<%BANNER%>

Human Sustainability

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041919/00001

Material Information

Title: Human Sustainability Safety in Construction
Physical Description: 1 online resource (63 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Frandsen, Kyle
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: construction, health, leed, safety, sustainability
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: Is a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified building considered sustainable if construction workers are injured or even killed in the process? Construction worker health and safety should be the most important aspect of every project. Anything that can be done to further promote safety in construction should be implemented. LEED is considered by many owners as a marketing tool, and having a LEED certified project is highly sought after in the industry. Adding safety into the LEED rating system would get the owner invested in safe work practices. The LEED scorecard currently has 110 possible points and yet only one point is rewarded for the health and safety of workers during construction. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the attitude among construction professionals about adding worker health and safety into the LEED rating system. Expert interviews were conducted with three construction professionals with different backgrounds. The primary source of data was a survey that was distributed among employees of General Contractors and Subcontractors. The study resulted in 463 completed surveys. The results of the survey indicate that construction professionals have strong positive feelings towards safety, and have strong positive feelings for LEED, but the majority does not want to see the two combined. The individuals who are the most familiar with LEED do not want to see safety added into the LEED rating system.
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 Kyle Frandsen.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Hinze, Jimmie W.
Local: Co-adviser: Sullivan, James.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041919:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041919/00001

Material Information

Title: Human Sustainability Safety in Construction
Physical Description: 1 online resource (63 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Frandsen, Kyle
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: construction, health, leed, safety, sustainability
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: Is a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified building considered sustainable if construction workers are injured or even killed in the process? Construction worker health and safety should be the most important aspect of every project. Anything that can be done to further promote safety in construction should be implemented. LEED is considered by many owners as a marketing tool, and having a LEED certified project is highly sought after in the industry. Adding safety into the LEED rating system would get the owner invested in safe work practices. The LEED scorecard currently has 110 possible points and yet only one point is rewarded for the health and safety of workers during construction. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the attitude among construction professionals about adding worker health and safety into the LEED rating system. Expert interviews were conducted with three construction professionals with different backgrounds. The primary source of data was a survey that was distributed among employees of General Contractors and Subcontractors. The study resulted in 463 completed surveys. The results of the survey indicate that construction professionals have strong positive feelings towards safety, and have strong positive feelings for LEED, but the majority does not want to see the two combined. The individuals who are the most familiar with LEED do not want to see safety added into the LEED rating system.
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 Kyle Frandsen.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Hinze, Jimmie W.
Local: Co-adviser: Sullivan, James.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041919:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





HUMAN SUSTAINABILITY: SAFETY IN CONSTRUCTION


By

KYLE FRANDSEN



















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 Kyle G. Frandsen
































To my mom, dad, and sisters-
For all the support and love you have given me for my entire life









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank all the members of my committee and especially my committee chairman

for all their efforts. I would also like to thank the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building

Construction.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W LE D G E M E N T S ................................................................ ...................... 4

LIST O F FIG U R ES ............................................6............................

A B S T R A C T ................................................................................ 7

CHAPTER

1 IN T R O D U C T IO N .................................. .......................... ........9

B a c k g ro u n d ................................................................................ 9
S tatem ent of P purpose ................................................................ 9
R esearc h O objectives ........................................................................ ......... 10
S co p e of S tud y ....................................................... 10

2 LITERAT U R E R EV IEW ....................................................... ............ ..... 11

3 M ETHO DO LO GY ................... .............. ........................ ......................... 16

4 E X P E C T E D R E S U LT S .......................................................................................... 19

5 SURVEY AND INTERVIEW RESULTS...... ................................................. 20

Com pany Profile .................. ............................. ...................20
Respondent Profile .......... ..................................... ................................ 20
LEED Familiarity ............ .......... ............. ............. 20
Supporting LEED Practices .............. ......... ...... ..........................21
Safety Concerns ............... ......... .......... ...... ............22
A dding S afety into LE E D ......... ...... ................................................... ..... ... ...27
Further A analysis: ................................................................................... .. 30

6 C O N C LU S IO N S .............. .......................................................................... 54

7 RECOM MENDATIONS .......... ................................... .................56

APPENDIX

A INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT ............ ........ ................ 57

B SURVEY CONSENT& SURVEY ................. .................................... 59

LIST OF REFERENCES ........................... ......... ............. 62

B IO G R A P H IC A L S K ET C H .......... ................................................................... ....... 63









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

5-1 Respondents by type of company ......................... ................... ............... 35

5-2 Respondents by annual volume of their firms........................... ................ 36

5-3 P rim ary position ................................... ................ ........ .. ... ............. 37

5-4 Years of personal construction experience......................... ... ......... ........ 38

5-5 Familiarity with the USGBC and the LEED process ...................................39

5-6 Number of LEED projects worked on ................ .......................................40

5-7 LEED Accredited Professional status...... .......... ......................................... 41

5-9 Safety concerns in the preconstruction phase .........................................43

5-10 Promoting construction worker safety on the job-site ....................................44

5-11 Safety representative continuously on-site ........................ .. ..........................45

5-12 Protecting ducts and airways on every job.......... .................................46

5-13 Job-site specific construction worker health and safety plan .............................. 47

5-14 Adding worker health and safety to the LEED rating system ..............................48

5-15 Safety should be a Required Prerequisite or Optional Credit............................. 49

5-16 How many points for worker health and safety ................................ ............... 50

5-17 Existing category or new category............................................. ................ 51

5-18 SafetyScore vs. Adding Safety into LEED.................................... ..................... 51

5-19 Comparison of the importance of LEED vs. adding safety to the LEED rating
s y s te m ...................... .. .. ......... .. .. ................................................ 5 2

5-20 Comparison of familiarity with LEED vs. adding safety to the LEED rating
s y s te m ...................... .. .. ......... .. .. ................................................ 5 2

5-21 Comparison of LEED Accredited Professionals vs. adding safety to the LEED
rating system ............................ .......................................... 53

5-22 LEED Familiarity vs. Adding Safety into LEED ......... ............ ................ 53









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

HUMAN SUSTAINABILITY: SAFETY IN CONSTRUCTION

By

Kyle Frandsen

August 2010

Chair: Jimmie W. Hinze
Cochair: James G. Sullivan
Major: Building Construction

Is a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified building

considered sustainable if construction workers are injured or even killed in the process?

Construction worker health and safety should be the most important aspect of every

project. Anything that can be done to further promote safety in construction should be

implemented. LEED is considered by many owners as a marketing tool, and having a

LEED certified project is highly sought after in the industry. Adding safety into the LEED

rating system would get the owner invested in safe work practices. The LEED

scorecard currently has 110 possible points and yet only one point is rewarded for the

health and safety of workers during construction.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the attitude among construction

professionals about adding worker health and safety into the LEED rating system.

Expert interviews were conducted with three construction professionals with different

backgrounds. The primary source of data was a survey that was distributed among

employees of General Contractors and Subcontractors. The study resulted in 463

completed surveys. The results of the survey indicate that construction professionals









have strong positive feelings towards safety, and have strong positive feelings for

LEED, but the majority does not want to see the two combined. The individuals who are

the most familiar with LEED do not want to see safety added into the LEED rating

system.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Background

Since 1998 more than 14,000 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

(LEED) certified projects have been registered globally. For every LEED project

completed, safety has not been rewarded or recognized by the United States Green

Building Council. To ensure the sustainability of all resources, construction worker

safety should be the primary focus of every construction project, taking priority over

issues of time, cost or quality. With the high incidence of construction worker fatalities

and jobsite injuries, considerable efforts are warranted to promote jobsite safety.

Currently the LEED rating system has 110 possible points and only one point is

dedicated to the safety of the construction workers during project execution. The

promotion of safety and successful efforts in reducing construction worker suffering on a

project should be rewarded. The United States Green Building Council should care as

much for the people who actually build the projects as they do for the people who own

and occupy them.

Statement of Purpose

The LEED rating system takes into account the health and safety of the building

occupants after the project is complete, but what about the safety of the workers who

actually construct the project? There are currently no points awarded by the United

States Green Building Council for having safe practices on a LEED certified project.

The purpose of this study is to examine the attitudes of construction professionals

regarding the advisability of adding construction worker health and safety into the LEED

rating system.









Research Objectives

The intention of this study is to evaluate the need and demand to incorporate the

health and safety of construction workers during project execution into the LEED rating

system. Also, the purpose is to evaluate different options of how professionals in the

construction industry think safety should be added into the LEED rating system.

