somewhat familiar). Question 13 asked respondents to rate their familiarity with Energy Star. Fifty-six percent of respondents were very fa miliar with the Energy Star rating system. Similarly, 38% of typical respondents were familia r with the Energy Star system. The rating average was 4.5 (familiar). Respondents were so mewhat familiar with both LEED-H and Green Home Standard and familiar to very familiar with Energy Star. Of the three rating systems presented, 56% of typical respondents were the mo st familiar with Energy Star. Next, 31% of typical respondents were familiar with US GBCs LEED-H followed by 12% of typical respondents familiar with NAH B Green Home Standard. 46

PAGE 47

Table 4-15 contains responses to question 21 th at related to a respondents familiarity with sustainable practices, techniques, and concepts Respondents were most familiar with drought tolerant plants and landscaping (93.8%), Energy Star appliances (93.8%), and Low-E glass (93.8 %). Respondents were least familiar were Green Globes (12.5 %), vegetated roof (25 %), and thermal bridge (25 %) as shown in Figure 4-5. Developer and builder Questions 11, 12, and 13, related to a respondent s familiarity with sustainable practices. Questions were posed in a 5-point Likert rati ng scale format (1=Unfamiliar; 2= Less Familiar; 3=Somewhat Familiar; 4=Familiar; 5=Very Familia r). These responses were used to quantify the developers and the builders familiarity with residential sustainable ra ting systems, concepts, and techniques. The familiarity with USGBC s LEED-H resulted in a ra ting average of 4.00 for developers and 3.38 for builders (Table 4-14). De velopers felt familiar with the rating system, and the builders were between somewhat familiar and familiar. Both groups were somewhat familiar with NAHBs Green Building Standard with developers rating average being 3.43 and builders rating average being 3.13. The familiarity with Energy Star brought both groups between experienced and very experienced with a rating average of 4.43 for developers and 4.63 for builders. Table 4-16 presents a difference between bu ilders and developers relative to their familiarity with the green building concepts an d techniques. All developers (100%) were familiar with site selection, minimal disturba nce to surrounding areas, access to open space, drought tolerant plants and la ndscaping, drip irrigation, rainwater collection systems, and construction waste management. All builders (100 %) were familiar with Energy Star appliances and Low-E glass. The developers were least (0%) familiar with Green Globes, and the builders 47

PAGE 48

were least familiar (12.5%) with reduction of he at island effect, FSC Certified Wood, vegetated roof, and rain garden. Frequency of Use of Sustainable Practices Typical respondent Table 4-17 contains responses to questions 16 an d 17 that related to the frequency of use of sustainable practices. Questi ons were posed in a 5-point Like rt rating scale format (1=Never; 2=Rarely; 3=Sometimes; 4= Often; 5=Frequently). These responses were used to quantify the respondents company frequency of using residential sustainable rating systems and sustainability training. Question 16 measured the frequency of usi ng sustainable rating systems to assess the typical respondents projects. Fifty percent of respondents of ten used a rating system for assessing green or sustainable design. Six percent of respondents neve r used a rating system, and 18% respondents sometimes used a sustainable home rating system. The rating average was 3.88 (often). Question 17 asked about the fre quency of the respondents company to actively train employees in sustainability. Fifty-five percent of respondents trained their employees in sustainability practices often. Twenty-nice pe rcent of respondents so metimes trained their employees. The rating average was 3.57 (sometimes). Developer and builder Developers often actively use a rating system to assess thei r homes sustainability, as shown with a rating average of 4.57 (see Table 4-18). Builders sometimes use rating systems with a rating average 3.13. There was a difference in responses related to active training of employees in sustainability practices. Devel opers actively trained th eir employees (rating average 4.00), but builders rarely train their staff (rating average 2.25). 48

PAGE 49

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

PAGE 50

Analysis of Results Experience with Sustainable Practices The typical respondent was very experien ced with sustainable design, with a rating average of 4.00 (experienced) (Table 4-1). However, developers had higher rating averages for every question related to experience in sustai nable practices as compared to builders. Developers had a rating average of 4.41 for overall experience sign ifying that developers were experienced to very experienced with sustaina ble practices. Builders had an average of 3.75 which means that they were somewhat experience d or experienced with sustainable practices. Table E-1 shows the comparison of developers to builders using the chi-squared test. The results show that 95 % of the time, the expected variation in observe d counts would be 7.81 with three degrees of freedom (d.f.). The actual tabu lated count was 0.355. Therefore, there is no significant difference between the developer response and the builder response at 95 % confidence level (7.81 > 0.355). Importance of Sustainable Practices Each typical respondent, devel opers, and builders agreed that building sustainable homes are important to their company (Table E-2). Th e typical respondent had a rating average of 4.13. Developers had a higher rating average of 4.14 (mor e important) compared to the builders rating average of 4.00 (important). As expected, th ere is no significant di fference between the two responses based on a 3.84 allowabl e variation with one d.f. at 95% confidence level (3.84 > 0.005). Ranking of importance during the design phase also yielded no significant variation between the two test groups based on an e xpected variation of 12.6 with six d.f. at 95 % confidence level (12.6 > 0.877) as sh own in Table E-3. Based on th e rating average, developers believed that marketable design was the most important and builders believed that an aesthetically pleasing design was foremost. During the construction phase, developers and 50

PAGE 51

builders ranked the levels of importance the same (Table E-4). As expected, the chi-squared test allowed a variation of 11.1 with five d.f. at 95 % confidence le vel, but the actual value was significantly lower at 0.083 (11.1 > 0.083). Likewise, the marketing phase ranking was the same for both groups. A variation of 19.7 at four d.f at 95% confidence level led to the predicted outcome that there is no significant difference with an actual value of 0.006 (19.7 > 0.006) as shown in Table E-5. Opinion on Sustainable Practices The typical respondents strongly agreed that they actively incorpor ated green building practices. The typical respondent strongly di sagreed there was a consumer preference for sustainable design and, also, making their homes sell faster. The average developer somewhat agreed to agreed to most Likert scale questions as shown in Table 4-12 with an overall rating average of 3.66. Builders had an overall rating average of 3.35 (somewhat agreed). The expected deviance between developers and build ers was 19.7 with 11 d.f. at 95 % confidence level for a chi-squared test. The actual value was lower at 0.485 (Table E-6). Developers and builders do not vary significantly on opinion of sustainable practices (19.7 > 0.485). Familiarity with Sustainable Practices Most typical respondents were very familiar with LEED-H and Energy Star. Developers had an overall rating average for Likert scale questions of 3.95. A rating average of 3.95 is between somewhat familiar (3) and familiar (4), but closer to familiar. Builders overall rating average for familiarity Likert scale questions were 3.71. As shown in Table E-7, the expected variation between developers a nd builders is expected to be 7.81 with three d.f. at 95 % confidence interval. The actual chi-squared va lue was 0.133. The result means there is not a significant difference between the responses with 95% confidence level (7.81 > 0.133). 51

PAGE 52

On the other hand, familiarity with sustainabl e building concepts and techniques produced a variation between the two test groups. Overa ll, developers were familiar with 69.2 % of all options. Builders were familiar with 51.3 % of all options. Table E-8 shows that the difference between the two groups is expected to be 55.8 with 40 d.f. at 95 % confidence level. The actual value was much greater at 538.3, which means that there is a difference between developers and builders on varying levels of fa miliarity with green building concepts and techniques (55.8 < 538.3). Frequency Use of Sustainable Practices Typically, the typical respondent often employs sustainable practices and training. The typical developer agrees with an overall rating average 4.29 (Tab le E-9). Contrastingly, the typical builder rarely em ploys sustainable practices and traini ng with an overall rating average of 2.69. The expected variation be tween the two groups was 5.99 with two d.f. at 95 % confidence level. The actual value was 1.223. Therefore, there is no significant difference between the developer response and the builder respons e at 95 % confidence level (5.99 > 1.223). Summary In general, both developers and builders responses did not differ significantly on the parameters of experience, importance, opinion, fa miliarity, and frequency of sustainability and green building. Developers had a better grasp of sustainable concepts than builders. Also, developers actively trained their staff in sustaina ble practices more often than builders, but not significantly more. Developers a nd builders agreed that the cost of sustainable design is most important during the construction phase and disa greed that having a cer tified energy designer and/or an energy rating system were least important. 52

