<%BANNER%>

Reactions to Mandated Sustainable Construction Within the Army Corps of Engineers

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041909/00001

Material Information

Title: Reactions to Mandated Sustainable Construction Within the Army Corps of Engineers
Physical Description: 1 online resource (103 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Neff, Sharon
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: army, construction, corps, engineers, leed, mandate, personnel, reaction, sustainable, training, usace
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: Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction REACTIONS TO SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS By Sharon Neff August 2010 Chair: J. Sullivan Major: Building Construction The construction industry is evolving; it is in a transition state, moving from conventional means to sustainable construction practices. The beginnings of this transition date back to the middle of the twentieth century and began to truly took hold in the 1990?s. Since that time the facts of energy consumption and material use and waste connected to buildings and the construction industry have become well known. Innovative members of the industry have begun to change their construction methods to more sustainable practices in response. Some companies and institutions have mandated the change to sustainable construction; one such institution is the U.S. Army. The U.S. Army mandated the transition to sustainable construction practices in 2002. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was mandated to train and prepare its personnel to design and build by the guidelines of a sustainable construction rating system. The USACE is currently using the LEED NC 3.0 system for Army projects. All Army projects have been mandated to be built to the LEED Silver standard. Little to no research has been conducted as to the effects the transition had on USACE personnel. The personnel?s perception of the preparation and training that they received in order to change from conventional construction to sustainable construction practices will be measured via survey and analyzed. The USACE employee?s opinions regarding the transition to sustainable construction can be of use to other members of the construction industry who are or will be experiencing the transition to sustainable construction within their own companies.
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 Sharon Neff.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Sullivan, James.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041909:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041909/00001

Material Information

Title: Reactions to Mandated Sustainable Construction Within the Army Corps of Engineers
Physical Description: 1 online resource (103 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Neff, Sharon
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: army, construction, corps, engineers, leed, mandate, personnel, reaction, sustainable, training, usace
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: Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction REACTIONS TO SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS By Sharon Neff August 2010 Chair: J. Sullivan Major: Building Construction The construction industry is evolving; it is in a transition state, moving from conventional means to sustainable construction practices. The beginnings of this transition date back to the middle of the twentieth century and began to truly took hold in the 1990?s. Since that time the facts of energy consumption and material use and waste connected to buildings and the construction industry have become well known. Innovative members of the industry have begun to change their construction methods to more sustainable practices in response. Some companies and institutions have mandated the change to sustainable construction; one such institution is the U.S. Army. The U.S. Army mandated the transition to sustainable construction practices in 2002. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was mandated to train and prepare its personnel to design and build by the guidelines of a sustainable construction rating system. The USACE is currently using the LEED NC 3.0 system for Army projects. All Army projects have been mandated to be built to the LEED Silver standard. Little to no research has been conducted as to the effects the transition had on USACE personnel. The personnel?s perception of the preparation and training that they received in order to change from conventional construction to sustainable construction practices will be measured via survey and analyzed. The USACE employee?s opinions regarding the transition to sustainable construction can be of use to other members of the construction industry who are or will be experiencing the transition to sustainable construction within their own companies.
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 Sharon Neff.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Sullivan, James.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041909:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





REACTIONS TO MANDATED SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE U.S.
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS




















By

SHARON NEFF


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

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2010

































2010 Sharon Neff



























To my family and my construction industry peers who dedicate themselves to furthering
sustainable construction practices









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank my committee members Dr. James Sullivan, Dr. Robert Ries, and Dr. Doug

Lucas. My committee had a great influence on my education as well as my report. You

and the other facility of the Rinker School of Building Construction have impacted my

life and given me the knowledge to become an outstanding member of the construction

industry. I would also like to thank Mark Russell without whom this research would not

have occurred. A special thank you goes to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

personnel, especially Mr. Richard Schneider and Ms. Jeanette Fiess for their help and

participation with the research.

I thank my parents for supporting me emotionally and financially through my

academic aspirations. I thank my fiance for his unwavering support and

encouragement. He kept me striving to be best the best that I can be, even when times

were tough. I would not be the person I am today without the support and

encouragement of the people who are closest to me.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................... ....... ...........................

LIST O F TA BLES ......... ................ ..................... ...... ............... 8

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

A B S T R A C T .............. ..... ............ ................. .................................................. 1 3

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION .................. ...... ......... ......... 15

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................... ............................... 19

2.1 Sustainability............................ .......... 19
2.1.1 History of Sustainability .......................... ................ .. 20
2.1.2 Environm ental Ethics............................................... .................... 21
2.1.3 The Principles of Sustainability ....................................................... 23
2.2 Sustainable Construction ....................................... ................................... 25
2.2.1 The Pillars of Sustainable Construction......................... ........ 25
2.2.1.1 The social pillar of sustainable construction ............................ 26
2.2.1.2 The economic pillar of sustainable construction ..................... 27
2.2.1.3 The biophysical pillar of sustainable construction .................... 27
2.2.1.4 The technical pillar of sustainable construction ...................... 28
2.2.2 Sustainable Construction Rating Systems .......................................... 29
2.2.2.1 The green globes assessment protocol .............................. 30
2.2.2.2 The LEED rating system ..................................................... 31
2.2.2.3 The U.S. Army's SPiRiT rating system ................ ............... 33
2.3 Sustainability and the U.S. Army ........................... ........... ...... 35
2.3.1 Army Construction Process ............ ................... .. ........ 39
2.3.2 The Army Corps of Engineers ............ ................ ...... 40
2.4 The Transition to Green Design ................... ....................... ..... 42
2.5 Barriers to Sustainable Construction.................................... .......... 44
2.5.1 Barriers Perceived by the Construction Industry ................................. 44
2.5.2 Social and Psychological Barriers to Sustainable Construction ............ 45
2.5.3 Technological Barriers to Sustainable Construction ............................ 48
2.6 Overcoming Barriers to Sustainable Construction ................ .... .......... ........ 49
2.6.1 Overcoming the Perceived Cost Barrier to Sustainability ...................... 50
2.6.2 Overcoming the Socio-Technical Barrier to Sustainability.................. 52
2.6.3 Overcoming the Social and Psychological Barriers to Sustainability..... 52
2.6.4 Overcoming the Knowledge Sharing Barrier to Sustainability ............... 53

3 METHODOLOGY ........................... ............... 55









3.1 Problem Statement ....................................................... 55
3.2 Conducting Research ............................... ..................... 55
3.4 The Survey ................ .... ................ ........ 56
3.3 Hypothesis ....................................................................................... ................... 57

4 R E S U L T S .................................................................................................. 6 0

4.1 Survey Results................................. .....................60
4.1.1 Survey Population Demographics ........................... ................... 60
4.1.1.1 Survey population results for profession .............................. 60
4.1.1.2 Survey population results for pay grade .............................. 61
4.1.1.3 Survey population results for experience in construction
industry .............. .. ........... ........ ..... ........ ..... 62
4.1.1.4 Survey population results for experience with sustainable
construction .............. .... ...... ..... ............. ............... 63
4.1.1.5 Survey respondents' level of responsibility for sustainable
practices on their respective project teams.......................... 65
4.1.2 Respondents' Personal Reaction to Sustainability ............................... 65
4.1.2.1 Respondents' acceptance of sustainable culture in their
persona l life ............................ ............................. ............. 66
4.1.2.2 Respondents' current personal interest in sustainable
construction ................ ................. ................. ................ 66
4.1.2.3 Respondents' personal interest in sustainable construction
p rio r to m a n d ate ................................. ................................ 6 6
4.1.2.4 Respondents' introduction to sustainable construction ........... 67
4.1.3 Practical Sustainable Building Construction Experience ...................... 68
4.1.3.1 Number of projects built using sustainable construction
practices ................ ................... ....... ....... ................ ... 68
4.1.3.2 Comfort with using sustainable construction......................... 69
4.1.4 The perception of the survey population on the USACE's ability to
train and provide information to personnel regarding sustainable
co n stru ctio n ............................................... .. .................. .... 7 0
4.1.4.1 Introduction to sustainable construction within the office
setting ................. ... .......... ................. ... .... ..... 72
4.1.4.3 Respondent exposure to training media................................ 73
4.1.4.4 Respondent amount of training in sustainable construction..... 73
4.1.4.5 Sufficiency of training received ............... ................ .......... 74
4.1.5 Resistance to Sustainable Construction................ ........................... 75
4.1.5.1 Perceived resistance to sustainable construction................... 76
4.1.5.2 Methods used to overcome resistance to sustainable
co nstructio n ............... ..................................... .... ........ 7 7

5 A N A LY S IS .................................................... ................. ............. .. 79

5 .1 A analysis of S survey ................................................... ..................... 79
5.1.1 Analysis Regarding Hypothesis 1 ...................................... ......... ... ... 79
5.1.2 Analysis Regarding Hypothesis 2................ .................................. 82









5.1.3 Analysis Regarding Hypothesis 3 ................... ......... .................... 84
5.1.4 Analysis Regarding Hypothesis 4 ........................... .................. 85
5.1.4 Analysis Regarding Hypothesis 5 ........................... .................. 87

6 CONCLUSION .......................................................................... ... .......... .................. 89

Sum m ary .................................................................................................... 89
L im ita tio n s ............................................................................................... .... 8 9
Recom m endations for Future Study ...................................................... ........ 90

APPENDIX

A IR B A P P R O V A L ................................ ................................................... 9 1

B S U R V E Y .................................................................................................... 9 2

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

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









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 The green globes rating system adapted from (Green Globes 2010)................. 31

2-2 The LEED rating system categories and criteria adapted from (USGBC 2009). 32

2-3 Survey responses on the perception of the impact of sustainable
construction, adapted from (Chong et al. 2009)....................... ........... .... 43

4-1 Survey respondent demographics by profession..................... ............. .. 60

4-2 Survey respondent demographics organized by pay grade.............................. 61

4-3 Survey respondent demographics organized by experience........................... 62

4-4 Survey population's years of experience with sustainable construction ............. 63

4-5 Respondents' level of responsibility for sustainable construction .................... 65

4-6 Respondents' acceptance of sustainable culture in their personal life............... 66

4-7 Respondents' current personal interest in sustainable construction................... 66

4-8 Respondents' personal interest in sustainable construction prior to mandate.... 66

4-9 Reason for respondents' first involvement with sustainable construction .......... 67

4-10 Reasons respondents indicated a personal interest in sustainable
construction .............. ... ...... .......... ....... ........................... 68

4-11 Number of projects built using LEED or SPiRiT rating systems in survey
population offices............................................ ....... ........... 69

4-12 Length of time it took survey population's offices to become comfortable with
sustainable construction ................ .. ..... ....... ......... .......... 69

4-13 Data of m multiple questions from survey.................................. ..................... 70

4-14 The perception of the way that USAGE offices transitioned to sustainable
construction practices ....................... ................ ................ ........... 72

4-15 Respondent's exposure to types of training media in the last year................. 73

4-16 Amount of time spent in training for sustainable construction in the last year .... 73

4-17 Perception of the sufficiency of training received........................ ............ ... 74









4-18 Perceived resistance to sustainable construction....... ...... .......................... 76

4-19 Perceived amount of people resistant to sustainable construction transition...... 76

4-20 Methods employed to overcome resistance to transition to sustainable
construction .............. ..... ........... ...... ............................. 78

5-1 The results of the perceived level of resistance based on pay grade of
respondents .............. ...... .... ...... ......... ................. ........... 79

5-2 The results of the sufficiency of training on sustainable construction based on
the pay grade of respondents .................. ............... ............... 82

5-3 Respondents' personal interest in sustainable construction prior to mandate.... 85

5-4 Respondents' first involvement with sustainable construction by profession...... 88









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

2-1 The principles of sustainable construction, adapted from (Kibert 2008) ............. 23

2-2 The pillars of sustainable construction, adapted from (Hill and Bowen 1997) .... 26

2-3 USGBC plaque indicating a LEED Gold certification, as seen on the M.E.
Rinker, Sr. Hall Building on the University of Florida's Gainesville campus........ 33

2-4 The U.S. Army triple bottom line, adapted from (U.S. Army 2008)..................... 38

2-5 The MILCON process hierarchy system ......... .......... .. ................ ... 40

2-6 Survey responses on the barriers of implementing sustainable construction,
adapted from (Turner Construction Company 2008) ............... ................. .... 45

2-7 Creation of a sustainability culture, adapted from (Hallmark 2006) .................. 49

4-1 Survey respondent demographics by profession..................... ............. .. 61

4-2 Survey population pay grade demographics ................................... ............... 62

4-3 Survey respondent experience demographics ................................................ 63

4-4 Survey respondents' years of experience with sustainable construction ........... 64

4-5 Perception of the sufficiency of training received........................ ............ ... 75

4-6 Perceived amount of people resistant to sustainable construction transition...... 77

5-1 Survey respondent by pay grade compared to perceived level of resistance
to sustainable construction ................................................................. ...... 80

5-2 Mean of responses ranked by respondent pay grade................................... 81

5-3 Survey respondent by pay grade compared to level of sufficiency of training
fo r susta inab le co nstructio n .................................................................. ........ 83

5-4 Mean of responses to sufficiency of training received ranked by respondent
pay grade ...................................... ............................... ......... 83

5-5 Mean of responses to sufficiency of training received ranked by respondent
profession .................................................... ................... ..... .. ........ 86











A-E-C-CM

ASCE

ASE


ASR

CID

DOD

EISA

FORSCOM

GBI

GBCI

GRI

GS

GSA

IAQ

ISO

ISP

LEED

LEED AP


MILCON

PDT

POC

SDD

SPiRiT


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Architect/engineer/constructor/construction manager

American Society of Civil Engineers

Army Strategy for the Environment: Sustain the Mission Secure
the Future

Army Sustainability Report 2007

Conseil International du Batiment

Department of Defense

Energy Independence and Security Act

Forces Command

Green Building Initiative

Green Building Certification Institute

Global Reporting Initiative

General Services

United States General Services Administration

Indoor Air Quality

International Standards Organization

Installation Sustainability Program

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited
Professional

Military Construction

Project Delivery Team

Point of Contact

Sustainable Design and Development

Sustainable Project Rating Tool









USAGE United States Army Corp of Engineers

USGBC Unites States Green Building Coalition

WCED World Commission on Environment and Development









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

REACTIONS TO SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE U.S. ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
By

Sharon Neff

August 2010

Chair: J. Sullivan
Major: Building Construction

The construction industry is evolving; it is in a transition state, moving from

conventional means to sustainable construction practices. The beginnings of this

transition date back to the middle of the twentieth century and began to truly took hold in

the 1990s. Since that time the facts of energy consumption and material use and waste

connected to buildings and the construction industry have become well known.

Innovative members of the industry have begun to change their construction methods to

more sustainable practices in response.

Some companies and institutions have mandated the change to sustainable

construction; one such institution is the U.S. Army. The U.S. Army mandated the

transition to sustainable construction practices in 2002. The U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE) was mandated to train and prepare its personnel to design and

build by the guidelines of a sustainable construction rating system. The USACE is

currently using the LEED NC 3.0 system for Army projects. All Army projects have

been mandated to be built to the LEED Silver standard.

Little to no research has been conducted as to the effects the transition had on

USACE personnel. The personnel's perception of the preparation and training that they









received in order to change from conventional construction to sustainable construction

practices will be measured via survey and analyzed. The USAGE employee's opinions

regarding the transition to sustainable construction can be of use to other members of

the construction industry who are or will be experiencing the transition to sustainable

construction within their own companies.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION


The world is changing. Whether it is in response to a change in climate or to

simply try to be more responsible with limited resources is inconsequential.

Sustainability is becoming more than just a catch phrase, its doctrine of conserving and

preserving is being adopted by many industries. Even the federal government is

spouting the advantages of changing the economy to a clean energy economy (The

White House 2010). As sustainability is gaining approval, technologies and standards

have and will continue to rush to become more and more efficient to meet the new

standards.

The construction industry is at a crossroads of convention and innovation. On one

hand the construction industry is accepting of the sustainable movement, one example

of their acceptance would be the growing number of construction industry professional

who are becoming LEED APs (USGBC 2010). On the other hand, the industry may be

forced via mandates into acceptance by universities, organizations and municipalities

that require green building practices to be used for their building and renovation

projects. Change is not readily accepted in the construction industry due to perceived

liability issues and a reluctance to be the first to try something new.

There has been little research on how personnel within the construction industry

have dealt with the transition to sustainable design and construction. Are sustainable

practices being implemented with or without their support? Do construction industry

workers who are working in sustainable construction actually believe in the principles

and ethical nature of sustainability? Do they have a personal interest in sustainability, or

are they just doing the work they are contracted to perform? There are many questions









that have not yet been asked, the sheer size of the construction community is a limiting

factor (United States Department of Labor 2010). In order to begin researching this

topic a smaller sample size is needed. For the purposes of this report the managers

directly working with sustainability in the United States Army Corps of Engineers

(USAGE) will be studied.

This report will focus on the USAGE's work that is done for the U.S. Army. The

U.S. Army conducts all of its construction following its sustainable design and

development (SDD) methods. The U.S. Army acquires its funds through the

department of defense (DOD). The DOD is one of the largest departments operated by

the U.S. government, it had a budget of $529,876,000,000 in 2007 and an estimated

budget of $651,163,000,000 for 2009 (U.S. Office of Management and Budget 2009).

That money goes towards everything required for the defense of the United States

including construction. The DOD's budget for construction in 2007 was $9,167,000,000

and the 2009 budget was estimated to be $21,197,000,000 (U.S. Office of Management

and Budget 2009). The amount of the construction budget that went specifically toward

U.S. Army construction is not known, but even a fraction of the estimated $21 billion

construction budget for 2009 would have made an impact on the sustainable

construction market.

The U.S. Army adopted sustainable construction practices in 2002 (Dalton 2008).

The USAGE was mandated to familiarize its staff quickly and effectively in order to

transition from conventional construction to sustainable construction measures. The

impact of the transition and the effectiveness of the training on the USAGE personnel

are not known. The managers within the USAGE offices are more impacted by the









mandated change to sustainable construction than other staff members. This report will

analyze the managerial personnel's perceptions of sustainable construction and the

effectiveness of the training provided to them.

This study is significant in that it will evaluate the personnel of an organization that

has transitioned from conventional to sustainable construction via mandate. The report

will collect responses via a survey of managers who deal directly with sustainable

construction practices in their individual offices. The data collected will determine if the

training and other means of preparation were effective in establishing a level of

knowledge among the USAGE managerial staff who deal directly with sustainability.

The perception of the effectiveness of their training will provide the construction industry

with knowledge of what means of training were effective when transitioning to

sustainable construction via mandate.

Some hypotheses of the perceptions of the USAGE personnel to be determined by

the study are as follows:

* The higher the level of management (determined by pay grade) the lower the
perception of resistance to sustainable construction practices.

* The higher the level of management (determined by pay grade) the more likely
they were to feel that their training was sufficient.

* Overall the USAGE personnel were not personally interested in sustainable
construction prior to the mandate.

* The respondents, if grouped by profession, would have different opinions on the
sufficiency of the sustainable construction training.

* The respondents would have differing opinions on why they first became involved
with sustainable construction based on profession.

These hypotheses will be further discussed in the methodology chapter of this

report. The results will be determined via survey and analyzed in the analysis of results









chapter. Finally, conclusions and recommendations will be given in the final chapter of

this thesis.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Sustainability

In pre-industrialized society there was no question of whether a product or practice

was sustainable or not. Resources were typically local and for the most part

sustainable. People of the pre-industrial era understood intuitively that they depended

on the local ecosystem to support and sustain their lives. Sustainable practices had

gone on unhindered for millennia. Fast-forward to present day, the current economy of

the developed world is based squarely on consumerism and the need to replace every

product with the latest and greatest. This cycle is ingrained in the minds of the latest

westernized human generation. It is of no consequence to the conscience of many of

this generation to throw barely used merchandise into landfills and then turn around and

replace it with a newer version. Yet there is a growing movement that is bucking the

trend; it has been gaining ground over the past few decades. The sustainable

movement is attracting people from all walks of life. Many people are attracted to the

concept of sustainability because of the core principle of reducing the impact that the

human species has on the planet. Others see sustainability simply as 'the right thing to

do'.

The growth of sustainable practices and theory has given rise to many

subcategories of sustainability. For the purposes of this paper one such subcategory of

sustainability will be explored: sustainable construction. Modern sustainable

construction has been on the radar for more than twenty years and yet it has not made

a significant change in the way the majority of buildings are constructed (Kibert 2008).

The bulk of design and construction professionals have been slow to accept sustainable









construction practices, while others have jumped right on board. Many large institutions

are leading the way to sustainable construction including the U.S. General Services

Administration (GSA), many state and local governments, and universities around the

country. The U.S. Army is one of these institutions who has accepted sustainability as a

policy and is constructing all of its building using green construction practices.

This literature review will shed light on the concepts and principles of sustainable

construction. It will review the US Army's acceptance of sustainable construction

practices. The review will also explore why many construction professionals are slow to

accept sustainable construction practices, and offer methods of overcoming that

resistance to transitioning to sustainable construction practices.

2.1.1 History of Sustainability

The technological advances that have occurred since the beginning of the

industrial revolution have drastically changed the planet's systems (Hill and Bowen

2007). The explosion of the human population has lead to the unsustainable

consumption of resources. In January 2010 the United Nations Department of

Economic and Social Affairs estimated a world population of 6,750,062,000 for the year

2008, this is up from an estimate of 6,670,801,000 for the year 2007(United Nations

Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2010). The middle of the 20th century was

the starting point of modern sustainable thinking. Environmentalism began in this

period of time and lead to such a standing that the first Earth Day was celebrated in

Vermont in April 1970. Another product of the advances in environmentalism occurred

in 1972 when the United Nations Conference on Human Environment was held in

Stockholm (Hill and Bowen 1997). The conference brought about the concept of

ecodevelopment. Ecodevelopment is defined as "an approach to development aimed at









harmonizing social and economic objectives and ecologically sound management" (Hill

and Bowen 1997, citing Gardner 1989, citing Sachs 1978). According to Hill and Bowen

(1997), sustainable development was spawned from ecodevelopment. Sustainable

development is the precursor to sustainable construction.

The 1970s and early 1980s was a time of much discussion on how development

could uphold the ideals of conservation and preservation that permeated the

sustainable vernacular of the time. The dialogue culminated in a conference; the World

Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). The WCED produced the

much sited publication 'Our Common Future' in 1987. This publication is sometimes

referred to as the 'Brundtland Report'. Our Common Future defined sustainable

development as "meeting the basic needs of the people without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (WCED 1987). The report is the

foundation of most research on sustainable development to this day.

2.1.2 Environmental Ethics

The Brundtland Report cited sustainable development as the foundation of the

concept of the ethics of sustainability. One major concept of the ethics of sustainability

is that the planet is valuable and vulnerable, from the perspective of its inhabitants. It is

valuable because of the resources it provides for its inhabitants and the planet is

consequentially vulnerable to its inhabitants in their pursuit of resources (Attfield 1999).

A set of values was needed to define why resources and the planet itself should be

protected from the harm of man. This set of values was defined and is now known as

environmental ethics.









2.1.2.1 The ethics of sustainable development

The concepts of sustainable development are a subset of environmental ethics. In

1986 the United Nations created a definition of development in the 'Declaration on the

Right to Development', in which development was defined as:

a comprehensive economic, social, cultural and political process, which
aims at the constant improvement of all well-being of the entire population
and of all its inhabitants on the basis of their active, free and meaningful
participation in development and in the fair distribution of the benefits
resulting therefrom. (United Nations 1986)

As per the definition, development can not to be measured by economic growth alone.

According to Attfield (1999), sustainable development is a "social state of progress"

which is present when the evils of underdevelopment are reduced or completely

alleviated and replaced by the good of development. For example, sustainable

development is illiteracy replaced by literacy, poverty replaced with meaningful

employment, and poor health facilities replaced with health facilities that bring health

and wellness to the population. At its simplest, sustainable development is the

satisfaction of basic needs (Attfield 1999). Under this definition of sustainable

development, if a building is constructed to a sustainable building standard, such as

LEED, but it does not offer any benefit to the people of the surrounding community, then

it is not considered to be truly sustainable. This benefit that Attfield describes is

sometimes difficult to define in measurable terms.

The ethics of sustainable development go far beyond the realm of construction

and the built environment. For the purposes of this paper only the ethics of sustainable

construction will be explored. Reduce, reuse, and recycle are the basis for most of the

environmental movement and so it is also integral in the practices of sustainable

construction. There have been additions and evolutions of the basic principles of









environmental ethics. Organizations and individuals have collected and analyzed the

basis of sustainable construction and they have created many principles of sustainable

construction. One such institution was the international construction research

networking organization Conseil International du Batiment (CIB) (Kibert 2008).

2.1.3 The Principles of Sustainability

For the purposes of this report, the discussion of principles will focus on the

principles of sustainability that were developed in 1994 by CIB (see Figure 2-1). The

seven principles are to be applied to inform decisions regarding phases of the life of a

building and to the resources that are utilized by that building. The phases of the

building include planning, development, design, construction, use and operation,

maintenance, modification, and deconstruction. The resources utilized by a building

include: land, materials, water, energy and the surrounding ecosystem (Kibert 2008).


*Reduce resource consumption
*Reuse resources
*Use recycable resources
*Protect nature
*Eliminate toxics
*Apply life-cycle costing
*Focuson quality


Figure 2-1. The principles of sustainable construction, adapted from (Kibert 2008)

The reduction of resource consumption is a key principle of sustainable

construction. The reduction of resources not only refers to the reduction of physical

resources such as metals or cement, but also to the reduction of energy required by the

building's occupants. One of the goals of a sustainable building is to allow its occupants

to feel physically comfortable and not hinder their work while conserving energy through


Reuc



Rweu*se
Recycle
^^^^^^Nature ^









use of passive design and proper sizing of mechanical systems (if there are any

installed).

Many resources are now available that are made from recycled or reused

resources, such as fly ash additives in concrete or recycled steel for structural work.

These products and others lend themselves to the principle of using reused resources.

Reused and recyclable materials are often confused. Reused materials are made from

something that was used as a material for something else prior to becoming whatever it

is in its new context. Recyclable materials on the other hand are materials that can be

reused after the end of the object's current use. Therefore a reused material for certain

had another life before its current use, but a recyclable may be made of a virgin

resource but it does have the capacity to be reused after its current use. The decision

maker who specifies materials used for a building project should strive to select

materials that are both reused and recyclable (Kibert 2008).

Protecting nature is a principle of sustainable development; it begins with the

commitment to construct a building and the process of selecting a site. The ecosystem

is an often ignored resource, but it provides priceless resources such as clean air and

water. Developers and owners should make every effort to build on brownfields or

greyfields and in areas of high density that have existing infrastructure. These practices

will help to preserve the greenfields, or undeveloped land, and have less of an impact

on ecosystems (Kibert 2008).

In order to build sustainably, toxics should be avoided at all costs. Toxic materials

are often confused with toxins. Toxins are natural substances that are produced by

plants and animals as a defense mechanism. Toxic materials are made by man, and









unlike toxins they often do not readily breakdown and become harmless in a short

amount of time (Kibert 2008).

Every project has an impact on economics. Money is being spent and employees

are being hired every time a building goes under construction. For a project to be truly

sustainable life cycle analyses should be done for the systems for the building. Life

cycle costing would show the total cost of a material/system from cradle to grave. One

principle of life cycle costing is to get as much value for products that are to be salvaged

at the end of the building's life so that there is less cost associated with the product

(Kibert 2008).

Quality projects are highly appreciated by the community. The community is more

likely to reinvent and remodel a quality building overtime than a building of lower quality.

Quality products have higher up-front costs but require few repairs and do not need to

be replaced very often, thus making quality more sustainable (Kibert 2008).

2.2 Sustainable Construction

Sustainable construction is an offspring of the sustainable movement. Sustainable

construction is defined by Kibert (2008) as "the ecological, social, and economic issues

of a building in the context of its community". Sustainable construction is difficult to

define because it is essentially a contradiction. The cornerstone of sustainability is

conservation, and the act of building involves the use land and resources, a clear

discord. Sustainable construction is a balancing act of conserving and preserving

ecosystems while providing a beneficial structure or infrastructure (Kibert 2008).

2.2.1 The Pillars of Sustainable Construction

To understand what needs to be attained in order to have a sustainable

construction project, Hill and Bowen (1997) developed through extensive research four










pillars of sustainable construction. The four pillars of sustainable construction

encompass social, economic, biophysical, and technical concepts (See Figure 2-2).


Social Economic Biophysical Technical


Figure 2-2. The pillars of sustainable construction, adapted from (Hill and Bowen 1997)

2.2.1.1 The social pillar of sustainable construction

The social pillar represents the notion of social equality. Social equality calls for a

general improvement of the quality of human life, specifically an improvement on

alleviating poverty and inequality (Hill and Bowen 1997). This pillar represents the

ethical aspect of sustainability and uses many principles that were laid out in 'Our

Common Future' which is also known as 'The Brundtland Report' (WCED 1987).