Scope of Study

First, this research will review the literature concerning the importance of adding

construction worker health and safety into the LEED rating system. Next, a description

will be provided of how the data were collected to obtain information for this study.

Then, the analysis of the results of this research will be described and interpreted.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system

currently gives very little consideration to safety during construction project execution.

The only issue that is addressed is Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) credit 3.1 and

that is indoor air quality management during construction. The purpose of this is to

protect the building occupants from potential air quality problems during the construction

process and it will also protect construction workers. This is just one point out of 110

possible points on the new 2009 LEED rating system that can be construed as favorably

impacting construction worker safety. This one point out of 110 is awarded despite the

fact that construction worker safety should be the most important aspect of a project. It

would appear appropriate that the United States Green Building Council should give

greater consideration to the health and well-being of construction workers.

This literature review will show that little research has been conducted on this

very important topic. A newspaper article was written after the sixth fatality occurred on

the $9.2 billion MGM Mirage City Center construction site in Las Vegas. This project

was on track to being a LEED NC Silver Certified building. The author of the article

conducted research and found that the word "Safety" only appeared one time in the

LEED rating system. The author states that safety should be added to the LEED rating

system and that it would be easy to incorporate.

LEED can close the health and safety loophole by adopting OSHA 29 CFR
1926 as a prerequisite, with provisions that allow local amendments, and
awarding one credit if a project is completed without a serious injury or
death. Certifications should be revocable where "accidental" injuries or
deaths complicit with negligence or corruption occurred during construction,
but were proved to be complicit with negligence after the certification was
awarded. While such provisions might not be perfect preventative









measures, they provide the U.S. Green Building Council with rear-guard
action to protect its name and that of LEED (Ivanovich 2008).

This article stresses that LEED should incorporate safety into the point system, but

adding only one point for having zero injuries or deaths appears to be quite inadequate.

The suggestion that a point should be awarded after project completion is a departure

from the current rating system in which the points are accrued essentially at the design

stage.

One of the most important yet under-recognized, and under-represented

resources utilized during the construction process is the human capital that is needed to

build projects. Green building initiatives and methodologies provide the driving

mechanism for current sustainable practices, but the health and safety of the workers

who construct the built environment are not added in the framework of the current rating

systems. The safety policies of the construction firms and the amount of safety training

offered during construction should be given merit in the LEED evaluation process.

Safety policies of the builder and actual safety performance during construction of a

green project could be considered, similar to commissioning or installation guidelines.

The well-being of construction workers must also be sustained. Should a project be

considered sustainable if it conserves energy, reduces water use, recycles materials,

but where a worker was seriously injured or killed in the process? It would seem that

construction workers should be part of the LEED process and considered the most

valuable resource. Despite the significant changes in recent years to promote

sustainability, little has been done to evaluate the well-being of the on-site construction

workers (Hinze 2010).









An article in (Professional Safety Magazine) addresses the topic of safety in the

LEED rating system. The article describes in detail the LEED rating system and how

several prerequisites and credits relate directly or indirectly to occupant comfort and

health. The LEED rating system is organized into five environmental categories:

sustainable sites (SS), water efficiency (WE), energy and atmosphere (EA), indoor

environmental quality (IEQ), and materials and resources (MR). This article discusses

how in every category some credits and prerequisites will indirectly affect worker health

and safety. An example is how through controlling erosion and sedimentation during

construction this will limit worker exposure to airborne particulates.

As a larger issue, many of the sessions at ASSE's annual conferences have
revolved around the idea that worker safety should be engineered into the
built environment-for example; fall protection anchor points for use during
construction should be formed into steel structure components during the
building design stage rather than added by the safety manager once
construction has started. Similarly, fall protection anchors for window
washers should be designed into the structure rather than added after
construction. The point has been made that safety by design is at the same
time more protective of workers and more cost effective than safety by
default. With these issues as a driving force (more protective, less costly),
why isn't safety by design part of building codes everywhere? As noted,
LEED is being incorporated into municipal building requirements, and is
pulling its occupational safety benefits along with it. SH&E professionals
and ASSE members can make a substantial contribution to the LEED
program-and the LEED program can contribute a great deal to
occupational safety and health (Silins 2009).

Building materials that are built with integral safety components could have a very

positive impact toward promoting safety in construction.

Another study about safety on green building projects was done to answer three

questions: Does green building design and construction affect the safety and health of

construction workers? If yes, what green design and construction practices affect the

safety and health of construction workers? What are the project member's perspectives









on the relationship between green building design and construction practices and

construction worker safety and health? To answer these questions that study

conducted five rounds of interviews on a 146,000 square ft. computer science building

on the Oregon State University campus. The interviews included different people

involved on the project from upper managers to laborers. Questions were asked about

their role on the project, if they were aware if the project was a green building, did they

feel that any aspects of the project being green affected health and safety, did they

believe the project was safer because it was a green building, and did they feel that

construction worker safety should be part of the LEED certification process?

(Gambatese et al. 2007) That study found that 83% of the people knew that the project

was a green building, and 50% felt that green building construction was a little bit safer

than a conventional building. Of all the respondents 79.2% felt that construction worker

health and safety should be considered in the LEED rating system. The conclusions of

that research also found that the current literature does not provide much evidence of

the impacts of green construction and the safety of the workers.

If an injury or fatality occurs during the construction of a green building, is
the project sustainable? Green building design focuses its attention to a
large extent on the sustainability of the end users and the end use, while
the process by which the building is constructed is somewhat ignored and
may not necessarily be a truly sustainable process. Gilding, Humphries and
Hogarth (2002) argue that many sustainability agendas are too narrowly
focused on environmental issues and ignore occupational safety. The
authors of this article propose that a more holistic view of green
construction is needed-one that addresses safety and health over the
entire life cycle of a constructed building-in order for the green process to
be truly categorized as sustainable (Gambatese et al. 2007).

The article goes on to discuss a new rating system geared toward the safety and

health of construction workers to make a project truly sustainable. They suggest that









further research is needed to connect the health and safety of workers to the green

building process.

A health and safety plan should address the health of workers on the project site

and the health of the building's future occupants. Neither LEED nor Green Globes

requires a specific construction worker health and safety plan. A construction worker

health and safety plan should take into account the building's air quality design. In

building additions, adequate protection between occupied areas and construction areas

should be provided. Ducts and airways should always be protected from moisture, dust,

particulates, VOCs, and microbes that are generated by or distributed by construction

activities. The plan should include increased ventilation / exhaust air on-site during

construction. Even the best building design can be undermined by poor job-site

construction practices (Kibert 2008).









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

The objective of this study was to obtain information about the value of including

safety into the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system.

It was determined that the desired data could best be obtained through a survey. The

number of questions was kept to a minimum in order to increase the response rate.

The questions solicited multiple-choice responses to make the questions easy to

answer. The literature review provided a basis for beginning the survey development.

During the development of the survey, assistance was provided by Dr. Sullivan and Dr.

Kibert and the survey went through several iterations. The completed survey was then

approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board.

The survey consisted of 17 questions that addressed the following topic areas:

demographics of the respondents and the employing firm, general view about

construction safety, experience with LEED, and a few other related topics. The key

question pertained to the view of the respondent concerning the inclusion of

construction worker safety in the LEED rating system. The consent form and final

survey are included in Appendix B.

The survey was placed in Survey Monkey for data retrieval. The population to

survey was then identified. All contacts with potential respondents ware made via

email. The emails soliciting participation in the study were sent to the author's personal

contacts and to an official list of alumni and friends maintained by the M.E. Rinker

School, Jr. of Building Construction. Each email also had a specific request for each

respondent to forward the survey to other contractors and subcontractors. The email

message contained a web address to access the survey via Survey Monkey. Through









this means the identity of respondents was never made known to the author. A total of

463 responses were received. At least 2,700 emails were sent by the author, but some

respondents indicated that they had forwarded the survey information to other firms, so

the total potential respondents was some larger but unknown number. Most

respondents answered all of the questions. Additionally, some respondents felt

compelled to send separate emails to the author to more specifically describe their

views on certain issues. These emails were not solicited but such messages were

received from 11 respondents.

In addition to the survey results it was decided that personal interviews should be

conducted with three industry experts who were known to be familiar with the subject of

this research. These experts were personally known by the author, but they were each

employed by different general contractors. The experts were asked the same questions

that appeared in the survey, but they were encouraged to elaborate more in their

answers.