PAGE 53

Table 4-1. Responses to Likert scale questions related to experi ence in sustainable practices for typical respondents Question No Experience 1 2 Somewhat Experienced 3 4 Very Experienced 5 Rating Avg. Response Count Q1. What level of experience does your company have in green or sustainable building? 0% (0) 6% (1) 25% (4) 31% (5) 38% (6) 4.00 16 Q3. Is (are) the primary designer(s) experienced with green or sustainable practices? 0% (0) 7% (1) 20% (3) 26% (4) 47% (7) 4.13 15 Q4. Is the primary contractor experienced with green or sustainable practices? 0% (0) 6% (1) 12% (2) 38% (6) 44% (7) 4.19 16 Note: One respondent answered N/A to the second question 53

PAGE 54

Table 4-2. Responses to Likert scale questions related to experi ence in sustainable practices for developers and builders Question No Experience 1 2 Somewhat Experienced 3 4 Very Experienced 5 Rating Avg. Response Count Q1. Does your company have any experience in green or sustainable building? Developer 0% (0) 0% (0) 14% (1) 43% (3) 43% (3) 4.29 7 Builder 0% (0) 13% (1) 38% (3) 25% (2) 25% (2) 3.86 8 Q3. Is (are) the primary designer(s) experienced with green or sustainable practices? Developer 0% (0) 0% (0) 17% (1) 0% (0) 83% (5) 4.67 6 Builder 0% (0) 13% (1) 25% (2) 50% (4) 13% (1) 3.29 8 Q4. Is the primary contractor experienced with green or sustainable practices? Developer 0% (0) 0% (0) 14% (1) 43% (3) 43% (3) 4.29 7 Builder 0% (0) 13% (1) 13% (1) 38% (3) 38% (3) 4.00 8 54

PAGE 55

Table 4-3. Responses to Likert scale questions related to importa nce of sustainable practices for typical respondents Question Not Important 1 2 Somewhat Important 3 4 Very Important 5 Rating Avg. Response Count Q2. How important to your company is green design or sustainable and building sustainable homes? 6% (1) 0% (0) 12% (2) 38% (6) 46% (7) 4.13 16 Table 4-4. Responses for Likert scale questions related on impor tance in sustainable practices for developers and builders Question Not Important 1 2 Somewhat Important 3 4 Very Important 5 Rating Avg. Response Count Q2. How important to your company is green design or sustainable and building sustainable homes? Developer 0% (0) 0% (0) 14% (1) 57% (4) 28% (2) 4.14 7 Builder 12.5% (1) 0% (0) 12.5% (1) 25% (2) 50% (4) 4.43 8 55

PAGE 56

Table 4-5. Rating of importance of sustainable practices against other factors during the design phase for typical respondents Q22. Answer Options 1 Most Important 2 3 4 5 6 Least Important Rating Average Response Count Aesthetically Pleasing Design 17% (2) 67% (8) 8% (1) 8% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 2.08 12 Energy/Sustainable Certified Designer (i.e. LEED-AP) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 15% (2) 15% (2) 69% (9) 5.54 13 Low initial costs 15% (2) 15% (2) 31% (4) 23% (3) 15% (2) 0% (0) 3.08 13 Energy Rating System Approved (i.e. LEED-H Gold) 0% (0) 0% (0) 14% (2) 21% (3) 50% (7) 14% (2) 4.64 14 Energy Efficient Design 7% (1) 14% (2) 43% (6) 21% (3) 14% (2) 0% (0) 3.21 14 Marketable Design 57% (8) 21% (3) 21% (3) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1.64 14 56

PAGE 57

Table 4-6. Responses related to ranking of im portance of sustainable practices during design phase between developers and builders Q22. 1 Most Important 2 3 4 5 6 Least Important Rating Avg. Response Count Aesthetically Pleasing Design Developer 17% (1) 67% (4) 0% (0) 17% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 2.17 6 Builder 17% (1) 67% (4) 17% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 2.00 6 Energy/Sustainable Certified Designer Developer 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 14% (1) 14% (1) 71% (5) 5.57 7 Builder 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 17% (1) 17% (1) 67% (4) 5.50 6 Low initial costs Developer 0% (0) 20% (1) 20% (1) 40% (2) 20% (1) 0% (0) 3.60 5 Builder 29% (2) 14% (1) 29% (2) 14% (1) 14% (1) 0% (0) 2.71 7 Energy Rating System Approved (i.e. LEED-H Gold) Developer 0% (0) 0% (0) 17% (1) 17% (1) 50% (3) 17% (1) 4.67 6 Builder 0% (0) 0% (0) 13% (1) 25% (2) 50% (4) 13% (1) 4.63 8 Energy Efficient Design Developer 0% (0) 14% (1) 71% (5) 14% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 3.00 7 Builder 13% (1) 0% (0) 13% (1) 25% (2) 25% (2) 0% (0) 2.75 8 Marketable Design Developer 86% (6) 14% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1.14 7 Builder 29% (2) 29% (2) 43% (3) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 2.14 7 57

PAGE 58

Table 4-7. Rating of importance of sustainable practices against other factors during the construction phase for typical respondents Q23. Answer Options 1 Most Important 2 3 4 5 6 Least Important Rating Avg. Response Count Energy/ Sustainable Certified Contractor (i.e. LEED-AP) 0% (0) 0% (0) 21% (3) 0% (0) 50% (7) 29% (4) 4.86 14 Energy Rating System Approved (i.e. LEED-H Gold, local or state program) 0% (0) 13% (2) 13% (2) 40% (6) 20% (3) 13% (2) 4.07 15 Cost 69% (9) 23% (3) 8% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1.38 13 Constructability 31% (4) 46% (6) 23% (3) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1.92 13 Energy Efficient Building 13% (2) 27% (4) 47% (7) 13% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 2.6 15 58

PAGE 59

Table 4-8. Responses related to ranking of importance of sustainable practices during construction phase between developers and builders Q.23 1 Most Important 2 3 4 5 6 Least Important Rating Avg. Response Count Energy/Sustainable Certified Contractor (i.e. LEED-AP) Developer 0% (0) 0% (0) 17% (1) 0% (0) 67% (4) 17% (1) 4.33 6 Builder 0% (0) 0% (0) 14% (1) 0% (0) 43% (3) 43% (3) 5.14 7 Energy Rating System Approved (i.e. LEED-H Gold, local or state program) Developer 0% (0) 14% (1) 14% (1) 57% (4) 0% (0) 14% (1) 3.86 7 Builder 0% (0) 0% (0) 14% (1) 29% (2) 43% (3) 14% (1) 4.57 7 Cost Developer 67% (4) 33% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1.33 6 Builder 71% (5) 14% (1) 14% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1.43 7 Constructability Developer 50% (3) 33% (2) 17% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1.67 6 Builder 14% (1) 57% (4) 29% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 2.14 7 Energy Efficient Building Developer 0% (0) 17% (1) 67% (4) 17% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 3.00 6 Builder 13% (1) 38% (3) 38% (3) 13% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 2.50 8 59

PAGE 60

Table 4-9. Rating of importance sustainable practices against ot her factors during the marketing phase for typical respondents Q24. Answer Options Most Important 1 2 3 Somewhat 4 5 Least Important 6 Rating Average Response Count Options and Extras 0% (0) 21% (3) 64% (9) 0% (0) 14% (2) 0% (0) 3.07 14 Energy Efficiency of Entire Building 0% (0) 8% (1) 8% (1) 46% (6) 39% (5) 0% (0) 4.15 13 Energy Efficient Appliances 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 5 (42%) 7 (58%) 0% (0) 4.58 12 Energy Rating System Approved (i.e. LEED-H Gold, local or state program) 7% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 7% (1) 7% (1) 79% (11) 5.43 14 Design 20% (3) 60% (9) 13% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 8% (1) 2.2 15 Cost 73% (11) 13% (2) 13% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1.4 15 60