According to Hill and Bowen (2007), the 'Brundtland Report' stated reviving growth as a

way to reduce poverty. Some believe that the emphasis on growth found in the

'Brundtland Report' was incorrect and the focus should have been on development

rather than growth. The social pillar is perhaps the hardest to define in a single built

project. Some specific things that the social pillar of sustainable construction calls on

construction practitioners to do are as follows

Improve the quality of human life by ensuring secure and adequate
consumption of basic needs, which are food, clothing, shelter, health,
education, and beyond that by ensuring comfort, identity, and choice.
Protect and promote human health through a healthy safe working
environment. Plan and manage construction process to reduce the risk of
accidents, and carefully manage the use of substances which are
hazardous to human health. Implement skills training and capacity
enhancement of disadvantages people to allow them to meaningfully
participate in a project. (Hill and Bowen 1997)


IMPROVEMENT$
TO HUMAN LIFE
-imly hUild in iir dpr
to improve lite
@promote
LI! employment


CONCEPTS
-pprfnrm2nrp
-LlUdliLy
-revitalireurban
intrastructure
0


RESOURCES
-F.Uhsitinn nf n2tUr2l
to human made
LdpiLisl
-red u ce, reuse,
rpcVrie
if









Implementing these policies and others is a means of fulfilling the social requirements of

sustainable construction.

2.2.1.2 The economic pillar of sustainable construction

The economic pillar of sustainable construction as proposed by Hill and Bowen

(1997) is based on the proposals of the economist Solow. According to Hill and Bowen

(1997), Solow suggested that "sustainability was concerned with the substitution of

natural to human-made capital". The depletion of resources due to human consumption

is inevitable, but there are ways of substituting technologies that use unsustainable

resources which can be replaced by natural means (grown) or recycled at the end of

that technology's useful life.

The economic pillar of sustainable construction also deals with the financial

aspects of the building project. These financial aspects include conducting full-cost

accounting and ensuring financial affordability for intended users of the building. It is

also advised to promote employment through the structure that is being created; by

employing locals to build the project and by selecting to build projects which would bring

an economic stimulus to the area and/or provide affordable services for the local people

(Hill and Bowen 1997). Those actions would both input and keep money circulating in

the area in which the project is constructed. Following the principles of the economic

pillar of sustainability, It would be ideal to build in areas that are economically

depressed in order to make a greater impact on people's lives.

2.2.1.3 The biophysical pillar of sustainable construction

The term biophysical as defined by Hill and Bowen (1997) is the" atmosphere,

land, underground resources, the marine environment, flora, fauna and the built

environment". In order to produce a sustainable construction project, the project shall









not require fossil fuels and minerals or produce substances that are foreign to nature at

rates which are faster than the Earth can reabsorb them or create them (Hill and Bowen

1997). Under this condition it is impossible to use petroleum based fuels, which is

extremely impractical at this particular point in time.

Another stipulation of the biophysical pillar is that the project must be designed to

reduce the use of energy, water, materials, and land at every stage of the project's life-

cycle. The reduction of energy requires a reduction in embodied and operating energy

(Hill and Bowen 1997). Many so called sustainable construction projects only focus on

reducing operating energy; this method does not account for the energy it takes to

create the materials and systems of the structure and transport them to the project's

location.

Minimizing pollution and maximizing reused and recyclable materials is another

requirement under the biophysical pillar. By choosing materials that are reused and/or

recycled and also recyclable closes the materials loop. Minimizing the impact on air,

land, and water quality is accomplished by using non-polluting and non-toxic products

and materials for the project.

2.2.1.4 The technical pillar of sustainable construction

The term 'technical' refers to the performance and quality of a structure. Under

the advisement of the technical pillar of sustainable construction, builders are to strive to

construct "durable, reliable and functional structures" (Hill and Bowen 1997). Durable

buildings stand the test of time and continue to fulfill the needs of occupants as those

needs change over time. The durable structure can adapt and reduce the need to build

new structures as technology progresses. The functionality of buildings was once more

important than the style of the building according to Hill and Bowen (1997). Style can









date a structure quickly and cause the occupants to feel poorly towards the building. If

the building's design is based on function and less on style, then the building is more

likely to be viewed positively and be in use over time.

High quality is also a directive of the technological pillar of sustainable

construction. Using quality materials to construct leads to a longer usable life of a

building. According to and Bowen (1997), quality buildings are rarely demolished, they

are more like to be well maintained by their owners and occupants and be seen as a

thing of beauty by the surrounding community.

2.2.2 Sustainable Construction Rating Systems

In order to implement sustainable practices many programs and rating systems

have been developed to give the construction industry a set of guidelines. According to

Kibert (2007), rating systems "provide a score that rates the effects of a building's

design, construction, and operation, among them environmental impacts, resource

consumption, and occupant health". The most popular rating systems were beginning

to be formally created in the early 1990s. Nearly twenty years after the movement

began gaining momentum the sustainable building movement is now a highly

successful part of the building construction industry. There are many types of rating

systems that are available for application to construction projects. Each rating system

has its own focus, which can be on anything from how to build for a single geographic

area or to solely focus on the energy efficiency of a building's appliances. Some of the

more popular rating systems are very generic and can be used worldwide, for example

the United States Green Building Coalition's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design (LEED) rating systems or the Green Building Institute's (GBI)

Green Globes assessment protocol have rated thousands of buildings across the world.









Rating systems such as LEED and Green Globes have propelled the ease with which

organizations can get into the sustainable construction trade (Kibert 2007).

2.2.2.1 The Green Globes Assessment Protocol

The Green Building Institute (GBI) is a nonprofit organization that provides

services to promote credible and practical green building. The GBI was originally

formed to provide rating systems based on the National Association of Home Builder's

(NAHB) rating system for local home builder associations. When an opportunity arose

they entered into the U.S. market and began offering the sustainable construction rating

system that they had formed in Canada. The Green Globes assessment protocol

began to be used for new and existing commercial buildings in the U.S. in 2004 (Green

Globes 2010).

The Green Globes assessment protocol assesses commercial projects for the

environmental impacts that they generate. The assessment system ranks the impacts

of the following categories: energy, indoor environment, site, water, resources,

emissions, and project/environmental management. The sustainable construction

practices that reduce the impacts are ranked on a 1,000 point scale. A project must

gain 35% (350) points of the scale to begin the Green Globes certification assessment

process. The process involves qualified third party professionals reviewing the projects

documents and conducting site visits. Once the project review is complete if the

structure is qualified it will be assigned a rating score of anywhere from one to four

Green Globes depending on the overall points earned for reducing environmental

impact.

The Green Globes assessment system is similar to other rating systems, but it

does have address some issues which makes it unique. Those issues include: project









management, emergency response, planning, durability, adaptability, deconstruction,

life-cycle assessment, and noise control.

Table 2-1. The green globes rating system adapted from (Green Globes 2010)
Environmental Assessment Area Total Points Available
Energy 300
Indoor Environment 160
Resources/Materials 145
Water 130
Site 120
Project Management 100
Emissions 45
Total 1000
2.2.2.2 The LEED Rating System

The Unites States Green Building Coalition (USGBC) launched the Leadership in

Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system for new construction in 1998

(Kibert 2008). LEED is currently the most widely used set of rating systems in the

United States. According to Kibert (2008), the USGBC specifically set out to make the

LEED rating systems market-driven rather than being a government mandate. They

wanted to create a system that would market itself by increasing market value of

buildings constructed and certified under the LEED system. The USGBC also

specifically set out to form the LEED system with a consensus based approach with

input from many different sources including government, industry, and academia.

LEED is a collection of standards and it was updated in 2008 to the v3series. The

collection now includes LEED for Existing Buildings, LEED Commercial Interiors, LEED

Healthcare, LEED for Homes, LEED for schools, LEED for New Construction, and

others. The LEED system has become specific for building types and is attempting to

become regional by offering a new point available for addressing regional environmental

issues. The rating systems certify buildings based upon the number of points earned.









The points are available for attempt, but if a point is not earned or not attempted then

that point is forfeited and essentially counts against the project. The categories that

points are offered in include: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and

atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, innovation in

design, and regional priority.

The LEED v3 project is scored by the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI)

their third party affiliates. Projects are scored on their construction documents and

evidence of implementation of sustainable practices on the job site. Projects can earn a

level of Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum. The points are based on a 100 point scale,

a certified building has received 40-49 points, a silver rating is 50-59 points, and gold

rating has earned 60-79 points, and a platinum rated building has earned 80 points or

more (USGBC 2009). In 2009 the USGBC spelled out its criteria for weighting points, it

goes as follows:

the allocation of points between credits is based on the potential
environmental impacts and human benefits of each credit with respect to a
set of impact categories. The impacts are defined as the environmental or
human effect of the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the
building, such as greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel use, toxins and
carcinogens, air and water pollutants, indoor environmental conditions. A
combination of approaches, including energy modeling, life-cycle
assessment, and transportation analysis, is used to quantify each type of
impact. The resulting allocation of points among credits is called credit
weighting. (USGBC 2009)

See Table 2-2 for the categories and criteria.

Table 2-2. The LEED rating system categories and criteria adapted from (USGBC 2009)
Assessment Category Total Points Possible
Sustainable Sites 26
Water Efficiency 10
Energy and Atmosphere 35
Materials and Resources 14
Indoor Environmental Quality 15









Innovation in Design 6
Regional Priority 4
Total 110
After a certification level is awarded, the building receives a plaque that can be

placed on the building, see Figure 2.3 for an example. The certified building is also

featured on the USGBC website.





















Figure 2-3. USGBC plaque indicating a LEED Gold certification, as seen on the M.E.
Rinker, Sr. Hall Building on the University of Florida's Gainesville campus

2.2.2.3 The U.S. Army's SPiRiT Rating System

The United States Army adopted green building in 2002 with the implementation of

the SPiRiT rating system that was based on LEED NC 2.0. The United States Army

Corp of Engineers (USACE) created the SPiRiT rating system, which is an acronym for

Sustainable Project Rating Tool, in order to build sustainability and meet the Army's

sustainability goals which will be discussed later in this report (Gillespie and Miller

2007). The USACE Engineer Research and Development Center created a document









which lists some of the benefits of using the SPiRiT rating system. Those benefits

include:

* preserving a clean environment

* maintaining sustainable sites

* maximizing water efficiency

* lowering ongoing costs, conserve energy and preserve the atmosphere

* conserving materials and resources

* improving the facility delivery process

* ensuring success in current and future missions

* providing healthy places to live and work (US Army Engineer Research and
Development Center 2008)

The SPiRiT rating system works much like the LEED system; it ranks projects on a

scale system. SPiRiT has a 100 point scale while LEED 2.0 has a 69 point scale. The

additional 31 points that LEED NC 2.0 does not offer were available in three additional

categories that the SPiRiT system has created that go beyond the LEED NC 2.0's six

categories. The added categories are facility delivery process, current mission, and

future missions (Gillespie and Miller 2007).

The facility delivery process addresses the organization of the building's delivery

process by detailing how to assemble the teams and team leaders, how to create

training schedules for maintenance crews, and how to describe the goals and measures

of a successful completion of the project (Gillespie and Miller 2007). The current

mission category of SPiRiT advises commissioning, and setting up written sustainable

operational and maintenance plans and procedures for the building. The future mission

category awards points for planning for the life of the building including designing









buildings that can be used for different purposes in the future and labeling components

of the structure to make it easier to deconstruct and recycle the parts of the building.

The USAGE used the SPiRiT rating system until the beginning of the federal

government's 2008 fiscal year when they mandated a change to the LEED v3 system

for all projects. The mandate to change to the USGBC's LEED system was issued in a

bulletin from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army to the USAGE in January

2006. In the mandate the USAGE specified that all projects be built to a certifiably silver

level on the LEED point scale (Whitaker 2006). Although all projects are built to the

silver certification level the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) requires only

5% of projects to complete the certification process and receive official GBCI

certification (Dalton 2008).

2.3 Sustainability and the U.S. Army

The U.S. Army was founded June 14th 1775; it is currently one of three

departments (army, navy, and air force) that answer to the Department of Defense

(DOD). The army currently has more than 522,000 active-duty soldiers, 264,000 active

reserve component soldiers and these soldiers are supported by more than 250,000

civilians who work for the U.S. Army (U.S. Army 2008). In the late twentieth and the

beginning of the twenty-first century, the army began to seriously consider its own

sustainability; the army began to focus on their triple bottom line: mission, environment,

community (Hallmark 2006).

Over the years communities that once kept their distance from Army installations

began to encroach closer to the post perimeters (Hallmark 2006). As the surrounding

community grew closer a number of issues with noise and other effects of military

training grew to the point that the environmental compliance mission of just maintaining









and conforming to existing laws was longer adequate. According to Hallmark (2006) at

this time Forces Command (FORSCOM) developed the FORSCOM Installation

Sustainability Program (ISP). The ISP focused on logistical support for sustaining field

operations; it was the first step toward long-term sustainability for army operations.

In July 2001 the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, Environment, Safety and

Occupational Health ordered Army installations to adopt ISO 14001. The ISO 14001

standards address environmental management. According to the ISO website, ISO

14001 is meant to "minimize harmful effects on the environment caused by its activities

and to achieve continual improvement of it environmental performance" (International

Standards Organization 2010).

In the last few years the army has developed the Army Strategy for the

Environment (ASE) and the Army Sustainability Report 2007 (ASR). The ASE is the

long-term vision of the sustainable army and it sets up goals that the Army will try and

achieve. As discussed previously in this report the term sustainability can be defined

differently by nearly every entity; the U.S. Army defines a sustainable Army as

"simultaneously meeting current as well as future mission requirements worldwide,

safeguarding human health, improving quality of life, and enhancing the natural

environment" (U.S. Army 2004). The army recognizes that the nature of the world has

changed drastically over the last decades, our enemies are no longer are easily

recognizable, they cannot be based solely on nationality, the borders of nations do not

matter as much as they previously did and the world has essentially become smaller.

Advances in technology and increases in population and urbanism are ever increasingly

placing stresses on human, economic, and natural resources. What were once local









and regional issues occurring over natural resources and ecological decline are now

becoming international issues that influence other countries such as the United States

(U.S. Army Sustainability 2008). The U.S. Army is evolving to meet the current needs

of safeguarding natural systems on which the United States rely on.

The U.S. Army has compiled a report known as The Army Strategy for the

Environment: Sustain the Mission Secure the Future (ASE). It was the first report of its

kind to be created by a U.S. government agency. In the opening statements of the

report the Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Army stated why sustainability is

important to the army:

Sustainability connects our activities today to those of tomorrow with sound
business and environmental practices. We have learned over the past
decades that simply complying with environmental regulations will not
ensure that we will be able to sustain our mission. We must strive to
become systems thinkers if we are to benefit from the interrelationships of
the triple bottom line of sustainability: mission, environment, and
community. To sustain the future Army we must implement effective
policies and practices that safeguard the environment and our quality of life
in a manner that our nation expects of us. (U.S. Army 2004)

The Chief of Staff and the Secretary of State make reference to the U.S. Army's

triple bottom line of sustainability. The triple bottom line in the conventional business

sector is people, planet, and profit or economic, social and ecological costs of a product

or decision. The triple bottom line of the U.S. Army is defined as mission, environment,

and community (see Figure 2-4). Under the sustainability measures, when the U.S.

Army makes a decision is must measure the impacts on the mission of the army, the

environment, and the surrounding community. The ASR released in 2008 added a plus

to the triple bottom line. The plus represents the fact that when sustainable practices

are implemented the true cost of doing business is reduced (U.S. Army 2008).









The ASE set up six goals to achieve a sustainable army. The six goals are: foster

a sustainability ethic, strengthen army operations, meet test training and mission

requirements, minimize impacts and total ownership costs, enhance well-being, and

drive innovation.









u S :.... ..
Amiy.

+ ECONOMIC BENEFIT






Figure 2-4. The U.S. Army triple bottom line, adapted from (U.S. Army 2008)

The U.S. Army's Sustainability Report 2007 (ASR) was released in September

2008. The U.S. Army was the first government agency to release a sustainability report

under the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) reporting standards. According to its

website, the GRI is a network-based organization that has developed a reporting

technique based on a consensus of its members. The structured reporting technique

offers a way to create sustainability reports in such a way that they can easily be read

and compared to other sustainability reports (Global Reporting Initiative 2007). The

report builds on the Army Strategy for the Environment's goals as well as providing

information on ongoing measurements of sustainability in the army.

The GRI recommended indicators are summarized toward the end of the ASR.

The army's supplies data to respond to the required indicators in the form of hyperlinks.









There are quite a few indicators and the army has supplied many references,

sometimes several hyperlinks per indicator, in order to provide the required information,

but it is very inconvenient and would require research that is beyond the scope of this

report to provide that information here.

2.3.1 Army Construction Process

The process of developing and building a military project can be referred to as the

military construction (MILCON) process. Sheller (2000) describes the MILCON

process, in brief, as follows; it begins at the base, post, or facility level with a need of a

new building structure. When the need has been established the funding and design

process begins, this process varies between the services. The location and service

mission determine whether the building project will utilize a regional design center or a

more local design team to create the plans and specifications. Through either process

a team of design, engineering, and contracting professionals will be drawn together for

the project. See Figure 2.5 for a representation of the MILCON process hierarchy. The

commander of the post, base, or facility acts as the owner on a MILCON project. The

commander may or may not have experience with MILCON project of similar nature to

the one being designed and constructed; they may have no knowledge of the process at

all. The team will be working together for the MILCON project but they will individually

have other projects that they are working on and each will have a different set of

priorities and company styles and culture. These variables make working on a MILCON

project complex and difficult. Sheller (2000) states that the best way to implement a

green building process for a MILCON project is to have the base, post, or facility

commander be heavily involved in implementing the green standard during the MILCON

process.





















Architect Engineer Constructor an


Figure 2-5. The MILCON process hierarchy system.

Todd Sheller studied the implementation of a green standard for MILCON projects

and developed a ten step approach for base, post, or facility commanders to implement

a "simplistic approach by which energy efficiency and green construction principles can

be achieved" (Sheller 2000). The checklist for base commanders was designed for

commanders so that they can "pose questions to the engineering (design, and

construction) communities) and force a green construction or sustainable project"

(Sheller 2000). The checklist begins in the pre-design phase and continues through the

construction team selection, design and specification, construction, and post occupation

phases.

2.3.2 The Army Corps of Engineers

The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) is a federal agency and a U.S. Army

command. The USAGE is composed of more than 34,000 civilians and Soldiers. They

dedicate their work in over 90 countries. Among many other duties, the USAGE

provides construction and construction management services to the U.S. Army.

According to the USAGE website environmental sustainability is their guiding principle

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters 2010).









With the transition to sustainable construction under the SPiRiT and LEED

programs there has been some turbulence. The USAGE is trying to rectify the situation.

In a USAGE engineering and construction bulletin issued on July 9, 2009, the need for

regional sustainable engineering program managers was laid out. Nine projects that

have been completed under the LEED program were evaluated. Lessons learned were

gathered from these projects, they included reference to inadequate or incomplete

LEED documentation to support a certifiable project. As a result the Directorate of Civil

Works for the Army Corps recommended each military installation with a substantial

military construction program to designate or recruit and hire a minimum of one

interdisciplinary engineer/architect to serve as a full time district and/or regional

sustainable engineering program manager. The completion of the LEED program and

the responsibility for certification previously fell to the installation Director of Public

Works or the Reserve Component equivalent, supporting Engineer District, designer

and constructor would jointly. The project delivery team (PDT) LEED-AP and the SDD

point of contact (POC) from the associated division are to hold the project team

manager roles for LEED online (Dalton 2008).

Now with the sustainable program redesigned, the projects that are currently

under construction should be of high quality. The USACE wants the world to know what

a great job they are doing with their sustainable construction processes. In a USACE

engineering and construction bulletin issued on October 2, 2009, the Directorate of

Military Programs and the Directorate of Civil Works called for more communication of

sustainable design and energy efficient features of army projects. The Directorates

Dalton and Rivers stated the continued advancement and significant investments in









sustainable construction and declared that they wanted sustainable construction to

become part of the Army's construction culture. They touted the need to share the

knowledge of sustainable design and energy efficient features not only on site visits but

also through written documentation that conveys the salient sustainable features of

each Army facility. Each PDT document should address how the facility had (or will)

meet the LEED NC requirements for a Silver rating. The documents Dalton and Rivers

proposed are to include fact sheets, brochures, written articles, and building signage

that communicate the benefits of the Army's investment in sustainable design (Dalton

and Rivers 2009).

2.4 The Transition to Green Design

As discussed previously, modern sustainable construction practices and rating

systems have been in use by a small portion of the construction community from the

early 1990s and even earlier. It seems that sustainable construction practices are

beginning to become accepted, but they are still far from being a norm for the industry.

The USGBC keeps records of their members; the number has grown from 97 members

in 1997 to more than 20,000 as of September 2009. When individuals are interested in

sustainable construction the clearest way to show your acceptance currently is to go

through the credentialing process and become a LEED Accredited Professional. As of

2009, the USGBC had more than 130,000 LEED APs (USGBC 2010). Today there are

an estimated 7,214,900 people within the construction community, 1,659,300 of which

are involved in the building of residential and non-residential buildings (United States

Department of Labor 2010). If the majority of LEED APs are working within the

residential and non-residential than less than 12.7% of the community is a LEED AP.

This is an unscientific measurement, because many LEED APs are from the









architectural and engineering fields, and so the percentage of LEED APs within the

construction community is much less than 12.7%.

2.4.1 Industry Perceptions of Sustainable Construction

Table 2-3. Survey responses on the perception of the impact of sustainable
construction, adapted from (Chong et al. 2009)


Overall A/E and Owner/ CM Government
Respondent Contractors Consulting Employee Consultants Employee
(%) (%) Firms (%) (%) (%) (%)
Perception of
impact of SC*
Cost 89.0 76.7 71.8 66.7 88.9 86.7
Quality 67.0 50.0 51.3 48.1 72.2 60.0
Schedule 60.0 43.3 48.7 44.4 72.2 40.0
Safety 34.0 13.3 30.8 14.8 50.0 26.7
SC* Sustainable Construction
So why is it that some professionals within the industry choose to accept

sustainable construction and others are hesitant to the transition? Chong et.al. (2009)

conducted a survey of engineers in the construction profession to understand and

interpret what their perceptions of sustainable construction were. Chong et al. surveyed

2,600 selected American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) members and other

construction-industry related group members and received 257 responses. The

respondents felt that sustainability is important or relatively important to the construction

industry, however, they felt that there has not been enough research on sustainability

and the current design practices did not sufficiently address sustainability (Chong et al.

2009). About 64% of the overall respondents were familiar with LEED, and

approximately 70% of the contactor respondents were familiar with LEED. The Chong

et al. (2009) survey attests that participation in sustainable construction by employees

was very low, with 70% of the responses having 10% or less of their employees

participating regularly in sustainable construction related activities. The perceptions of









the impacts of sustainable construction can be seen in Table 2-3. Overall cost was

seen to be the biggest impact of sustainable construction, followed by quality, schedule,

and safety. The survey question was presented as a fill in the blank and only the

responses cost, quality, schedule, and safety were analyzed by Chong et. al (2009).

2.5 Barriers to Sustainable Construction

The barriers to sustainable construction take many forms. There are perceived

added costs, fear of the liability assumed by using new technologies, and psychological

barriers. The barriers need to be understood by companies and institutions that are

considering transitioning to sustainable construction so they can know what arguments

and opposition they may face.

2.5.1 Barriers Perceived by the Construction Industry

Turner Construction conducted a survey of the construction industry to develop an

understanding of the perceptions of the industry. The results were reported in the

Turner 2008 Green Market Barometer. The survey was conducted online and the

survey population was focused on executives involved in commercial real estate. There

were 754 respondents form a wide background including building owners and operators

and construction professionals. The survey found several factors that were perceived to

be barriers to sustainable construction. See Figure 2-6 for a graphic presentation of the

factors.

The cost and documentation for LEED construction was perceived to be the

biggest barrier to transitioning to sustainable construction, followed closely by a

perceived long payback period and higher construction costs. A lack of the awareness

of benefits was the fourth most perceived factor which discouraged the construction of

green buildings and difficulty quantifying benefits was fifth, followed by short-term







budget horizons, fears of more complex construction and increased operating costs.
The majority of the perceived factors that discouraged sustainable construction were
based on costs. There is perceived to be a higher cost associated with building
sustainably it is the first barrier to sustainable construction.


Inc reased operating costs
More complex construction
Short-term budget horizons
Difficulty quantifying benefits
Lackof awareness of benefits
Paybacktoo long
Higher construction costs
Cost and documentation for LEED certification


0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
5 Factors Discouraging the Construction of Green Buildings


50% 60%


Figure 2-6. Survey responses on the barriers of implementing sustainable construction,
adapted from (Turner Construction Company 2008)
2.5.2 Social and Psychological Barriers to Sustainable Construction
The second barrier to sustainable construction is the social and psychological
barriers. People perceive sustainable building on a cognitive basis, they are influenced
by their organizations and they are influenced by institutions that guide their awareness
of connections and impacts on the environment (Hoffman and Henn 2008).
People make subconscious decisions that may are incorrect all the time. For the
purpose of making decisions on sustainability, the mind tends to have biases including
over discounting the future, egocentrism, positive illusions, presumed associations,
mythical fixed-pre bias and environmental literacy (Hoffman and Henn 2008). Over


L









discounting the future is the reason why people underestimate their use of a product. In

the case of a building, many times people underestimate the time that they will utilize

the building and therefore do not perceive a value in purchasing products with a higher

upfront cost but save money in operating and maintenance leading to faster rates of

return.

People make self-serving or egocentric decisions. It is human nature to do so.

Hoffman and Henns' (2008) example is of a couple who purchases a home in the

suburbs because they perceive that the yard and neighborhood are good for raising

children, but they have in fact made a decision that lends to suburban sprawl and all the

unsustainable consequences. Positive illusions are harmful to sustainable construction

because people perceive that the world will be a better place in the future than it

actually will be. People want to be optimistic and they believe that world will be a better

place no matter what harm they do to planet now. They believe that we will somehow

find a way to fix everything and erase all the ill that has been done.

According to Hoffman and Henn (2008) there is a presumed association (maybe

more so to the boomer generation) between green construction and the hippie

movement of the 1960s and the energy crisis of the 1970s. There is an unsubstantiated

assumption that green buildings involve unconventional aesthetics, alternative lifestyles

and non-traditional building materials such as rammed earth and straw bale.

The mythical fixed pie is a subconscious bias that occurs in the mind when making

decisions about sustainable construction. Hoffman and Henn (2008) describe a fixed

pie that people have to split between economic competitiveness and environmental









protection. People cannot see economic competitiveness and environmental protection

as separate and having a symbiotic relationship.

The last bias that affects the subconscious mind it environmental literacy. In short

it is pure ignorance of the facts of nature and our sources of energy and waste that has

a detrimental effect on decisions concerning sustainable construction (Hoffman and

Henn 2008).

Within the organizational level perspectives on the socio and psychological

barriers to sustainable construction are the key elements of internal structure and

interaction, language and terminology, rewards, and organizational inertia (Hoffman and

Henn 2008). The structure of the organization must define boundaries and

responsibilities of employees. The language must be understood by all who are

involved on the project. Sustainable construction has given rise to new technologies

and lingo. It is important that everyone understand what is occurring and speak the

same language. Rewards must be changed from progress based rewards to combine

sustainable practices and productivity. Organizational inertia must get employees

accustomed to learning new things and implementing new practices.

Institutional level perspectives on the socio and psychological barriers to

sustainable construction have implications on three levels: regulative, normative and

cognitive. Regulative institutions must regulate sustainable practices. This regulation

can take the form of taxes or incentives among other regulative means. Sustainable

construction methods need to become industry norms. Codes should be changed to

allow for easier implementation of new materials or technologies to speed up the

normative process. Cognitive institutions are the unquestioned biases that most people









in the construction industry prescribe to. Industry professionals need to thick outside

the box and question practices for their impact on the environment.

2.5.3 Technological Barriers to Sustainable Construction

Traditionally buildings require very low tech materials and high intensity labor; this

is what the construction industry is accustomed to. Building materials of conventional

construction are readily available, cheap, and differ very slightly between

manufacturers. The demand for these products is very high and manufacturers

responded by making standard sizes and systems that were easily installed. A barrier

to sustainable construction is the unique nature of many of the new sustainable

technologies that are making their debut. The sustainable technologies such as building

controls, solar energy systems, and heat recovery systems are high-tech compared to

their conventional counterparts and are supplied by specialists who may not be readily

available to all locations (Rohracher 2001). Many times specialized labor is required for

the installation of sustainable technologies and it takes time to train workers and

prepare them for an install that may be a one-of-a-kind. Training for sustainable

technologies is not readily available in many communities. It may not be worth a

contractor the time and money it takes to train a laborer to install sustainable

technologies when the technologies are in a rapid state of development and may

change drastically before that laborer is needed for a sustainable technology installation

of that type again. It is easier for the contractor to recommend to the owner to not use

that particular sustainable technology and to continue using more conventional

technologies.