Expert # 1 (Management) was employed by a mid-sized general contractor with

annual revenues around $100 million. The company is based in Gainesville, Florida.

This interview was conducted in person. This expert had accumulated 15 years of

construction experience and his primary position was Senior Project Manager. This

expert is a LEED Accredited Professional under version 2.0 and has worked on four

LEED certified projects.

Expert # 2 (Safety) is the Safety Director for a mid-sized general contractor

based in Gainesville, Florida. This interview was conducted in person. This contractor

has annual revenues of around $100 million. Expert # 2 has over 20 years of









construction experience and has worked on seven LEED certified projects. This expert

is not a LEED Accredited Professional.

Expert # 3 (Field) is a Superintendent for a large general contractor with annual

revenues of over $500 million and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. This expert is currently

working on a hospital in New Hampshire and the interview was conducted over the

telephone. Expert # 3 has seven years of construction experience and has never

worked on a LEED certified project. This expert is a LEED Accredited Professional

under version 2.2 and is very familiar with the LEED process.

Data analysis was conducted by using the analysis function of Survey Monkey.

The data was then converted to an SPSS file for more detailed analysis.









CHAPTER 4
EXPECTED RESULTS

The objective of this study was to assess the attitudes of construction

professionals about the merits of adding safety into the Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design (LEED) rating system. It was assumed that most construction

professionals would place a high value on safety and also a high value on the merits of

LEED. Furthermore, it was expected that the survey would show that professionals

throughout the construction industry all feel that the LEED rating system should

incorporate worker health and safety. This is a very current and important topic and it

was assumed that there would be a high response rate for the survey.









CHAPTER 5
SURVEY AND INTERVIEW RESULTS

Company Profile

The survey was sent out to general contractors and subcontractors. The majority

of the respondents worked for general contractors. The first questions in the survey

solicited information about the companies that employed the respondents. One question

asked about the type of company that employed the respondent. While the intended

audience was employees of general contractors and subcontractors, some respondents

worked in firms that were categorized as "other". Most (63.9%) of the respondents were

employed by a general contractor and 20.6% were employed by subcontractors (Figure

5-1). To obtain information on the size of the employing company, a question was

asked about the annual volume of work that was performed by the company. Most of

the respondents reported that their employing companies performed an annual volume

of business ranging from $25 million to $500 million.

Respondent Profile

Two questions were to solicit additional information about the respondents: the

respondent's primary position, and the amount of construction experience? The

majority of the respondents worked in upper management, project management, or

project engineering (Figure 5-3). Over 45% of the respondents have 15 or more years

of construction experience (Figure 5-4). This means that the majority of the

respondents were seasoned professionals in the construction industry.

LEED Familiarity

A series of questions were asked to provide information on the level of familiarity

that the respondents had with the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design









(LEED) process. The first question was simply asked, are you familiar with the United

States Green Building Council and the LEED process? The results show that a large

majority (91.5%) of the respondents were familiar with LEED (Figure 5-5). To determine

the extent of the respondents hands-on knowledge of LEED, a question was asked

about the number of LEED projects on which the respondents had worked. Most (68%)

of the respondents have worked on one or more LEED projects (Figure 5-6). The last

question about the respondents familiarity with LEED asked if they were a LEED

Accredited Professional? The survey showed that almost 40% of the respondents were

LEED Accredited (Figure 5-7).

Supporting LEED Practices

Survey participants were asked if they supported LEED practices for all projects.

This question was asked to determine the respondents' views about the value of the

LEED practices. This question solicited a Likert-type response on a 1 to 5 scale with "1"

being Least Important and "5" being Most Important. Slightly over 50% of the

participants responded that the support of LEED practices was either important or most

important (Figure 5-8).

When the three expert interviewees were given this question, they all stated that

supporting LEED practices on all projects was most important. Expert # 1

(management) stated that because the construction industry is responsible for such a

large amount of waste, following LEED practices can have a huge impact on the planet.

Supporting LEED practices in construction can have a trickle down effect on almost all

industries because of the amount of materials used in construction. Following the LEED

practices in construction can result in putting pressure on other industries that produce

building materials to provide sustainable alternatives. He concluded that the









construction industry is the biggest consumer of materials, so following LEED practices

on all projects is very important.

Expert # 2 (safety) stated that LEED is a great thing when it works and that the

good out weighs the bad. LEED is owner-driven and comes with an additional cost.

For contractors this is good from a revenue perspective because the added project

costs can be billed to the owner. LEED practices are also good for the planet and that

is important.

Expert # 3 (Field) mentioned that supporting LEED practices should be a

company standard because it is just good business. Recycling on a project will save

money because it will cut back on sending debris to the landfill. This expert also stated

that maintaining air quality is also a good practice that should always be done.

One of the survey participants felt compelled to send the author an email to

clarify their feelings about supporting LEED practices. The respondent stated, "The

industry needs to do a better sales job on the value of LEED."

Safety Concerns

Several questions were asked about the respondents' views on different safety

practices. The first question asked if safety concerns should be considered and

designed for in the preconstruction phase. As for all the safety-related questions, the

Likert-type response being solicited answers from 1 to 5 with "1" being "strongly

disagree" to "5" being "strongly agree". Over 80% of the respondents stated that they

either agree or strongly agree that safety should be considered in the design phase

(Figure 5-9).

Expert #1 (management) felt neutral about considering safety in the

preconstruction phase. He stated that the means and methods should always be left for









the contractor to decide. Safety concerns should be deferred to the contractor because

it is too risky for the architect to take responsibility for safety issues. He contended that

accessibility and maintainability for the people who will occupy the building should be

considered in the design phase, but the safety of the construction workers is rarely

mentioned in preconstruction.

Expert #2 (safety) and expert #3 (field) both stated that they "strongly agree" that

safety should be considered and designed for in the preconstruction phase. Expert #2

(safety) contended that architects should always consider safety concerns in the design

of a project. He stated that instead of designing parapet walls with a 24" height, they

should be designed with a 48" height and that will adequate for fall protection on the

roof. Steel tie-offs for fall protection should be added for steel workers. Davits should

be built into the structure as part of the design. Accessibility during construction and

after construction should also be addressed in the design. This expert stated that these

are examples of easy ways to incorporate safety into the LEED rating system.

Expert #3 (field) agreed with Expert #2 and stated that designing for safety is a

great way to add safety into LEED because it is easily documented and it would be very

helpful to promote safety on-site. Tag lines, eye hooks, rail systems, and anchors are

all items that will help promote safety on-site and can be designed for in

preconstruction.

The second safety question in the survey asked is the respondents agreed that

construction worker safety should be supported continuously on the job-site? None of

the respondents disagree that safety should be continuously supported on the job-site.









Over 97% of the respondents either agree or strongly agree that safety should always

be supported on the job-site.

The three experts were in agreement and strongly agreed that safety should be

continuously supported on a project. The responses from the experts were that safety

should always be the top priority on every project without question. Weekly safety

meetings with the project staff should be on every project. Getting every worker home

safely is the most important goal everyday. One stated that having a great safety

record will help a company to get jobs and having no lost time on a project will save

money. He concluded by saying that injuries and fatalities are very expensive for a

project so promoting safety will also save money.

The third safety related question asked if a safety representative should

continuously be in the job-site. Nearly half of the respondents agree or strongly agree

that a safety representative should always be on the job-site (Figure 5-11). It is also

noteworthy that 23.1 % of the respondents stated that they either disagree or strongly

disagree with the practice.

The three experts either agreed or strongly agreed that a safety representative

should be on the job-site at all times. They felt that having a safety representative

continuously on-site is dependent on the size of the project based on a dollar amount.

They felt that a full time safety representative should be on-site once a project is in

excess of $50 million. They also stated that under special circumstances a project

could have a full-time safety representative on a smaller job. Expert # 1 (management)

and expert # 3 (field) stated that all field staff working for the general contractor should

be OSHA 30-hour certified, continuously take safety classes, and be first aid certified









regardless of the job size. The experts recommended that this would be a good way to

incorporate safety into the LEED rating system because it is effective and easy to

document for the United States Green Building Council.

An email response was received from one of the respondents that stated an

opinion about having a safety representative on-site at all times, "There are multiple

factors that decide what safety measures are implemented. On some smaller sites a

full time safety person is not required essentially safety is everyone's job not just one

person."