PAGE 61

Table 4-10. Responses related to ranking of im portance of sustainable practices during the marketing phase between developers and builders Q24. 1 Most Important 2 3 4 5 6 Least Important Rating Avg. Response Count Options and Extras Developer 0% (0) 0% (0) 80% (4) 0% (0) 20% (1) 0% (0) 3.40 5 Builder 0% (0) 25% (2) 63% (5) 0% (0) 13% (1) 0% (0) 3.00 8 Energy Efficiency of Entire Building Developer 0% (0) 14% (1) 14% (1) 29% (2) 43% (3) 0% (0) 4.43 7 Builder 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 67% (4) 33% (2) 0% (0) 4.33 6 Energy Efficient Appliances Developer 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 50% (3) 50% (3) 0% (0) 4.50 6 Builder 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 33% (2) 67% (4) 0% (0) 4.67 6 Energy Rating System Approved (i.e. LEED-H Gold, local or state program) Developer 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 17% (1) 0% (0) 83% (5) 5.67 6 Builder 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 14% (1) 86% (6) 5.86 7 61

PAGE 62

Table 4-11. Responses to Likert scale questions related to opinion of sustainable practices for typical respondents Question Strongly Disagree 1 2 Neutral 3 4 Strongly Agree 5 Rating Avg. Response Count Q5. Do you agree that your company actively incorporates green or sustainable design? 0% (0) 0% (0) 6% (1) 38% (6) 56% (9) 4.50 16 Q6. Do you agree that green or sustainable practices equate to increased costs? 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 38% (6) 62% (10) 4.63 16 Q7. Do you agree that green or sustainable designs are more complicated to build? 12% (2) 31% (5) 18% (3) 38% (6) 0% (0) 2.81 16 Q8. Do you agree that green or sustainable homes should be sold at a premium? 12% (2) 18% (3) 6% (1) 18% (3) 46% (7) 3.63 16 Q9. Do you agree there is a growing demand for green or sustainable homes? 18% (3) 18% (3) 18% (3) 31% (5) 12% (2) 3.00 16 Q10. Do you agree that consumer demand for sustainable homes has affected construction and/or design of your homes? 18% (3) 0% (0) 18% (3) 50% (8) 12% (2) 3.38 16 Q14. Do you agree there is increased confusion over which green standards to use? 0% (0) 6% (1) 18% (3) 12% (2) 62% (10) 4.31 16 Q15. Does your company agree that rating systems are worth the extra costs? 12% (2) 25% (4) 25% (4) 31% (5) 6% (1) 2.94 16 Q18. Do you agree that there is a consumer preference of green or sustainable homes over traditionally or nongreen homes? 31% (5) 12% (2) 25% (4) 18% (3) 12% (2) 2.69 16 62

PAGE 63

Table 4-11. Continued Question Strongly Disagree 1 2 Neutral 3 4 Strongly Agree 5 Rating Avg. Response Count Q19. Green or sustainable design and/or construction help you sell your homes faster. 31% (5) 12% (2) 18% (3) 31% (5) 6% (1) 2.69 16 Q20. Green or sustainable design and/or construction benefit the environment. 0% (0) 12% (2) 6% (1) 18% (3) 62% (10) 4.31 16 63

PAGE 64

Table 4-12. Responses to Likert scale questions related to opi nion about sustainable practices for developers and builders Question Strongly Disagree 1 2 Neutral 3 4 Strongly Agree 5 Rating Avg. Response Count Q5. Do you agree that your company actively incorporates green or sustainable design? Developer 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 29% (2) 71% (5) 4.71 7 Builder 0% (0) 0% (0) 13% (1) 50% (4) 38% (3) 4.86 8 Q6. Do you agree that green or sustainable practices equate to increased costs? Developer 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 14% (1) 86% (6) 4.86 7 Builder 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 63% (5) 38% (3) 4.38 8 Q7. Do you agree that green or sustainable designs are more complicated to build? Developer 0% (0) 29% (2) 14% (1) 57% (4) 0% (0) 3.29 7 Builder 13% (1) 25% (2) 38% (3) 25% (2) 0% (0) 2.63 8 Q8. Do you agree that green or sustainable homes should be sold at a premium? Developer 0% (0) 14% (1) 14% (1) 14% (1) 57% (4) 4.14 7 Builder 13% (1) 25% (2) 0% (0) 25% (2) 38% (3) 3.50 8 Q9. Do you agree there is a growing demand for green or sustainable homes? Developer 14% (1) 29% (2) 14% (1) 43% (3) 0% (0) 2.86 7 Builder 25% (2) 13% (1) 25% (2) 25% (2) 13% (1) 2.88 8 64

PAGE 65

Table 4-12. Continued Question Strongly Disagree 1 2 Neutral 3 4 Strongly Agree 5 Rating Avg. Response Count Q10. Do you agree that consumer demand for sustainable homes has affected construction and/or design of your homes? Developer 17% (1) 0% (0) 17% (1) 67% (4) 0% (0) 3.57 6 Builder 25% (2) 0% (0) 25% (2) 50% (4) 0% (0) 3.00 8 Q14. Do you agree there is increased confusion over which green standards to use? Developer 0% (0) 0% (0) 29% (2) 14% (1) 57% (4) 4.29 7 B 0% (0) 13% (1) 13% (1) 0% (0) 75% (6) 4.38 8 Q15. Does your company agree that rating systems are worth the extra costs? Developer 14% (1) 29% (2) 29% (2) 14% (1) 14% (1) 2.86 7 Builder 13% (1) 25% (2) 25% (2) 38% (3) 0% (0) 2.88 8 Q18. Do you agree that there is a consumer preference of green or sustainable homes over traditionally or nongreen homes? Developer 43% (3) 0% (0) 29% (2) 14% (1) 14% (1) 2.57 7 Builder 25% (2) 25% (2) 25% (2) 25% (2) 0% (0) 2.50 8 65

PAGE 66

Table 4-12. Continued Question Strongly Disagree 1 2 Neutral 3 4 Strongly Agree 5 Rating Avg. Response Count Q19. Green or sustainable design and/or construction help you sell your homes faster. Developer 29% (2) 14% (1) 14% (1) 43% (3) 0% (0) 2.71 7 Builder 38% (3) 13% (1) 25% (2) 25% (2) 0% (0) 2.38 8 Q20. Green or sustainable design and/or construction benefit the environment. Developer 0% (0) 0% (0) 14% (1) 29% (2) 57% (4) 4.43 7 Builder 0% (0) 25% (2) 0% (0) 13% (1) 63% (5) 4.13 8 66

PAGE 67

Table 4-13. Responses to Likert scale questions related to familia rity with sustainable practices for typical respondents Question Unfamiliar 1 2 Somewhat Familiar 3 4 Very Familiar 5 Rating Avg. Response Count Q11. How familiar is your company with the U.S. Green Building Councils (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Homes (LEED-H)? 6% (1) 6% (1) 31% (5) 25% (4) 31% (5) 3.69 16 Q12. How familiar is your company with the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Green Building Standard? 0% (0) 25% (4) 31% (5) 31% (5) 12% (2) 3.31 16 Q13. How familiar is your company with Energy Star brand (i.e. appliances, HVAC)? 0% (0) 0% (0) 6% (1) 38% (6) 56% (9) 4.5 16 67