2.6 Overcoming Barriers to Sustainable Construction

Getting a commitment to change is typically a difficult task. Mandating a change

to sustainable construction is not going to change the office structure overnight. The

transition to sustainable construction takes time and requires a shift in office culture.

The barriers discussed earlier will come into play and some personnel may be resistant

to changing how they have always done business. The barriers must be overcome one

by one until everyone is on-board and willing to change the culture of the company.


Figure 2-7. Creation of a sustainability culture, adapted from (Hallmark 2006)

Companies and institutions making the change to sustainable construction should

have a plan to shape the organization's core values. Hallmark (2006) adapted a system









of eight key elements or planned interventions, which contribute to the creation and

development of a culture of sustainability, see Figure 2-7. The arrows represent links

between the eight elements, at these times the process should be examined and

analyzed for success of the prior element and to see if the change is going on course.

All of the eight elements must occur for the cultural shift to sustainable construction to

occur completely. The cycle should constantly be moving; when it is moving clockwise

then progress in occurring, when it is moving counter clockwise a diagnosis of the

elements is occurring and a correction may be needed (Hallmark 2006).

2.6.1 Overcoming the Perceived Cost Barrier to Sustainability

Owners and contractors typically view cost as a major barrier to sustainable

construction. Costs are perceived to be higher for sustainable construction than for

conventional construction. The actual costs of a building are typically much different

than the perceived cost of the building; the actual costs take operation, maintenance

and more into consideration. When owners and contractors are considering sustainable

construction for a project they need to understand the differences between perceived

and actual costs in order to make a good decision. People and companies who may

want to implement sustainable construction practices should understand why building

sustainably can cost more, and they should also understand that the building may have

cost the same if built under conventional means depending on the factors specific to

that building.

Davis Langdon is a cost consulting company, and they commissioned Matthiessen

and Morris to conduct a study on the actual costs of sustainable construction and

compared them to conventionally built projects of the same scope. It was found that

there are several factors that influence costs of building; they include: "location, bidding









climate and culture, local and regional design standards, intent and values of the

project, climate, timing of implementation, size, and point synergies" (Matthiessen and

Morris 2004).

The location of a building is affected because it is more sustainable to build in

urban areas, real estate in urban areas can cost more than in rural areas. The bidding

climate is affected because contractors do induce some slight costs for constructing

sustainably including, the cost of documentation, some schedule impacts during post

construction flush-out, and the application of indoor air quality credits of LEED. When

the contract is specific to the level of certification that the building requires then the

contractor is assuming more risk and may add a fee for the greater risk contingency.

This risk will decrease when more contractors become comfortable with sustainable

construction. The intent and values of a building must be clearly understood in the early

stages of the building, this means that there is more of an upfront investment of time by

all project team members which may cost more. However, if the project team is familiar

with LEED and sustainable construction then there may not be an added cost at all.

The climate that a building will be constructed for can add cost to the sustainably built

project because the temperature and humidity of the area greatly affects building

system selection (Matthiessen and Morris 2004).

It is worth noting that as a company becomes familiar with LEED and sustainable

construction the additional cost of building sustainably decreases. The level of

certification also can change the cost of building sustainably. Building a certified or

silver certified building adds very little to no additional costs to a project, while gold and

platinum ratings can add more costs. The chance of additional costs should not be a









deterrent, according to Matthiessen and Morris (2004); many projects are built

sustainably for no additional cost at all.

2.6.2 Overcoming the Socio-Technical Barrier to Sustainability

The construction industry is currently in what Rohracher (2001) describes as a

socio-technical shift. Rohracher (2001) states,

the growing importance of sustainability issues may have important
consequences not only on the technological practice of the industry, but
also on its structure, its communication channels and the organizational and
strategic orientation of its constituent actors.

The boundaries of the industry are changing and power is shifting. Companies that can

respond quickly to the up and coming sustainable construction market will become

important. While some of the more established actors in the industry will refuse to

reorient themselves to sustainable construction practices.

There are three means by which socio-technical analysis could contribute to the

transition to sustainable construction. The means are: support of organizational and

institutional restructuring, higher transparency, and broadening the design process by

integrating actors who have not yet been involved in the process (Rohracher 2001).

2.6.3 Overcoming the Social and Psychological Barriers to Sustainability

The social and psychological barrier to sustainability is an obstacle to be

overcome. Hoffman and Henn (2008) offer several methods to achieving a successful

transition to sustainable construction practices, including: framing, targeting

demographic adopters, education, structural and incentive change, indemnifying risk,

evolving green building standards, and tax reform.

Framing the transition to sustainable construction as a positive option will gain

faster approval. Green building should be seen as desirable and consider change the









term sustainable building to smart building or high-performance building to find the right

fit for the audience. Target key demographic adopters to get the ball rolling, key

adopters are more aligned with environmental value than others. Hoffman and Henn

(2008) describe several demographics that are more open to sustainably built buildings,

they are women, educated and more affluent people, people who live in urban areas

and people who live along the east and west coasts of the U.S. Sustainable

construction education is a factor in achieving a successful transition to sustainable

construction. It is important that all members of the construction and design team and

the owner be aware of sustainable construction and what it entails. Structural and

incentive changes are the changes that must occur within the construction and design

teams. The teams must work more closely when building sustainably and the

collaboration process should allow for more communication. Indemnify the risk of new

technologies that the contractors will be taking on. Contractors may fear installing new

technologies because they are unproven and if there is a failure it will be on their

shoulders. There should be a cap as to the contractor's liability for installing a new

sustainable technology. Green standards such as LEED must evolve with the changing

times, and institutions such as banks and insurance agencies should also evolve to

respond to the new sustainable standards. Finally one last measure that Hoffman and

Henn (2008) recommend method to achieve success is more the government and other

agencies to offer incentives such as tax rebates and financial incentives for those who

implement sustainable construction practices.

2.6.4 Overcoming the Knowledge Sharing Barrier to Sustainability

There are currently many barriers to sustainability. According to Wetherill et al.

(2007), one of the greatest barriers lies within organizations and even within project









teams. People are not sharing information and experiences that others can benefit

from. Being informed of new resources of knowledge and expertise is vital to

transitioning to sustainable construction. Wetherill et al. (2007) believe that knowledge

can come in many forms, including documents, standards, and lessons learned. Most

organizations do not have a system set up for employees to learn from what others

have already learned.

To overcome the problems which occur when people cannot easily share

information, Wetherill et al. (2007) recommend putting knowledge management systems

in place. Knowledge management systems typically involved networked computers with

software that allows employees to input information that they have gathered. When

someone has a question about something they can search through the knowledge

management system to see if there is a document that can help them.









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Sustainable construction has been a part of the construction industry's vernacular

for a few decades now, and it appears to be on its way to becoming accepted as a norm

within the industry. Some companies have accepted sustainable construction practices

on their own accord, while others have accepted it out of need to compete. Institutions

around the country have adopted sustainable construction measures for their building

projects.

3.1 Problem Statement

The U.S. Army adopted sustainable construction in 2002 with their SPiRiT rating

system. In 2006, the U.S. Army issued a mandate which stated that all vertical

construction was to meet LEED Silver New Construction rating standard (or the

equivalent). The USACE offices had two years warning as the mandate became

effective in 2008. There have been issues within the Army, the USACE, and the

designers, engineers, and construction professionals that have worked or are currently

working on these sustainably built projects. Little research has been done on what the

impact of the transition has been on the personnel who were forced to quickly learn the

systems of sustainable construction. This report will analyze what the impact of the

mandated transition to sustainable construction on the USACE personnel.

3.2 Conducting Research

In order to find what the impacts of the transition to the sustainable construction

were a survey will be conducted. The USACE was chosen as the survey population due

to its mandated entry into sustainable construction practices, and the willingness to

participate in the study. The USACE routinely conducts research through its research









departments and by personnel who conduct research for sustainable construction

training. For the purposes of this survey two higher level staff members distributed the

survey via email to their colleges within the USAGE that deal directly with sustainable

construction. The survey population was 60 people. Based on a confidence level of

95% and a confidence interval of 5, the total number of survey responses was

calculated to be 52. There were 26 respondents; this number of respondents gives

results at a confidence level of 95% and a confidence interval of 15.

3.4 The Survey

The survey begins with a page that describes the survey and what the research is

for. Respondents have the choice to consent to taking the survey or to exit the survey.

The consent document was approved by the internal research board of the University of

Florida. See Appendix A for the survey questionnaire and IRB 02 Approval.

The population for the survey is USAGE professionals who are involved with

sustainable construction. The professionals will be made up mostly of engineers, but

architects and other professionals may also be within the respondent population. The

respondents will identify their professions via a question on the survey. The population

will also represent differing levels of experience and time spent within the construction

industry.

The survey is in an online format that USAGE professionals are accustomed to as

they are regularly asked to take surveys in this fashion. The survey is anonymous and

consists of 29 questions. The respondents are asked questions based on their opinions

of how the transition from conventional construction to sustainable construction is going

and how they are being prepared and updated to work at an optimal level of sustainable

construction practices.









The data is collected and analyzed in order to better understand how well the

transition from conventional to sustainable construction is going within the context of the

USAGE. The survey data should provide valuable information on personnel's opinions

and needs during the process. The analyzed data can be used by other companies

within the construction industry as they create plans and to prepare their personnel for

the transition to sustainable construction.

3.3 Hypotheses

There are preconceived notions of the construction industry and sustainable

construction. From five basis hypotheses can be drawn. Some hypotheses of the

perceptions of the USAGE personnel to be proven or disproven by the study are as

follows:

* The higher the level of management (determined by pay grade) the lower the
perception of resistance to sustainable construction practices.

* The higher the level of management (determined by pay grade) the more likely
they were to feel that their training was sufficient.

* Overall the USAGE personnel were not personally interested in sustainable
construction prior to the mandate.

* The respondents, if grouped by profession, would have different opinions on the
sufficiency of the sustainable construction training.

* The respondents would have differing opinions on why they first became involved
with sustainable construction based on profession.

The first hypothesis is based on the level of management and it presumes that

upper management will perceive a lower level of resistance within their offices. The

basis of this question is that the upper management of the USAGE was so preoccupied

with the day-to-day work of the office and managing so many people that the employees

who were feeling poorly about the transition would fly under the radar. The personnel









who were not favoring the shift to sustainable construction would seek out co-workers of

the same pay grade to voice their concerns to, rather than disturb the higher levels of

management. Two questions will be analyzed to prove or disprove this hypothesis.

The first question is a question of demographics that asks the respondent to select their

pay grade. The second question asks respondents to rank the number of personnel

resistant in their office.

A second hypothesis to be evaluated is if a person with a higher level of

management is more likely to feel that their training was sufficient. The level of

management will be determined. As the level of management increases for a survey

respondent, the more likely that they are responsible for training their subordinates.

When someone is responsible for training they will be more likely to give a higher mark

for the personnel's response to the training.

A third hypothesis is that the USAGE personnel will not be personally interested in

sustainable design. When people are mandated to do something they do not typically

want to participate. Questions from the survey will evaluate the number of people

resistant to the change to sustainable construction and will directly ask the respondent

about their interest in sustainable construction.

The fourth hypothesis to be evaluated is that the USAGE personnel when grouped

by profession will have opinions on the sufficiency of their training that differ from other

professions represented in the USAGE personnel. The USAGE is composed of many

types of professionals. For this study three types of professionals will be grouped

together and analyzed. The USAGE personnel will be grouped into three profession

types: architect, engineer and project manager. The hypothesis is that each group of









professionals will have similar opinions on the sustainable construction training that they

have received and the three different groups' opinions will be different from each other.

The fifth hypothesis states that the USAGE personnel when grouped by profession

will have similar responses on why they first became involved in sustainable

construction. The USAGE personnel will be grouped into three profession types:

architect, engineer and project manager. A secondary part of this hypothesis states that

the three different groups of professional types will have responses that are different

from each other.









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

4.1 Survey Results

The survey was organized by five categories of questions this chapter delivers the

results of each of the five categories as a group under a subheading. The first category

is the resulting demographics of the survey population. The second category is the

collected data on the respondent's personal reaction to sustainable construction. The

third and fourth categories reveal data on the respondent's personal practical

experience with sustainable construction and the USACE's role in sustainable

construction respectively. The fifth and final category of questions provides data on the

perceived resistance to sustainable construction as seen by the survey respondent.

4.1.1 Survey Population Demographics

4.1.1.1 Survey population results for profession

Table 4-1. Survey respondent demographics by profession
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
engineer 46.2% 12
architect 38.5% 10
project manager 15.3% 4
answered question 26
The survey respondents represent three of the professions that exist within the

USACE. The survey was sent to colleges of two major sustainability experts within the

USACE. Engineers represent 46.2% of the respondents, architects represent 38.5% of

the respondents, and project managers represent 11.5% of respondents. One

respondent answered 'other' to this survey question. That respondent gave his

response as regional project manager. His responses will be included with the

respondents who identified themselves as project managers. Thus bringing the number

of project managers represented to 4 and the project manager percentage of the survey









population to 15.3% (see Table 4-1). The results of the survey population's

demographics organized by profession can be seen graphically in Figure 4-1.




project
manager
15%











Figure 4-1. Survey respondent demographics by profession

4.1.1.2 Survey population results for pay grade

Table 4-2. Survey respondent demographics organized by pay grade
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
GS 12 30.7% 8
GS 13 42.3% 11
GS 14 or higher 26.9% 7
answered question 26
Unlike other organizations and companies in the construction industry, pay grades

are widely used in the USAGE to distinguish personnel. It is not uncommon for people

to know what their colleague's pay grade is. Pay grade is determined by experience

and education. Pay grade represents job title and management level within the

USAGE. Pay grades are determined by the federal government and are listed as

General Schedule (GS) and a number. Table 4-2 relates the pay grade data of the

survey respondents. The lower pay grades of GS 10 and GS 9 or below are not

represented in the survey respondents. There was one respondent who identified as

GS 11 pay grade; his data will be included with the GS 12 respondents. For the










purposes of this report, a GS 12 or GS 13 pay grade represents a person at a high

middle management position and a GS 14 or higher pay grade indicates someone with

upper management status. The data is biased due to the responses being only of higher

levels of management. A graphic representation of the respondent pay grade data is

shown in Figure 4-2.

45.0%

40.096 -

35.0% -

30.0% -

25.0%
EGS12
20.0% GS 13
DGS 14 or higher
15.0%

10.0%

5.0%9

0.0%,
GS 12 GS 13 GS 14or higher


Figure 4-2. Survey population pay grade demographics

4.1.1.3 Survey population results for experience in construction industry

Table 4-3. Survey respondent demographics organized by experience
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
5-10 years 23.1% 6
10-15 years 11.5% 3
15 years or more 65.4% 17
answered question 26
Experience within the industry was determined by a question asked of the survey

respondents. The question asked the respondent to identify himself within a selection

of ranges of years of experience. The results of the survey are shown in Table 4-3.

There were no survey respondents who identified themselves as having 0-5 years of










experience. Of the respondents, a majority of 65.4% identified themselves as having 15

years or more experience in the construction/engineering industry. The next largest

population was the respondents with 5-10 years of experience; they represent 23.1% of

the survey population. The respondents with 10-15 years of experience in the industry

represent 11.5% of the survey population. The responses for years of experience in the

industry show a strong bias towards a more experienced survey population (see Figure

4-3).

70.0"..


60.0"..


50.0".. -


40.0".,
15-10years
30.0l, 0-15years
015 years or more

20.0"-


10.0",,


0.0" ,
5-10years 10-15years 15years or more


Figure 4-3. Survey respondent experience demographics

4.1.1.4 Survey population results for experience with sustainable construction

Table 4-4. Survey population's years of experience with sustainable construction
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
2-5 years 38.5% 10
5-8 years 38.5% 10
10+ years 23.1% 6
answered question 26










45.0%

40.0%

35.0%

30.0%

25.0% 0 12-5 years
20.0% 5-8 years
0 10+years
15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%
2-5 years 5-8 years 10+ years


Figure 4-4. Survey respondents' years of experience with sustainable construction

Experience with sustainable construction was determined by a question asked of

the survey respondents. The question asked the respondent to identify himself within a

selection of ranges of years of experience with sustainable construction. There was

one respondent that identified as having two years or less experience; this response will

be combined with the respondents who identified as having 2-5 years of experience with

sustainable construction. The results of the survey are shown in Table 4-4 with the

adjustment made for the response added to the 2-5 year category. With the adjustment

made, the respondents who identified as having 2-5 years of experience with

sustainable construction represent 38.5% of the survey population. The survey

respondents who represent 5-8 years of experience with sustainable construction also

represent 38.5% of the survey population. That being said, a majority of 77% of the

survey population has less than 8 years of experience with sustainable construction.

Six of the respondents identified themselves as having more than 10 years of









experience with sustainable construction (see Figure 4-4). The respondents with more

than 10 years of experience with sustainable construction can be identified as having

been there from the beginning of the Army's change to sustainable construction

practices. These more experienced respondents are most likely knowledgeable of the

LEED rating system and may have been influential in the USACE's mandate to build

using sustainable construction techniques.

4.1.1.5 Survey respondents' level of responsibility for sustainable practices on
their respective project teams

Table 4-5. Respondents' level of responsibility for sustainable construction
Answer Options Yes No Response Count
Are you the main person responsible for
sustainable construction practices on your 21 4 25
project team?
The second question in this series asks the respondent if they are the main person

responsible for sustainable construction practices on your project team. The survey

population has 21 people who said that they were the main person responsible for

sustainable construction and 4 people replied that they are not the main person

responsible, one person declined to answer (see Table 4-5). This data shows that the

survey population is mostly made up of higher level people who are in leadership

positions, at least where sustainable construction is of concern.

4.1.2 Respondents' Personal Reaction to Sustainability

An anonymous survey is a good way to get candid data of personal opinions from

a survey population. The survey respondents were asked three questions in an agree

(yes) or disagree (no) format. These questions are designed to get a clearer

understanding of the respondents' personal reaction to sustainability.









4.1.2.1 Respondents' acceptance of sustainable culture in their personal life

Table 4-6. Respondents' acceptance of sustainable culture in their personal life
Answer Options Yes No Response Count
Do you recycle at home? 25 1 26
The first of these questions asks the respondent if they recycle at their home.

Twenty five respondents identify that they do recycle at home and one respondent

stated that he did not recycle at home (see Table 4-6). The purpose of asking the

survey population if they recycled at home was to determine if the respondents had

chosen to embrace a more sustainable culture at home as well as at work. The data

shows that the survey population is attempting to act in a way that is more embracing of

sustainability in their personal lives as well as in the office.

4.1.2.2 Respondents' current personal interest in sustainable construction

Table 4-7. Respondents' current personal interest in sustainable construction
Answer Options Yes No Response Count
Are you personally interested in sustainable 25 25
construction?
The second question in this series asks the respondent if they are personally

interested in sustainable construction. This was an important question to ask because it

provides the survey population's candid response to their feelings toward sustainable

construction. All 25 of the 25 respondents responded positively to this question (see

Table 4-7). This proves that sustainable construction has become accepted by the

survey population.

4.1.2.3 Respondents' personal interest in sustainable construction prior to
mandate

Table 4-8. Respondents' personal interest in sustainable construction prior to mandate
Answer Options Yes No Response Count
Were you interested in sustainable
construction prior to the mandate to use the
20 5 25
SPiRiT and/or LEED rating systems for
MILCON projects?









The third question in this series asks the respondent to confirm or deny an interest

in sustainable construction prior to the mandate to use the SPiRiT or LEED rating

systems for MILCON projects. The results are shown in Table 4-8. Of a survey

population of 26 there were 25 responses. Twenty respondents indicated that they

were interested in sustainable construction prior to the mandates while 5 respondents

indicated that they became interested after the mandates. Stated another way, 80% of

the survey population was interested in sustainable construction prior to the mandates

and 20% of the survey population became interested after the mandates were issued.

4.1.2.4 Respondents' introduction to sustainable construction

Table 4-9. Reason for respondents' first involvement with sustainable construction
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
office mandate 38.5% 10
personal interest 80.8% 21
other 0.0% 0
answered question 26
The survey population was asked why they first became involved with sustainable

construction. This question expands on the question previous to this one. The

respondents were asked to choose all of the following options that applied to them. The

choices included: office mandate, personal interest or other. No respondent chose the

other option. There were 26 respondents for this question. Twenty one (80.8%)

respondents specified that they first became involved in sustainable construction

because of a personal interest (see Table 4-9). Ten of the 26 respondents (38.5%)

stated that they first became involved in sustainable construction when it was

mandated. The results show that all but 5 of the 26 respondents first became involved

in sustainable construction due to personal interest. There were 10 respondents

specified that they became involved after an office mandate, 5 of those 10 respondents









first became involved only because of the office mandates. The other 5 respondents

became involved due to the mandate but also stated that they became involved due to

personal interest. By choosing both personally interested and mandated, these 5

respondents may have been personally interested in sustainable construction and the

mandate gave them an avenue to practice what they were interested in.

Table 4-10. Reasons respondents indicated a personal interest in sustainable
construction
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
became interested after attending a class or 27.3% 6
seminar
became interested through main stream 27.3% 6
media exposure
through a colleague in the office 36.4% 8
conference, publication, other, etc. 59.1% 13
answered question 22
Some respondents identified themselves as having a personal interest in

sustainable construction, as seen in Table 4-7 and Table 4-9. A secondary question

asked those respondents who indicated a personal interest in sustainable construction

to specify how they became personally interested by choosing from a list of options, the

respondent was allowed to select all the options that applied to them. There were 22

respondents who chose to answer this question; the resulting data can be seen in Table

4-10. The response that was most common was exposure to a conference or

publication, this option was selected by 13 respondents who represent 59.1% of the

survey population. The second most selected option was exposure to sustainable

construction via a colleague; this option was selected by 8 of the respondents.

4.1.3 Practical Sustainable Building Construction Experience

4.1.3.1 Number of projects built using sustainable construction practices

The USAGE has many offices, and each office is responsible for different projects.

The survey population was asked to indicate how many projects there office has built









using the LEED or SPiRiT rating systems during the last five years. For the resulting

data see Table 4-11. The majority of the respondents (66.7) indicated that their offices

had built more than 6 projects. While four respondents indicated between 1 and 6.

Four of the respondents indicated that they had not built any projects using LEED or

SPiRiT rating systems in the last five years. Some of the respondents may come from

the same offices, so this data is inconclusive.

Table 4-11. Number of projects built using LEED or SPiRiT rating systems in survey
population offices
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
none 16.7% 4
1-3 4.2% 1
4-6 12.5% 3
6+ 66.7% 16
answered question 24
4.1.3.2 Comfort with using sustainable construction

Table 4-12. Length of time it took survey population's offices to become comfortable
with sustainable construction
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
0-6 months 4.0% 1
7-12 months 4.0% 1
1 year or more 40.0% 10
not running smoothly yet 52.0% 13
answered question 25
The respondents were asked how long it took for their office's personnel to

become comfortable with sustainable construction. Each respondent was given the

choice of one of the following options: 0-6 months, 7-12 months, one year or more, or

not running smoothly yet. There were 25 respondents to this question, see Table 4-12

for the data. Eight percent of the respondents indicated that it took less than one year

for their office personnel to become comfortable using sustainable construction

practices. Forty percent of the respondents indicated it took more than one year to

become comfortable and 52% of the respondents indicated that sustainable









construction is not running smoothly yet in their offices. Sustainable construction

practices began to be used by the USAGE over five years ago, individual offices may

have started sustainably built projects later than other offices. There is a general

indication that things are not running smoothly at the majority of offices due to the high

number of responses that indicated that opinion.

4.1.4 The perception of the survey population on the USACE's ability to train and
provide information to personnel regarding sustainable construction

The USAGE was mandated to follow sustainable construction practices. They

provide training and information for their personnel on using LEED rating system and

other sustainable construction practices. The data that will be analyzed in this

subsection will look at the survey population's opinions and perception of how the

USAGE is doing in their implantation of sustainable construction practices.

Table 4-13. Data of multiple questions from survey
Answer Options Yes No Response Count
Have you had any training for sustainable
20 6 26
construction in the past year?
Do you believe that the USAGE has done a
good job with training personnel on how to 19 7 26
build to the LEED standard?
Does top management in your office
encourage and support sustainable 26 0 26
construction process and practices?
Does the USAGE keep employees updated
with sustainable construction (LEED) 18 8 26
information well?
When you have questions relating to
sustainability do you know who to ask 25 1 26
(within the USAGE)?
When you ask questions relating to
sustainability do you get an adequate 23 1 24
response?
The first question in this series of six asks respondents if they have had any

training for sustainable construction within the last year. There were 26 respondents to









this question, 20 of those respondents had training within the last year and six did not.

See Table 4-13 for the data. The second question in the series asked respondents if the

USAGE has done a good job with training personnel to the LEED rating system

standards. There were 26 respondents to this question. Nineteen respondents felt that

the training provided by the USAGE for LEED was good. However 7 respondents

indicated that the training that has been provided by the USAGE was not good enough,

this is 28% of the survey population.

The third question in this series of six questions asks the respondent if the top

management in their office is encouraging and supportive of sustainable construction

practices. There were 26 respondents to this question; all of them indicated that the top

management is encouraging and supportive of sustainable construction practices and

processes (see Table 4-13). However there is a limitation to this question, the survey

population as shown earlier in this chapter is composed of higher middle management

and upper management personnel. These personnel are essentially grading

themselves therefore the data cannot be considered credible.

The fourth question in this series asks the survey population if the USAGE has

done a good job at keeping them updated with information on LEED. There were 26

respondents to this question, 18 of those respondents indicated that the USAGE has

kept them informed well. There were 8 respondents who felt that the USAGE had not

done a good job at keeping them informed on the latest LEED information. The 8

respondents represent 32% of the survey population.

The fifth question the series asks respondents if they have a question relating to

LEED do they know who to contact. There were 26 respondents who answered this









question, all but one of the respondents knew exactly who to ask if he had a question.

The data for this question indicates that the USAGE has communicated the POCs for

LEED questions well.

The sixth and final question in this series asks respondents if they get an adequate

response when they ask a question pertaining to LEED. There were 24 respondents

who answered the question, 23 of the respondents indicated that the response has

been adequate. One respondent felt he did not get an adequate response to questions

pertaining to LEED (see Table 4-13). This data indicates that the USAGE has POCs

that are well informed and can communicate information effectively.

4.1.4.1 Introduction to sustainable construction within the office setting

Table 4-14. The perception of the way that USAGE offices transitioned to sustainable
construction practices
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
an immediate mandated change 13.6% 3
was slowly introduced through mandates 68.2% 15
was introduced by individuals in the office 8 4
18.2% 4
and slowly accepted by the office
answered question 22
The respondents to the survey were asked how their office changed from

conventional construction to sustainable construction practices. There were 22

respondents to this question (see Table 4-14). A majority of 68% of the respondents

indicated that the transition was slowly introduced by mandates. Four respondents

indicated that sustainable construction was introduced by individuals in the office and

was slowly accepted by the office personnel. Three respondents indicated that the

transition to sustainable construction was an immediate mandated change; these

respondents had little time to adjust or prepare.









4.1.4.3 Respondent exposure to training media

The survey population was asked to select all the types of training they had been

exposed to over the last year. The responses can be seen if Table 4-15. There were 26

respondents to this question. Four of the respondents indicated that they have had no

training in the last year for sustainable construction. The largest response for a single

type of training was indicated by 62% of the respondents as a presentation by a

sustainability expert. Two types of training share second place with 50% of

respondents indicating that they had relieved these types of training in the last year,

these types of training were in-office presentation and a seminar/webinar (online

seminar). A close third was a meeting (online or in-office) with 46% of respondents

indicated that they had taken part in one.

Table 4-15. Respondent's exposure to types of training media in the last year
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
in-office presentation 50.0% 13
training manual 26.9% 7
meeting (online or in-office) 46.2% 12
presentation by sustainability expert 61.5% 16
seminar/webinar (online seminar) 50.0% 13
other 7.7% 2
none 15.4% 4
answered question 26
4.1.4.4 Respondent amount of training in sustainable construction

Table 4-16. Amount of time spent in training for sustainable construction in the last year
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
less than one days worth 11.5% 3
1-2 days 15.4% 4
2-4 days 19.2% 5
4+ days 38.5% 10
no training at all 15.4% 4
answered question 26
A question asked of the survey population was to specify the amount of time (in

days) that they had spent in training for sustainable construction within the last year.









There were 26 respondents; four had received no training for sustainable construction in

the last year (see Table 4-16). Of the 22 respondents that have received training in the

last year the most common amount of time spent training for sustainable construction

was four or more days, 39% of the survey population selected this response. The

second, third, and fourth rankings of responses were all very close. The second highest

ranking response for USAGE personnel that had received sustainable construction

training in the last year represented 19% of the survey population; they had two to four

days of training. Fifteen percent of the survey population indicated that they have had

one to two days worth of training on sustainable construction in the past year and 12%

of the population selected that they have had less than one days worth of training.