The fourth safety related question has to do with protecting the air on the job-site

during construction. Specifically, it asked, "Should protecting ducts and airways from

moisture, dust, VOCs, particulates, and microbes that result from construction activities

be considered on every job?" Over 82% of the respondents either agreed or strongly

agreed that ducts and airways should be protected on every job.

The three experts strongly agreed that ducts and airways should be protected at

all times during construction. The experts stated that hanging drywall, cutting drywall,

sanding, welding, and many other construction activities cause particulates to enter into

the ductwork if it is not sealed properly. Protecting the ducts and airways should always

be done for the health and safety of the construction workers and the people who will

occupy the completed building. Workers are on-site when these systems get turned on

so this practice should be implemented on LEED and non LEED jobs. Expert # 2

(safety) stated that the building envelope is another hot point right now for safety and

should be considered as well.









One of the survey participants felt compelled to email the author regarding this

question. The email stated, "Regarding the HVAC duct. There is a bit of a challenge to

this. Once you lay carpet/paint/ceiling tiles, it is imperative that the space be

conditioned so as not to allow heat and humidity to ruin the products. Running HVAC

units circulates debris in the air through the system and infiltrates the duct. We protect

the return air diffusers and use high efficiency filters to minimize this, but it is impossible

to prevent 100% of the particles."

The fifth safety-related question asked, "Should all projects have a job-site

specific construction worker health and safety plan?" Over 80% of the respondents

either agreed or strongly agreed that each project should have a site-specific

construction worker health and safety plan.

Expert # 1 (management) agreed that each project should have a site specific

construction worker health and safety plan. He stated that having a job-site specific

construction worker health and safety plan should be dependant on the size of the job.

The current project that the expert is working on is a 30,000 square foot project and he

felt that it did not require a specific safety plan. The expert stated that large scale

projects should always have a site specific construction worker health and safety plan

for job-site layout, accessibility, and an evacuation plan. Site specific safety plans

should also be on projects of a complicated nature and projects with high worker

density.

Expert # 2 (safety) and expert # 3 (field) strongly agreed that every project should

have a job-site specific construction worker health and safety plan. These experts

stated that OSHA will mandate this soon. The expert stated that every project is









different with different safety issues occurring on every project, warranting that each

should have its own health and safety plan. All projects should have a safety manual

that is specific to that project because all projects are completely differently. Different

materials are used on projects and some can be very hazardous. If a chemical or

material is hazardous it needs to have a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).

Evacuation plans will be different on every project. During renovations or when a

building is partially occupied during construction, an Interim Life Safety Measures

(ISLM) plan needs to be in place. The ISLM plan is only geared toward the occupants

and not for the construction workers. Projects are constantly changing so the Life

Safety Plan needs to be constantly updated and discussed with all of the workers on-

site. Taking additional safety measures like this should be added into the LEED rating

system so that more companies will follow through with it.

Adding Safety into LEED

The question was asked, "Should construction worker health and safety be added

into the LEED rating system?" The majority (68.6%) of the respondents were either

neutral or disagreed (at some level) that construction worker health and safety should

be added into the LEED rating system (Figure 5-14).

Expert # 1 (management) agreed that construction worker health and safety

should be added into the LEED rating system. This expert stated that safety is the most

important aspect of a construction project and anything that will help promote safety

should be done. He stated that in his opinion it will never be done because not all

parties involved in the construction process will agree with this.

Expert # 2 (safety) and expert # 3 (field) strongly agreed that construction worker

health and safety should be added into the LEED rating system. They said anything









that mandates safety should be implemented. If construction worker health and safety

were added into LEED, it would get the owner invested in safety. Money controls the

construction business and anything that will get the owner invested in safety will help. If

the owner gets involved, that will then get the architect involved with safety in the design

phase. Also, if the owner is invested in safety through LEED, the contractor will have an

incentive to select subcontractors with strong safety records and this will enhance

project safety. He further stated that adding safety into LEED would add more incentive

to have a safe job-site which is great because most companies will not take the initiative

to be safe. Most companies will only do what is asked of them because of time and

money.

Several survey participants sent the author their thoughts about this particular

question. There was one positive or supporting response regarding this issue.

* I applaud your study and I am always one to share my opinion. I am a tree hugger
and a "green" guy; 3.0 is an improvement, but I believe that the LEED movement
is not directed in the correct direction. I work for a company that recycles whether
there are points involved or not, tries to utilize indigenous materials, sustainable
materials are always thought of as paramount, and beyond our mantra of Integrity,
Quality and Partnership, we sell SAFETY! With over 1,000,000 man-hours worked
and an EMR of .61, that speaks volumes. This is all just good smart business. All
of the elements that you noted being considered should be mentioned and
embedded in the preconstruction process; it's just good responsible spec writing
and an admirable construction practice.
*
Five negative responses about adding safety into the LEED rating system were

received from the participants.

* Please let Safety Education on the jobsite be handled without adding further
restrictive requirements.

* Specific safety measures for key systems in the LEED ratings might be worth
considering but for general construction this is probably impractical.









* Honestly, I don't think adding construction worker health and safety to the LEED
rating system is necessary. It's already part of the rating system when you look at
the low-emitting materials credits. It is aimed not only at the well-being of the
building occupants but also the material installers. Outside of this, worker safety is
already mandated by the construction industry. To me, being green is going
above and beyond what's already required by law/code. How can you go above
and beyond the existing requirements of keeping everyone safe?

* Couple of things to consider. OSHA already requires safety oversight; in addition,
most workers' compensation insurance providers either require additional safety
measures, or encourage it with incentives they frequently spot check jobsites and
contractors do not want their rates to go up so they abide by their rules. Adding
LEED to the mix unnecessarily increases the layers of bureaucracy that
contractors contend with and also deflects the original purpose of LEED, which is
to build in an environmentally sustainable manner, and focus on energy
consumption.

* Safety requirements (OSHA) can be such a complex process that my early
opinion is that putting it in the LEED process may lead to confusion, conflicts, and
be impractical to implement.

In the survey the question was asked, "If safety were added into LEED should it be

a required prerequisite or an optional credit?" Over 42% of the respondents did not feel

that safety should be added into the LEED rating system. The remainder of the

respondents slightly favored safety being included as an optional credit. Of the

respondents that felt safety should be added into LEED as an optional credit, the

majority suggested that the safety inclusion should be worth 1 to 3 points.

The three experts were unanimous in their opinions that safety should be added

as a required prerequisite. They stated that safety should be a mandatory requirement

and not something to be regarded as a bonus or reward. Safety should not carry any

weight in the LEED rating system; it should just be required. Also, safety should be a

prerequisite because it will put pressure on the owners to get buy in from their

contractors. This will result in the owners getting better quality subcontractors.









The question was asked, "If safety was added into the LEED rating system,

should it be a new category or added into an existing category?" Of the respondents

that felt safety should be added into LEED, the majority felt that safety should be added

as a new category (Figure 5-17).

The three experts felt that safety should be added into LEED as a new category.

The reason the experts gave for adding safety as a new category was that if safety were

added into the LEED rating system, it should be done thoroughly. Safety is a big topic

with lots of issues to cover and it requires an entire new category to cover it adequately.

Safety should have a new category so that it does not get left off. Expert # 2 (safety)

stated that sustainability should be for the work force and not just for the building.

Safety best practices are anything that goes above and beyond OSHA regulations and

that is how safety should be incorporated into LEED. LEED practices are on a higher

standard, and that is how safety should be added, namely by doing things that are not

mandated but that go beyond the regulations to enhance safety. An example would be

to require safety glasses to always be worn on-site, or that seat bests should always be

worn on all equipment, regardless of exceptions in the regulations.

Further Analysis:

In this further analysis section, the intent is to show key relationships that were

identified between the responses for different questions. The responses related to

safety are compared with the response regarding adding construction worker safety to

LEED. Also, the levels of understanding of the LEED requirements are compared with

the responses regarding adding construction worker safety to LEED.

Out of the seventeen questions in the survey, four were specifically targeted

toward safety in construction. These questions consisted of the following:









* "Safety concerns should be considered and designed for in the preconstruction
phase?"

* "Promoting construction worker safety should be continuously supported on the
job-site?"

* "A safety representative should be continuously on-site?"

* "All projects should have a job-site specific construction worker health and safety
plan?"