PAGE 68

Table 4-14. Responses to Likert scale questions related to familia rity with sustainable practices for developers and builders Question Unfamiliar 1 2 Somewhat Familiar 3 4 Very Familiar 5 Rating Avg. Response Count Q11. How familiar is your company with the U.S. Green Building Councils (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Homes (LEED-H)? Developer 0% (0) 0% (0) 42% (3) 14% (1) 42% (3) 4.00 7 Builder 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 25% (2) 25% (2) 25% (2) 3.38 8 Q12. How familiar is your company with the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Green Building Standard? Developer 0% (0) 14% (1) 57% (4) 0% (0) 29% (2) 3.43 7 Builder 0% (0) 37.5% (3) 12.5% (1) 50% (4) 0% (0) 3.13 8 Q13. How familiar is your company with Energy Star brand (i.e. appliances, HVAC)? Developer 0% (0) 0% (0) 14% (1) 29% (2) 57% (4) 4.43 7 Builder 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 42% (3) 57% (4) 4.63 7 68

PAGE 69

Table 4-15. Familiarity with green building concepts and practices for typical respondents Q21. Answer Options Response Response Count Site selection 88% 14 Minimal Disturbance to surrounding Areas 75 12 Access to Open Space 63 10 Drought tolerant plants and landscaping design 94 15 Drip Irrigation 88 14 Xeriscaping 81 13 Permeable Pavement 69 11 Erosion Control 63 10 Reduction of Heat Island Effects 38 6 Pest control Alternatives 56 9 Graywater Reuse 63 10 Energy Star Appliances 94 15 Storm Water Treatment 56 9 SIPs 31 5 Value Engineering 69 11 Green Label 3 5 Refrigerant Management System 38 6 Solar Water Heating System 56 9 Low-E Glass 94 15 Rainwater Collection Systems 69 11 FSC Certified Wood 31 5 Renewable Energy System 44 7 Passive Design 63 10 Construction Waste Management 69 11 Photovoltaic Energy 75 12 Thermal Bridge 25 4 Vegetated Roof 25 4 Rain Garden 44 7 Compact Development Density 81 13 Pipe Insulation 63 10 Daylighting 56 9 Framing Efficiency 69 11 Energy Modeling 63 10 Solar Orientation 81 13 VOCs 63 10 Green Globes 13 2 Carbon Dioxide Monitoring 38 6 Use of Readily-Renewable materials 69 11 Radon Protection 63 10 Use of recycled or salvaged materials 69 11 69

PAGE 70

Table 4-16. Familiarity with green building conc epts and practices for developers and builders Q21. Question Developers (D) Response Count Builders (B) Response Count Site Selection 100% 7 75% 6 Minimal Disturbance to surrounding Areas 100 7 50 4 Access to Open Space 100 7 25 2 Drought tolerant plants and landscaping design 100 7 87.5 7 Drip Irrigation 100 7 75 6 Xeriscaping 85.7 6 75 6 Permeable Pavement 85.7 6 50 4 Erosion Control 85.7 6 37.5 3 Reduction of Heat Island Effects 71.4 5 12.5 1 Pest control Alternatives 57.1 4 62.5 5 Graywater Reuse 85.7 6 50 4 Energy Star Appliances 85.7 6 100 8 Storm Water Treatment 85.7 6 37.5 3 SIPs 28.6 2 25 2 Value Engineering 85.7 6 50 4 Green Label 28.6 2 37.5 3 Refrigerant Management System 57.1 4 50 2 Solar Water Heating System 42.9 3 62.5 5 Low-E Glass 85.7 6 100 8 Rainwater Collection Systems 100 7 37.5 3 FSC Certified Wood 57.1 4 12.5 1 Renewable Energy System 42.9 3 37.5 3 Passive Design 85.7 6 37.5 3 Construction Waste Management 100 7 50 4 Photovoltaic Energy 71.4 5 75.0 6 Thermal Bridge 12.5 1 25.0 2 Vegetated Roof 42.9 3 12.5 1 Rain Garden 71.4 5 12.5 1 Compact Development Density 85.7 6 75.0 6 Pipe Insulation 71.4 5 50.0 4 Daylighting 71.4 5 37.5 3 Framing Efficiency 57.1 4 75.0 6 Energy Modeling 71.4 5 62.5 5 Solar Orientation 85.7 6 62.5 6 VOCs 57.1 4 62.5 5 Green Globes 0.0 0 25.0 2 Carbon Dioxide Monitoring 28.6 2 37.5 3 Use of Readily-Renewable materials 71.4 5 62.5 5 Radon Protection 42.9 3 75.0 6 Use of recycled or salvaged materials 71.4 5 62.5 5 70

PAGE 71

Table 4-17. Responses to Likert scale questions related to fr equency of use of sustainable practices for typical respondents Question Never 1 2 Sometimes 3 4 Frequently 5 Rating Avg. Response Count Q16. How often does your company actively use a rating system for assessing green or sustainable design? 6% (1) 12% (2) 18% (3) 12% (2) 50% (8) 3.88 16 Q17. How often does your company actively train its employees in green techniques? 0% (0) 14% (2) 29% (4) 43% (6) 14% (2) 3.57 14 Note: Two respondents, based on their company opinion, skipped the second question Table 4-18. Responses to Likert scale questions related to fr equency of use of sustainable practices for developers and builders Question Never 1 2 Sometimes 3 4 Frequently 5 Rating Avg. Response Count Q16. How often does your company actively use a rating system for assessing green or sustainable design? Developer 0% (0) 0% (0) 14.5% (1) 14.5% (1) 71% (5) 4.57 7 Builder 12.5% (1) 25% (2) 25% (2) 12.5% (1) 25% (2) 3.13 8 Q17. How often does your company actively train its employees in green techniques? Developer 0% (0) 0% (0) 28.5% (2) 43% (3) 28.5% (2) 4.00 7 Builder 0% (0) 33% (2) 33% (2) 33% (2) 0% (0) 2.25 6 Note: Two respondents for builders, based on their company opinion, skipped the second question 71

PAGE 72

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION Sustainable design and constructi on of residential proj ects will be essential in the future. There are benefits to green design for the environm ent and inhabitants, but what are the benefits to those who build the homes? The commitment and dedication not only needs to come from the consumer side, but also from those designi ng homes, constructing homes, and developing residential areas. The study highlighted a snapsh ot of responses from developers and builders based on their knowledge, application, and dedicati on to sustainability. The snapshot proved to have valuable information into the minds of t hose who control how the wo rld lives. Taken as a whole, the respondents do have a commitment to sustainability and building green. Both developers and builders believe su stainability benefits the environment, but, at the same time, do not believe there is a consumer preference for gree n homes. These contradictions in logic led to confusion of how to build and a ssess their green projects. The stated hypothesis compar ed the difference between de velopers, builders, and the typical respondent based experience, familia rity, opinion, frequency, and importance of sustainable residential design. Most respondents, in the open-e nded questions, believed there should be more sustainable homes, but there is no market nor are the prices justified. Similarly, all respondents believed that green homes should be sold at a pr emium and are more difficult to construct, but do not help sell a home faster. Th e results proved there is a noted environmental benefit for sustainable design among developers and builders, but there is not perceived financial benefit to integration in residential projects. Based on the literature review, there was a proved benefit for sustainable buildings, but mostly lacked clarity for the residential sector, as well as, the perceived benefits to developers and builders. Analyzing the responses of bu ilders and developers on sustainable and green 72

PAGE 73

practices in residences allowed for an unders tanding why green construction is not further implemented into residential projects. 73

PAGE 74

CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations To further the research in this area, or to expand on the study, there are several suggestions. First, the study shoul d be expanded to cover a larger sample size of the residential industry. There needs to be more variety within the respondents to include more design firms and architects and for those respond ents to enter all needed inform ation for analysis. Next, there needs to be established contacts to ensure the completion of the surveys by respondents, either by web survey or paper survey. Finally, there s hould be an updating of recent changes in most energy rating programs that might change responses. Limitations and Further Research It should be noted that the study was limited to respondents from North-Central Florida in BANCF. The survey was distribu ted via a web based server that presented limited responses and field responses. The survey was limited by 16 re sponses: eight builders, seven developers, and one unknown. Further research would be to expand the sample size and research into newer rating systems and sustainable techniques and ap plications on the residential scale. 74