4.1.4.5 Sufficiency of training received

Table 4-17. Perception of the sufficiency of training received
Answer Options. Chose a selection based
on the following scale, 1 being less than
sufficient training and 5 being the training
received was more than sufficient. Response Percent Response Count
1 4.2% 1
2 12.5% 3
3 25.0% 6
4 41.7% 10
5 16.7% 4
answered question 24
As a secondary question to the question above, the survey population was asked

to rank the sufficiency of the training that they had received in the last year. The

respondents were asked to rank their perception of the training sufficiency on a scale of

one to five, with one being less than sufficient and five being more than sufficient. The

results are shown in Table 4-17. There were 24 respondents to this question. The

most common response was a rank of four was represented by 42% of the population.

A rank of four represents the training was slightly more than sufficient (see Figure 4-6).










The second most popular response was made by 25% of the survey population. They

choose a rank of three, meaning the training was adequate for their needs. The third

most popular response was a rank of 5; it was selected by 17% of the survey

population. These respondents felt the training they had received in the past year was

more than adequate. The fourth most popular response was a rank of 2; this response

was selected by 13% of the population. A rank of two represents the training was

slightly less than adequate. Only one respondent selected a response of one, that the

training was less than adequate.


45.0''.

40.0'"..

35.0:"'

30.0''.

25.0",,

20.0'-..

15.0"..

10.0"..

5.0"..

0.0".


1 2


Figure 4-5. Perception of the sufficiency of training received

4.1.5 Resistance to Sustainable Construction

Some people are inherently resistant to change. The transition to sustainable

construction from conventional construction may be met by resistance by some people.


I _I _I









The following subcategory of this chapter reports the results of three questions that

related to the resistance to sustainable construction.

4.1.5.1 Perceived resistance to sustainable construction

Table 4-18. Perceived resistance to sustainable construction
Answer Options Yes No Response Count
Were there people in your office that were
resistant to changing to sustainable 15 9 24
construction (LEED/SPiRiT)?
The survey respondents were asked if they know of any colleagues that were or

still are resistant to the change from conventional construction to sustainable

construction. Of the survey population 24 respondents chose to answer the question,

see Table 4-18 for the data. Fifteen of the respondents knew of at least one colleague

in their office who was resistant to sustainable construction. Nine of the respondents

did not perceive anyone who was resistant to the change in their office.

Table 4-19. Perceived amount of people resistant to sustainable construction transition
Answer Options. Chose a selection based
on the following scale, 1 being most people
were accepting and 5 being most people
were resistant to the change. Response Percent Response Count
1 12.5% 3
2 37.5% 9
3 33.3% 8
4 4.2% 1
5 12.5% 3
answered question 24
A secondary question that follows up one the previous question was asked of the

respondents. This question asked the survey population to rank how many of the

people in their office were resistant to sustainable construction on a scale of one to five.

A score of one being most people were accepting and a score of five represents most

people were resistant. See Table 4-19 for the data. The majority of respondents, 38%

of the survey population selected a score of two to represent the resistance level in their










office. A score of two represents that most of the people in the respondent's office were

accepting of the change but some were not accepting of the USAGE's transition to

sustainable construction. The second most popular answer was a score of three, 33%

of the survey population selected this score. A score of three represents that half of the

people in the respondent's office were accepting of the change and half were not

accepting of the USAGE's transition to sustainable construction. The third most popular

response at 13% of the survey population each, these scores were one and five. A

score of one represents that most people in the respondent's office were accepting of

sustainable construction and a score of five represents most people being resistant.

The least popular score was four, 4% of the survey population chose this score. A

score of four represents that most people in the respondent's office were resistant to

sustainable construction but there were some who were accepting of the transition.

40.0%

35.0%0

30.0%

25.0%

20.0% -
03
15.0% 04

10.00%

5.0%

0.0%
I 2 3 4 5


Figure 4-6. Perceived amount of people resistant to sustainable construction transition

4.1.5.2 Methods used to overcome resistance to sustainable construction

Survey respondents were asked how the USAGE dealt with resistance to the

transition to sustainable construction from conventional construction. The data can be









viewed in Table 4-20. There were 25 respondents for this question. Four of the

respondents indicated that there was no one resistant to the transition to sustainable

construction within their office. Of the respondents that perceived resistance within their

office the most popular response was that the USAGE offered training. Thirty two

percent of the survey respondents selected 'other' and 8% of the survey population

indicated that nothing was done by the USAGE to overcome the resistance to

sustainable construction. Some of the responses that respondents offered as an 'other'

method of overcoming resistance were one on one discussions, encouraged people to

become members of the USGBC, and arranged field trips for USAGE personnel.

Table 4-20. Methods employed to overcome resistance to transition to sustainable
construction
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
offered training 44.0% 11
reprimand was given 0.0% 0
nothing was done 8.0% 2
other 32.0% 8
there was no resistance 16.0% 4
answered question 25









CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS

5.1 Analysis of Survey

5.1.1 Analysis Regarding Hypothesis 1

The first hypothesis stated that a higher the level of management (determined by

pay grade) would have perception of lower resistance to sustainable construction

practices. In order to resolve the first hypothesis two questions from the survey will be

analyzed. The first question asked respondents to select their pay grade. Twenty six

respondents answered the question about their pay grade. There was only one

response for GS 11; this response will be combined with the GS 12 personnel. The

second question that will be analyzed is the question that asked respondents to rank the

level of resistance they perceived from the staff in their respective offices. The

perceived a level of resistance was ranked on a scale of one to five, with five being a

high level of resistance to the transition to sustainable construction from staff. There

were 24 respondents to this question. The responses from the two respondents that

answered the pay grade question but not the perceived level of resistance question will

not be included in this analysis. See Table 5-1 for the results of the respondents who

answered both questions.

Table 5-1. The results of the perceived level of resistance based on pay grade of
respondents
Score
(1 = low resistance, 5 = high resistance)
Pay Grade 1 2 3 4 5 Total respondents
GS 11/12 1 1 2 1 2 7
GS 13 0 5 5 0 1 11
GS 14 or higher 2 3 1 0 0 6
A graphic representation that can be seen in Figure 5-1 shows the responses by

volume to the question of level of perceived level of resistance separated by pay grade.









The GS 11/12 pay grade category has more volume toward the right, which represents

a perceived level of resistance of five from their office. A rank of five is a high level of

resistance. The GS 13 pay grade category has a high volume near the middle of the

chart representing some resistance to the transition to sustainable construction. The

respondents that identified as GS 14 or higher had responses that are on the left side of

the chart. The left side of the chart represents a perceived lower resistance to the

transition to sustainable construction.

HGS11/12 uGS14orhgher *GS13



C
n, 3 .--


E 0



4
5
Score


Figure 5-1. Survey respondent by pay grade compared to perceived level of resistance
to sustainable construction

The clearest way to rank the perceived level of resistance is to look at the means

for the responses by GS pay grade. For the respondents who identified themselves as

pay grade GS 12 and GS11 there were 7 responses and the mean of those responses

was 3.29. For the respondents who identified themselves as pay grade GS 13 there

were 11 responses and the mean of those responses was 2.73. For the respondents

who identified themselves as pay grade GS 14 or higher there were 6 responses and

the mean of those responses was 1.83. The results are shown graphically in Figure 5-

2. The hypothesis proved correct from this data. The GS 11/12 respondents thought










there was a level of resistance to sustainable construction of 3.60. A response of 3.60

means that a large number of people in their office were resistant to the transition to

sustainable construction practices.

3.5


S2.5
C
A 2

3 1.5

1
0.5

0
GS11/12 GS13 GS14 or higher
Pay Grade


Figure 5-2. Mean of responses ranked by respondent pay grade

The responses show a clear trend in the responses based upon pay grade. The

higher pay grades are higher levels of management and they perceived the lowest level

of resistance to the transition to sustainable construction. The respondents who

identified as GS 13 perceived some resistance to the transition to sustainable

construction. The GS 11 and GS 12 respondents perceived the highest amounts of

resistance to sustainable construction.

The first hypothesis appears to be true. There are many reasons why the

responses would follow this trend. One possible reason is that the GS 14 or higher

respondents were more involved in the transition and were more informed from the

beginning of the transition. Other possible reason why the responses followed this

trend is because the lower level staff don't show their resistance to their managers out

of fear of repercussion.









5.1.2 Analysis Regarding Hypothesis 2

The second hypothesis stated that a higher the level of management (determined

by pay grade) would feel that the training they have had regarding sustainable

construction was sufficient to meet their needs. In order to resolve the second

hypothesis two questions from the survey will be analyzed. The first question asked

respondents to select their pay grade. Twenty six respondents answered the question

about their pay grade. There was only one response for GS 11; this response will be

combined with the GS 12 personnel. The second question that will be analyzed is the

question that asked respondents to rank the level of sufficiency of the training they have

received. The perceived level of training sufficiency was ranked on a scale of one to

five, with five meaning the training was above and beyond sufficient and one meaning

the training was less than adequate. There were 24 respondents to the sufficiency of

training question. See Table 5-2 for the results of the respondents who answered both

questions.

Table 5-2. The results of the sufficiency of training on sustainable construction based on
the pay grade of respondents
Score
(1 = insufficient, 5 = more than sufficient)
Pay Grade 1 2 3 4 5 Total number of responses
GS12 1 2 3 1 0 7
GS13 0 0 2 6 2 10
GS 14 or
higher 0 1 1 3 2 7


A graphic representation that can be seen in Figure 5-3 shows the responses by

volume to the question of level of the perceived sufficiency of training organized by pay

grade. The GS 12 pay grade category has more volume in the middle of the chart,

which represents an overall satisfaction with the training that these personnel have











received. The GS 13 pay grade category has a high volume near the right of the chart


representing a level of high satisfaction with the training that those personnel had


received. The respondents that identified as GS 14 or higher also had responses that


are on the right side of the chart.


SGS14orhigher GS512 mGS13


0J6





S 23
E5




Score



Figure 5-3. Survey respondent by pay grade compared to level of sufficiency of training
for sustainable construction

4.5
4
3.5
Q 3
0 2.5
aI
0- 2


1
0.5
0
GS12 GS13 GS 14 or higher
Pay Grade


Figure 5-4. Mean of responses to sufficiency of training received ranked by respondent
pay grade

The clearest way to rank the perceived level of resistance is to look at the means


for the responses by GS pay grade. For the respondents who identified themselves as









pay grade GS 12 and 11 there were 7 responses and the mean of those responses was

2.57. For the respondents who identified themselves as pay grade GS 13 there were

10 responses and the mean of those responses was 4.00. For the respondents who

identified themselves as pay grade GS 14 or higher there were 7 responses and the

mean of those responses was 3.85. The results are shown graphically in Figure 5-4.

The hypothesis is supported but not necessarily proven by this data. There was one

GS 11 respondent who was an outlier and cannot be included in the conclusion

because there was only one response from that pay grade category. The GS 12

respondents thought the training they have received on sustainable construction was

sufficient. The GS 13 and the GS 14 or higher respondents had means that were very

close, 4.00 and 3.85 respectively. These responses show that the higher levels of

management feel that the training they have received for sustainable construction has

been more than sufficient for their needs.

The second hypothesis states that the higher levels of management, based on pay

grade, will feel that the training they have received on sustainable construction will have

been more than sufficient than personnel from lower pay grades. The second

hypothesis is neither proven nor disproven by this data. The GS 12 data did show that

they were slightly less positive about their training; nonetheless, they did feel it was

sufficient for their needs. While both the GS 13 and GS 14 or higher respondents felt

almost equally that the training they have received was more than sufficient for their

needs.

5.1.3 Analysis Regarding Hypothesis 3

The third hypothesis to be resolved stated that overall the USAGE personnel were

not personally interested in sustainable design prior to the mandate from the DOD. The









survey asked one specific question regarding this hypothesis. The resulting data from

that question is in Table 5-3.

Table 5-3. Respondents' personal interest in sustainable construction prior to mandate
Answer Options Yes No Response Count
Were you interested in sustainable
construction prior to the mandate to use the 20 5 25
SPiRiT and/or LEED rating systems for
MILCON projects?
There were 25 respondents to the question. Of the 25 respondents, 20 of the

USAGE personnel were interested in sustainable construction prior to the mandate.

These 20 respondents represent 80% of the total respondents to this question, an very

high percentage. This data disproves the hypothesis that the USAGE would not have

been interested in sustainable construction prior to the mandate from the DOD to

perform all MILCON projects to meet a LEED silver standard. The limitation to this data

is that the personnel that were selected as the survey population are highly involved

with the USACE's transition to sustainable construction. These respondents are very

well informed on sustainable construction, and that may have influenced the responses.

5.1.4 Analysis Regarding Hypothesis 4

The fourth hypothesis to be evaluated is that the USAGE personnel when grouped

by profession will have opinions on the sufficiency of their training that differ from other

professions represented in the USAGE personnel. The USAGE is composed of many

types of professionals. For this study three types of professionals will be grouped

together and analyzed. The USAGE personnel will be grouped into three profession

types: architect, engineer and project manager. The hypothesis is that each group of

professionals will have similar opinions on the sustainable construction training that they

have received and the three different groups' opinions will be different from each other.










The fourth hypothesis requires that the survey population be separated by

profession type. The respondents were asked to select their profession from a list that

contained engineer, architect, project manager and other. One respondent chose other

that response will not be included in this analysis. Of the 25 responses that will be used

in the analysis the largest group represented is the engineers with 12 respondents

identifying as engineers. The second largest group is the architects with the survey

population having 10 members who identified as architects. The smallest profession

represented in the survey population is the project manager group, 3 respondents

identified as project managers.

4.5
4
3.5
C 3
2.5
L 2



0.5
0
project managers architects engineers
Profession

Figure 5-5. Mean of responses to sufficiency of training received ranked by respondent
profession

The survey respondents were also asked to rank how sufficient their training for

sustainable construction has been. The scores were based on a 1 to 5 scale, one being

that the training was insufficient for the respondent's needs and five represented

training that was more than sufficient to meet their needs. The means of the scores for

each represented profession were calculated. The engineers have a mean score of 3.3,

the architects have a mean score of 3.6 and the project managers have a mean score









of 4 (see Figure 5-5). The project manager group felt that the training was slightly more

sufficient than their needs required. The architects and engineers on average also felt

that the training they received was slightly more sufficient than what their needs

required, but not by as much as the project managers.

5.1.4 Analysis Regarding Hypothesis 5

The fifth hypothesis states that the USAGE personnel when grouped by profession

will have similar responses on why they first became involved in sustainable

construction. The USAGE personnel will be grouped into three profession types:

architect, engineer and project manager. A secondary part of this hypothesis states that

the three different groups of professional types will have responses that are different

from each other.

The survey respondents were asked how they first became involved in sustainable

construction. They were asked to choose all that apply, there were two responses that

were selected and those were by office mandate and/or by personal interest. The

engineers were more likely to have first been involved in sustainable construction

because of the mandate. Fifty eight percent of the engineers (seven respondents)

responded that they had first become involved in sustainable construction by office

mandate. Of those seven respondents who identified themselves as having first

becoming involved in sustainable construction due to office mandate, four of them were

also personally interested in sustainable construction when they first became involved.

The architects were more likely to have been first involved with sustainable

construction due to personal interest. Eighty percent of the architect respondents first

became involved in sustainable construction due to personal interest. Twenty percent

of the architect respondents became involved in sustainable construction due to the









mandate alone. The three project managers represented in the survey population were

all first involved in sustainable construction due to personal interest alone.

Table 5-4. Respondents' first involvement with sustainable construction by profession
Total number First Involvement with Sustainable Construction
of respondents
Profession in group Office Mandate Personal Interest
engineer 12 7 9
architect 10 3 8
project
manager 3 0 3









CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION

Summary

The results of the survey portrayed the perceptions of the USACE management

staff who are directly involved with sustainable construction regarding the mandated

transition to sustainable construction. The survey designed for this survey was a way to

collect the needed information in a uniform fashion. The results of the survey were

designed to be analyzed or compared in many ways. The objectives of this study were

to prove three hypothesizes that were developed prior to releasing the survey. Those

five hypothesizes were:

* The higher the level of management (determined by pay grade) the lower the
perception of resistance to sustainable construction practices.

* The higher the level of management (determined by pay grade) the more likely
they were to feel that their training was sufficient.

* In general the USACE personnel were not personally interested in sustainable
construction prior to the mandate.

* The respondents when grouped by profession had differing opinions on the
sufficiency of the training they received. All the respondents felt that the training
was at least sufficient to different degrees.

* The respondents when grouped by profession did have differing opinions on why
they first became involved in sustainable construction. The project managers were
more likely to have become involved in sustainable construction due to personal
interest alone, while the engineers were more likely to have first become involved
due to office mandate.

The results of the survey were revealed in Chapter 4 and then the results were

analyzed in Chapter 5.

Limitations

The survey was distributed by a USACE staff member who chose the survey

population. The USACE staff member chose to send the survey to other USACE









personnel that were familiar with the transition to sustainable construction within the

USAGE and some of the survey population members had actually had a role in

implementing the change. The survey population was also skewed to higher ranking

and more experienced personnel. The resulting data was biased because of the survey

populations' role in implementing sustainable construction and their familiarity with

sustainable construction.

Recommendations for Future Study

There are a few recommendations for further study. The first recommendation is

to continue the research with the USAGE. A researcher could take this same survey to

a larger population of USAGE personnel to get a bigger sample size and continue this

research. The second recommendation is to use the same survey but use different

survey populations. If survey populations were chosen from companies or

organizations within the construction industry that have also transitioned from

conventional construction to sustainable construction, then the results could be

compared. If there had been more responses, or a larger population then a more in

depth analysis could be performed.











APPENDIX A
IRB APPROVAL


UF Inititutonal Review Board
U UNIVERSITY. r F L OR ID \


PO IBox 112251
Gainesvllt, I I 32611-2250
352-392-0433 (Phone}
3:2-392-9234 FIa')
Irhb2fii fl.edu


DATE: March 2, 2010


TO: Sharon Neff



FROM: Ira S. Fischler, PhD, Chair
University of Florida
Institutional Review Board 02


SUBJECT: Approval of Protocol #2010-U-0195

TITLE: Impacts of the Change from Conventional Construction to Sustainable
Construction Practices in the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE)

SPONSOR: None

I am pleased to advise you that the University of Florida Institutional Review Board has
recommended approval of this protocol. Based on its review, the UFIRB determined that this
research presents no more than minimal risk to participants, and based on 45 CFR 46.117(c),
An IRB may waive the requirement for the investigator to obtain a signed consent form for
some or all subjects if it finds either: (1) That the only record linking the subject and the
research would be the consent document and the principal risk would be potential harm
resulting from a breach of confidentiality. Each subject will be asked whether the subject
wants documentation linking the subject with the research, and the subject's wishes will
govern; or (2) That the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and
involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of the
research context.

The IRB authorizes you to administer the informed consent process as specified in the
protocol. If you wish to make any changes to this protocol, including the need to increase
the number of participants authorized, you must disclose your plans before you implement
them so that the Board can assess their impact on your protocol. n addition, you must report
to the Board any unexpected complications that affect your participants.

This approval is valid through February 24, 2011 If you have not completed the study by
this date, please telephone our office {3q2 04331. and we will discuss the renewal process
with you. It is important that you keep your Department Chair informed about the status of
this research protocol.

ISF:dl


A I k.suilprrlumh [In-mimn









APPENDIX B
SURVEY


Impacts of the Change from Conventional Construction to Sustainable Construction
Practices in the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE)

Information about survey taker
1 What is your specialty? Select all that apply
o Engineer
o Architect
o Environmental
o Contracts
o Real Estate
o Project Management
o Other

2 What is your pay grade? Select one.
o GS 9 or lower
o GS 10
o GS11
o GS12
o GS13
o GS 14 or higher
o I'm not USACE personnel

3 How long have you been working in the construction/engineering industry?
Select one.
o 0-5 years
o 5-10 years
o 10-15 years
o 15+ years

3 Do you recycle at home? Select one.
o Yes
o No

4 Are you the main person responsible for sustainable construction practices on a
project team? Select one.
o Yes
o No

5 Years familiar with sustainable construction (LEED, SPiRiT)? Select one.









o <1
o 1-2 years
o 2-4 years
o 4+ years

6 Do you have a personal interest in sustainable construction (LEED, SPiRiT)?
Select one.
o Yes
o No

7 Why did you first start becoming involved in sustainable construction (LEED,
SPiRiT)? Select all that apply.
o Was mandated
o Was both mandated and interested
o Became interested after attending a class or seminar
o Became interested through main stream media

Sustainability
8 How many projects has your office built using sustainable construction rating
systems (LEED, SPiRiT) in the last 5 years? Select one.
o None
o 1-5
o 6-10
o 11+

9 How quick did the office change to sustainable construction practices? Select
one.
o Was an immediate mandated change
o Was slowly introduced through procedures
o Was introduced by individuals in the office and slowly accepted by the
organization

10 How well did your office transition to sustainable construction practices? Select
one.
o Not a smooth transition at all
o There were a few large problems
o There were some minor problems
o The transition went well

11 When did your office begin sustainable construction policies? Select one.
o Less than 1 year ago









o 1-2 years ago
o 2-4 years ago
o 4+ years ago

12 How long did it take your office to become comfortable with sustainable
construction? Select one.
o 0-6 months
o 7-12 months
o 1 year and more
o Not running smoothly yet

13 Does the chain of command in your office encourage and support sustainable
construction processes?
o Yes
o No

14 How well does USAGE keep employees updated with sustainable construction
information? Select one.
o Not well at all
o Could be better at updating
o Very good at keeping employees up to date

15 How much training did you (personally) receive on sustainable construction
practices in the past year? Select one.
o Less than 1 days worth
o 1-2 days
o 2-4 days
o 4+ days
o None at all

16 What type of sustainable construction training did you (personally) receive in the
past year? Select all that apply.
o In office presentation
o Training manual
o Meeting (online or in-office)
o Presentations by sustainability expert
o Seminar/Webinar (online seminar)
o Other
o None

17 Was the sustainable construction training you received sufficient? Select one.









o Yes, I understand well
o I still have a few questions
o Not sufficient
o I haven't received any training

18 When you have questions relating to sustainability do you know who to ask?
Select one.
o Yes
o No

19 When you ask questions relating to sustainability do you get an adequate
response? Select one.
o Often
o Rarely
o Never

20 How many people are in your office? Fill in the blank.


21 What percentage of people in your office are resistant to changing to sustainable
construction?
o Low (<20%)
o Medium (20% 50%)
o Medium-high (50% 80%)
o High (>80%)

22 If there was resistance to the change to sustainable construction, what was done
to overcome the resistance? Select one.
o There was no resistance
o Nothing was done
o Offered training
o Reprimand was given
o Other

23 What organizational authority is most resistant to sustainable construction
(LEED, SPiRiT)? Select all that apply.
o Base Commander
o USAGE HQ staff
o USAGE Field staff
o Other
o No one was resistant










24 Are the Tenant Commands that you work with accepting of the new sustainable
construction process? Select one.
o Most are accepting
o Few are accepting
o None are accepting
o N/A

25 If the Tenant Commands are not accepting, what is done to overcome their
resistance? Select all that apply.
o Meetings with the Tenant Command staff
o Invited them to seminars/ training
o The Tenant Commands were given written information (brochures, etc.)
o Nothing was done
o Unknown

26 Are local construction contractors accepting of the new sustainable construction
process? Select one.
o Most are accepting
o Few are accepting
o None are accepting
o Unknown

27 If the local construction contractors are not accepting, what is done to overcome
their resistance? Select all that apply.
o Meetings with the contractors
o Invited them to seminars/training
o The contractors were given written information (brochures, etc.)
o Nothing was done
o Unknown

28 Are architecture/engineering firms accepting of the new sustainable construction
process? Select one.
o Most are accepting
o Few are accepting
o None are accepting
o Unknown

29 If the architecture/engineering firms are not accepting what is done to overcome
their resistance? Select all that apply.
o Meetings with the firms

















o Invited them to seminars/ training

o The firms were given written information (brochures, etc.)


o Nothing was done

o Unknown



Fle Edit View History Bookmarlks Tools Help
S Ihttp://www. urveymonkey.cmfs.aspxPREVIEW MODEDO NOT U5ETHIS LINK FOR COLLECTION& =y%2fb8UPicTNk6vTIUC81IwY3umD9YW75sOtMll BZCY%3d


1. Informed Consent
Protocol Title: Impacts of the Change from Conventional Construction to Sustainable Construction Practices in the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE)

Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study.

Purpose of the research study: To determine the impact within the U.S. Army corps of engineers (USACE) of changing from conventional construction means
to the sustainable construction means that are required to attain a sustainable accreditation for a building.

What you will be asked to do in the study: Complete the online survey

Time required: 3 min.

Risks and Benefits: There is no compensation to you for participating in the study. There is no risk associated with this survey. The survey will benefit the
construction/design/engineering community by providing information on how to better implement sustainable construction measures. However, there are no
direct benefits to you for participating in the study.
Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your information will be assigned a code number. Your name will not be
used in any report.

Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating.

Right to withdraw from the study. You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence.

Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Sharon Neff, Graduate Student, University of Florida, College of Design Construction and Planning,
Department of Building Construction
James Sullivan, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of Florida, College of Design Construction and Planning, Department of Building construction

Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; phone
392-0433.

Agreement:
I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and by selecting the 'I agree' to participate in the study button.
Sl Agree


Next I








File Edit Ylew History Boo knarks Tools Help
I* t httpLwww urveymonkiey .omasrPREVIEW MODE=DO NOT USE THIS LINK FOR COLLECTIONeim=ry%2fbUPicTNk6vTIUC81,wY3umD9YW75OtMlIBZCYI C d


1. Which of the following best describes your profession?

j engineer
J architect

Project manager
Other


2. If you answered 'other' to question 1 then please specify your profession here.



3. What is your pay grade?
GS 9 or lower

SGS 10

GS 11

GS 12

SGS 13

j GS 14 or higher

I am not USACE personnel


4. How long have you been working in the construction/engineering industry?
S0-5 years

S510 years

S10-15 years

S15 years or more









97


















Fie Edit nlew History Bookmarks Tools Help

I i http //wwwsurveyronkeyois.aspxPREVIEW MODE=DO NOT USE THIS LINK FOR COLLECTIONr&s=ry%2FbLUPicTNk6vTIUCO8wYV3umD9YW75sOtMilIBZCV%3d



1. Please answer yes or no to the following questions.
Yes No
Do you recycle at home?
Are you the main person
responsible for sustainable
construction practices on your
project team?
Are you personally interested in
sustainable construction?

sustainable construction prior to
the mandate to use the SPIRIT
and/or LEED rating systems for
MILCON projects?
Have you had any training for
sustainable construction in the
past year?
Do you believe that the USACE
has done a good job with training
personnel on how to build to the
LEED standard?
Does top management in your
office encourage and support
sustainable construction process "
and practices?
Does the USACE keep employees
updated with sustainable
construction (LEED) information
well?
When you have questions relating
to sustainability do you know
who to ask (within the USACE)?
When you ask questions relating


File Edit View History Bookmarks Tools Help

SI http:ww.surveymonkey.coim/.aspxPFREVIEW MODE=DO NOT USE THIS LINK FOR COLLECTION&sm=ry%2fb3UPicTNk6ivTUCC3IwY3umD9YW75sotMIJIBZCV%3d



1. What types of sustainable construction training have you received in the last year? Choose all that apply.

inFoffice presentation

training manual

meeting (online or in-office)

presentation by sustainability expert

seminar/webinar (online seminar)

r other

none


2. If you selected 'other' in the answer above then please specify the other types of training here.







3. How much training have you received on sustainable construction (LEED and/or SPiRiT)in the past year?

less than one days worth

1-2 days

j 2-4 days

S4+ days

no training at all


4. Was the sustainable construction training you have received sufficient? Make a selection based on the following scale, 1 being very inadequate and 5 being
above and beyond adequate.























98

















File Edit Vew Hstory Boonars Tool Help

I http www survemonkey cos aspxPREVIEWMODE=DO NOT USETHISLINK FOR COLLECTION =r%2fUPcTNk6vT U081V3uDYW75sOtMIIBZCY%3d


1. Why did you first become involved in sustainable construction (LEED/SPiRiT)? Choose all that apply.
Office mandate

SPersonal Interest

SOther


2. If you choose personal interest, how did you become interested? Choose all that apply.
Became interested after attending a class or seminar

r Became interested through main stream media exposure

SThrough a colleague in the office

r Conference publiatlionm other, etc


3. If you choose 'other' please explain here.


4. How many projects has your office built using the LEED or SPiRiT rating systems in the last 5 years?
Snone

1-3

4-6

j 6+


5. How did your office change to sustainable construction practices?
an immediate mandated change










































































99









LIST OF REFERENCES


Attfield, R. (1999). The Ethics of the Global Environment. Edinburgh University Press,
Edinburgh: 2000.

Chong, W.K., Kumar, S., Haas, C.T., Beheiry, S.W.A., Coplen, L., and Oey, M. (2009).
"Understanding and Interpreting Baseline Perceptions of Sustainability in
Construction among Civil Engineers in the United States". Journal of Management
in Engineering. 25 (3), 143-154.