These questions solicited answers ranging from 1 to 5 for strongly disagree to strongly

agree. From these four questions a new variable, called SafetyScore, was created that

was an aggregate of the four responses. This new variable was assumed to reflect the

overall commitment of each respondent to safety. Since there are 4 questions each with

possible answers ranging from 1 to 5, the possible range of the values of the

SafetyScore was from a low value of 4 (if all answers were rated as 1) to 20 ( if all

answers were rated as 5). The actual sums or values of SafetyScore ranged from 6 to

20. Since SafetyScore consisted of the aggregate sums of four safety-related

questions, those respondents with the highest values were assumed to be those with

the strongest commitment to safety while those with the lowest scores were assumed to

have the least commitment to safety.

SafetyScore was examined in terms of the responses given to the question,

"Construction worker health and safety should be added to the LEED rating system?"

This latter question also solicited answers from 1 to 5 for strongly disagree to strongly

agree. Of the respondents, 93 had a SafetyScore of less than 15 and their mean score

to the question about adding safety to the LEED rating was below average at 2.27. This

shows that the respondents that did not feel strongly about safety also did not feel that

safety should not be added to the LEED rating system. On the other extreme, a total of









110 respondents had a SafetyScore of 19 or 20 and their mean score to this question

was above average at 3.32 (Figure 5-18). This shows that the respondents who felt

strongly about safety also felt more strongly about adding safety to LEED. A test of

these 2 means was conducted and the z-value was computed to be 6.27, revealing that

the differences of the two means are statistically significant at the level of less than

.001.

A closer examination was conducted of the responses given for the two questions,

"Rate the importance of supporting LEED practices for all projects", and "Construction

worker health and safety should be added to the LEED rating system?" The analysis

showed that the more supportive the respondents were of the LEED practices, the

higher the mean value of the responses for adding safety into LEED. Of the

respondents, 231 felt supportive of the LEED practices and they had an above average

mean score of 3.08 for adding safety into LEED. Of the respondents, 60 did not support

LEED practices and they had a below average mean score of 2.08 for adding safety into

LEED. A test of these 2 means was conducted and the z-value was computed to be

6.13. Based on the z-value, the results showed a statistically significant difference

between the two means.

Further analysis was conducted with the responses to the question, "Are you

familiar with the United States Green Building Council and the LEED process?" The

responses were compared with those regarding the addition of construction worker

health and safety into the LEED rating system. Of the respondents 422 were familiar

with the LEED process and they had a below average mean score of 2.79 for adding

safety to the LEED rating system. A total of 34 respondents were not familiar with the









LEED rating system and they had an above average mean score of 3.44 for adding

safety to LEED. A test of the difference of these two means revealed that the difference

was statistically significant, with a z-value of 3.129.

A further evaluation was conducted with the responses to the question, "Are you a

LEED Accredited Professional?" These responses were examined in comparison with

the responses to questions concerning the support for adding construction worker

health and safety into the LEED rating system. Of the respondents, 181 were LEED

Accredited Professionals and they had a below average mean score of 2.56 for adding

safety into LEED. A total of 271 respondents were not LEED Accredited and they had

an above average mean score of 3.02 in favor of adding safety into LEED. A test of the

difference of these two means revealed that the difference was statistically significant,

with a z-value of 3.95.

Additional analysis of three LEED-related questions was conducted by creating a

new variable that was an aggregate of the responses from three LEED questions. This

new variable represented the level of familiarity that the respondents had with LEED.

The questions were, "Are you familiar with the United States Green Building Council

and the LEED process?", "Number of LEED projects you have worked on" and "Are you

a LEED Accredited Professional". The response to the second question about the

number of LEED projects was recorded to simply indicate whether LEED projects had

been worked on or not. Thus, the lowest LEED familiarity variable scores represented

respondents who were most familiar with LEED and higher scores represented a lower

level of familiarity with LEED. The results showed that 138 respondents were very

familiar with LEED and they had a below average mean score of 2.54 for adding safety









to LEED. A total of 27 respondents were considered to not be familiar with LEED and

they had an above average mean score of 3.62 for adding safety into LEED. A test of

the difference of these two means revealed that the difference was statistically

significant, with a z-value of 4.359.













Company type?


60% -


40% -


20% I


639%(295)


20.6% (95)


15.6% (72)


0% i
General Contractor Subcontractor


Figure 5-1. Respondents by type of company


Other




















Volume of work?


10%


1R1 f rFRn


Less than $5 million $5 million to $25 million to
$25 million $500million

Figure 5-2. Respondents by annual volume of their firms


$500 million


-Tal1 1 af-LT"


1vt s f ftI












What is your primary position?


Ma.n.j.iai r.l Project Manager.
roal I:l En.njirn r)-

Safety 1.5%(7)


Operations 3.2% (15)


Reconstruction 6.5% (30)

Fiil1 uIr I:;on i rioreinjr
Field Engineer. 6.5% (30)
Superintendents. Assistan...

General Labor


Skilled Labr 04 %(2)


Other 4.3%(22)


- + I


u%

Figure 5-3. Primary position












Years of personal construction experience?


20 %


10% -


45.8% (212)


21.2% (8)


14 3% (6)


u0% I
0-5 6-10 11-15


Figure 5-4. Years of personal construction experience












Are you familiar with the United States Green Building Council and the LEED
process?


M Yes
M No


Figure 5-5. Familiarity with the USGBC and the LEED process

































30%


Number of LEED projects you have worked on?




439%(202)


320%(147)


20%-


%-3-
None 1-3




Figure 5-6. Number of LEED projects worked on


4-6


17 26% (R58


11 "--


10".---















Are you a LEED Accredited Professional?


yes
SNo







39.7Figure 5-7. LEE(1 Accredited Professional status)









Figure 5-7. LEED Accredited Professional status













Rate the importance of supporting LEED practices for all projects.


40.6 %(185)


357%(1631


101 % (46


8.1%(371


55%(251


0% I i --I I
(1) Least Important (2) Not Important (3) Average


Figure 5-8. Supporting LEED practices for all projects


(4) Important (5) Most Important


I]













Safety concerns should be considered and designed for in the preconstruction phase.


426%(196)


38 9% (1791 -


" I : ; :i I


4.6 % -1l


0.9%(4)
0%-
() Stronslt Dt nee (2) Diagree (3)Average (4)Agree


Figure 5-9. Safety concerns in the preconstruction phase


5) Strongly' Agree


-/-












Promoting construction worker safety should be continuously supported on the job-site.

80%
76.0% (348)


21 2% (97


2.3% (13)

0%----- T
(1) Strngt Digree (2) Digree (3) Average (4)Agree


Figure 5-10. Promoting construction worker safety on the job-site


(5) Stngly Agree


I













A safety representative should continuously be on-site.


317% (1411


277% (127)


20 % 18.5% (5)


46% (21)


0% i
(1) Strongy Diagree (2) Diagree (3)Average



Figure 5-11. Safety representative continuously on-site


(4) Agree (5) Stnngly Agee


15%



10%


18.5%(85)


5%


mI












Protecting ducts and airways from moisture, dust, VOC's, particulates, and microbes that result
from construction activities should be considered on every job.

50%
453%(211)



40% U 369%7(1701


13.0% (60)


10%-






Figure 5-12.


39%(18)

0.4 %(2) i
(1) Stongly Dmgree (2) Disagree (3)Average



Protecting ducts and airways on every job


(4) Agree (5) Sttongy Agree













All projects should have a job-site specific construction worker health and safety plan.

50%


43.9% (201)


40%
36 2% (16)




30%





20% --



13.1%(60)


10%

4 8 % (22)

2.0 % (9)

0%
f1) Strngly Dagree (2) Digree (3)Average (4)Agree (5) Stong Agree



Figure 5-13. Job-site specific construction worker health and safety plan













Construction worker health and safety should be added to the LEED rating system.


25%


20% |


15%-


25.8% (1181


26 4% (121)


20.7% (95


1 4 1 '7.9


10.7 % (49


10 %-----


5% -


(1) Strngl Disagree (2) Diagree (3)Average (4) Agree (5) Stngy Agree


Figure 5-14. Adding worker health and safety to the LEED rating system


- -













If safety were added to the LEED rating system it should be a:


SOptional Credit
L5fer, Irl.lcul rc
EI d,-' r11& i Ihem
LEED rating system


Figure 5-15. Safety should be a Required Prerequisite or Optional Credit













If you chose "Optional Credit" in the previous question then how many total points should
worker health and safety have? The new LEED rating system has 110 possible points.