PAGE 75

APPENDIX A SUSTAINABLE AND RESIDENT IAL PRACTICES SURVEY Informed Consent Disclosure Agreement for Participants Purpose of the study: The purpose of the study is to investigate the incentives, the motives, and the affordability of green buildings in residential applications for builders and designers. The purpose of this research study is to find the to find the current consensus of home builders on going green, to determine the median home price of affordable green homes, to determine the change builders are making to homes to be green and afford able, and to find how collaboration and the companys position on green buildi ng affects their commitment to affordable green and/or green design. What you will be asked to do in the study: If you choose to participate in the study, you will undergo a short survey will which consists of the series of questi ons related to their companys view s and practices on sustainability design and green construction. Time Required: The survey should take about 20 to 30 minutes to complete. Risks and Benefits: There is no personal discomfort, stress, or pers onal risks associated with participating in this study. There are no direct bene fits for participation in this study. Compensation: For participating in this study you will not receive any compensation. You are free to withdraw at any time during the study. Confidentiality: The results of your participation will be conf idential to the extent provided by law. As such, the researcher will have no way of asso ciating your responses directly with you. Your participation is entirely voluntary and you ma y withdraw your consent at any time during the survey. In the event that you do withdraw consent, the results of your participation, to the extent that they can be identified as yours, will be re turned to you, removed from the research records, or destroyed. You may withdraw from the study at any time. Whom to contact if you ha ve questions about the study: If you would like to learn more about the st udy, you may contact the principal investigator, Kristen Hlad, at (352) 246-3116, or by email, at hladdio@ufl.edu, or the faculty supervisor, Dr. Svetlana Olbina, at (352) 273-1166. Whom to contact about your rights as a research par ticipant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; (352) 392-0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and have received a copy of this description. Participant Signature: Date: Principal Investigator: Date: 75

PAGE 76

Demographic Information i. Please fill-in with specific information. Please be reminded a ll information you will provide will be treated with utmost confidentiality, and will be used for statistically analysis only. Name Position Type of Company (builder, developer, design firm, etc.) Typical residences constructed (townh omes, single-family, apartments) Annual Total of Work in Dollars Typical size of residences Typical price of residences in Dollars Typical Delivery Method used (i .e. Design-Build) 76

PAGE 77

Perception of the Respondents Please rate the each of the statements belo w on your level of agreement according to your companys views. Please be reminded that ther e is no right or wrong answer, and that every data you will provide will be treated with utmost confidentiality. 1. What level of experience does your compa ny has in green or sustainable building? No Experience Somewhat Experienced Very Experienced 1 2 3 4 5 2. Do you agree that sustainable design and building green homes is important to your company? Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 3. How experienced is (are) the primary desi gner(s) in your company with green or sustainable practices? No Experience Somewhat Experienced Very Experienced 1 2 3 4 5 4. How experienced is the primary contract or with green or sustainable practices? No Experience Somewhat Experienced Very Experienced 1 2 3 4 5 5. Do you agree that your co mpany actively incorporates gr een or sustainable design? Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 77

PAGE 78

6. Do you agree that green or sustainabl e practices equate to increased costs? Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 7. Do you agree that green or sustainabl e designs are more complicated to build? Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 8. Do you agree that green or sustainabl e homes should be sold at a premium? Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 9. Do you agree there is a growing dema nd for green or sustainable homes? Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 10. Do you agree that consumer demand for su stainable homes has affected construction and/or design of your homes? Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 11. How familiar is your company with the U.S. Green Building Councils (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environm ental Design for Homes (LEED-H)? Unfamiliar Somewhat Familiar Very Familiar 1 2 3 4 5 12. How familiar is your company with the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Green Building Standard? Unfamiliar Somewhat Familiar Very Familiar 1 2 3 4 5 78

PAGE 79

13. How familiar is your company with Ener gy Star brand (i.e. appliances, HVAC)? Unfamiliar Somewhat Familiar Very Familiar 1 2 3 4 5 14. Do you agree there is increased confus ion over which green standards to use? Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 15. Does your company agree that rati ng systems are worth the extra costs? Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 16. How often does your company actively us e a rating system for assessing green or sustainable design? Never Sometimes Frequently 1 2 3 4 5 17. How often does your company actively tr ain its employees in green techniques? Never Sometimes Frequently 1 2 3 4 5 18. Do you agree that there is a consumer preference of gr een or sustainable homes over traditionally or non-green homes? Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 19. Green or sustainable design and/or construction help you sell your homes faster. Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 79

PAGE 80

20. Green or sustainable design and/or construction benefit the environment. Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 80

PAGE 81

Familiarity of Respondents Please check the statements according to your companys views or practices. Please check all that apply. 21. Which of the following green building practic es/concepts is your company familiar with? Site selection FSC Certified Wood Minimal Disturbance to surrounding Areas Renewable Energy System Access to Open Space Passive Design Drought tolerant plants and landscaping design Construction Waste Management Drip Irrigation Photovoltaic Energy Xeriscaping Thermal Bridge Permeable Pavement Vegetated Roof Erosion Control Rain Garden Reduction of Heat Island Effects Compact Development Density Pest control Alternatives Pipe Insulation Graywater Reuse Daylighting Energy Star Appliances Framing Efficiency Storm Water Treatment Energy Modeling SIPs Solar Orientation Value Engineering VOCs Green Label Green Globes Refrigerant Management System Carbon Dioxide Monitoring Solar Water Heating System Use of ReadilyRenewable materials Low-E Glass Radon Protection Rainwater Collection Systems Use of recycled or salvaged materials 81

PAGE 82

Ordinal Questions 22. Please write a number between 1 and 6 next to ea ch item below. Put a 1 next to the item that is MOST important to your company in the design of a residential building. Put a 6 next to the item that is LEAST important. Plea se use each number only ONCE. _____ Aesthetically Pleasing Design _____ Energy/Sustainable Certif ied Designer (i.e. LEED-AP) _____ Low initial costs _____ Energy Rating System Approved (i.e. LEED-H Gold) _____ Energy Efficient Design _____ Marketable Design 23. Please write a number between 1 and 6 next to ea ch item below. Put a 1 next to the item that is MOST important to you in the construction of a residential bu ilding. Put a 6 next to the item that is LEAST important. Plea se use each number only ONCE. _____ Fewer Days on the Market _____ Energy/Sustainable Certifie d Contractor (i.e. LEED-AP) _____ Energy Rating System Approved (i.e. L EED-H Gold, local or state program) _____ Cost _____ Constructability _____ Energy Efficient Building 24. Please write a number between 1 and 6 next to ea ch item below. Put a 1 next to the item that is MOST important, according to your company, what consumers look for when purchasing a new home. Put a 6 next to the item that is LEAST important. Please use each number only ONCE. _____ Options and Extras _____ Energy Efficiency of Entire Building _____ Energy Efficient Appliances _____ Energy Rating System Approved (i.e. L EED-H Gold, local or state program) _____ Design _____ Cost 82

PAGE 83

Please fill-in your responses below according to your companys views. Please be reminded that there is no right or wrong answer, and that every data you will provide will be treated with utmost confidentiality. 26. Which, if any, energy/sustainable rating system (i.e. LEED-H, utility programs, or state or local program) does your company use to assess your structures? ______________________________________________________________________________ 27. What is your opinion of energy/sustainable rating syst ems (i.e. LEED-H, NAHB, Energy Star)? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 28. Do you believe there is confusion within th e current energy/sustaina ble rating systems (i.e. LEED-H, NAHB, Energy Star) on how to us e and/or implement into your homes? ______________________________________________________________________________ 29. What is the main reason for using sustainable design in your projects? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 30. How is your company making home s more green or sustainable? ______________________________________________________________________________ 31. What is your companys attitude toward sustainability in the residential sector? ______________________________________________________________________________ 83