Dalton, J. (2008). "Sustainable Design and Development (SDD) Registration and
Certification". US Army Corp of Engineers Engineering and Construction Bulletin
Issued by the CECW-CE. No. 2008-27, September 25, 2008.

Dalton, J. and Rivers, P. (2009). "Communicating Sustainable Design and Energy
Efficient Features of Army Projects". US Army Corp of Engineers Engineering and
Construction Bulletin Issued by the CECW-CE. No. 2009-24, October 2 2009.

Gillespie, J. and Miller, J. (2007). "Army Green". Environmental Design & Construction,
October 2007.

Global Reporting Initiative. (2007). What is GRI?
http://www.globalreporting.org/AboutGRI/WhatlsGRI/. Last accessed March 9,
2010.

Green Building Initiative. (2010). Green Globes. http://www.thegbi.org/. Last accessed
February 24 2010.

Hallmark, M. (2006). "Sustainability: Cultural Considerations". U.S. Army War College,
Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania: April 2006.

Hill, R. and Bowen, P. (1997). "Sustainable Construction: Principles and a Framework
for Attainment". Construction Management and Economics. 15, 223-239.

Hoffman, A. J. and Henn, R. (2008). "Overcoming the Social and Psychological Barriers
to Green Building." Organization & Environment. 21 (4), 390-419.

International Standards Organization. (2010). ISO 9000 and ISO14001.
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/m anagem ent_standards/iso_9000_iso_14000
.htm. Last accessed March 11, 2010.

Kibert, C. (2008). Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery. 2nd
Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken: 2008.

Matthiessen, L.F. and Morris, P. (2004). Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost
Database and Budgeting Methodology. Davis Langdon. July 2004.


100









Rohracher, H. (2001). "Managing the technical transition to sustainable construction of
buildings: A socio-technical perspective". Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management. 13(1), 137-150.

Sheller, T. (2000). "Green Construction: Efficient Design for Military Facilities."
http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-tech-ltrs/etl1110-3-491/a-b.pdf. Last
accessed March 8, 2010.

Turner Construction Company. (2008). Turner 2008 Green Building Market Barometer.
www.turnerconstruction.com/greenbuildings. Last accessed March 11, 2010.

United Nations. (1986). Declaration on the Right to Development.
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41 rl28.htm. Last accessed February 26,
2010.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2010). Population and Vital
Statistics Report. Series A Vol. LXII, No. 1.
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/vitstats/Sets/SeriesA_Jan2010_c
omplete.pdf. Last accessed May 6, 2010.

United States Department of Labor. (2010). Bureau of Labor Statistics. Career Guide to
Industries, 2010-11 Edition. Construction. http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs003.htm.
Last accessed March 11, 2010.

United States Green Building Council. (2010). http://www.usgbc.org. Last accessed
February 25, 2010.

U.S. Army. (2004) The Army Strategy for the Environment: Sustain the Mission -
Secure the Future.
http://www.sustainability.army.m il/function/docs/ArmyEnvStrategy.pdf. Last
accessed March 9, 2010.

U.S. Army. (2008) Army Sustainability Report 2007.
http://www.sustainability.army.mil/news/docs_general/Army_Sustainability_Report
12_02_08.pdf. September 5 2008. Last accessed March 9, 2010.

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. (2008). Sustainable Project
Rating Tool (SPiRiT).
http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/pls/erdcpub/docs/erdc/images/ERDCFactSheet_P
roduct_SPiRit.pdf. January 2008. Last accessed February 26, 2010.

U.S. Army Sustainability. (2008). http://www.sustainability.army.mil/. Last updated
December 2008. Last accessed March9,2010.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters. (2010). "About Us".
http://www.usace.army.mil/about/Pages/Home.aspx. Last accessed March10,
2010.


101









USGBC. (2009). LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations.
http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentlD=5546. Last accessed March
11,2010.

USGBC. (2010). USGBC Update March 2009.
http://communicate.usgbc.org/newsletters/USGBC_Update/0309.html. Last
accessed May 5, 2010.

U.S. Office of Mangement and Budget. (2009). Department of Defense.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/budget/fy2009/defense.html. Last
accessed May 6, 2010.

Wetherill, M., Rezgui, Y., Boddy, S., and Cooper, G. S. (2007). "Intra- and
Interorganizational Knowledge Services to Promote Informed Sustainable
Practices". Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering. 21 (2), 78-89.

Whitaker, J.W. (2006). "Memorandum for SEE Distribution: Sustainable Design and
Developemnt Policy Update". Department of the Army, Ofiice of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army Installations and Environment. January 5, 2006.

The White House. (2010). President Obama Sets Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Reduction Target for Federal Operations. Target to Drive Energy Cost Reductions
in Federal Operations, Creating Clean Energy Jobs.
http://www. whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-sets-greenhouse-
gas-emissions-reduction-target-federal-operations. Last accessed April 5, 2010.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our Common
Future. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.


102









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Sharon M. Neff was born in San Antonio, Texas, to Andrew M. Neff and Elizabeth

A. Neff. Sharon's interest in design, construction and the military can be attributed to

her family's background, her father and paternal grandfather were engineers and her

father and both of her grandfathers were in the military. Upon graduating high school in

2003, Sharon attended the University of Florida where she became interested in

sustainable design and construction. While Sharon was earning her undergraduate

degree Sharon met her fiance. In 2007 Sharon earned her Bachelor of Science in

Design with a major in interior design. After receiving her bachelor's degree Sharon

worked in the construction industry as a design professional. During that time working

she was inspired to return to school and pursue a Master of Science in Building

Construction with a concentration in sustainable construction. While Sharon was

pursuing her master's degree her fiance was commissioned as an officer in the U.S.

Army. Shortly after graduation Sharon will be getting married and she and her husband

will be relocating to Fort Bragg, North Carolina where she will pursue a career in

building construction.


103





PAGE 1

REACTIONS TO MANDATED SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS By SHARON NEFF A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010 1

PAGE 2

2010 Sharon Neff 2

PAGE 3

To my family and my construction industry peers who dedicate themselves to furthering sustainable construction practices 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my committee members Dr. James Sullivan, Dr. Robert Ries, and Dr. Doug Lucas. My committee had a great influence on my education as well as my report. You and the other facility of the Rinker School of Building Construction have impacted my life and given me the knowledge to become an outstanding member of the construction industry. I would also like to thank Mark Russell without whom this research would not have occurred. A special thank you goes to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers personnel, especially Mr. Richar d Schneider and Ms. Jeanette Fiess for their help and participation with the research. I thank my parents for supporting me em otionally and financially through my academic aspirations. I thank my fianc for his unwavering support and encouragement. He kept me striving to be best the best that I can be, even when times were tough. I would not be the pers on I am today without the support and encouragement of the people who are closest to me. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDG MENTS .................................................................................................. 4LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 8LIST OF FI GURES ........................................................................................................ 10ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 13CHAPTER 1 INTRODUC TION .................................................................................................... 152 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 192.1 Sustain ability ..................................................................................................... 192.1.1 History of Sustainabi lity ......................................................................... 202.1.2 Environmental Ethics ............................................................................. 212.1.3 The Principles of Sustainabi lity ............................................................. 232.2 Sustainable Co nstructi on .................................................................................. 252.2.1 The Pillars of Sust ainable Construction ................................................. 252.2.1.1 The social pillar of sustainable cons truction ............................ 262.2.1.2 The economic pillar of sustainable c onstructi on ...................... 272.2.1.3 The biophysical pillar of sustainable co nstructi on .................... 272.2.1.4 The technical pillar of sustainable co nstruction ....................... 282.2.2 Sustainable Constr uction Rating Systems ............................................ 292.2.2.1 The green globes assessment pr otocol ................................... 302.2.2.2 The LEED rating syst em .......................................................... 312.2.2.3 The U.S. Armys SPiRiT rati ng system .................................... 332.3 Sustainability and the U.S. Army ...................................................................... 352.3.1 Army Constr uction Proc ess ................................................................... 392.3.2 The Army Corp s of Engi neers ............................................................... 402.4 The Transition to Green Design ........................................................................ 422.5 Barriers to Sustai nable Constr uction................................................................. 442.5.1 Barriers Perceived by the Construction Industry ................................... 442.5.2 Social and Psychological Barrier s to Sustainable Construction ............ 452.5.3 Technological Barriers to Sustainable C onstructi on .............................. 482.6 Overcoming Barriers to Sustainable Cons tructi on ............................................ 492.6.1 Overcoming the Perceived Cost Barrier to Su stainabili ty ...................... 502.6.2 Overcoming the Socio-Techni cal Barrier to Sustainability ..................... 522.6.3 Overcoming the Social and Psycholog ical Barriers to Sustainability ..... 522.6.4 Overcoming the Knowledge Shar ing Barrier to Sustainab ility ............... 533 METHODOL OGY ................................................................................................... 55 5

PAGE 6

3.1 Problem St atement ........................................................................................... 553.2 Conducting Re search ....................................................................................... 553.4 The Su rvey ....................................................................................................... 563.3 Hypothes is ........................................................................................................ 574 RESULT S ............................................................................................................... 604.1 Survey Results .................................................................................................. 604.1.1 Survey Populat ion Demogr aphics ......................................................... 604.1.1.1 Survey population re sults for pr ofessi on .................................. 604.1.1.2 Survey population results for pay gr ade .................................. 614.1.1.3 Survey population results for experience in construction industry ................................................................................... 624.1.1.4 Survey population result s for experience with sustainable construc tion ............................................................................ 634.1.1.5 Survey respondents level of responsibility for sustainable practices on their respec tive project teams ............................. 654.1.2 Respondents Personal Re action to Sust ainabilit y ................................ 654.1.2.1 Respondents acceptance of sustainable culture in their personal li fe ............................................................................ 664.1.2.2 Respondents current personal interest in sustainable construc tion ............................................................................ 664.1.2.3 Respondents personal intere st in sustainable construction prior to mandate ...................................................................... 664.1.2.4 Respondents introduction to sustainable construction ............ 674.1.3 Practical Sustai nable Building Construc tion Exper ience ....................... 684.1.3.1 Number of projects bu ilt using sustainable construction practices ................................................................................. 684.1.3.2 Comfort wit h using sustainable construction ............................ 694.1.4 The perception of the survey population on the USACEs ability to train and provide information to personnel regarding sustainable construc tion ......................................................................................... 704.1.4.1 Introduction to sustainable construction within the office setting ..................................................................................... 724.1.4.3 Respondent exposure to training media .................................. 734.1.4.4 Respondent amount of trai ning in sustainable construction ..... 734.1.4.5 Sufficiency of training re ceived ................................................ 744.1.5 Resistance to Sust ainable Constr uction ................................................ 754.1.5.1 Perceived resistance to sustainable c onstructi on .................... 764.1.5.2 Methods used to overcome resistance to sustainable construc tion ............................................................................ 775 ANALYSI S .............................................................................................................. 795.1 Analysis of Survey ............................................................................................ 795.1.1 Analysis Regar ding Hypothe sis 1 .......................................................... 795.1.2 Analysis Regar ding Hypothe sis 2 .......................................................... 82 6

PAGE 7

5.1.3 Analysis Regar ding Hypothe sis 3 .......................................................... 845.1.4 Analysis Regar ding Hypothe sis 4 .......................................................... 855.1.4 Analysis Regar ding Hypothe sis 5 .......................................................... 876 CONCLUS ION ........................................................................................................ 89Summary ................................................................................................................ 89Limitations ............................................................................................................... 89Recommendations for Future St udy ....................................................................... 90APPENDIX A IRB APPRO VAL ..................................................................................................... 91B SURVEY ................................................................................................................. 92LIST OF REFE RENCES ............................................................................................. 100BIOGRAPHICAL SK ETCH .......................................................................................... 103 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 The green globes rating system adapt ed from (Green Gl obes 2010) ................. 312-2 The LEED rating system categories and criteria adapted from (USGBC 2009) 322-3 Survey responses on the percept ion of the impact of sustainable construction, adapted from (Chong et al. 2009) .................................................. 434-1 Survey respondent demogr aphics by prof ession ................................................ 604-2 Survey respondent demographics organized by pay grade ................................ 614-3 Survey respondent demographics organized by experience .............................. 624-4 Survey populations years of exper ience with sustainable construction ............. 634-5 Respondents level of responsibil ity for sustainable construc tion ....................... 654-6 Respondents acceptance of sustainab le culture in their personal life ................ 664-7 Respondents current personal interest in su stainable cons truction ................... 664-8 Respondents personal inte rest in sustainable constr uction prior to mandate .... 664-9 Reason for respondents first involvem ent with sustainable construction ........... 674-10 Reasons respondents indicated a personal interest in sustainable construc tion ........................................................................................................ 684-11 Number of projects built using LEED or SPiRiT rating systems in survey population offices ................................................................................................ 694-12 Length of time it took survey populati ons offices to become comfortable with sustainable c onstructi on ..................................................................................... 694-13 Data of multiple ques tions from survey ............................................................... 704-14 The perception of the way that USACE offices transitioned to sustainable construction pr actice s ......................................................................................... 724-15 Respondents exposure to types of training media in the last year ..................... 734-16 Amount of time spent in training for sustainable construction in the last year .... 734-17 Perception of the suffic iency of training received ................................................ 74 8

PAGE 9

4-18 Perceived resistance to su stainable cons truction ............................................... 764-19 Perceived amount of people resistant to sustainable construction transition ...... 764-20 Methods employed to overcome resistance to transition to sustainable construc tion ........................................................................................................ 785-1 The results of the perceived level of resistance based on pay grade of respondent s ........................................................................................................ 795-2 The results of the sufficiency of training on sustainable construction based on the pay grade of respondent s ............................................................................. 825-3 Respondents personal inte rest in sustainable constr uction prior to mandate .... 855-4 Respondents first involvement with sust ainable construction by profession ...... 88 9

PAGE 10

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 The principles of sustainable cons truction, adapted from (Kibert 2008) ............. 232-2 The pillars of sustainable construc tion, adapted from (Hill and Bowen 1997) .... 262-3 USGBC plaque indicating a LEED Gold certification, as seen on the M.E. Rinker, Sr. Hall Building on the Universi ty of Floridas Gainesville campus ........ 332-4 The U.S. Army triple bottom li ne, adapted from (U.S Army 2008) ..................... 382-5 The MILCON process hierarchy system. ............................................................ 402-6 Survey responses on the barriers of implementing sustainable construction, adapted from (Turner Constr uction Company 2008) .......................................... 452-7 Creation of a sustainability cult ure, adapted from (H allmark 200 6) .................... 494-1 Survey respondent demogr aphics by prof ession ................................................ 614-2 Survey population pay grade demogr aphics ...................................................... 624-3 Survey respondent ex perience dem ographics ................................................... 634-4 Survey respondents years of experi ence with sustainable construction ............ 644-5 Perception of the suffic iency of training received ................................................ 754-6 Perceived amount of people resistant to sustainable construction transition ...... 775-1 Survey respondent by pay grade compared to perceived level of resistance to sustainable constructi on ................................................................................. 805-2 Mean of responses ranked by respondent pay grade ......................................... 815-3 Survey respondent by pay grade compared to level of sufficiency of training for sustainable c onstructi on ................................................................................ 835-4 Mean of responses to sufficiency of training received ranked by respondent pay grade ........................................................................................................... 835-5 Mean of responses to sufficiency of training received ranked by respondent professi on ........................................................................................................... 86 10

PAGE 11

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS A-E-C-CM Architect/engineer/constructor/construction manager ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASE Army Strategy for the Envir onment: Sustain the Mission Secure the Future ASR Army Sustainability Report 2007 CID Conseil International du Batiment DOD Department of Defense EISA Energy Independence and Security Act FORSCOM Forces Command GBI Green Building Initiative GBCI Green Building Cert ification Institute GRI Global Reporting Initiative GS General Services GSA United States General Services Administration IAQ Indoor Air Quality ISO International Standards Organization ISP Installation Sust ainability Program LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LEED AP Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional MILCON Military Construction PDT Project Delivery Team POC Point of Contact SDD Sustainable Design and Development SPiRiT Sustainable Pr oject Rating Tool 11

PAGE 12

USACE United States Army Corp of Engineers USGBC Unites States Green Building Coalition WCED World Commission on Environment and Development 12

PAGE 13

Abstract of Thesis Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulf illment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction REACTIONS TO SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS By Sharon Neff August 2010 Chair: J. Sullivan Major: Building Construction The construction industry is evolving; it is in a transition state, moving from conventional means to sustainable construction practices. The beginnings of this transition date back to the middle of the twentieth century and began to truly took hold in the 1990s. Since that time the facts of energy consumption and material use and waste connected to buildings and the construc tion industry have become well known. Innovative members of the industry have begun to change their construction methods to more sustainable practices in response. Some companies and institutions have mandated the change to sustainable construction; one such institution is t he U.S. Army. The U.S. Army mandated the transition to sustainable construction prac tices in 2002. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was mandated to trai n and prepare its personnel to design and build by the guidelines of a sustainable construction rating system. The USACE is currently using the LEED NC 3.0 system for Army projects. All Army projects have been mandated to be built to the LEED Silver standard. Little to no research has been conducted as to the effects t he transition had on USACE personnel. The personnels perception of the preparation and tr aining that they 13

PAGE 14

14 received in order to change from conventiona l construction to sustainable construction practices will be measured via survey and anal yzed. The USACE employees opinions regarding the transition to sustainable constr uction can be of use to other members of the construction industry who are or will be experiencing the transition to sustainable construction within their own companies.

PAGE 15

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The world is changing. Whether it is in response to a change in climate or to simply try to be more responsible with limited resources is inconsequential. Sustainability is becoming more than just a catch phrase, its doctrine of conserving and preserving is being adopted by many industr ies. Even the federal government is spouting the advantages of changing t he economy to a clean energy economy (The White House 2010). As sustainability is gaining approval, technologies and standards have and will continue to rush to become mo re and more efficient to meet the new standards. The construction industry is at a crossr oads of convention and innovation. On one hand the construction industry is accepting of the sustainable movement, one example of their acceptance would be t he growing number of constr uction industry professional who are becoming LEED APs (U SGBC 2010). On the other hand, the industry may be forced via mandates into acceptance by universities, organizations and municipalities that require green building practices to be used for their build ing and renovation projects. Change is not readily accepted in the construction industry due to perceived liability issues and a reluctance to be the first to try something new. There has been little research on how per sonnel within the construction industry have dealt with the transition to sustainable design and construction. Are sustainable practices being implemented with or without their support? Do construction industry workers who are working in sustainable constr uction actually believe in the principles and ethical nature of sustainabilit y? Do they have a personal interest in sustainability, or are they just doing the work they are contra cted to perform? There are many questions 15

PAGE 16

that have not yet been asked, the sheer size of the construction co mmunity is a limiting factor (United States Depar tment of Labor 2010). In order to begin researching this topic a smaller sample size is needed. For the purposes of th is report the managers directly working with sustainability in the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will be studied. This report will focus on the USACEs work that is done for the U.S. Army. The U.S. Army conducts all of its construction following its sustainable design and development (SDD) methods. The U.S. Army acquires its funds through the department of defense (DOD). The DOD is one of the largest departments operated by the U.S. government, it had a budget of $529,876,000,000 in 2007 and an estimated budget of $651,163,000,000 for 2009 (U.S. Offi ce of Management and Budget 2009). That money goes towards everything requir ed for the defense of the United States including construction. The DODs budget for construction in 2007 was $9,167,000,000 and the 2009 budget was estimated to be $ 21,197,000,000 (U.S. Office of Management and Budget 2009). The amount of the construction budget that went specifically toward U.S. Army construction is not known, but ev en a fraction of the estimated $21 billion construction budget for 2009 would have made an impact on the sustainable construction market. The U.S. Army adopted sustainable constr uction practices in 2002 (Dalton 2008). The USACE was mandated to familiarize its staff quickly and effectively in order to transition from conventional construction to sustainable construction measures. The impact of the transition and the effectiveness of the training on the USACE personnel are not known. The managers within the US ACE offices are more impacted by the 16

PAGE 17

mandated change to sustainable construction t han other staff members. This report will analyze the managerial personnels perceptions of sustainable construction and the effectiveness of the trai ning provided to them. This study is significant in that it will evaluate the personnel of an organization that has transitioned from conventional to sustai nable construction via mandate. The report will collect responses via a survey of managers who deal directly with sustainable construction practices in their individual offi ces. The data collected will determine if the training and other means of preparation were effective in establishing a level of knowledge among the USACE manager ial staff who deal direct ly with sustainability. The perception of the effectiv eness of their training will pr ovide the construction industry with knowledge of what means of traini ng were effective when transitioning to sustainable construction via mandate. Some hypotheses of the perceptions of the USACE personnel to be determined by the study are as follows: The higher the level of management ( determined by pay grade) the lower the perception of resistance to sust ainable construction practices. The higher the level of management ( determined by pay grade) the more likely they were to feel that their training was sufficient. Overall the USACE personnel were not personally interested in sustainable construction prior to the mandate. The respondents, if grouped by profession, would have different opinions on the sufficiency of the sustainable construction training. The respondents would have differing opini ons on why they first became involved with sustainable construction based on profession. These hypotheses will be further discuss ed in the methodology chapter of this report. The results will be determined via surv ey and analyzed in the analysis of results 17

PAGE 18

chapter. Finally, conclusions and recommendations will be given in the final chapter of this thesis. 18

PAGE 19

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Sustainability In pre-industrialized society there was no ques tion of whether a product or practice was sustainable or not. Resources were typically local and for the most part sustainable. People of the pre-industrial era understood intuitively that they depended on the local ecosystem to support and sustain their lives. Sustainable practices had gone on unhindered for millennia. Fast-forward to present day, the current economy of the developed world is based squarely on c onsumerism and the need to replace every product with the latest and greatest. This cycle is ingrained in the minds of the latest westernized human generation. It is of no consequence to the conscience of many of this generation to throw barely used merchandise into landfills and then turn around and replace it with a newer version. Yet there is a growing movement that is bucking the trend; it has been gaining ground over t he past few decades. The sustainable movement is attracting people from all walks of life. Many people are attracted to the concept of sustainability becaus e of the core principle of reducing the impact that the human species has on the planet. Others see su stainability simply as the right thing to do. The growth of sustainable practices and theory has given rise to many subcategories of sustainability. For the purposes of this paper one such subcategory of sustainability will be explored: sustainabl e construction. Modern sustainable construction has been on the radar for more than twenty years and yet it has not made a significant change in the way th e majority of buildings are constructed (Kibert 2008). The bulk of design and construction professi onals have been slow to accept sustainable 19

PAGE 20

construction practices, while others have jum ped right on board. Many large institutions are leading the way to sustai nable construction including the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), many state and loca l governments, and universities around the country. The U.S. Army is one of these instit utions who has accepted sustainability as a policy and is constructing all of its build ing using green construction practices. This literature review will shed light on t he concepts and principles of sustainable construction. It will review the US Army s acceptance of sustainable construction practices. The review will also explore why many construction professionals are slow to accept sustainable construction practice s, and offer methods of overcoming that resistance to transitioning to sustainable construction practices. 2.1.1 History of Sustainability The technological advances that have occurred since the beginning of the industrial revolution have drastically c hanged the planets syst ems (Hill and Bowen 2007). The explosion of the human populat ion has lead to the unsustainable consumption of resources. In January 2010 the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs estimated a wo rld population of 6,750,062,000 for the year 2008, this is up from an estimate of 6,670,801,000 for the year 2007(United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2010). The middle of the 20th century was the starting point of modern sustainable thinking. Envi ronmentalism began in this period of time and lead to such a standing t hat the first Earth Day was celebrated in Vermont in April 1970. Another product of the advances in environmentalism occurred in 1972 when the United Nati ons Conference on Human En vironment was held in Stockholm (Hill and Bowen 1997). The conference brought about the concept of ecodevelopment. Ecodevelopment is defined as an approach to development aimed at 20

PAGE 21

harmonizing social and economic objecti ves and ecologically sound management (Hill and Bowen 1997, citing Gardner 1989, citing Sachs 1978). According to Hill and Bowen (1997), sustainable development was spaw ned from ecodevelopment. Sustainable development is the precursor to sustainable construction. The 1970s and early 1980s was a time of much discussion on how development could uphold the ideals of conservation and preservation that permeated the sustainable vernacular of t he time. The dialogue culminated in a conference; the World Commission on Environment and Developmen t (WCED). The WCED produced the much sited publication Our Common Future in 1987. This publication is sometimes referred to as the Brundt land Report. Our Common Future defined sustainable development as meeting the basic needs of the people without compromising the ability of future generations to meet thei r own needs (WCED 1987). The report is the foundation of most research on sustai nable development to this day. 2.1.2 Environmental Ethics The Brundtland Report cited sustainable development as the foundation of the concept of the ethics of sustai nability. One major concept of the ethics of sustainability is that the planet is valuable and vulnerable, from the perspectiv e of its inhabitants. It is valuable because of the resources it pr ovides for its inhabitants and the planet is consequentially vulnerable to its inhabitants in their pursuit of resources (Attfield 1999). A set of values was needed to define why resources and the planet itself should be protected from the harm of man. This set of values wa s defined and is now known as environmental ethics. 21

PAGE 22

2.1.2.1 The ethics of sustainable development The concepts of sustainable development ar e a subset of envir onmental ethics. In 1986 the United Nations created a definition of development in the Declaration on the Right to Development, in which development was defined as: a comprehensive economic, social, cult ural and political process, which aims at the constant improvement of all well-being of the entire population and of all its inhabitants on the basis of their active, fr ee and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of the benefits resulting therefrom. (United Nations 1986) As per the definition, development can not to be measured by economic growth alone. According to Attfield (1999), sustainable development is a social state of progress which is present when the evils of under development are reduced or completely alleviated and replaced by the good of development. For example, sustainable development is illiteracy replaced by lit eracy, poverty replaced with meaningful employment, and poor health facilities replaced with health facilities that bring health and wellness to the population. At its simplest, sust ainable development is the satisfaction of basic needs (Attfield 1999). Under this definition of sustainable development, if a building is constructed to a sustainable buildi ng standard, such as LEED, but it does not offer any benefit to the people of the surrounding community, then it is not considered to be truly sustainable. This benefit that Attfield describes is sometimes difficult to def ine in measurable terms. The ethics of sustainable development go far beyond the realm of construction and the built environment. For the purposes of this paper only the et hics of sustainable construction will be explored. Reduce, reuse, and recycle are the basis for most of the environmental movement and so it is also integral in the practices of sustainable construction. There have been additions and evolutions of the basic principles of 22

PAGE 23

environmental ethics. Organizations and i ndividuals have collected and analyzed the basis of sustainable construction and they have created many principles of sustainable construction. One such institution was the international construction research networking organization Conseil Internat ional du Batiment (CIB) (Kibert 2008). 2.1.3 The Principles of Sustainability For the purposes of this report, the discussion of principles will focus on the principles of sustainability that were dev eloped in 1994 by CIB (see Figure 2-1). The seven principles are to be applied to inform decisions regarding phases of the life of a building and to the resources that are utiliz ed by that building. The phases of the building include planning, development, des ign, construction, use and operation, maintenance, modification, and deconstructi on. The resources utilized by a building include: land, materials, water, energy and the surrounding ecosystem (Kibert 2008). Figure 2-1. The principles of sustainable construction, adapted from (Kibert 2008) The reduction of resource consumpti on is a key principle of sustainable construction. The reduction of resources not only refers to the reduction of physical resources such as metals or cement, but al so to the reduction of energy required by the buildings occupants. One of the goals of a sustainable build ing is to allow its occupants to feel physically comfortable and not hinder their work while conserving energy through 23

PAGE 24

use of passive design and proper sizing of mechanical systems (if there are any installed). Many resources are now available t hat are made from recycled or reused resources, such as fly ash additives in concre te or recycled steel for structural work. These products and others lend themselves to the principle of using reused resources. Reused and recyclable materials are often c onfused. Reused materials are made from something that was used as a material for something else prior to becoming whatever it is in its new context. Recycl able materials on the other hand are materials that can be reused after the end of the objects current use. Therefore a reused material for certain had another life before its curr ent use, but a recyclable may be made of a virgin resource but it does have the capacity to be reused after its current use. The decision maker who specifies materials used for a bu ilding project should strive to select materials that are both reused and recyclable (Kibert 2008). Protecting nature is a principle of sust ainable development; it begins with the commitment to construct a building and the process of selecting a site. The ecosystem is an often ignored resource, but it provides priceless resources such as clean air and water. Developers and owners should make every effort to build on brownfields or greyfields and in areas of hi gh density that have existing in frastructure. These practices will help to preserve the greenfields, or undeveloped land, and have less of an impact on ecosystems (Kibert 2008). In order to build sustainably, toxics should be avoided at all costs. Toxic materials are often confused with toxins. Toxins ar e natural substances that are produced by plants and animals as a defense mechanism. Toxic materials are made by man, and 24