64.7 % (23)


20 % 18.2% (71)


120% (47


51 % (20)


7-10


0%-1


I did notchoose
"Optional Credit"
for question 15


Figure 5-16. How many points for worker health and safety


I











If construction worker health and safety were added to the LEED rating system it should
be:




7


Added to an existing
category (Indoor Environmental -
Quality or Innova.


9.0% (e6)


Create a new Worker Health
and Safety category


Itshould not be
added into the
LEED rating system





0% 10%


Figure 5-17. Existing category or new category


Figure 5-18. SafetyScore vs. Adding Safety into LEED


36 6.%(166)


Safety Score vs Adding Safety into LE ED

5

2 4
i 332

C L
-Js

S2




Les than 15 19-20
Safety core











Construction worker health and safety should be added to the LEED rating system.
Rate the importance of supporting LEED practices for all projects. -
Choose one
Answer OpItiOs (1) Least (2) Not (3) Average 4) poan (5) Most Rating Response
Answer Options (3)Average (4) Important
Important Important Important Average Count
Choose one
1) -Irorn;, Di.:.a ir, 11 11 26 21 6
() g- 9 11 45 44 8
i-) e e 1 10 46 51 11
(4) .,.r e? 1 4 34 47 8
(l' :, r i i re 1 1 12 22 13
1.78 2.27 2.76 3.03 3.30 283 454
answered question 454
skipped question 2


Figure 5-19. Comparison of the importance of LEED vs. adding safety to the LEED
rating system




Construclion worker health and safety should be added to the LEED rating system.
Are you familiar with the
United States Green
Building Council and the
LEED process?
Answer Options Yes No Raling Response
Average Count
ChOOe one
(1] Sirongly Disagree 72 2
I)] O aDgree 112 5
,-l' Av r rage 111 10
l4j Agree 85 10
(:.] Str,.ngly Agree 42 7
2.79 3.44 2.84 456
answeredques Won 456
skipped quesaon 5


Figure 5-20. Comparison of familiarity with LEED vs. adding safety to the LEED rating
system














Construcion worker health and safety should be added to the LEED rating system.
Are you a LEED
Accredited Professional?
Ral
Answer Options Yes No
Ave


ing Response
rage Count


Cho ce zrne
(1] Sirongly Disagree
(2]D Csagree
(,t A -erjg r
(4) Ag; re
(L.) Stro.ngly Agree


2.56 3.02 2.84 452
answered question 452
slapped queshon 4


Figure 5-21. Comparison of LEED Accredited Professionals vs. adding safety to the
LEED rating system


LEED FaHiianyvs.Adding Safety into LEED

5'


S362

o054








Very Farnilir Nbt FamriliE
LEE Faimliiarity Score



Figure 5-22. LEED Familiarity vs. Adding Safety into LEED









CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS

The results of the interviews with experts would indicate that there is support for

adding construction worker health and safety into the Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design (LEED) rating system. The results from the survey show that

most respondents do not favor adding safety into LEED. When professionals in the

construction industry that support LEED practices are singled out in the survey, the

results show that they agree with adding worker health and safety into LEED. Note that

it is not intuitive because individuals who are familiar with LEED tend to oppose

including safety and health in the LEED rating. It is concluded that individuals who have

studied the LEED requirements and have become familiar with them are reluctant to

see the rating system change. Individuals who are the most knowledgeable with LEED

do not support adding safety to the LEED rating. It is assumed that individuals who

work on LEED projects do not want the added burden of factoring in safety and having

to learn a new process. Those individuals who are not very familiar with LEED are

more likely to support the incorporation of safety in LEED. It is concluded that this

opinion is based on a more philosophical viewpoint.

Construction professionals who are the most safety conscious are more supportive

of adding construction worker health and safety into the LEED rating system than

people who are less safety conscious. This is probably because the professionals who

are very safety oriented want to promote safety in any way that they can, i.e., including

safety in the LEED rating system further promotes their objective of promoting safety.

Of the respondents that felt that construction worker health and safety should be

added to the LEED rating system, the majority felt that safety should be for optional









credits and that is should not be a required prerequisite. The same individuals who felt

that safety should be added as optional credits felt that safety should only be worth 1 to

3 points. The individuals who were more neutral about adding worker safety into LEED

do not want to see safety as something required in the LEED scorecard. The

respondents that strongly agreed that safety should be added into LEED also felt

strongly that safety should be a required prerequisite. This is because the safety-

oriented construction professionals want to make sure that safety would be required and

not just something optional for points. Of the respondents that felt safety should be

added to LEED the majority felt that safety should be a new category and not added into

an existing category. Apparently, respondents feel that safety does not belong in an

existing category: it should have a new category. Also, the respondents who felt safety

should be added to LEED are those who are less familiar with the LEED system. This

means that the respondents may not have been fully knowledgeable about what they

were answering.

The results of the survey were not as expected, as it was assumed that most

respondents would favor adding safety in the LEED rating. The majority of the

respondents feel strongly about safety and they feel strongly about LEED, but do not

want to see the two objectives merged in a common measure. From the results of the

survey, it can be concluded that professionals in the construction industry do not want to

be burdened by adding worker health and safety into the LEED rating system.









CHAPTER 7
RECOMMENDATIONS

To continue with this study, further research will need to be done with other parties

in the construction process. Additional surveys should be conducted with architects,

engineers, safety professionals and owners to find out if they have any motivation to

add construction worker health and safety into the Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design (LEED) rating system. It is recommended that the first step is to

conduct an owner's survey since the owner is the primary party who chooses to pursue

LEED certification for their projects. A similar survey could be conducted with

employees of different development companies. The results of the owner's survey

should determine if they are willing to spend extra money to support safety in

construction. If the research shows that there is more support among owners to add

worker health and safety into LEED, then the architects, engineers, contractors, and

subcontractors would also support it because it will be mandated.

Another suggestion is to devise a LEED rating scheme with safety integrated into

the final number. This could be implemented as a pilot study on a construction project

to assess the pros and cons of adding safety to the rating.

An additional study could also be done with individuals in the construction

industry who are familiar with the Green Globes System. Green Globes is a building

environmental design and management tool very similar to LEED. Professionals in the

construction industry that follow Green Globes practices might have a different outlook

about adding construction worker health and safety into their rating system.









APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT

M.E. Rinker, Sr., School of Building Construction
P.O. Box 115703, Gainesville, FL 32601

Informed Consent

Dear Construction Expert,

I am a graduate student at the University of Florida pursuing my Master's of Building
Construction. As part of my thesis research I am conducting an interview, the purpose
of which is to show that there is a need and demand to add construction worker health
and safety to the LEED rating system. I am asking you to participate in this interview
because you have been identified as an expert in the construction industry.
Interviewees will be asked to participate in an interview lasting no longer than 30
minutes. The structure of the interview is enclosed with this letter. You will not have to
answer any question you do not wish to answer. Your interview will be conducted by
phone or at your office after I have received a copy of this signed consent from you in
the mail or signed in-person. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided
by law and your identity will not be revealed in the final manuscript.

There are no anticipated risks, compensation or other direct benefits to you as a
participant in this interview. You are free to withdraw your consent to participate and
may discontinue your participation in the interview at any time without consequence.

If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me at (678) 642-
9686 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Jimmie Hinze, at (352) 273-1167. Questions or
concerns about your rights as a research participant rights may be directed to the IRB02
office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611; (352) 392-0433.

Please sign and return this copy of the letter in the enclosed envelope. A second copy is
provided for your records. By signing this letter, you give me permission to report your
responses anonymously in the final manuscript to be submitted to my faculty supervisor
as part of my thesis.

Kyle Frandsen



I have read the procedure described above for the Thesis Research Interview. I
voluntarily agree to participate in the interview and I have received a copy of this
description.


Signature of participant Date









I would like to receive a copy of the final "interview" manuscript submitted to the
instructor. YES / NO









APPENDIX B
SURVEY CONSENT & SURVEY

The purpose of this study is to prove that there is a demand to add worker health and
safety to the LEED rating system.

Thank you very much for taking the time to fill out this survey. The survey will only take
five minutes at most. Please answer the questions to the best of your knowledge.
There will be no direct risk or benefit involved in participating in this study. No
compensation will be provided if you participate. Your identity will be kept completely
confidential. You will have the right to withdraw from this study at anytime without
consequence.

By filling out this survey you are giving your voluntary consent to participate in this
study.