PAGE 84

APPENDIX B OVERVIEW OF LEED-H LEED for Homes Version 2008 INNOVATION AND DESIGN PROCESS (ID) Credit 1 Integrated Project Planning 1.1 Preliminary Rating 1.2 Integrated Project Team 1.3 Professional Credentialed with Respect to LEED for Homes 1.4 Design Charrette 1.5 Building Orientation for Solar Design Credit 2 Durability Management Process 2.1 Durability Planning 2.2 Durability Management 2.3 Third Party Durability Management Verification Credit 3 Innovation of Regional Design 3.1 Innovation #1 3.2 Innovation #2 3.3 Innovation #3 3.4 Innovation #4 LOCATION AND LINKAGES (LL) Credit 1 LEED ND Credit 2 Site Selection Credit 3 Preferred Locations 3.1 Edge Development 3.2 Infill 3.3 Previously Developed Credit 4 Infrastructure Credit 5 Community Resources 5.1 Basic Community Resources 5.2 Extensive Community Resources 5.3 Outstanding Community Resources Credit 6 Access to Open Space SUSTAINABLE SITES (SS) Credit 1 Site Stewardship 1.1 Erosion 1.2 Minimize Disturbed Area of Site Credit 2 Landscaping 2.1 No Invasive Plants 2.2 Basic Landscape Design 2.3 Limit Conventional Turf 84

PAGE 85

2.4 Drought Tolerant Plants 2.5 Reduce Overall Irrigation Demand by at Least 20% Credit 3 Local Heat Island Effects Credit 4 Surface Water Management 4.1 Permeable Lot 4.2 Permanent Erosion Controls 4.3 Management of Run-off from Roof Credit 5 Nontoxic Pest Control Credit 6 Compact Development 6.1 Moderate Density 6.2 High Density 6.3 Very High Density WATER EFFICIENCY (WE) Credit 1 Water Reuse 1.1 Rainwater Harvesting System 1.2 Graywater Reuse System 1.3 Use of Municipal Recycled Water System Credit 2 Irrigation System 2.1 High Efficiency Irrigation System 2.2 Third Party Inspection 2.3 Reduce Overall Irrigation Demand by at Least 45% Credit 3 Indoor Water Use 3.1 High-Efficiency Fixtures and Fittings 3.2 Very High-Efficiency Fixtures and Fittings ENERGY AND ATMOSPHERE (EA) Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance 1.1 Performance of ENERGY STAR for Homes 1.2 Exceptional Energy Performance Credit 2 Insulation 2.1 Basic Insulation 2.2 Enhanced Insulation Credit 3 Air Infiltration 3.1 Reduced Envelope Leakage 3.2 Greatly Reduced Envelope Leakage 3.3 Minimal Envelope Leakage Credit 4 Windows 4.1 Good Windows 4.2 Exceptional Windows Credit 5 Heating and Cooling Distribution System 5.1 Reduced Distribution Losses 5.2 Greatly Reduced Distribution Losses 5.3 Minimal Distribution Losses 85

PAGE 86

Credit 6 Space Heating and Cooling Equipment 6.1 Good HVAC Design and Installation 6.2 High-Efficiency HVAC 6.3 Very High-Efficiency HVAC Credit 7 Water Heating 7.1 Efficient Hot water Distribution 7.2 Pipe Insulation Credit 8 Lighting 8.1 ENERGY STAR Lights 8.2 Improved Lighting 8.3 Advanced Lighting Package Credit 9 Appliances 9.1 High-Efficiency Appliances 9.2 Water-Efficient Clothes Washer Credit 10 Renewable Energy System Credit 11 Residential Refrigerant Management 11.1 Refrigerant Charge Test 11.2 Appropriate HVAC Refrigerants MATERIALS AND RESOURCES (MR) Credit 1Material-Efficient Framing 1.1 Framing Order Waste Factor Limit 1.2 Detailed Framing Documents 1.3 Detailed Cut List and Lumber Order 1.4 Framing Efficiencies 1.5 Off-Site Fabrication Credit 2 Environmentally Preferable Products 2.1 FSC Certified Tropical Wood 2.2 Environmentally Preferable Products Credit 3 Waste Management 3.1 Construction Waste Management Planning 3.2 Construction Waste Reduction INDOOR ENVIRONMENTA L QUALITY (EQ) Credit 1 ENERGY STAR with IAP (Indoor Air Package) Credit 2 Combustion Venting 2.1 Basic Combustion Venting Measures 2.2 Enhanced Combustion Venting Measures Credit 3 Moisture Load Control Credit 4 Outdoor Air Ventilation 4.1 Basic Outdoor Air Ventilation 4.2 Enhanced Outdoor Air Ventilation 4.3 Third-Party Performance Testing Credit 5 Local Exhaust 86

PAGE 87

5.1 Basic Local Exhaust 5.2 Enhanced Local Exhaust 5.3 Third-Party Performance Testing Credit 6 Distribution of Space 6.1 Room-by-Room Load Calculations 6.2 Return Air Flow/Room by Room Controls 6.3 Third-Party Performance Testing/Multiple Zones Credit 7 Air Filtering 7.1 Good Filters 7.2 Better Filters 7.3 Best Filters Credit 8 Contaminant Control 8.1 Indoor Contaminant Control During Construction 8.2 Indoor Contaminant Control 8.3 Preoccupancy Flush Credit 9 Radon Protection 9.1 Radon-Resistant Constr uction in High-Risk Areas 9.2 Radon-Resistant Construc tion in Moderate-Risk Areas Credit 10 Garage Pollutant Protection 10.1 No HVAC in Garage 10.2 Minimize Pollutants from Garage 10.3 Exhaust Fan in Garage AWARENESS AND EDUCATION (AE) Credit 1 Education of the Homeowner or Tenant 1.1 Basic Operations Training 1.2 Enhanced Training 1.3 Public Awareness Credit 2 Education of Building Manager 87

PAGE 88

APPENDIX C OVERVIEW OF NAHB MODEL GREEN HOME BUILDING STANDARD NAHB Model Green Home Building Guidelines Version 2006 Section 1 LOT DESIGN, PREPARATION, AND DEVELOPMENT 1.1 Select the Site 1.2 Identify Goals With Your Team 1.3 Design the Site 1.4 Develop the Site 1.5 Innovative Options Section 2 RESOURCE EFFICIENCY 2.1 Reduce Quantity of Materials and Waste 2.2 Enhance Durability and Reduce Maintenance 2.3 Reuse Materials 2.4 Use Recycled Content Materials 2.5 Recycle Waste Material s During Construction 2.6 Use Renewable Materials 2.7 Use Resource-Efficient Materials 2.8 Innovative Options Section 3 ENERGY EFFICIENCY 3.1 Implement an Integrated and Comprehensiv e Approach to Energy-Efficient Design of Building Site, Building Envelope, a nd Mechanical Space Conditioning Systems 3.2 Performance Path 3.3 Prescriptive Path 3.3.5 Renewable Energy/Solar Heating and Cooling 3.3.7 Innovative Options Section 4 WATER EFFICIENCY 4.1 Indoor/Outdoor Water Use 4.2 Innovative Options Section 5 INDOOR ENVI RONMENTAL QUALITY 5.1 Minimize Potential Sources of Pollutants 5.2 Manage Potential Pollutant s Generated in the Home 5.3 Moisture Management (Vapor Rainwater, Plumbing, HVAC) 5.4 Innovative Options 88

PAGE 89

APPENDIX D FLORIDA GREEN HOME BUILDI NG CERTIFICATION STANDARD Florida Green Home Designation St andard of the FGBC, Version 6.0 Category 1: ENERGY E1 Ratings E2 Design, Finishes, Amenities Category 2: WATER W1 Fixtures W2 Graywater Reuse W3 Rainwater Harvesting W4 Reclaimed Water Use W5 Installed Landscape W6 Installed Irrigation Category 3: LOT CHOICE Category 4: SITE S1 Native Tree and Plant Preservation S2 On-Site Use of Cleared Materials S3 Develop an Erosion Control Site Plan S4 Drainage / Retention Category 5: HEALTH H1 Combustion H2 Moisture Control H3 Source Control H4 Cleanability H5 Barrier Free Entrance H6 Ventilation Category 6: MATERIALS M1 Components M2 Waste Reduction M3 Durability Category 7: DISA STER MITIGATION DM1 Hurricane (wind, rain, storm surge) DM2 Flood DM3 Wild Fire DM4 Termites 89