PAGE 25

unlike toxins they often do not readily breakdown and become harmless in a short amount of time (Kibert 2008). Every project has an impact on economics. Money is being spent and employees are being hired every time a building goes under construction. For a project to be truly sustainable life cycle analyses sh ould be done for the systems for the building. Life cycle costing would show the total cost of a ma terial/system from cradle to grave. One principle of life cycle costing is to get as mu ch value for products that are to be salvaged at the end of the buildings lif e so that there is less co st associated with the product (Kibert 2008). Quality projects are highly appreciated by the community. The community is more likely to reinvent and remodel a quality building overtime than a building of lower quality. Quality products have higher up-front costs but require few repairs and do not need to be replaced very often, thus making quality more sustainable (Kibert 2008). 2.2 Sustainable Construction Sustainable construction is an offspring of the sustainable move ment. Sustainable construction is defined by Kibert (2008) as the ecological, social, and economic issues of a building in the context of its community. Sustainable construction is difficult to define because it is essentially a contradict ion. The cornerstone of sustainability is conservation, and the act of building invo lves the use land and resources, a clear discord. Sustainable construction is a bal ancing act of conser ving and preserving ecosystems while providing a beneficial structure or infras tructure (Kibert 2008). 2.2.1 The Pillars of Su stainable Construction To understand what needs to be attained in order to have a sustainable construction project, Hill and Bowen (1997) developed through extensive research four 25

PAGE 26

pillars of sustainable construction. The four pillars of sustainable construction encompass social, economic, biophysical, and technical concepts (See Figure 2-2). Figure 2-2. The pillars of sustainable construction, adapted from (Hill and Bowen 1997) 2.2.1.1 The social pillar of sustainable construction The social pillar represents the notion of social equality. Social equality calls for a general improvement of the quality of human life, specifically an improvement on alleviating poverty and inequality (Hill and Bo wen 1997). This pillar represents the ethical aspect of sustainability and uses many principles that were laid out in Our Common Future which is also known as The Brundtland Report (WCED 1987). According to Hill and Bowen (2007), the Brundt land Report stated reviving growth as a way to reduce poverty. Some believe t hat the emphasis on growth found in the Brundtland Report was in correct and the focus should have been on development rather than growth. The soci al pillar is perhaps the hardest to define in a single built project. Some specific things that the soci al pillar of sustainable construction calls on construction practitioners to do are as follows Improve the quality of human life by ensuring secure and adequate consumption of basic needs, which are food, clothing, shelter, health, education, and beyond that by ensuri ng comfort, identity, and choice. Protect and promote human health through a healthy safe working environment. Plan and manage constructi on process to reduce the risk of accidents, and carefully manage the use of substances which are hazardous to human health. Implem ent skills training and capacity enhancement of disadvantages people to allow them to meaningfully participate in a project. (Hill and Bowen 1997) 26

PAGE 27

Implementing these policies and ot hers is a means of fulfilling the social requirements of sustainable construction. 2.2.1.2 The economic pillar of sustainable construction The economic pillar of sustainable construction as proposed by Hill and Bowen (1997) is based on the proposals of the economist Solow. According to Hill and Bowen (1997), Solow suggested that sustainabilit y was concerned with the substitution of natural to human-made capital The depletion of resource s due to human consumption is inevitable, but there ar e ways of substituting technologies that use unsustainable resources which can be replaced by natural means (grown) or recycled at the end of that technologys useful life. The economic pillar of sustainable construction also deals with the financial aspects of the building project. These financial aspects include conducting full-cost accounting and ensuring financial affordability fo r intended users of the building. It is also advised to promote employment through the structure that is being created; by employing locals to build the project and by se lecting to build projects which would bring an economic stimulus to the area and/or provide affordable se rvices for the local people (Hill and Bowen 1997). Those actions woul d both input and keep money circulating in the area in which the project is constructed. Following the princi ples of the economic pillar of sustainability, It would be ideal to build in areas that are economically depressed in order to make a greater impact on peoples lives. 2.2.1.3 The biophysical pillar of sustainable construction The term biophysical as defined by Hill an d Bowen (1997) is the atmosphere, land, underground resources, the marine environment, flora, fauna and the built environment. In order to produce a sustai nable construction project, the project shall 27

PAGE 28

not require fossil fuels and minerals or produce s ubstances that are foreign to nature at rates which are faster than the Earth can re absorb them or create them (Hill and Bowen 1997). Under this condition it is impossibl e to use petroleum based fuels, which is extremely impractical at this particular point in time. Another stipulation of the biophysical pillar is that the project must be designed to reduce the use of energy, water, materials, and land at every stage of the projects lifecycle. The reduction of energy requires a reduction in embodied and operating energy (Hill and Bowen 1997). Many so called sust ainable construction projects only focus on reducing operating energy; th is method does not account fo r the energy it takes to create the materials and systems of the structure and transpor t them to the projects location. Minimizing pollution and maximizing reus ed and recyclable materials is another requirement under the biophysical pillar. By choosing materials that are reused and/or recycled and also recyclable closes the materi als loop. Minimizing the impact on air, land, and water quality is accomplished by using non-polluting and non-toxic products and materials for the project. 2.2.1.4 The technical pillar of sustainable construction The term technical refers to the perform ance and quality of a structure. Under the advisement of the technical p illar of sustainable constructi on, builders are to strive to construct durable, reliable and functional st ructures (Hill and Bowen 1997). Durable buildings stand the test of time and continue to fulfill the needs of occupants as those needs change over time. The durable struct ure can adapt and reduce the need to build new structures as technology progresses. T he functionality of buildings was once more important than the style of the building according to Hill and Bowen (1997). Style can 28

PAGE 29

date a structure quickly and cause the occupants to feel poorly towards the building. If the buildings design is based on function and less on style, then the building is more likely to be viewed positively and be in use over time. High quality is also a directive of the technological pillar of sustainable construction. Using quality materials to c onstruct leads to a longer usable life of a building. According to and Bowen (1997), qua lity buildings are rarely demolished, they are more like to be well maintained by their owners and occupants and be seen as a thing of beauty by the surrounding community. 2.2.2 Sustainable Construction Rating Systems In order to implement su stainable practices many programs and rating systems have been developed to give the construction industry a set of guidelines. According to Kibert (2007), rating systems provide a score that rates the effects of a buildings design, construction, and operation, am ong them environmental impacts, resource consumption, and occupant health. The mo st popular rating systems were beginning to be formally created in the early 1990s. Nearly twenty years after the movement began gaining momentum the sustainable building movement is now a highly successful part of the building construction industry. There are many types of rating systems that are available for application to construction proj ects. Each rating system has its own focus, which can be on anything from how to build for a single geographic area or to solely focus on the energy efficien cy of a buildings appliances. Some of the more popular rating systems are very generic and can be used worldwide, for example the United States Green Building Coalit ions (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating systems or the Green Building Institutes (GBI) Green Globes assessment protocol have rated t housands of buildings across the world. 29

PAGE 30

Rating systems such as LEED and Green Globes have propelled the ease with which organizations can get into the sustainable construction trade (Kibert 2007). 2.2.2.1 The Green Globes Assessment Protocol The Green Building Institute (GBI) is a nonprofit organization that provides services to promote credible and practical green building. The GBI was originally formed to provide rating systems based on the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) rating system for local home builder associations. When an opportunity arose they entered into the U.S. market and began offering the sust ainable construction rating system that they had formed in Canada. The Green Globes assessment protocol began to be used for new and existing commercial buildings in the U.S. in 2004 (Green Globes 2010). The Green Globes assessment protocol a ssesses commercial projects for the environmental impacts that t hey generate. The assessment system ranks the impacts of the following categories: energy, indoor environment, site, water, resources, emissions, and project/environm ental management. The sustainable construction practices that reduce the impacts are rank ed on a 1,000 point scale. A project must gain 35% (350) points of the scale to begi n the Green Globes cert ification assessment process. The process involves qualified thir d party professionals reviewing the projects documents and conducting site visits. Once the project review is complete if the structure is qualified it wil l be assigned a rating score of anywhere from one to four Green Globes depending on the overall points earned for reducing environmental impact. The Green Globes assessment system is si milar to other rating systems, but it does have address some issues which makes it unique. Those issues include: project 30

PAGE 31

management, emergency response, planning, durability, adaptability, deconstruction, life-cycle assessment, and noise control. Table 2-1. The green globes rating syst em adapted from (G reen Globes 2010) Environmental Assessment Area Total Points Available Energy 300 Indoor Environment 160 Resources/Materials 145 Water 130 Site 120 Project Management 100 Emissions 45 Total 1000 2.2.2.2 The LEED Rating System The Unites States Green Building Coa lition (USGBC) launched the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) ra ting system for new construction in 1998 (Kibert 2008). LEED is currently the most widely used set of rating systems in the United States. According to Kibert (2008), th e USGBC specifically set out to make the LEED rating systems market -driven rather than being a government mandate. They wanted to create a system that would market itself by increasing market value of buildings constructed and certified under the LEED system. The USGBC also specifically set out to form the LEED system with a consensus based approach with input from many different sources incl uding government, indus try, and academia. LEED is a collection of standards and it was updated in 2008 to the v3series. The collection now includes LEED for Existing Buildings, LEED Commercial Interiors, LEED Healthcare, LEED for Homes, LEED for schools, LEED for New Construction, and others. The LEED system has become specific for building types and is attempting to become regional by offering a new point available for addressing regional environmental issues. The rating systems certify buildings based upon the number of points earned. 31

PAGE 32

The points are available for attempt, but if a point is not earned or not attempted then that point is forfeited and essentially counts against the pr oject. The categories that points are offered in include: sustainabl e sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, i ndoor environmental quality, innovation in design, and regional priority. The LEED v3 project is scored by the Green Building Certificati on Institute (GBCI) their third party affiliates. Projects are scored on their construction documents and evidence of implementation of sustainable practices on the job site. Projects can earn a level of Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum. The points are based on a 100 point scale, a certified building has received 40-49 points, a silver rating is 50-59 points, and gold rating has earned 60-79 points, and a platinum rated building has earned 80 points or more (USGBC 2009). In 2009 the USGBC spelled out its criteria for weighting points, it goes as follows: the allocation of points between credits is based on the potential environmental impacts and human benefits of each credit with respect to a set of impact categories. The impacts are defined as the environmental or human effect of the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the building, such as greenhouse gas emissi ons, fossil fuel use, toxins and carcinogens, air and water pollutants, indoor environmental conditions. A combination of approaches, includ ing energy modeling, life-cycle assessment, and transportation analysis, is used to quantify each type of impact. The resulting allocation of points among credits is called credit weighting. (USGBC 2009) See Table 2-2 for the categories and criteria. Table 2-2. The LEED rating system categorie s and criteria adapted from (USGBC 2009) Assessment Category Total Points Possible Sustainable Sites 26 Water Efficiency 10 Energy and Atmosphere 35 Materials and Resources 14 Indoor Environmental Quality 15 32

PAGE 33

Innovation in Design 6 Regional Priority 4 Total 110 After a certification level is awarded, the building receives a plaque that can be placed on the building, see Figure 2.3 for an ex ample. The certified building is also featured on the USGBC website. Figure 2-3. USGBC plaque indicating a LEED Gold certification, as seen on the M.E. Rinker, Sr. Hall Building on the Univer sity of Floridas Gainesville campus 2.2.2.3 The U.S. Armys SPiRiT Rating System The United States Army adopted green building in 2002 wit h the implementation of the SPiRiT rating system that was based on LEED NC 2.0. The United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) created the SPiRi T rating system, which is an acronym for Sustainable Project Rating Tool, in order to build sustainability and meet the Armys sustainability goals which will be discussed later in this report (Gillespie and Miller 2007). The USACE Engineer Research and Development Center created a document 33

PAGE 34

which lists some of the benefits of usi ng the SPiRiT rating system. Those benefits include: preserving a clean environment maintaining sustainable sites maximizing water efficiency lowering ongoing costs, conserve ener gy and preserve the atmosphere conserving materials and resources improving the facility delivery process ensuring success in current and future missions providing healthy places to live and work (US Army Engineer Research and Development Center 2008) The SPiRiT rating system works much like the LEED system; it ranks projects on a scale system. SPiRiT has a 100 point scale while LEED 2.0 has a 69 point scale. The additional 31 points that LEED NC 2.0 does not offer were available in three additional categories that the SPiRiT system has crea ted that go beyond the LEED NC 2.0s six categories. The added categories are facilit y delivery process, current mission, and future missions (Gillespie and Miller 2007). The facility delivery process addresses the organization of the buildings delivery process by detailing how to assemble t he teams and team leaders, how to create training schedules for maintenance crews, a nd how to describe the goals and measures of a successful completion of the projec t (Gillespie and Miller 2007). The current mission category of SPiRiT advises commissioning, and setting up written sustainable operational and maintenance plans and procedures for the building. The future mission category awards points for planning for the li fe of the building including designing 34

PAGE 35

buildings that can be used for different purposes in the future and labeling components of the structure to make it easier to deconstruct and recycle the parts of the building. The USACE used the SPiRiT rating system until the beginning of the federal governments 2008 fiscal year when they mandated a change to the LEED v3 system for all projects. The mandate to change to the USGBCs LEED system was issued in a bulletin from the Deputy Assistant Secretar y of the Army to the USACE in January 2006. In the mandate the USACE specified that a ll projects be built to a certifiably silver level on the LEED point scale (Whitaker 2006). Although all projec ts are built to the silver certification level the Energy I ndependence and Security Act (EISA) requires only 5% of projects to complete the certif ication process and receive official GBCI certification (Dalton 2008). 2.3 Sustainability and the U.S. Army The U.S. Army was founded June 14th 1775; it is currently one of three departments (army, navy, and air force) that answer to t he Department of Defense (DOD). The army currently has more than 522,000 active-duty soldiers, 264,000 active reserve component soldiers and these soldie rs are supported by more than 250,000 civilians who work for the U. S. Army (U.S. Army 2008). In the late twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first century, the army began to seriously consider its own sustainability; the army began to focus on thei r triple bottom line: mission, environment, community (Hallmark 2006). Over the years communities that once kept their distance from Army installations began to encroach closer to the post perimet ers (Hallmark 2006). As the surrounding community grew closer a num ber of issues with noise an d other effects of military training grew to the point t hat the environmental compliance mission of just maintaining 35

PAGE 36

and conforming to existing laws was longer adequate. According to Hallmark (2006) at this time Forces Command (FORSCOM) developed the FORSCOM Installation Sustainability Program (ISP). The ISP focused on logistical support for sustaining field operations; it was the first step toward l ong-term sustainability for army operations. In July 2001 the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, Envi ronment, Safety and Occupational Health ordered Army insta llations to adopt ISO 14001. The ISO 14001 standards address environmental management. According to the ISO website, ISO 14001 is meant to minimize harmful effects on the environment caused by its activities and to achieve continual improvement of it environmental performa nce (International Standards Organization 2010). In the last few years the army has developed the Army Strategy for the Environment (ASE) and the Army Sustainabi lity Report 2007 (ASR). The ASE is the long-term vision of the sustainable army and it sets up goals that the Army will try and achieve. As discussed previously in this report the term sustainability can be defined differently by nearly every entity; the U.S. Army defines a sustainable Army as simultaneously meeting curr ent as well as future missi on requirements worldwide, safeguarding human health, improving qualit y of life, and enhancing the natural environment (U.S. Army 2004). The army rec ognizes that the nature of the world has changed drastically over the last decades our enemies are no longer are easily recognizable, they cannot be based solely on nationality, the borders of nations do not matter as much as they previously did and the world has essentially become smaller. Advances in technology and increases in population and urbanism ar e ever increasingly placing stresses on human, economic, and natural resources. What were once local 36

PAGE 37

and regional issues occurring over natural resources and ecological decline are now becoming international issues that influence other countries such as the United States (U.S. Army Sustainability 2008). The U.S. Army is evolving to meet the current needs of safeguarding natural systems on wh ich the United States rely on. The U.S. Army has compiled a report k nown as The Army Strategy for the Environment: Sustain the Mission Secure the Fu ture (ASE). It was the first report of its kind to be created by a U.S. government agen cy. In the opening st atements of the report the Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Army stated why sustainability is important to the army: Sustainability connects our activities today to those of tomorrow with sound business and environmental practice s. We have learned over the past decades that simply complying with environmental regulations will not ensure that we will be able to sustai n our mission. We must strive to become systems thinkers if we are to benefit from the interrelationships of the triple bottom line of sustai nability: mission, environment, and community. To sustain the future A rmy we must implement effective policies and practices that safeguard the environment and our quality of life in a manner that our nation expects of us. (U.S Army 2004) The Chief of Staff and the Se cretary of State make reference to the U.S. Armys triple bottom line of sustainability. The tr iple bottom line in the conventional business sector is people, planet, and profit or economic social and ecological costs of a product or decision. The triple bottom line of the U.S. Army is defined as mission, environment, and community (see Figure 2-4). Under the sustainability measures, when the U.S. Army makes a decision is must measure the impacts on the mission of the army, the environment, and the surrounding community. T he ASR released in 2008 added a plus to the triple bottom line. The plus repres ents the fact that when sustainable practices are implemented the true co st of doing business is reduced (U.S. Army 2008). 37

PAGE 38

The ASE set up six goals to achieve a sustainable army. The six goals are: foster a sustainability ethic, strengthen army oper ations, meet test training and mission requirements, minimize impacts and total ownership costs, enhance well-being, and drive innovation. Figure 2-4. The U.S. Army triple bottom line, adapted from (U.S. Army 2008) The U.S. Armys Sustainability Repor t 2007 (ASR) was released in September 2008. The U.S. Army was the first government agency to release a sustainability report under the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI ) reporting standards. According to its website, the GRI is a network-based organization that has dev eloped a reporting technique based on a consensus of its member s. The structured reporting technique offers a way to create sustainab ility reports in such a way that they can easily be read and compared to other sustainability reports (Global Reporting Initiative 2007). The report builds on the Army Strategy for the Environments goals as well as providing information on ongoing measurements of sustainability in the army. The GRI recommended indicators are summ arized toward the end of the ASR. The armys supplies data to respond to the requi red indicators in the form of hyperlinks. 38

PAGE 39

There are quite a few indicators and the army has supplied many references, sometimes several hyperlinks per indicator, in order to provide the required information, but it is very inconvenient and would require research that is beyond the scope of this report to provide that information here. 2.3.1 Army Construction Process The process of developing and building a milit ary project can be referred to as the military construction (MILCON) process. Sheller (2000) describes the MILCON process, in brief, as follows; it begins at t he base, post, or facility level with a need of a new building structure. When the need has been established the funding and design process begins, this process varies between the services. The location and service mission determine whether the building project will utilize a regional design center or a more local design team to create the plans and specifications. Through either process a team of design, engineering, and contracti ng professionals will be drawn together for the project. See Figure 2.5 for a representation of the MILCON process hierarchy. The commander of the post, base, or facility ac ts as the owner on a MILCON project. The commander may or may not have experience wit h MILCON project of similar nature to the one being designed and constr ucted; they may have no k nowledge of the process at all. The team will be working together fo r the MILCON project but they will individually have other projects that t hey are working on and each w ill have a different set of priorities and company styles and culture. These variables make working on a MILCON project complex and difficult. Sheller (2000) states that the best way to implement a green building process for a MILCON projec t is to have the base, post, or facility commander be heavily involved in implementing the green standard during the MILCON process. 39

PAGE 40

Figure 2-5. The MILCON process hierarchy system. Todd Sheller studied the implementation of a green standard for MILCON projects and developed a ten step approach for base, pos t, or facility commanders to implement a simplistic approach by which energy efficiency and green construction principles can be achieved (Sheller 2000). The check list for base commanders was designed for commanders so that they can pose questi ons to the engineer ing (design, and construction) communit(ies) and force a gr een construction or sustainable project (Sheller 2000). The checklist begins in t he pre-design phase and continues through the construction team selection, design and specif ication, construction, and post occupation phases. 2.3.2 The Army Corps of Engineers The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) is a federal agency and a U.S. Army command. The USACE is composed of more than 34,000 civilians and Soldiers. They dedicate their work in over 90 countries. Among many other duties, the USACE provides construction and construction m anagement services to the U.S. Army. According to the USACE website environmental sustainability is their guiding principle (U.S. Army Corps of E ngineers Headquarters 2010). 40

PAGE 41

With the transition to sustainable construction under the SPiRiT and LEED programs there has been some turbulence. The USACE is trying to re ctify the situation. In a USACE engineering and construction bulle tin issued on July 9, 2009, the need for regional sustainable engi neering program managers was laid out. Nine projects that have been completed under the LEED program were evaluated. Lessons learned were gathered from these projects, they include d reference to inadequate or incomplete LEED documentation to support a certifiable project. As a result the Directorate of Civil Works for the Army Corps recommended each military installation with a substantial military construction program to designate or recruit and hire a minimum of one interdisciplinary engineer/archi tect to serve as a full ti me district and/or regional sustainable engineering program manager. The completion of the LEED program and the responsibility for certification previously fell to the installation Director of Public Works or the Reserve Component equivalent supporting Engineer District, designer and constructor would jointly. The projec t delivery team (PDT) LEED-AP and the SDD point of contact (POC) from the associat ed division are to hold the project team manager roles for LEED online (Dalton 2008). Now with the sustainable program redesi gned, the projects that are currently under construction should be of high quality. The USACE wants the world to know what a great job they are doing wit h their sustainable construction processes. In a USACE engineering and construction bulletin issued on October 2, 2009, the Directorate of Military Programs and t he Directorate of Civil Works called for more communication of sustainable design and energy e fficient features of army projects. The Directorates Dalton and Rivers stated the c ontinued advancement and significant investments in 41

PAGE 42

sustainable construction and declared that they wanted sustainable construction to become part of the Armys construction cu lture. They touted the need to share the knowledge of sustainable design and energy efficient features not only on site visits but also through written document ation that conveys the salie nt sustainable features of each Army facility. Each PDT document should address how the facility had (or will) meet the LEED NC requirements for a Silv er rating. The documents Dalton and Rivers proposed are to include fact sheets, brochur es, written articles, and building signage that communicate the benefits of the Armys investment in sustainable design (Dalton and Rivers 2009). 2.4 The Transition to Green Design As discussed previously, modern sustainab le construction practices and rating systems have been in use by a small portion of the construction community from the early 1990s and even earlier. It seems that sustainable construction practices are beginning to become accepted, but they are st ill far from being a norm for the industry. The USGBC keeps records of their members; the number has grown from 97 members in 1997 to more than 20,000 as of September 2009. When individuals are interested in sustainable construction the clearest way to show your acceptance currently is to go through the credentialing process and become a LEED Accredited Professional. As of 2009, the USGBC had more than 130,000 LEED APs (USGBC 2010). Today there are an estimated 7,214,900 people within the constr uction community, 1,659,300 of which are involved in the building of residential and non-residential buildings (United States Department of Labor 2010). If the majority of LEED APs are working within the residential and non-residential t han less than 12.7% of the community is a LEED AP. This is an unscientific measurement, because many LEED APs are from the 42

PAGE 43

architectural and engineering fields, and so the percentage of LE ED APs within the construction community is much less than 12.7%. 2.4.1 Industry Perceptions of Sustainable Construction Table 2-3. Survey responses on the perc eption of the impact of sustainable construction, adapted fr om (Chong et al. 2009) Overall Respondent (%) Contractors (%) A/E and Consulting Firms (%) Owner/ Employee (%) CM Consultants (%) Government Employee (%) Perception of impact of SC* Cost 89.0 76.7 71.8 66.7 88.9 86.7 Quality 67.0 50.0 51.3 48.1 72.2 60.0 Schedule 60.0 43.3 48.7 44.4 72.2 40.0 Safety 34.0 13.3 30.8 14.8 50.0 26.7 SC* Sustainable Construction So why is it that some professionals within the i ndustry choose to accept sustainable construction and other s are hesitant to the transition? Chong et.al. (2009) conducted a survey of engineers in the c onstruction profession to understand and interpret what their perceptions of sustainabl e construction were. Chong et al. surveyed 2,600 selected American Society of Civ il Engineers (ASCE) members and other construction-industry related group members and received 257 responses. The respondents felt that sustainability is important or relatively important to the construction industry, however, they felt that there has not been enough re search on sustainability and the current design practices did not suffi ciently address sustainability (Chong et al. 2009). About 64% of the overall re spondents were familiar with LEED, and approximately 70% of the c ontactor respondents were familiar with LEED. The Chong et al. (2009) survey attests that participati on in sustainable construction by employees was very low, with 70% of the responses having 10% or less of their employees participating regularly in sustainable construction related activities. The perceptions of 43

PAGE 44

the impacts of sustainable construction can be seen in Table 2-3. Overall cost was seen to be the biggest impact of sustainable c onstruction, followed by quality, schedule, and safety. The survey question was presented as a fill in the blank and only the responses cost, quality, schedule, and safety were analyzed by Chong et. al (2009). 2.5 Barriers to Sustainable Construction The barriers to sustainable construction ta ke many forms. There are perceived added costs, fear of the liability assumed by using new te chnologies, and psychological barriers. The barriers need to be understood by companies and institutions that are considering transitioning to sustainable cons truction so they can know what arguments and opposition they may face. 2.5.1 Barriers Perceived by the Construction Industry Turner Construction conducted a survey of the construction industry to develop an understanding of the perceptions of the industry. The results were reported in the Turner 2008 Green Market Barometer. T he survey was conducted online and the survey population was focused on executives in volved in commercial real estate. There were 754 respondents form a wide background including building ow ners and operators and construction professionals. The survey f ound several factors that were perceived to be barriers to sustainable construction. See Figure 2-6 for a graphic presentation of the factors. The cost and documentation for LEED c onstruction was perceived to be the biggest barrier to transitioning to sustainab le construction, followed closely by a perceived long payback period and higher constr uction costs. A lack of the awareness of benefits was the fourth mo st perceived factor which discouraged the construction of green buildings and difficulty quantifying bene fits was fifth, followed by short-term 44

PAGE 45

budget horizons, fears of more complex cons truction and increased operating costs. The majority of the perceived factors that discouraged sustainable construction were based on costs. There is perceived to be a higher cost associ ated with building sustainably it is the first barri er to sustainable construction. Figure 2-6. Survey responses on the barriers of implementing sustainable construction, adapted from (Turner Construction Company 2008) 2.5.2 Social and Psyc hological Barriers to Sustainable Construction The second barrier to sustainable cons truction is the social and psychological barriers. People perceive su stainable building on a cognitive basis, they are influenced by their organizations and they are influenced by institutions that guide their awareness of connections and impacts on the env ironment (Hoffman and Henn 2008). People make subconscious decisions that may are incorrect all the time. For the purpose of making decisions on sustainability, the mind tends to have biases including over discounting the future, egocentrism, pos itive illusions, presumed associations, mythical fixed-pre bias and environmental literacy (Hoffman and Henn 2008). Over 45

PAGE 46

discounting the future is the reason why peop le underestimate their use of a product. In the case of a building, many times people un derestimate the time that they will utilize the building and therefore do not perceive a value in purc hasing products with a higher upfront cost but save money in operating and maintenance l eading to faster rates of return. People make self-serving or egocentric decis ions. It is human nature to do so. Hoffman and Henns (2008) example is of a couple who purchases a home in the suburbs because they perceive that t he yard and neighborhood are good for raising children, but they have in fact made a decision that lends to suburban sprawl and all the unsustainable consequences. Positive illusi ons are harmful to sustainable construction because people perceive that th e world will be a better plac e in the future than it actually will be. People want to be optimis tic and they believe that world will be a better place no matter what harm they do to planet now. They believe that we will somehow find a way to fix everything and erase all the ill that has been done. According to Hoffman and Henn (2008) ther e is a presumed association (maybe more so to the boomer generation) between green construction and the hippie movement of the 1960s and the energy crisis of the 1970s. There is an unsubstantiated assumption that green buildings involve unconv entional aesthetics, al ternative lifestyles and non-traditional building materials such as rammed earth and straw bale. The mythical fixed pie is a subconscious bias that occurs in the mind when making decisions about sustainable construction. Hoffman and Henn (2008) describe a fixed pie that people have to split between econo mic competitiveness and environmental 46

PAGE 47

protection. People cannot see economic competitiveness and environmental protection as separate and having a symbiotic relationship. The last bias that affects the subconscious mind it environmental literacy. In short it is pure ignorance of the fa cts of nature and our sources of energy and waste that has a detrimental effect on decisions concer ning sustainable construction (Hoffman and Henn 2008). Within the organizational level pers pectives on the socio and psychological barriers to sustainable construction are t he key elements of internal structure and interaction, language and terminology, reward s, and organizational inertia (Hoffman and Henn 2008). The structure of the organization must define boundaries and responsibilities of employees. The language must be underst ood by all who are involved on the project. Sustainable construction has given rise to new technologies and lingo. It is important that everyone understand what is occurring and speak the same language. Rewards must be changed fr om progress based rewards to combine sustainable practices and productivity. Or ganizational inertia mu st get employees accustomed to learning new things and implementing new practices. Institutional level perspectives on the socio and psychological barriers to sustainable construction have implications on three levels : regulative, normative and cognitive. Regulative institutions must regul ate sustainable practices. This regulation can take the form of taxes or incentives among other re gulative means. Sustainable construction methods need to become industr y norms. Codes should be changed to allow for easier implementation of new ma terials or technologies to speed up the normative process. Cognitive institutions are the unquestioned biases that most people 47