If you have any questions you may contact:

Kyle Frandsen, LEED AP (Graduate Student), Rinker School of Building Construction,
kylefrandsen@yahoo.com

I you have any questions about your rights as a research participant please contact:

IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; phone
352-392-0433.

Please circle your answers

1. Company type
General Contractor
Subcontractor
Other

2. Volume of work
Less than $5 million
$5 million to $25 million
$25 million to $500 million
$500 million +

3. What is your primary position?
Management (Upper Management, Project Manager, Project Engineer)
Safety
Operations
Reconstruction
Field Supervision (Foreman, Field Engineer, Superintendents, Assistant
Superintendents)









General Labor
Skilled Labor
Other

4. Years of personal construction experience
0-5
6-10
11 -15
15+

5. Are you familiar with the United States Green Building Council and the LEED
process?
Yes
No

6. Number of LEED projects you have worked on
None
1-3
4-6
7+

7. Are you a LEED Accredited Professional
Yes
No

8. Rate the importance of supporting LEED practices for all projects.
Least Important 1 2 3 4 5 Most Important

9. Safety concerns should be considered and designed for in the preconstruction phase.
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

10. Promoting construction worker safety should be continuously supported on the job-
site.
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

11. A safety representative should continuously be on-site.
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

12. Protecting ducts and airways from moisture, dust, VOCs, particulates, and microbes
that result from construction activities should be considered on every job.
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

13. All projects should have a job-site specific construction worker health and safety
plan.
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree










14. Construction worker health and safety should be added to the LEED rating system.
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

15. If safety were added to the LEED rating system should it be a:
Required Prerequisite
Optional Credit
Safety should not be added to the LEED rating system

16. If you chose "Optional Credit" in the previous question then how many total points
should worker health and safety have? The new LEED rating system has 110 possible
points.
1-3
4-6
7-10
I did not choose "Credit" for question 15

17. If construction worker health and safety were added to the LEED rating system it
should be:
Added to an existing category (Indoor Environmental Quality or Innovation and
Design)
Create a new Worker Health and Safety category
It should not be added into the LEED rating system









LIST OF REFERENCES


Gambatese, J. A., Rajendran, S., and Behm, M. G. (2007). "Green Design &
Construction." Prof.Saf, 52(5), 28-35.

Hinze, J., Godfrey, R., and Sullivan, J. (2010). "Integration of Construction Worker
Safety and Health in the Assessment of Sustainable Construction." ASCE
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 1-24.

Ivanovich, M. (2008). "LEEDing construction safety a Natural Step." Consult.Specif.,
43(6), 7-7.

Kibert, C., (2008). Sustainable Construction Green Building Design and Delivery, 2nd
Ed., John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

Silins, N. (2009). "LEED & the Safety Profession: Green Has Come of Age." Prof.Saf,
54(3), 46-49.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Kyle Gregory Frandsen was born in Charleston, South Carolina in 1983. He

graduated from Harrison High School in 2001. He then went on to graduate from the

University of Georgia with a degree in Consumer Economics in fall of 2005. After

graduation Kyle worked for two and a half years and then decided to pursue his

master's degree at the University of Florida. In the fall of 2008 Kyle started his master's

at the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction. Kyle Interned at PPI

Construction Management for the entire duration of his time at Rinker. Kyle will

graduate from the prestigious M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction with a

3.8 GPA. Upon completion of his master's degree, Kyle plans to start his career in

construction at Bechtel working in Colorado as a Quality Assurance Engineer.





PAGE 1

1 HUMAN SUSTAINABILITY: SAFETY IN CONSTRUCTION By KYLE FRANDSEN 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

PAGE 2

2 2010 Kyle G. Frandsen

PAGE 3

3 To my mom, dad, and s isters For all the support and love you have given me for my entire life

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank all the members of my committee and especially my committee chairman for all their efforts. I would also like to thank the M.E. Rinker Sr. School of Building Construction.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. 6 ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 9 Background ................................................................................................................... 9 Statement of Purpose ................................................................................................... 9 Research Objectives ................................................................................................... 10 Scope of Study ............................................................................................................ 10 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 11 3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 16 4 EXPEC TED RESULTS ............................................................................................... 19 5 SURVEY AND INTERVIEW RESULTS ..................................................................... 20 Company Profile ......................................................................................................... 20 Respondent Profile ..................................................................................................... 20 LEED Familiarity ......................................................................................................... 20 Supporting LEED Practices ........................................................................................ 21 Safety Concerns ......................................................................................................... 22 Adding Safety into LEED ............................................................................................ 27 Further Analysis: ......................................................................................................... 30 6 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 54 7 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 56 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT ........................................................................ 57 B SURVEY CONSENT & SURVEY............................................................................... 59 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 62 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................................................................................ 63

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 5 -1 Respondents by type of company ......................................................................... 35 5 -2 Respondents by annual volume of their fir ms ....................................................... 36 5 -3 Primary position ...................................................................................................... 37 5 -4 Years of personal construction experience ........................................................... 38 5 -5 Familiarity with the USGBC and the LEED process ............................................. 39 5 -6 Number of LEED projects worked on .................................................................... 40 5 -7 LEED Accredit ed Professional status .................................................................... 41 5 -9 Safety concerns in the preconstruction phase ...................................................... 43 5 -10 Promoting construction worker safety on the j ob-site ........................................... 44 5 -11 Safety representative continuously on-site ........................................................... 45 5 -12 Protecting ducts and airways on every job ............................................................ 46 5 -13 Job-site specific construction worker health and safety plan ............................... 47 5 -14 Adding worker health and safety to the LEED rating system ............................... 48 5 -15 Safety should be a Required Prerequisite or Optional Credit ............................... 49 5 -16 How many points for worker health and safety ..................................................... 50 5 -17 Existing category or new category ......................................................................... 51 5 -18 SafetyScore vs. Adding Safety into LEED ............................................................. 51 5 -19 Comparison of the importance of LEED vs. adding safety to the LEED rating system .................................................................................................................... 52 5 -20 Comparison of familiarity with LEED vs. adding safety to the LEED rating system .................................................................................................................... 52 5 -21 Comparison of LEED Accredited Professionals vs. adding safety to the LEED rating system .......................................................................................................... 53 5 -22 LEED Familiarity vs. Adding Safe ty into LEED ..................................................... 53

PAGE 7

7 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of a Master of Science in Building Construction HUMAN SUSTAINABILITY: SAFETY IN CONSTRUCTION By Kyle Frandsen August 2010 Chair: Jimmie W. Hinze Cochair: James G. Sullivan Major: Building Constructi on Is a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified building considered sustainable if construction workers are injured or even killed in the process? Construction worker health and safety should be the most important aspect of every project. Anything that can be done to further promote safety in construction should be implemented. LEE D is considered by many owners as a marketing tool, and having a LEED certified project is highly sought after in the industry. Adding safety into the LEED rating system would get the owner invested in safe work practices. The LEED scorecard currently ha s 110 possible points and yet only one point is rewarded for the health and safety of workers during construction. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the attitude among construction professionals about adding worker health and safety into the LEED rating system. Expert interviews were conducted with three construction professionals with different backgrounds. The primary source of data was a survey that was distributed among employees of General Contractors and Subcontractors. The study resulted i n 463 completed surveys. The results of the survey indicate that construction professionals

PAGE 8

8 have strong positive feelings towards safety, and have strong positive feelings for LEED, but the majority does not want to see the two combined. The individuals who are the most familiar with LEED do not want to see safety added into the LEED rating system.

PAGE 9

9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Since 1998 more than 14,000 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED ) certif ied projects have been registered gl obally For every LEED project completed, safety has not been rewarded or recognized by the United States Green Building Council. To ensure the sustainability of all resources, construction worker safety should be the primary focus of every construction project taking priority over issues of time, cost or quality. With the high incidence of construction worker fatalities and jobsite injuries, considerable efforts are warranted to promote jobsite safety. Currently the LEED rating system has 110 possible points and only one point is dedicated to the safety of the construction workers during project execution. The promotion of safety and successful efforts in reducing construction worker suffering on a project should be rewarded. The United States Green Building Council should care as much for the people who actually build the project s as they do for the people who own and occupy them Statement of Purpose The LEED rating system takes into account the health and safety of the building occupants after t he project is complete, but what about the safety of the workers who actually construct the project? There are currently no points awarded by the United States Green Building Council for having safe practices on a LEED certified project. The purpose of t his study is to examine the attitudes of construction professionals regarding the advisability of adding construction worker health and safety into the LEED rating system.