PAGE 90

Category 8: GENERAL G1 Small House Credit G2 Adaptability G3 Renewable Power Generation G4 Remodel G5 Other 90

PAGE 91

APPENDIX E STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Analyzed Data Experience Table E-1. Data based on experien ce with sustainable practices us ing a chi-squared test between developers and builders Question Developers (D) Builders (B) B-D (B-D)^2 ChiSquared D.F. Q1. What level of experience does your company have in green or sustainable building? 4.286 3.625 -0.661 0.437 0.102 1 Q3. Is (are) the primary designer(s) experienced with green or sustainable practices? 4.670 3.625 -1.045 1.092 0.234 1 Q4. Is the primary contractor experienced with green or sustainable practices? 4.286 4.000 -0.286 0.082 0.019 1 Total 0.355 3 7.81 at 95% with 3 D.F. 7.81 > 0.355 Importance Table E-2. Data based on importa nce of sustainable concepts a nd techniques with chi-squared test between builder s and developers Question Developers (D) Builders (B) B-D (B-D)^2 ChiSquared D.F. Q2. How important to your company is green design or sustainable and building sustainable homes? 4.143 4.000 -0.143 0.020 0.005 1 Total 0.005 1 3.84 at 95% with 1 D.F. 3.84 > 0.005 91

PAGE 92

Table E-3. Data based on ranking of importance on sustainable concepts and techniques during the design phase with chi-squared test between builders and developers Q22. Answer Options Developers (D) Builders (B) B-D (B-D)^2 ChiSquared D.F. Aesthetically Pleasing Design 2.17 2.00 -0.170 0.029 0.013 1 Energy/Sustainable Certified Designer (i.e. LEED-AP) 5.57 5.50 -0.070 0.005 0.001 1 Low initial costs 3.60 2.71 -0.890 0.792 0.220 1 Energy Rating System Approved (i.e. LEEDH Gold) 4.67 4.63 -0.040 0.002 0.000 1 Energy Efficient Design 3.00 2.75 -0.250 0.063 0.021 1 Marketable Design 1.14 2.14 1.000 1.000 0.877 1 Total 0.877 6 12.6 at 95% with 6 D.F. 12.6 > 0.877 92

PAGE 93

Table E-4. Data based on ranking of importance on sustainable concepts and techniques during the construction phase with chi-squared test between builders and developers Q23. Answer Options Developers (D) Builders (B) B-D (B-D)^2 ChiSquared D.F. Energy/Sustainable Certified Contractor (i.e. LEED-AP) 4.33 5.14 0.810 0.656 0.152 1 Energy Rating System Approved (i.e. LEEDH Gold, local or state program) 3.86 4.57 0.710 0.504 0.131 1 Cost 1.33 1.43 0.100 0.010 0.008 1 Constructability 1.67 2.14 0.470 0.221 0.132 1 Energy Efficient Building 3.00 2.50 -0.500 0.250 0.083 1 Total 0.083 5 11.1 at 95% with 5 D.F. 11.1 > 0.083 93

PAGE 94

Table E-5. Data based on ranking of importance on sustainable concepts and techniques during the marketing phase with chi-squared test between builders and developers Q24. Answer Options Developers (D) Builders (B) B-D (B-D)^2 ChiSquared D.F. Options and Extras 3.40 3.00 -0.400 0.160 0.047 1 Energy Efficiency of Entire Building 4.43 4.33 -0.100 0.010 0.002 1 Energy Efficient Appliances 4.50 4.67 0.170 0.029 0.006 1 Energy Rating System Approved (i.e. LEED-H Gold, local or state program) 5.67 5.86 0.190 0.036 0.006 1 Total 0.006 4 19.7 at 95% with 4 D.F. 19.7 > 0.006 94

PAGE 95

Opinion Table E-6. Raw data based on opi nion of sustainable concepts a nd techniques with chi-squared test between builder s and developers Question Developers (D) Builders (B) B-D (B-D)^2 ChiSquared D.F. Q5. Do you agree that your company actively incorporates green or sustainable design? 4.714 4.250 -0.464 0.216 0.046 1 Q6. Do you agree that green or sustainable practices equate to increased costs? 4.857 4.375 -0.482 0.232 0.048 1 Q7. Do you agree that green or sustainable designs are more complicated to build? 3.286 2.625 -0.661 0.437 0.133 1 Q8. Do you agree that green or sustainable homes should be sold at a premium? 4.143 3.500 -0.643 0.413 0.100 1 Q9. Do you agree there is a growing demand for green or sustainable homes? 2.857 2.875 0.018 0.000 0.000 1 Q10. Do you agree that consumer demand for sustainable homes has affected construction and/or design of your homes? 3.571 3.000 -0.571 0.327 0.091 1 Q14. Do you agree there is increased confusion over which green standards to use? 4.286 4.375 0.089 0.008 0.002 1 Q15. Does your company agree that rating systems are worth the extra costs? 2.857 2.875 0.018 0.000 0.000 1 Q18. Do you agree that there is a consumer preference of green or sustainable homes over traditionally or non-green homes? 2.571 2.500 -0.071 0.005 0.002 1 Q19. Green or sustainable design and/or construction help you sell your homes faster. 2.714 2.375 -0.339 0.115 0.042 1 Q20. Green or sustainable design and/or construction benefit the environment. 4.429 4.125 -0.304 0.092 0.021 1 Total 0.485 11 19.7 at 95% with 11 D.F. 19.7 > 0.485 95

PAGE 96

Familiarity Table E-7. Data based on familiarity with sustai nable practices with chi-squared test between developers and builders Question Developers (D) Builders (B) B-D (BD)^2 ChiSquared D.F. Q11. How familiar is your company with the U.S. Green Building Councils (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Homes (LEED-H)? 4.000 3.375 -0.625 0.391 0.098 1 Q12. How familiar is your company with the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Green Building Standard? 3.429 3.125 -0.304 0.092 0.027 1 Q13. How familiar is your company with Energy Star brand (i.e. appliances, HVAC)? 4.429 4.625 0.196 0.039 0.009 1 Total 0.133 3 7.81 at 95% with 3 D.F. 7.81 > 0.133 96

PAGE 97

Table E-8. Data based on familiarity with sustai nable concepts and techniques with chi-squared test between builder s and developers Q21. Answer Options Developers (D) Builders (B) B-D (B-D)^2 ChiSquared D.F. Site Selection 100% 75% -25.0 625.0 6.3 1 Minimal Disturbance to surrounding Areas 100 50 -50.0 2500.0 25.0 1 Access to Open Space 100 25 -75.0 5625.0 56.3 1 Drought tolerant plants and landscaping design 100 87.5 -12.5 156.3 1.6 1 Drip Irrigation 100 75 -25 625.0 6.3 1 Xeriscaping 85.7 75 -10.7 114.5 1.3 1 Permeable Pavement 85.7 50 -35.7 1274.5 14.9 1 Erosion Control 85.7 37.5 -48.2 2323.2 27.1 1 Reduction of Heat Island Effects 71.4 12.5 -58.9 3469.2 48.6 1 Pest control Alternatives 57.1 62.5 5.4 29.2 0.5 1 Graywater Reuse 85.7 50 -35.7 1274.5 14.9 1 Energy Star Appliances 85.7 100 14.3 204.5 2.4 1 Storm Water Treatment 85.7 37.5 -48.2 2323.2 27.1 1 SIPs 28.6 25 -3.6 13.0 0.5 1 Value Engineering 85.7 50 -35.7 1274.5 14.9 1 Green Label 28.6 37.5 8.9 79.2 2.8 1 Refrigerant Management System 57.1 50 -7.1 50.4 0.9 1 Solar Water Heating System 42.9 62.5 19.6 384.2 9.0 1 Low-E Glass 85.7 100 14.3 204.5 2.4 1 Rainwater Collection Systems 100 37.5 -62.5 3906.3 39.1 1 FSC Certified Wood 57.1 12.5 -44.6 1989.2 34.8 1 Renewable Energy System 42.9 37.5 -5.4 29.2 0.7 1 Passive Design 85.7 37.5 -48.2 2323.2 27.1 1 Construction Waste Management 100 50 -50 2500.0 25.0 1 Photovoltaic Energy 71.4 75.0 3.6 13.0 0.2 1 Thermal Bridge 12.5 25.0 12.5 156.3 12.5 1 Vegetated Roof 42.9 12.5 -30.4 924.2 21.5 1 Rain Garden 71.4 12.5 -58.9 3469.2 48.6 1 97