PAGE 48

in the construction industry prescribe to. Industry professionals need to thick outside the box and question practices for their impact on the environment. 2.5.3 Technological Barriers to Sustainable Construction Traditionally buildings require very low te ch materials and high intensity labor; this is what the construction industry is accust omed to. Building materials of conventional construction are readily available, cheap, and differ very slightly between manufacturers. The demand for these pr oducts is very high and manufacturers responded by making standard sizes and systems that were easily installed. A barrier to sustainable construction is the unique nature of many of the new sustainable technologies that are making their debut. The sustainable technologies such as building controls, solar energy systems, and heat reco very systems are high-tech compared to their conventional counterparts and are supp lied by specialists who may not be readily available to all locations (Rohracher 2001). M any times specialized labor is required for the installation of sustainable technologie s and it takes time to train workers and prepare them for an install that may be a one-of-a-kind. Training for sustainable technologies is not readily available in many communities. It may not be worth a contractor the time and money it takes to train a laborer to install sustainable technologies when the technologies are in a rapid stat e of development and may change drastically before that laborer is needed fo r a sustainable technology installation of that type again. It is easier for the cont ractor to recommend to the owner to not use that particular sustainable technology and to continue using more conventional technologies. 48

PAGE 49

2.6 Overcoming Barriers to Sustainable Construction Getting a commitment to change is typically a difficult task. Mandating a change to sustainable construction is not going to change the office structure overnight. The transition to sustainable construction takes time and requires a shift in office culture. The barriers discussed earlier will come into play and some personnel may be resistant to changing how they have always done busine ss. The barriers must be overcome one by one until everyone is on-board and willing to change the culture of the company. Figure 2-7. Creation of a sustainabili ty culture, adapted fr om (Hallmark 2006) Companies and institutions making the c hange to sustainable construction should have a plan to shape the organizations core values. Hallmark (2006) adapted a system 49

PAGE 50

of eight key elements or planned interventio ns, which contribute to the creation and development of a culture of sustainability, see Figure 2-7. The arrows represent links between the eight elements, at these time s the process should be examined and analyzed for success of the prior element and to see if the change is going on course. All of the eight elements must occur for the cultural shift to sustainable construction to occur completely. The cycle should constantly be moving; when it is moving clockwise then progress in occurring, when it is mo ving counter clockwise a diagnosis of the elements is occurring and a correction may be needed (Hallmark 2006). 2.6.1 Overcoming the Perceived Co st Barrier to Sustainability Owners and contractors typically view cost as a major barrier to sustainable construction. Costs are perceived to be higher for sustainable construction than for conventional construction. The actual costs of a building are typically much different than the perceived cost of the building; the actual costs take operation, maintenance and more into consideration. When owners and contractors are considering sustainable construction for a project they need to understand the differences between perceived and actual costs in order to make a good decision. People and companies who may want to implement sustainable construc tion practices should understand why building sustainably can cost more, and they should also understand that the building may have cost the same if built under conventional means depending on the factors specific to that building. Davis Langdon is a cost consulting co mpany, and they commissioned Matthiessen and Morris to conduct a study on the actual costs of sustainable construction and compared them to conventionally built projects of the same scope. It was found that there are several factors that influence costs of building; they include: location, bidding 50

PAGE 51

climate and culture, loca l and regional design standards, intent and values of the project, climate, timing of implementation, size, and poi nt synergies (Matthiessen and Morris 2004). The location of a building is affected bec ause it is more sustainable to build in urban areas, real estate in urban areas can cost more than in rural areas. The bidding climate is affected because contractors do i nduce some slight costs for constructing sustainably including, the cost of documentation, some schedule impacts during post construction flush-out, and the app lication of indoor air qualit y credits of LEED. When the contract is specific to the level of ce rtification that the bu ilding requires then the contractor is assuming more risk and may add a fee for the greater risk contingency. This risk will decrease when more contract ors become comfortabl e with sustainable construction. The intent and values of a bu ilding must be clearly understood in the early stages of the building, this means that there is more of an upf ront investment of time by all project team members which may cost more. However, if the proj ect team is familiar with LEED and sustainable construction then there may not be an adde d cost at all. The climate that a building wil l be constructed for can add co st to the sustainably built project because the temperat ure and humidity of the area greatly affects building system selection (Matthie ssen and Morris 2004). It is worth noting that as a company bec omes familiar with LEED and sustainable construction the additional cost of buildi ng sustainably decreases. The level of certification also can change the cost of bu ilding sustainably. Building a certified or silver certified building adds very little to no additional costs to a project, while gold and platinum ratings can add more costs. The chance of additional costs should not be a 51

PAGE 52

deterrent, according to Matthiessen and Mo rris (2004); many projects are built sustainably for no additional cost at all. 2.6.2 Overcoming the Socio-Techni cal Barrier to Sustainability The construction industry is currently in what Rohracher (2001) describes as a socio-technical shift. Rohracher (2001) states, the growing importance of sustainability issues may have important consequences not only on the technologic al practice of the industry, but also on its structure, its communi cation channels and the organizational and strategic orientation of its constituent actors. The boundaries of the industry are changing and pow er is shifting. Companies that can respond quickly to the up and coming sustainable construction market will become important. While some of t he more established actors in the industry will refuse to reorient themselves to sustai nable construction practices. There are three means by which socio-te chnical analysis could contribute to the transition to sustainable construction. T he means are: support of organizational and institutional restructuring, higher transparency, and broadening the design process by integrating actors who have not yet been invo lved in the process (Rohracher 2001). 2.6.3 Overcoming the Social and Psychological Barriers to Sustainability The social and psychological barrier to sustainability is an obstacle to be overcome. Hoffman and Henn (2008) offer se veral methods to achieving a successful transition to sustainable construction pr actices, including: framing, targeting demographic adopters, education, structural and incentive change, indemnifying risk, evolving green building st andards, and tax reform. Framing the transition to sustainable construction as a positive option will gain faster approval. Green building should be seen as desirable and consider change the 52

PAGE 53

term sustainable building to sm art building or high-performance building to find the right fit for the audience. Target key demogr aphic adopters to get t he ball rolling, key adopters are more aligned with environmental value than others. Hoffman and Henn (2008) describe several demographics that are more open to sustainably built buildings, they are women, educated and more affluent people, people who live in urban areas and people who live along the east and west coasts of the U.S. Sustainable construction education is a factor in achieving a successful transition to sustainable construction. It is important that all members of the construction and design team and the owner be aware of sustainable constructi on and what it entails. Structural and incentive changes are the changes that must occur within the construction and design teams. The teams must work more cl osely when building sustainably and the collaboration process s hould allow for more communication. Indemnify the risk of new technologies that the contractors will be taki ng on. Contractors may fear installing new technologies because they are unproven and if there is a fa ilure it will be on their shoulders. There should be a cap as to the contractors liability for installing a new sustainable technology. Green standards such as LEED must evolve with the changing times, and institutions such as banks and in surance agencies should also evolve to respond to the new sustainable standards. Fi nally one last measure that Hoffman and Henn (2008) recommend method to achieve success is more the government and other agencies to offer incentives such as tax rebates and financial incentives for those who implement sustainable c onstruction practices. 2.6.4 Overcoming the Knowledge Shar ing Barrier to Sustainability There are currently many barriers to sustainability. According to Wetherill et al. (2007), one of the greatest ba rriers lies within organizations and even within project 53

PAGE 54

teams. People are not shar ing information and experience s that others can benefit from. Being informed of new resources of knowledge and expertise is vital to transitioning to sustainable construction. We therill et al. (2007) believe that knowledge can come in many forms, including documents, standards, and lessons learned. Most organizations do not have a system set up for employees to learn from what others have already learned. To overcome the problems which occur when people cannot easily share information, Wetherill et al. (2007) re commend putting knowl edge management systems in place. Knowledge management systems ty pically involved networked computers with software that allows employees to input information that they have gathered. When someone has a question about something they can search through the knowledge management system to see if there is a document that can help them. 54

PAGE 55

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Sustainable construction has been a part of the construction industrys vernacular for a few decades now, and it appears to be on its way to becoming accepted as a norm within the industry. Some companies have accepted sustainable construction practices on their own accord, while others have accepted it out of need to compete. Institutions around the country have adopted sustainable construction meas ures for their building projects. 3.1 Problem Statement The U.S. Army adopted sustainable constr uction in 2002 with their SPiRiT rating system. In 2006, the U.S. Army issued a mandate which stated that all vertical construction was to meet LEED Silver New Construction rating standard (or the equivalent). The USACE offices had tw o years warning as the mandate became effective in 2008. There have been issues within the Army, the USACE, and the designers, engineers, and construction professi onals that have worked or are currently working on these sustainably built projects. Little research has been done on what the impact of the transition has been on the pers onnel who were forced to quickly learn the systems of sustainable constr uction. This report will analyze what the impact of the mandated transition to sustainable construction on the USACE personnel. 3.2 Conducting Research In order to find what the im pacts of the transition to the sustainable construction were a survey will be conducted. The USAC E was chosen as the survey population due to its mandated entry into sustainable cons truction practices, and the willingness to participate in the study. The USACE routi nely conducts research through its research 55

PAGE 56

departments and by personnel who conduct res earch for sustainable construction training. For the purposes of this survey two higher level staff members distributed the survey via email to their colleges within the USACE that deal directly with sustainable construction. The survey population was 60 people. Based on a confidence level of 95% and a confidence interval of 5, the total number of survey responses was calculated to be 52. There were 26 respondents; this number of respondents gives results at a confidence level of 95% and a confidence interval of 15. 3.4 The Survey The survey begins with a page that describes the survey and what the research is for. Respondents have the choice to consent to taking the survey or to exit the survey. The consent document was approved by the inter nal research board of the University of Florida. See Appendix A for the survey questionnaire and IRB 02 Approval. The population for the survey is USACE professionals who are involved with sustainable construction. The professiona ls will be made up mostly of engineers, but architects and other professionals may also be within the respondent population. The respondents will identify their professions via a question on the survey. The population will also represent differing levels of experience and time spent within the construction industry. The survey is in an online format that USACE professionals are accustomed to as they are regularly asked to take surveys in this fashion. The survey is anonymous and consists of 29 questions. The respondents are asked questions based on their opinions of how the transition from c onventional construction to sustainable construction is going and how they are being prepared and updated to wo rk at an optimal level of sustainable construction practices. 56

PAGE 57

The data is collected and analyzed in or der to better understand how well the transition from conventional to sustainable cons truction is going within the context of the USACE. The survey data should provide va luable information on personnels opinions and needs during the process. The analyzed data can be used by other companies within the construction industry as they create plans and to prepare their personnel for the transition to sustainable construction. 3.3 Hypotheses There are preconceived notions of the construction industry and sustainable construction. From five basis hypothes es can be drawn. Some hypotheses of the perceptions of the USACE per sonnel to be proven or dispro ven by the study are as follows: The higher the level of management ( determined by pay grade) the lower the perception of resistance to sust ainable construction practices. The higher the level of management ( determined by pay grade) the more likely they were to feel that their training was sufficient. Overall the USACE personnel were not personally interested in sustainable construction prior to the mandate. The respondents, if grouped by profession, would have different opinions on the sufficiency of the sustainable construction training. The respondents would have differing opini ons on why they first became involved with sustainable construction based on profession. The first hypothesis is based on the leve l of management and it presumes that upper management will perceive a lower level of resistance within their offices. The basis of this question is that the upper m anagement of the USACE was so preoccupied with the day-to-day work of the office and managing so many people that the employees who were feeling poorly about the transition would fly under the radar. The personnel 57

PAGE 58

who were not favoring the shift to sustainable construction w ould seek out co-workers of the same pay grade to voice their concerns to rather than disturb the higher levels of management. Two questions will be analyzed to prove or disprove this hypothesis. The first question is a question of demographics that asks the respondent to select their pay grade. The second question asks respondents to rank the number of personnel resistant in their office. A second hypothesis to be evaluated is if a person with a higher level of management is more likely to feel that t heir training was suffici ent. The level of management will be determined. As the level of management increases for a survey respondent, the more likely that they are re sponsible for training their subordinates. When someone is responsible for training they will be more likely to give a higher mark for the personnels response to the training. A third hypothesis is that the USACE personnel will not be personally interested in sustainable design. When people are mandated to do something they do not typically want to participate. Questions from the survey will evaluate the number of people resistant to the change to sustainable constr uction and will directly ask the respondent about their interest in sustainable construction. The fourth hypothesis to be evaluated is that the USACE personnel when grouped by profession will have opinions on the sufficien cy of their training that differ from other professions represented in the USACE perso nnel. The USACE is composed of many types of professionals. For this study three types of profe ssionals will be grouped together and analyzed. The USACE personnel will be grouped into three profession types: architect, engineer and project manager. The hypothesis is that each group of 58

PAGE 59

professionals will have similar op inions on the sustainable construction training that they have received and the three different groups opinions will be different from each other. The fifth hypothesis states that the U SACE personnel when grouped by profession will have similar responses on why they first became involved in sustainable construction. The USACE personnel will be grouped into three profession types: architect, engineer and project manager. A secondary part of this hypothesis states that the three different groups of professional types will have re sponses that are different from each other. 59

PAGE 60

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 4.1 Survey Results The survey was organized by five categories of questions this chapter delivers the results of each of the five categories as a group under a subheading. The first category is the resulting demographics of the survey population. The second category is the collected data on the respondents personal r eaction to sustainable construction. The third and fourth categories reveal data on the respondents personal practical experience with sustainable construction and the USACEs role in sustainable construction respectively. The fifth and final category of questions provides data on the perceived resistance to sustainable construction as seen by the survey respondent. 4.1.1 Survey Population Demographics 4.1.1.1 Survey population results for profession Table 4-1. Survey respondent demographics by profession Answer Options Response Percent Response Count engineer 46.2% 12 architect 38.5% 10 project manager 15.3% 4 answered question 26 The survey respondents represent three of the professions t hat exist within the USACE. The survey was sent to colleges of two major sustainabili ty experts within the USACE. Engineers represent 46.2% of the responde nts, architects represent 38.5% of the respondents, and projec t managers represent 11.5% of respondents. One respondent answered other to this survey question. That respondent gave his response as regional project manager. His responses will be included with the respondents who identified themselves as proj ect managers. Thus bringing the number of project managers r epresented to 4 and the project manager percentage of the survey 60

PAGE 61

population to 15.3% (see Table 4-1). T he results of the survey populations demographics organized by profession can be seen graphically in Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1. Survey respondent demographics by profession 4.1.1.2 Survey populati on results for pay grade Table 4-2. Survey respondent demographics organized by pay grade Answer Options Response Percent Response Count GS 12 30.7% 8 GS 13 42.3% 11 GS 14 or higher 26.9% 7 answered question 26 Unlike other organizations and companies in the construction industry, pay grades are widely used in the USACE to distinguish personnel. It is not uncommon for people to know what their colleagues pay grade is. Pay grade is determined by experience and education. Pay grade represents j ob title and management level within the USACE. Pay grades are determined by t he federal government and are listed as General Schedule (GS) and a num ber. Table 4-2 relates the pay grade data of the survey respondents. The lower pay grades of GS 10 and GS 9 or below are not represented in the survey respondents. There was one respondent who identified as GS 11 pay grade; his data will be included with the GS 12 respondents. For the 61

PAGE 62

purposes of this report, a GS 12 or GS 13 pay grade represents a person at a high middle management position and a GS 14 or higher pay grade indicates someone with upper management status. The data is biased due to the responses being only of higher levels of management. A graphi c representation of the res pondent pay grade data is shown in Figure 4-2. Figure 4-2. Survey population pay grade demographics 4.1.1.3 Survey population results fo r experience in construction industry Table 4-3. Survey respondent de mographics organized by experience Answer Options Response Percent Response Count 5-10 years 23.1% 6 10-15 years 11.5% 3 15 years or more 65.4% 17 answered question 26 Experience within the industry was determi ned by a question asked of the survey respondents. The question asked the respondent to identify himself within a selection of ranges of years of experience. The resu lts of the survey are shown in Table 4-3. There were no survey respondents who identif ied themselves as having 0-5 years of 62

PAGE 63

experience. Of the respondents, a majority of 65.4% identified themselves as having 15 years or more experience in the construc tion/engineering industry. The next largest population was the respondents with 5-10 years of experience; they represent 23.1% of the survey population. The respondents with 1015 years of experience in the industry represent 11.5% of the survey population. The responses fo r years of experience in the industry show a strong bias towards a more experienced survey population (see Figure 4-3). Figure 4-3. Survey respondent experience demographics 4.1.1.4 Survey population results for exp erience with sustainable construction Table 4-4. Survey populations years of experience with sustainable construction Answer Options Response Percent Response Count 2-5 years 38.5% 10 5-8 years 38.5% 10 10+ years 23.1% 6 answered question 26 63

PAGE 64

Figure 4-4. Survey respondents years of experience with sustainable construction Experience with sustainable construction was determined by a question asked of the survey respondents. The question asked the respondent to identify himself within a selection of ranges of year s of experience with sustainable construction. There was one respondent that identified as having two years or less exper ience; this response will be combined with the respondents who identified as having 2-5 years of experience with sustainable construction. The results of the survey are shown in Table 4-4 with the adjustment made for the response added to the 25 year category. With the adjustment made, the respondents who identified as having 2-5 years of experience with sustainable construction repr esent 38.5% of the survey population. The survey respondents who represent 5-8 years of experience with sustainable construction also represent 38.5% of the survey population. That being said, a majority of 77% of the survey population has less than 8 years of experience with sustainable construction. Six of the respondents ident ified themselves as having more than 10 years of 64

PAGE 65

experience with sustainable construction (see Figure 4-4). The respondents with more than 10 years of experience wit h sustainable construction can be identified as having been there from the begi nning of the Armys change to sustainable construction practices. These more experienced respon dents are most likely k nowledgeable of the LEED rating system and may have been infl uential in the USACEs mandate to build using sustainable construction techniques. 4.1.1.5 Survey respondents level of responsibility for sustainable practices on their respective project teams Table 4-5. Respondents level of responsibility for sustainable construction Answer Options Yes No Response Count Are you the main person responsible for sustainable construction practices on your project team? 21 4 25 The second question in this series asks the respondent if they are the main person responsible for sustainable construction prac tices on your project team. The survey population has 21 people who said that they were the ma in person responsible for sustainable construction and 4 people replied that they are not the main person responsible, one person declined to answer (see Table 4-5). This data shows that the survey population is mostly made up of hi gher level people who are in leadership positions, at least where sustainable construction is of concern. 4.1.2 Respondents Personal Re action to Sustainability An anonymous survey is a good way to get candid data of personal opinions from a survey population. The survey respondents were asked three questions in an agree (yes) or disagree (no) format. Thes e questions are designed to get a clearer understanding of the res pondents personal reacti on to sustainability. 65

PAGE 66

4.1.2.1 Respondents acceptance of sustai nable culture in their personal life Table 4-6. Respondents acceptance of sustainable culture in their personal life Answer Options Yes No Response Count Do you recycle at home? 25 1 26 The first of these questions asks the res pondent if they recycl e at their home. Twenty five respondents identify that t hey do recycle at home and one respondent stated that he did not recycl e at home (see Table 4-6). The purpose of asking the survey population if they recycled at home was to determine if the respondents had chosen to embrace a more sustainable cultur e at home as well as at work. The data shows that the survey population is attempting to act in a way that is more embracing of sustainability in their personal lives as well as in the office. 4.1.2.2 Respondents current personal in terest in sustainable construction Table 4-7. Respondents cu rrent personal interest in sustainable construction Answer Options Yes No Response Count Are you personally interested in sustainable construction? 25 0 25 The second question in this series asks the respondent if t hey are personally interested in sustainable construction. This was an important question to ask because it provides the survey populations candid respons e to their feelings toward sustainable construction. All 25 of the 25 respondents responded positively to this question (see Table 4-7). This proves that sustainable construction has become accepted by the survey population. 4.1.2.3 Respondents personal interest in sustainable construction prior to mandate Table 4-8. Respondents personal interest in sustainable c onstruction prior to mandate Answer Options Yes No Response Count Were you interested in sustainable construction prior to the mandate to use the SPiRiT and/or LEED rating systems for MILCON projects? 20 5 25 66

PAGE 67

The third question in this series asks the respondent to confirm or deny an interest in sustainable construction prior to the mandate to use the SPiRiT or LEED rating systems for MILCON projects. The results are shown in Table 4-8. Of a survey population of 26 there were 25 responses. Twenty respondents indicated that they were interested in sustainable construction prior to the mandates while 5 respondents indicated that they became interested afte r the mandates. Stated another way, 80% of the survey population was interested in sustai nable construction prior to the mandates and 20% of the survey population became inte rested after the mandates were issued. 4.1.2.4 Respondents introduction to sustainable construction Table 4-9. Reason for respondents first in volvement with sustainable construction Answer Options Response Percent Response Count office mandate 38.5% 10 personal interest 80.8% 21 other 0.0% 0 answered question 26 The survey population was asked why they first became involved with sustainable construction. This question expands on the question previous to this one. The respondents were asked to choose all of the fo llowing options that applied to them. The choices included: office mandate, personal in terest or other. No respondent chose the other option. There were 26 respondent s for this question. Twenty one (80.8%) respondents specified that they first becam e involved in sustainable construction because of a personal interest (see Table 4-9). Ten of the 26 respondents (38.5%) stated that they first bec ame involved in sustainable construction when it was mandated. The results show that all but 5 of the 26 respondents first became involved in sustainable construction due to personal interest. There were 10 respondents specified that they became involved after an office mandate, 5 of those 10 respondents 67

PAGE 68

first became involved only because of the office mandates. The other 5 respondents became involved due to the mandate but also stated that they became involved due to personal interest. By c hoosing both personally inte rested and mandated, these 5 respondents may have been personally interested in sustainable construction and the mandate gave them an avenue to practice what they were interested in. Table 4-10. Reasons respondents indicated a personal interest in sustainable construction Answer Options Response Percent Response Count became interested after attending a class or seminar 27.3% 6 became interested through main stream media exposure 27.3% 6 through a colleague in the office 36.4% 8 conference, publication, other, etc. 59.1% 13 answered question 22 Some respondents identified themselves as having a personal interest in sustainable construction, as seen in T able 4-7 and Table 4-9. A secondary question asked those respondents who indicated a pers onal interest in sustainable construction to specify how they became personally intere sted by choosing from a list of options, the respondent was allowed to select all the opti ons that applied to th em. There were 22 respondents who chose to answer this question; the resulting data can be seen in Table 4-10. The response that was most co mmon was exposure to a conference or publication, this option was selected by 13 respondents who repres ent 59.1% of the survey population. The second most sele cted option was exposure to sustainable construction via a colleague; this option was selected by 8 of the respondents. 4.1.3 Practical Sustainable Bu ilding Construction Experience 4.1.3.1 Number of projects built us ing sustainable construction practices The USACE has many offices, and each office is responsible for different projects. The survey population was asked to indicate how many projects there office has built 68

PAGE 69

using the LEED or SPiRiT rating systems during the last five years. For the resulting data see Table 4-11. The majority of the re spondents (66.7) indicated that their offices had built more than 6 projects While four respondents indicated between 1 and 6. Four of the respondents indicat ed that they had not built any projects using LEED or SPiRiT rating systems in the last five years. Some of the respondents may come from the same offices, so this data is inconclusive. Table 4-11. Number of projects built usi ng LEED or SPiRiT rating systems in survey population offices Answer Options Response Percent Response Count none 16.7% 4 1-3 4.2% 1 4-6 12.5% 3 6+ 66.7% 16 answered question 24 4.1.3.2 Comfort with using sustainable construction Table 4-12. Length of time it took survey populations offices to become comfortable with sustainable construction Answer Options Response Percent Response Count 0-6 months 4.0% 1 7-12 months 4.0% 1 1 year or more 40.0% 10 not running smoothly yet 52.0% 13 answered question 25 The respondents were asked how long it took for their offices personnel to become comfortable with sust ainable construction. Each respondent was given the choice of one of the following options: 0-6 months, 7-12 mont hs, one year or more, or not running smoothly yet. T here were 25 respondents to this question, see Table 4-12 for the data. Eight percent of the respondents indicated that it took less than one year for their office personnel to become co mfortable using sustainable construction practices. Forty percent of the respondents indicated it t ook more than one year to become comfortable and 52% of the re spondents indicated that sustainable 69

PAGE 70

construction is not running smoothly yet in their offices. Sustainable construction practices began to be used by the USACE over five years ago, individual offices may have started sustainably built projects late r than other offices. There is a general indication that things are not running smoothly at the majority of offices due to the high number of responses that indicated that opinion. 4.1.4 The perception of the survey population on the USACEs ability to train and provide information to personnel re garding sustainable construction The USACE was mandated to follow sustain able construction practices. They provide training and information for their personnel on using LEED rating system and other sustainable construction practices. The data that wil l be analyzed in this subsection will look at the survey populat ions opinions and perception of how the USACE is doing in their implantation of sustainable construction practices. Table 4-13. Data of multiple questions from survey Answer Options Yes No Response Count Have you had any training for sustainable construction in the past year? 20 6 26 Do you believe that the USACE has done a good job with training personnel on how to build to the LEED standard? 19 7 26 Does top management in your office encourage and support sustainable construction process and practices? 26 0 26 Does the USACE keep employees updated with sustainable construction (LEED) information well? 18 8 26 When you have questions relating to sustainability do you know who to ask (within the USACE)? 25 1 26 When you ask questions relating to sustainability do you get an adequate response? 23 1 24 The first question in this series of six asks respondents if they have had any training for sustainable constr uction within the last year. There were 26 respondents to 70

PAGE 71

this question, 20 of those respondents had trai ning within the last year and six did not. See Table 4-13 for the data. T he second question in the series asked respondents if the USACE has done a good job with training pe rsonnel to the LEED rating system standards. There were 26 respondents to this ques tion. Nineteen respondents felt that the training provided by the USACE for LEED was good. However 7 respondents indicated that the training that has been provided by the USACE was not good enough, this is 28% of the survey population. The third question in this series of six questions asks the respondent if the top management in their office is encouraging a nd supportive of sustainable construction practices. There were 26 respondents to this question; all of them indicated that the top management is encouraging and supportive of su stainable construction practices and processes (see Table 4-13). However there is a limitation to this question, the survey population as shown earlier in this chapt er is composed of higher middle management and upper management personnel. These per sonnel are essentially grading themselves therefor e the data cannot be considered credible. The fourth question in this series asks the survey population if the USACE has done a good job at keeping them updated with information on LEED. There were 26 respondents to this question, 18 of those respondents indicated that the USACE has kept them informed well. There were 8 respondents who felt that the USACE had not done a good job at keeping them informed on the latest LEED information. The 8 respondents represent 32% of the survey population. The fifth question the series asks respondent s if they have a question relating to LEED do they know who to contact. T here were 26 respondents who answered this 71

PAGE 72

question, all but one of the respondents knew exactly who to ask if he had a question. The data for this question indicates that the USACE has communicated the POCs for LEED questions well. The sixth and final question in this se ries asks respondents if they get an adequate response when they ask a question pertaining to LEED. There were 24 respondents who answered the question, 23 of the respondents indicated that the response has been adequate. One respondent felt he did not get an adequate response to questions pertaining to LEED (see Table 4-13). This data indicates that the USACE has POCs that are well informed and can communicate information effectively. 4.1.4.1 Introduction to sustainable c onstruction within the office setting Table 4-14. The perception of the way that USACE offices transitioned to sustainable construction practices Answer Options Response Percent Response Count an immediate mandat ed change 13.6% 3 was slowly introduced th rough mandates 68.2% 15 was introduced by individuals in the office and slowly accepted by the office 18.2% 4 answered question 22 The respondents to the survey were asked how their office changed from conventional construction to sustainable construction practices. There were 22 respondents to this question (see Table 4-14). A majority of 68% of the respondents indicated that the transition was slowly introduced by mandates. Four respondents indicated that sustainable construction was in troduced by individuals in the office and was slowly accepted by the office pers onnel. Three respondents indicated that the transition to sustainable construction was an immediate m andated change; these respondents had little time to adjust or prepare. 72

PAGE 73

4.1.4.3 Respondent exposur e to training media The survey population was asked to select all the types of training they had been exposed to over the last year. The respons es can be seen if Table 4-15. There were 26 respondents to this question. Four of the respondents indicated that they have had no training in the last year for sustainable cons truction. The larges t response for a single type of training was indicated by 62% of the respondents as a presentation by a sustainability expert. Two types of tr aining share second place with 50% of respondents indicating that they had relieved thes e types of training in the last year, these types of training were in-office presentation and a seminar/webinar (online seminar). A close third was a meeting ( online or in-office) with 46% of respondents indicated that they had taken part in one. Table 4-15. Respondents exposure to types of training media in the last year Answer Options Response Percent Response Count in-office presentation 50.0% 13 training manual 26.9% 7 meeting (online or in-office) 46.2% 12 presentation by sustai nability expert 61.5% 16 seminar/webinar (online seminar) 50.0% 13 other 7.7% 2 none 15.4% 4 answered question 26 4.1.4.4 Respondent amount of training in sust ainable construction Table 4-16. Amount of time spent in training for sustainable construction in the last year Answer Options Response Percent Response Count less than one days worth 11.5% 3 1-2 days 15.4% 4 2-4 days 19.2% 5 4+ days 38.5% 10 no training at all 15.4% 4 answered question 26 A question asked of the survey population wa s to specify the amount of time (in days) that they had spent in training for sust ainable construction within the last year. 73

PAGE 74

There were 26 respondents; four had received no training for sustainable construction in the last year (see Table 4-16). Of the 22 respondents that have received training in the last year the most common am ount of time spent training for sustainable construction was four or more days, 39% of the surv ey population selected this response. The second, third, and fourth rankings of responses were all very close. The second highest ranking response for USACE personnel that had received sustainable construction training in the last year represented 19% of the survey population; they had two to four days of training. Fifteen percent of the surv ey population indicated that they have had one to two days worth of training on sustainable construction in the past year and 12% of the population selected t hat they have had less than one days worth of training. 4.1.4.5 Sufficiency of training received Table 4-17. Perception of the sufficiency of training received Answer Options. Chose a selection based on the following scale, 1 being less than sufficient training and 5 being the training received was more than sufficient. Response Percent Response Count 1 4.2% 1 2 12.5% 3 3 25.0% 6 4 41.7% 10 5 16.7% 4 answered question 24 As a secondary question to the question ab ove, the survey population was asked to rank the sufficiency of t he training that they had receiv ed in the last year. The respondents were asked to rank their perception of the training sufficiency on a scale of one to five, with one being less than sufficient and five being more than sufficient. The results are shown in Table 4-17. There were 24 respondents to this question. The most common response was a rank of four was represented by 42% of the population. A rank of four repres ents the training was slightly more than sufficient (see Figure 4-6). 74

PAGE 75

The second most popular response was made by 25% of the survey population. They choose a rank of three, meaning the trai ning was adequate for their needs. The third most popular response was a rank of 5; it was selected by 17% of the survey population. These respondents felt the traini ng they had received in the past year was more than adequate. The fourth most popular response was a rank of 2; this response was selected by 13% of the population. A rank of two represents the training was slightly less than adequate. Only one respon dent selected a response of one, that the training was less than adequate. Figure 4-5. Perception of the su fficiency of training received 4.1.5 Resistance to Sust ainable Construction Some people are inherently resistant to change. The transition to sustainable construction from conventional construction may be met by resistance by some people. 75

PAGE 76

The following subcategory of this chapter re ports the results of three questions that related to the resistance to sustainable construction. 4.1.5.1 Perceived resistance to sustainable construction Table 4-18. Perceived resistance to sustainable construction Answer Options Yes No Response Count Were there people in your office that were resistant to changing to sustainable construction (LEED/SPiRiT)? 15 9 24 The survey respondents were asked if they know of any colleagues that were or still are resistant to the change from c onventional construction to sustainable construction. Of the survey population 24 respondents chose to answer the question, see Table 4-18 for the data. Fifteen of the respondents knew of at least one colleague in their office who was resistant to sust ainable construction. Nine of the respondents did not perceive anyone who was resist ant to the change in their office. Table 4-19. Perceived amount of people resistant to sustainabl e construction transition Answer Options. Chose a selection based on the following scale, 1 being most people were accepting and 5 being most people were resistant to the change. Response Percent Response Count 1 12.5% 3 2 37.5% 9 3 33.3% 8 4 4.2% 1 5 12.5% 3 answered question 24 A secondary question that follows up one the previous question was asked of the respondents. This question asked the survey population to rank how many of the people in their office were resistant to sustainable construction on a scale of one to five. A score of one being most people were accept ing and a score of five represents most people were resistant. See Table 4-19 for the data. The majority of respondents, 38% of the survey population selected a score of two to represent the resistance level in their 76

PAGE 77

office. A score of two repres ents that most of the people in the respondents office were accepting of the change but some were not accepting of the USACEs transition to sustainable construction. The second most popular answer was a score of three, 33% of the survey population selected this score. A score of thr ee represents that half of the people in the respondents office were a ccepting of the change and half were not accepting of the USACEs transition to sust ainable construction. The third most popular response at 13% of the survey population each, these scores were one and five. A score of one represents that most people in the respondents office were accepting of sustainable construction and a score of five represents most people being resistant. The least popular score was four, 4% of the survey population chose this score. A score of four represents that most people in the respondents office were resistant to sustainable construction but t here were some who were a ccepting of the transition. Figure 4-6. Perceived amount of people resistant to sustai nable construction transition 4.1.5.2 Methods used to overcome r esistance to sustainable construction Survey respondents were asked how the USACE dealt with resistance to the transition to sustainable construction from conventional construction. The data can be 77

PAGE 78

viewed in Table 4-20. There were 25 re spondents for this question. Four of the respondents indicated that ther e was no one resistant to t he transition to sustainable construction within their office. Of the re spondents that perceived re sistance within their office the most popular response was that the USACE offered training. Thirty two percent of the survey respondents select ed other and 8% of the survey population indicated that nothing was done by the USACE to overcome the resistance to sustainable construction. Some of the res ponses that respondents offered as an other method of overcoming resistance were one on one discussions, encouraged people to become members of the USGBC, and arra nged field trips for USACE personnel. Table 4-20. Methods employed to overcome resistance to transition to sustainable construction Answer Options Response Percent Response Count offered training 44.0% 11 reprimand was given 0.0% 0 nothing was done 8.0% 2 other 32.0% 8 there was no resistance 16.0% 4 answered question 25 78

PAGE 79

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS 5.1 Analysis of Survey 5.1.1 Analysis Regarding Hypothesis 1 The first hypothesis stated that a higher the level of management (determined by pay grade) would have perception of lower resistance to sustainable construction practices. In order to resolve the first hy pothesis two questions from the survey will be analyzed. The first question a sked respondents to select t heir pay grade. Twenty six respondents answered the question about their pay grade. There was only one response for GS 11; this response will be combined with the GS 12 personnel. The second question that will be anal yzed is the question that asked respondents to rank the level of resistance they perce ived from the staff in thei r respective offices. The perceived a level of resistance was ranked on a scale of one to five, with five being a high level of resistance to t he transition to sustainable cons truction from staff. There were 24 respondents to this question. The re sponses from the two respondents that answered the pay grade question but not the perceived level of resistance question will not be included in this analysis. See Table 5-1 for the results of the respondents who answered both questions. Table 5-1. The results of the perceived level of resistance based on pay grade of respondents Pay Grade Score (1 = low resistance, 5 = high resistance) Total respondents 1 2 3 4 5 GS 11/12 1 1 2 1 2 7 GS 13 0 5 5 0 1 11 GS 14 or higher 2 3 1 0 0 6 A graphic representation that can be seen in Figure 5-1 shows the responses by volume to the question of level of perceived level of resistance separated by pay grade. 79

PAGE 80

The GS 11/12 pay grade category has more vo lume toward the right, which represents a perceived level of resistance of five from thei r office. A rank of five is a high level of resistance. The GS 13 pay grade category has a high volume near the middle of the chart representing some resistance to the transition to sustainable construction. The respondents that identified as GS 14 or highe r had responses that are on the left side of the chart. The left side of the chart repr esents a perceived lower resistance to the transition to sustainable construction. Figure 5-1. Survey respondent by pay grade compared to perceived level of resistance to sustainable construction The clearest way to rank the perceived level of resistance is to look at the means for the responses by GS pay grade. For t he respondents who identified themselves as pay grade GS 12 and GS11 there were 7 res ponses and the mean of those responses was 3.29. For the respondents who identified themselves as pay grade GS 13 there were 11 responses and the mean of those re sponses was 2.73. For the respondents who identified themselves as pay grade GS 14 or higher there were 6 responses and the mean of those responses was 1.83. The results are shown graphically in Figure 52. The hypothesis proved correct from th is data. The GS 11/12 respondents thought 80

PAGE 81

there was a level of resistance to sustainable construction of 3.60. A response of 3.60 means that a large number of pe ople in their office were re sistant to the transition to sustainable construction practices. Figure 5-2. Mean of responses ranked by respondent pay grade The responses show a clear trend in t he responses based upon pay grade. The higher pay grades are higher le vels of management and they perceived the lowest level of resistance to the transition to sust ainable construction. The respondents who identified as GS 13 perceived some resistance to the transition to sustainable construction. The GS 11 and GS 12 re spondents perceived the highest amounts of resistance to sustainable construction. The first hypothesis appears to be true. There are many reasons why the responses would follow this trend. One possi ble reason is that the GS 14 or higher respondents were more involved in the transition and were more informed from the beginning of the transition. Other possibl e reason why the responses followed this trend is because the lower level staff dont s how their resistance to their managers out of fear of repercussion. 81

PAGE 82

5.1.2 Analysis Regarding Hypothesis 2 The second hypothesis stated that a hi gher the level of management (determined by pay grade) would feel that the trai ning they have had regarding sustainable construction was sufficient to meet their needs. In order to resolve the second hypothesis two questions from the survey will be analyzed. The first question asked respondents to select their pay grade. Tw enty six respondents answered the question about their pay grade. There was only one res ponse for GS 11; this response will be combined with the GS 12 personnel. The se cond question that wil l be analyzed is the question that asked respondents to rank the leve l of sufficiency of the training they have received. The perceived level of training sufficiency was ranked on a scale of one to five, with five meaning the training wa s above and beyond sufficient and one meaning the training was less than adequ ate. There were 24 respondents to the sufficiency of training question. See Table 5-2 for the re sults of the respondent s who answered both questions. Table 5-2. The results of the sufficiency of training on sustainable construction based on the pay grade of respondents Pay Grade Score (1 = insufficient, 5 = more than sufficient) Total number of responses 1 2 3 4 5 GS 12 1 2 3 1 0 7 GS 13 0 0 2 6 2 10 GS 14 or higher 0 1 1 3 2 7 A graphic representation that can be seen in Figure 5-3 shows the responses by volume to the question of level of the per ceived sufficiency of training organized by pay grade. The GS 12 pay grade category has more volume in the middle of the chart, which represents an overall satisfaction wit h the training that these personnel have 82

PAGE 83

received. The GS 13 pay grade category has a high volume near the right of the chart representing a level of high satisfaction with the training that those personnel had received. The respondents that identified as GS 14 or higher also had responses that are on the right side of the chart. Figure 5-3. Survey respondent by pay grade co mpared to level of sufficiency of training for sustainable construction Figure 5-4. Mean of responses to sufficien cy of training received ranked by respondent pay grade The clearest way to rank the perceived level of resistance is to look at the means for the responses by GS pay grade. For t he respondents who identified themselves as 83

PAGE 84

pay grade GS 12 and 11 there were 7 responses and the mean of those responses was 2.57. For the respondents w ho identified themselves as pay grade GS 13 there were 10 responses and the mean of those respon ses was 4.00. For the respondents who identified themselves as pay grade GS 14 or higher there were 7 responses and the mean of those responses was 3.85. The resu lts are shown graphically in Figure 5-4. The hypothesis is supported but not necessarily proven by this data. There was one GS 11 respondent who was an outlier and c annot be included in the conclusion because there was only one response from that pay grade category. The GS 12 respondents thought the training they have re ceived on sustainable construction was sufficient. The GS 13 and the GS 14 or hi gher respondents had means that were very close, 4.00 and 3.85 respectively. These re sponses show that the higher levels of management feel that the trai ning they have received for sustainable construction has been more than sufficient for their needs. The second hypothesis states that the higher levels of management, based on pay grade, will feel that the traini ng they have received on sustainable construction will have been more than sufficient than personnel from lower pay grades. The second hypothesis is neither proven nor disproven by this data. The GS 12 data did show that they were slightly less positive about their training; nonetheless, they did feel it was sufficient for their needs. While both the GS 13 and GS 14 or higher respondents felt almost equally that the training they have received was more than sufficient for their needs. 5.1.3 Analysis Regarding Hypothesis 3 The third hypothesis to be resolved stated that overall the USACE personnel were not personally interested in sustainable desig n prior to the mandate from the DOD. The 84

PAGE 85

survey asked one specific question regarding this hypothesis. The resulting data from that question is in Table 5-3. Table 5-3. Respondents personal interest in sustainable c onstruction prior to mandate Answer Options Yes No Response Count Were you interested in sustainable construction prior to the mandate to use the SPiRiT and/or LEED rating systems for MILCON projects? 20 5 25 There were 25 respondents to the question. Of the 25 respondents, 20 of the USACE personnel were interested in sustain able construction prior to the mandate. These 20 respondents represent 80% of the total respondents to this question, an very high percentage. This data disproves the hypothesis that the USACE would not have been interested in sustainable construction prior to the mandate from the DOD to perform all MILCON projects to meet a LEED silver standard. The limitation to this data is that the personnel that were selected as the survey population are highly involved with the USACEs transition to sustainable construction. These respondents are very well informed on sustainable construction, a nd that may have influenced the responses. 5.1.4 Analysis Regarding Hypothesis 4 The fourth hypothesis to be evaluated is that the USACE personnel when grouped by profession will have opinions on the sufficien cy of their training that differ from other professions represented in the USACE perso nnel. The USACE is composed of many types of professionals. For this study three types of profe ssionals will be grouped together and analyzed. The USACE person nel will be grouped into three profession types: architect, engineer and project manager. The hypothesis is that each group of professionals will have similar op inions on the sustainable construction training that they have received and the three different groups opinions will be different from each other. 85

PAGE 86

The fourth hypothesis r equires that the survey population be separated by profession type. The respondents were asked to select their profe ssion from a list that contained engineer, architect, project manager and other. One respondent chose other that response will not be included in this anal ysis. Of the 25 responses that will be used in the analysis the largest group repres ented is the engineer s with 12 respondents identifying as engineers. The second larges t group is the architec ts with the survey population having 10 members who identified as architects. The smallest profession represented in the survey population is the project manager group, 3 respondents identified as project managers. Figure 5-5. Mean of responses to sufficien cy of training received ranked by respondent profession The survey respondents were also asked to rank how sufficient their training for sustainable construction has been. The score s were based on a 1 to 5 scale, one being that the training was insufficient for the respondents needs and five represented training that was more than su fficient to meet their needs. The means of the scores for each represented profession were calculated. The engineers have a mean score of 3.3, the architects have a mean score of 3.6 and the project managers have a mean score 86

PAGE 87

of 4 (see Figure 5-5). The proj ect manager group felt that the training was slightly more sufficient than their needs required. The ar chitects and engineers on average also felt that the training they rece ived was slightly more sufficient than what their needs required, but not by as mu ch as the project managers. 5.1.4 Analysis Regarding Hypothesis 5 The fifth hypothesis states that the U SACE personnel when grouped by profession will have similar responses on why they first became involved in sustainable construction. The USACE personnel will be grouped into three profession types: architect, engineer and project manager. A secondary part of this hypothesis states that the three different groups of professional types will have re sponses that are different from each other. The survey respondents were asked how they first became involved in sustainable construction. They were asked to choose al l that apply, there were two responses that were selected and those were by office mandate and/or by personal interest. The engineers were more likely to have first bee n involved in sustainable construction because of the mandate. Fifty eight percent of the engineers (seven respondents) responded that they had first become involved in sustainable construction by office mandate. Of those seven re spondents who identified themselves as having first becoming involved in sustainable construction due to office mandate, four of them were also personally interested in sustainable cons truction when they first became involved. The architects were more likely to have been first involved with sustainable construction due to personal interest. Eighty percent of the archit ect respondents first became involved in sustainable construction due to personal interest. Twenty percent of the architect respondents became involved in sustainable construction due to the 87

PAGE 88

mandate alone. The three projec t managers represented in th e survey population were all first involved in sustainable construction due to personal interest alone. Table 5-4. Respondents first involvement with sustainable construction by profession Profession Total number of respondents in group First Involvement with Su stainable Construction Office Mandate Personal Interest engineer 12 7 9 architect 10 3 8 project manager 3 0 3 88

PAGE 89

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION Summary The results of the survey portrayed the perceptions of the USACE management staff who are directly involved with sust ainable construction regarding the mandated transition to sustainable construction. The survey designed for this survey was a way to collect the needed information in a uniform fashion. The results of the survey were designed to be analyzed or compared in many wa ys. The objectives of this study were to prove three hypothesizes that were devel oped prior to releasing the survey. Those five hypothesizes were: The higher the level of management ( determined by pay grade) the lower the perception of resistance to sust ainable construction practices. The higher the level of management ( determined by pay grade) the more likely they were to feel that their training was sufficient. In general the USACE personnel were not personally interested in sustainable construction prior to the mandate. The respondents when grouped by profession had differing opinions on the sufficiency of the training they received. All the respondents felt that the training was at least sufficient to different degrees. The respondents when grouped by professi on did have differing opinions on why they first became involved in sustainable construction. The project managers were more likely to have become involved in sustainable construction due to personal interest alone, while the engineers were mo re likely to have first become involved due to office mandate. The results of the survey were reveal ed in Chapter 4 and then the results were analyzed in Chapter 5. Limitations The survey was distributed by a USACE staff member who chose the survey population. The USACE staff member chos e to send the survey to other USACE 89

PAGE 90

personnel that were familiar with the transit ion to sustainable construction within the USACE and some of the survey populati on members had actually had a role in implementing the change. T he survey population was also skewed to higher ranking and more experienced personnel. The resulting data was biased because of the survey populations role in implementing sustainable construction and their familiarity with sustainable construction. Recommendations for Future Study There are a few recommendations for furt her study. The first recommendation is to continue the research with the USACE. A re searcher could take this same survey to a larger population of USACE pe rsonnel to get a bigger sample size and continue this research. The second recommendation is to use the same survey but use different survey populations. If survey populati ons were chosen from companies or organizations within the construction indus try that have also transitioned from conventional construction to sustainable construction, then the results could be compared. If there had been more responses, or a larger population then a more in depth analysis could be performed. 90

PAGE 91

APPENDIX A IRB APPROVAL 91

PAGE 92

APPENDIX B SURVEY Impacts of the Change from Conventional Construction to Sustainable Construction Practices in the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) Information about survey taker 1 What is your specialty? Select all that apply o Engineer o Architect o Environmental o Contracts o Real Estate o Project Management o Other 2 What is your pay grade? Select one. o GS 9 or lower o GS 10 o GS 11 o GS 12 o GS 13 o GS 14 or higher o Im not USACE personnel 3 How long have you been working in t he construction/engineering industry? Select one. o 0-5 years o 5-10 years o 10-15 years o 15+ years 3 Do you recycle at home? Select one. o Yes o No 4 Are you the main person responsible for sustainable construction practices on a project team? Select one. o Yes o No 5 Years familiar with sustainable constr uction (LEED, SPiRiT)? Select one. 92

PAGE 93

o < 1 o 1-2 years o 2-4 years o 4+ years 6 Do you have a personal interest in su stainable construction (LEED, SPiRiT)? Select one. o Yes o No 7 Why did you first start becoming involved in sustainable construction (LEED, SPiRiT)? Select all that apply. o Was mandated o Was both mandated and interested o Became interested after attending a class or seminar o Became interested through main stream media Sustainability 8 How many projects has your office bu ilt using sustainable construction rating systems (LEED, SPiRiT) in the la st 5 years? Select one. o None o 1-5 o 6-10 o 11+ 9 How quick did the office change to sustai nable construction practices? Select one. o Was an immediate mandated change o Was slowly introduced through procedures o Was introduced by individuals in the office and slowly accepted by the organization 10 How well did your office transition to su stainable construction practices? Select one. o Not a smooth transition at all o There were a few large problems o There were some minor problems o The transition went well 11 When did your office begin sustainabl e construction policies? Select one. o Less than 1 year ago 93

PAGE 94

o 1-2 years ago o 2-4 years ago o 4+ years ago 12 How long did it take your office to become comfortabl e with sustainable construction? Select one. o 0-6 months o 7-12 months o 1 year and more o Not running smoothly yet 13 Does the chain of command in your office encourage and support sustainable construction processes? o Yes o No 14 How well does USACE keep employees updated with sustainab le construction information? Select one. o Not well at all o Could be better at updating o Very good at keeping employees up to date 15 How much training did you (personally ) receive on sustainable construction practices in the past year? Select one. o Less than 1 days worth o 1-2 days o 2-4 days o 4+ days o None at all 16 What type of sustainable construction trai ning did you (personally) receive in the past year? Select all that apply. o In office presentation o Training manual o Meeting (online or in-office) o Presentations by sustainability expert o Seminar/Webinar (online seminar) o Other o None 17 Was the sustainable construction training you received sufficient? Select one. 94

PAGE 95

o Yes, I understand well o I still have a few questions o Not sufficient o I havent received any training 18 When you have questions relating to sustainability do you know who to ask? Select one. o Yes o No 19 When you ask questions relating to sustainability do you get an adequate response? Select one. o Often o Rarely o Never 20 How many people are in your office? Fill in the blank. ________________________ 21 What percentage of people in your office are resistant to changing to sustainable construction? o Low (<20%) o Medium (20% 50%) o Medium-high (50% 80%) o High (>80%) 22 If there was resistance to the change to sustainable construction, what was done to overcome the resistance? Select one. o There was no resistance o Nothing was done o Offered training o Reprimand was given o Other 23 What organizational author ity is most resistant to sustainable construction (LEED, SPiRiT)? Select all that apply. o Base Commander o USACE HQ staff o USACE Field staff o Other o No one was resistant 95

PAGE 96

24 Are the Tenant Commands that you work with accepting of the new sustainable construction process? Select one. o Most are accepting o Few are accepting o None are accepting o N/A 25 If the Tenant Commands are not accepti ng, what is done to overcome their resistance? Select all that apply. o Meetings with the Tenant Command staff o Invited them to seminars/ training o The Tenant Commands were given written information (brochures, etc.) o Nothing was done o Unknown 26 Are local construction contractors accept ing of the new sustainable construction process? Select one. o Most are accepting o Few are accepting o None are accepting o Unknown 27 If the local construction contractors are not accepting, what is done to overcome their resistance? Select all that apply. o Meetings with the contractors o Invited them to seminars/training o The contractors were given wri tten information (brochures, etc.) o Nothing was done o Unknown 28 Are architecture/engineering firms accept ing of the new sustainable construction process? Select one. o Most are accepting o Few are accepting o None are accepting o Unknown 29 If the architecture/engineering firms are not accepting what is done to overcome their resistance? Select all that apply. o Meetings with the firms 96

PAGE 97

o Invited them to seminars/ training o The firms were given writt en information (brochures, etc.) o Nothing was done o Unknown 97

PAGE 98

98

PAGE 99

99

PAGE 100

LIST OF REFERENCES Attfield, R. (1999). The Ethi cs of the Global Environment. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh: 2000. Chong, W.K., Kumar, S., Haas, C.T., Beheiry, S.W.A., Coplen, L., and Oey, M. (2009). Understanding and Interpreting Baseline Pe rceptions of Sustainability in Construction among Civil Engineers in t he United States. Journal of Management in Engineering. 25 (3), 143-154. Dalton, J. (2008). Sustainable Design and Development (SDD) Registration and Certification. US Army Corp of Engi neers Engineering and Construction Bulletin Issued by the CECW-CE. No 2008-27, September 25, 2008. Dalton, J. and Rivers, P. (2009). Communicating Sustai nable Design and Energy Efficient Features of Army Projects. US Army Corp of Engi neers Engineering and Construction Bulletin Issued by the CE CW-CE. No. 2009-24, October 2 2009. Gillespie, J. and Miller, J. ( 2007). Army Green. Environment al Design & Construction, October 2007. Global Reporting Initiative. (2007). What is GRI? http://www.globalreporting.org/AboutGRI/WhatIsGRI/ Last accessed March 9, 2010. Green Building Initiative (2010). Green Globes. http://www.thegbi.org/ Last accessed February 24 2010. Hallmark, M. (2006). Sustainab ility: Cultural Considerati ons. U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Penn sylvania: April 2006. Hill, R. and Bowen, P. (1997) Sustainable Construction: Principles and a Framework for Attainment. Construction Management and Economics. 15, 223-239. Hoffman, A. J. and Henn, R. (2008). Overcom ing the Social and Psychological Barriers to Green Building. Organization & Environment. 21 (4), 390-419. International Standards Organization. (2010). ISO 9000 and ISO14001. http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/ management_standards/iso_9000_iso_14000 .htm Last accessed March 11, 2010. Kibert, C. (2008). Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery. 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken: 2008. Matthiessen, L.F. and Morris, P. (2004) Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting Methodology. Davis Langdon. July 2004. 100

PAGE 101

Rohracher, H. (2001). Managing t he technical transition to sustainable construction of buildings: A socio-technical perspective. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 13 (1), 137-150. Sheller, T. (2000). Green Construction: Efficient De sign for Military Facilities. http://140.194.76.129/publications/ eng-tech-ltrs/etl1110-3-491/a-b.pdf Last accessed March 8, 2010. Turner Construction Company. (2008). Turner 2008 Green Building Market Barometer. www.turnerconstruction.com/greenbuild ings. Last accessed March 11, 2010. United Nations. (1986). Declarati on on the Right to Development. http://www.un.org/documents/ ga/res/41/a41r128.htm. Last accessed February 26, 2010. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2010). Population and Vital Statistics Report. Series A Vol. LXII, No. 1. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/vitst ats/Sets/SeriesA_Jan2010_c omplete.pdf Last accessed May 6, 2010. United States Department of Labor. (2010). Bureau of Labor St atistics. Career Guide to Industries, 2010-11 Editi on. Construction. http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs003.htm Last accessed March 11, 2010. United States Green Build ing Council. (2010). http://www.usgbc.org Last accessed February 25, 2010. U.S. Army. (2004) The Army Strategy for the Environment: Sustain the Mission Secure the Future. http://www.sustainability.army.mil/f unction/docs/ArmyEnvStrategy.pdf. Last accessed March 9, 2010. U.S. Army. (2008) Army Sustainability Report 2007. http://www.sustainability.army.mil/news/docs_general/Army_Sustainability_Report _12_02_08.pdf. September 5 2008. Last accessed March 9, 2010. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Devel opment Center. (2008). Sustainable Project Rating Tool (SPiRiT). http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/pls/er dcpub/docs/erdc/images/ERDCFactSheet_P roduct_SPiRit.pdf January 2008. Last accessed February 26, 2010. U.S. Army Sustai nability. (2008). http://www.sustainability.army.mil/. Last updated December 2008. Last accessed March9,2010. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer s Headquarters. (2010). About Us. http://www.usace.army.mil/about/Pages/Home.aspx Last accessed March10, 2010. 101

PAGE 102

102 USGBC. (2009). LEED 2009 for New Co nstruction and Major Renovations. http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=5546 Last accessed March 11, 2010. USGBC. (2010). USGBC Update March 2009. http://communicate.usgbc.org/newsletters/USGBC_Update/0309.html Last accessed May 5, 2010. U.S. Office of Mangement and Budge t. (2009). Department of Defense. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/budget/fy2009/defense.html Last accessed May 6, 2010. Wetherill, M., Rezgui, Y., Boddy, S ., and Cooper, G. S. (2007). Intraand Interorganizational Knowledge Services to Promote Informed Sustainable Practices. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering. 21 (2), 78-89. Whitaker, J.W. (2006). Memorandum for SE E Distribution: Sustainable Design and Developemnt Policy Update. Department of the Army, Ofiice of the Assistant Secretary of the Army Installation s and Environment. January 5, 2006. The White House. (2010). President Obama Sets Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target for Federal Operations. Target to Drive Energy Cost Reductions in Federal Operations, Creating Clean Energy Jobs. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-o ffice/president-obama-sets-greenhousegas-emissions-reduction-target-federal-operations Last accessed April 5, 2010. World Commission on Environment and Deve lopment (WCED). (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford, England: Ox ford University Press.

PAGE 103

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Sharon M. Neff was born in San Antonio, Texas, to Andrew M. Neff and Elizabeth A. Neff. Sharons interest in design, cons truction and the military can be attributed to her familys background, her father and pat ernal grandfather were engineers and her father and both of her grandfathers were in the military. Upon graduating high school in 2003, Sharon attended the University of Fl orida where she became interested in sustainable design and construction. While Sharon was earning her undergraduate degree Sharon met her fianc. In 2007 Shar on earned her Bachelor of Science in Design with a major in interior design. After receiving her bachelors degree Sharon worked in the construction industry as a desi gn professional. During that time working she was inspired to return to school and pursue a Master of Science in Building Construction with a concentration in sust ainable construction. While Sharon was pursuing her masters degree her fianc was commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Army. Shortly after graduat ion Sharon will be getting married and she and her husband will be relocating to Fort Br agg, North Carolina where s he will pursue a career in building construction. 103