PAGE 98

Table E-8. Continued. Q21. Answer Options Developers (D) Builders (B) B-D (B-D)^2 ChiSquared D.F. Compact Development Density 85.7% 75.0% -10.7 114.5 1.3 1 Pipe Insulation 71.4 50.0 -21.4 458.0 6.4 1 Daylighting 71.4 37.5 -33.9 1149.2 16.1 1 Framing Efficiency 57.1 75.0 17.9 320.4 5.6 1 Energy Modeling 71.4 62.5 -8.9 79.2 1.1 1 Solar Orientation 85.7 62.5 -23.2 538.2 6.3 1 VOCs 57.1 62.5 5.4 29.2 0.5 1 Green Globes 0.0 25.0 25.0 625.0 0.0 1 Carbon Dioxide Monitoring 28.6 37.5 8.9 79.2 2.8 1 Use of ReadilyRenewable materials 71.4 62.5 -8.9 79.2 1.1 1 Radon Protection 42.9 75.0 32.1 1030.4 24.0 1 Use of recycled or salvaged materials 71.4 62.5 -8.9 79.2 1.1 1 Total 66.365 12 55.8 at 95% with 40 D.F. 55.8 < 538.77 98

PAGE 99

Frequency Table E-9. Raw data based on frequency of su stainable concepts and techniques with chisquared test between builders and developers Question Developers (D) Builders (B) B-D (B-D)^2 ChiSquared D.F. Q16. How often does your company actively use a rating system for assessing green or sustainable design? 4.571 3.125 -1.446 2.092 0.458 1 Q17. How often does your company actively train its employees in green techniques? 4.000 2.250 -1.750 3.063 0.766 1 Total 1.223 2 5.99 at 95% with 2 D.F. 5.991 > 1.223 99

PAGE 100

LIST OF REFERENCES American Hydrotech Inc. (2008). Bringing green roofs to a whole new level Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://hydrotechusa.com Barista, D. (2008). CSI's Green Format: A new tool in green product evaluation. Building Design & Construction 49(11) 3. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Brandon, P.S. (1999). Sustainability in mana gement and organization: the key issues? Building Research and Information 27(6) 390. Brown, G. and DeKay, M. (2001). Sun, Wind, & Light (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Cassidy, R. (2008). 10 ways you can hold down project costs. Building Design & Construction 49(1) 9. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Cassidy, R. (2008). Beware of hype on the value of green buildings. Building Design & Construction 49(9) 7. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Chiras, C. (2003). Nuts + bolts--tapping into the sun. Natural Home Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://www.naturalhomemagazine.com/Re modeling-Redecorating/2003-03-01/Nuts-Bolts.aspx Construction Industry Institute (CII). (2006). White Paper Idea #43. Retrieved September 21, 2008, from the University of Texas at Austin, Construction Industry Institute: http://construction-institute.org/ scriptcontent/btsc-pubs/CII-BTSC-43.doc Cullen, C. (2008). Turner Construction Co mpany: reaching out to the community. Building Design & Construction 49(4) 66. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global database. Edwards, B. ed. (2003). Green Buildings Pay. New York: Spoon Press. FGBC. (2009). Green Home Designation Standard Retrieved August 5, 2009, from http://www.floridagreenbuilding.o rg/files/1/file/HomeV6Standard.pdf Kats, G. H. (2003). The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F3259.pdf Kibert, C.J. (2008). Sustainable Architecture (2nd ed.) Hoboken: Wiley & Sons. Malin, N. (2000). The cost of green materials. Building Research & Information 28(5 & 6) 408 412. Retrieved from Informaworld. Mendler, S., Odell, W., and Lazarus, M.A. (2006). The HOK Guidebook to Sustainable Design(2nd ed) New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Morley, M. (2000, September). What are structural in sulated panels? Fine Home Building. Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://www.finehomebuilding.com/howto/articles/structural-insulated-panels.aspx 100

PAGE 101

NAHB. (2008). NAHB National Green Building Program Retrieved August 2, 2009, from http://www.nahbgreen.org. NAHB. (2006). NAHB Model Green Home Building Guidelines Retrieved August 2, 2009, from http://www.nahbgreen.org/con tent/pdf/nahb_guidelines.pdf NAHB/ICC. (2009). National Green Building Standard. Retrieved August 2, 2009, from http://www.nahbgreen.org/Guidelines/ansistandard.aspx NAHB Research Center. (2008). Passive solar design Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://www.toolbase.org/ToolbaseResour ces/level4DG.aspx?ContentDetailID=1288& BucketID=4&CategoryID=10 Nelms, C. E., Russell, A. D., and Lence, B. J. (2007). Assessing the performance of sustainable technologies: a framework and its application, Building Research & Information 35(3) 237 251. Retrieved from Informaworld database. Net-Zero Energy Home Coalition. (2009). What is a Net-Zero Energy Home? Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://www.netzeroenergyhome.ca/ Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (2008). Insulation: insulating a new house (do it right the first time) Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://www.taunton.com/finehomebuilding/ how-to/articles/structural-insulatedpanels.aspx Parker, D. and Dunlop, J. (1994). Solar photovoltaic air conditioning of residential buildings Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/publications/html/FSECRR-118-94/index.htm Progress Energy. (2008). R-values Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://www.progressenergy.com/custservice/carre s/billtoolkit/rvalues.asp RS Means. (2002). Green Building: Project Planning & Cost Estimating. Massachusetts: Reed Construction Data. Sassi, P. (2006). Strategies for Sustainable Architecture New York: Taylor & Francis, Inc. Schendler, S. and Udall, R. ( 2005) LEED is brokenLets fix it. Retrieved August 2, 2009, from http://www.aspensnowmass.com/environment/images/LEEDisBroken.pdf U.S. Department of Energy. (2006). Building America Residential System Research Results: Achieving 30% Whole house energy Savings Le vel in Hot-Dry and Mixed-Dry Climates. Retrieved June 5, 2009, from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/39744.pdf U.S. Department of Energy. (2009). Energy E fficiency and Renewabl e Energy. Retrieved August 1, 2009, from http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/insulation_airsealing/index.cfm/mytopic=11340 101

PAGE 102

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices. Retrieved August 5, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/costs07/ documents/reducingstormwatercosts.pdf USGBC. (2008). LEED for Homes Rating System. Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://www. .org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3638 usgbc USGBC. (2008). What is LEED? Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://www. .org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19 usgbc Wu, D., Chan, E.H., and Shen, L. (2003). Sc oring System for Meas uring Contractors Environmental Performance. Journal of Construction Research 5(1) 159 167. 102

PAGE 103

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kristen Hlad, the only child of Carol Anne and Gregory Michael Hlad, was born in Dunedin, Florida. In 2001, she graduated cum la ude from Palm Harbor University High School International Baccalaureate program. She receiv ed her Bachelor of Design with a major in Architecture from the University of Florida, as well as, a minor in mass communication studies in May 2006. Kristen then went on to earn a Mast er of Architecture from the University of Florida in May 2008 and a Master of Science in Building Construction in December 2009. She was LEED-AP certified in May 2008. 103