PAGE 10

10 Research Objectives The intention of this st udy is to evaluate the need and demand to incorporate the health and safety of construction workers during project execution into the LEED rating system. Also, the purpose is to evaluate different options of how professionals in the construction industry think safety should be added into the LEED rating system. Scope of Study First, this research will review the literature concerning the importance of adding construction worker health and safety into the LEED rating system. Next, a description will be provided of how the data were collected t o obtain information for this study. Then, the analysis of the results of this research will be described and interpreted.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ( LEED ) rating system currently gives very little cons ideration to safety during construction project execution The only issue that is addressed is Indoor Environmental Quality ( IEQ ) credit 3.1 and that is indoor air quality management during construction. The purpose of this is to protect the building occ upants from potential air quality problems during the construction process and it will also protect construction workers This is just one p oint out of 110 possible points on the new 2009 LEED rating system that can be construed as favorably impacting construction worker safety This one point out of 110 is awarded despite the fact that c onstruction worker safety should be the most impor tant aspect of a project It would appear appropriate that t he United States Green Bui lding Council should give greater consideration to the health and well being of construction workers. This literatur e review will show that little research has been conducted on this very important topic. A newspaper article was written after the sixth fatality occurred on the $9.2 billion MGM Mirage City Center construction site in Las Vegas. This project was on track to being a LEED NC Silver Certified buil ding. The author of the article conducted research and found tha t the word Safety only appeared one time in the LEED rating sys tem. The author states that safety should be added to the LEED rating system and that it would be easy to incorporate. LEED can close the health and safety loophole by adopting OSHA 29 CFR 1926 as a prerequisite, with provisions that allow local amendments, and awarding one credit if a project is completed without a serious injury or death. Certifications should be revocable where "accidental" injuries or deaths complicit with negligence or corruption occurred during construction, but were proved to be c omplicit with negligence after the certification was awarded. While such provisions might not be perfect preventative

PAGE 12

12 measures, they provide the U.S. Green Building Council with rear guard action to protect its name and that of LEED (Ivanovich 2008). This article stresses that LEED should incorporate safety into the point system, but adding only one point for having zero injuries or deaths appears to be quite inadequate. The suggestion that a point should be awarded after project completion is a departure from the current rating system in which the points are accrued essentially at the design stage. One of the most important yet under -recognized, and under -represented resources utilized during the construction process is the human capital that is needed to build projects. Green building initiatives and methodologies provide the driving mechanism for current sustainable practices, but the health and safety of the workers who construct the built environment are not added in the framework of the current rating systems. The safety policies of the construction firms and the amount of safety training offered during construction should be given merit in the LEED evaluation process. Safety policies of the builder and actual safety performance during construction of a green project could be considered, similar to commissioning or installation guidelines. The well being of construction workers must also be sustained. Should a project be considered sustainable if it conserves energy, reduces water use, recycles mat erials, but where a worker was seriously injured or killed in the process? It would seem that construction workers should be part of the LEED process and considered the most valuable resource. Despite the significant changes in recent years to promote su stainability, little has been done to evaluate the well being of the on-site construction workers (Hinze 2010 ).

PAGE 13

13 An article in (Professional Safety Magazine) addresses the topic of safety in the LEED rating system. The article describes in deta il the LEED rating system and how several prerequisites and credits relate directly or indirectly to occupant comfort and health. The LEED rating system is organized into five environmental categories: sustainable sites (SS), water efficiency (WE), energy and atmosphere (EA), indoor environmental quality (IEQ), and materials and resources (MR) This article discusses how in every category some credits and prerequisites will indirectly affect worker health and safety. An example is how through controlling erosion and sedimentation during construction this will limit worker exposure to airborne particulates. As a larger issue, many of the sessions at ASSE's annual conferences have revolved around the idea that worker safety should be engineered into the b uilt environment for example; fall protection anchor points for use during construction should be formed into steel structure components during the building design stage rather than added by the safety manager once construction has started. Similarly, fall protection anchors for window washers should be designed into the structure rather than added after construction. The point has been made that safety by design is at the same time more protective of workers and more cost effective than safety by default. With these issues as a driving force (more protective, less costly), why isn't safety by design part of building codes everywhere? As noted, LEED is being incorporated into municipal building requirements, and is pulling its occupational safety benefits along with it. SH&E professionals and ASSE members can make a substantial contribution to the LEED program and the LEED program can contribute a great deal to occupational safety and health (Silins 2009). Building materials that are built with integral saf ety components could have a very positive impact toward promoting safety in construction. Another study about safety on green building projects was done to answer three questions: Does green building design and construction affect the safety and health of construction workers? If yes, what green design and construction practices affect the safety and health of construction workers? What are the project members perspectives

PAGE 14

14 on the relationship between green building design and construction practices and construction worker safety and health? To answer these questions that study conducted five rounds of interviews on a 146,000 square ft. computer science building on the Oregon State University campus. The interviews included different people involve d on the project from upper managers to laborers. Questions were asked about their role on the project, if they were aware if the project was a green building, did they feel that any aspects of the project being green affect ed health and safety, did they belie ve the project was safer because it was a green building, and did they feel that construction worker safety should be part of the LEED certification process? (Gambatese et al. 2007) That study found that 83% of the people knew that the project was a green building, and 50% felt that green building construction was a little bit safer than a conventional building. Of all the respondents 79.2% felt that construction worker health and safety should be considered in the LEED rating system. The conclusions of that research also found that the current literature does not provide much evidence of the impacts of green construction and the safety of the workers. If an injury or fatality occurs during the construction of a green building, is the project sustainable? Green building design focuses its attention to a large extent on the sustainability of the end users and the end use, while the process by which the building is constructed is somewhat ignored and may not necessarily be a truly sustainable process. Gild ing, Humphries and Hogarth (2002) argue that many sustainability agendas are too narrowly focused on environmental issues and ignore occupational safety. The authors of this article propose that a more holistic view of green construction is needed one that addresses safety and health over the entire life cycle of a constructed building in order for the green process to be truly categorized as sustainable (Gambatese et al. 2007). The article goes on to discuss a new rating system geared toward the safety an d health of construction workers to make a project truly sustainable. They suggest that

PAGE 15

15 f urther research is needed to connect the health and safety of workers to the green building process. A health and safety plan should address the health of workers on the project site and the health of the buildings future occupants. Neither LEED nor Green Globes requires a specific construction worker health and safety plan. A construction worker health and safety plan should take into account the buildings air qu ality design. In building additions, adequate protection between occupied areas and construction areas should be provided. Ducts and airways should always be protected from moisture, dust, particulates, VOCs, and microbes that are generated by or distributed by construction activities. The plan should include increased ventilation / exhaust air on-site during construction. Even the best building design can be undermined by poor job-site construction practices (Kibert 2008).

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The objective of this study was to obtain information about the value of including safety into the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ( LEED ) rating system. It was determined that the desired data could best be obtained through a survey. The number of questions was kept to a minimum in order to increase the response rate. The questions solicited multiple -choice responses to make the questions easy to answer. The literature review provided a basis for beginning the survey development. During the d evelopment of the survey, assistance was provided by Dr. Sullivan and Dr. Kibert and the survey went through several iterations. The completed survey was then approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board. The survey consisted of 17 questions that addressed the following topic areas: demographics of the respondents and the employing firm, general view about construction safety, experience with LEED, and a few other related topics. The key question pertained to the view of the respond ent concerning the inclusion of construction worker safety in the LEED rating system. The consent form and final survey are included in Appendix B. The survey was placed in Survey Monkey for data retrieval. The population to survey was then identified All contacts with potential respondents ware made via email. The emails soliciting participation in the study were sent to the authors personal contacts and to an official list of alumni and friends maintained by the M.E. Rinker School, Jr. of Building Construction. Each email also had a specific request for each respondent to forward the survey to other contractors and subcontractors. The email message contained a web address to access the survey via Survey Monkey. Through

PAGE 17

17 this means the identity o f respondents was never made known to the author. A total of 463 responses were received. At least 2,700 emails were sent by the author, but some respondents indicated that they had forwarded the survey information to other firms, so the total potential respondents was some larger but unknown number. Most respondents answered all of the questions. Additionally, some respondents felt compelled to send separate emails to the author to more specifically describe their views on certain issues. These emails were not solicited but such messages were received from 11 respondents. In addition to the survey results it was decided that personal interviews should be conducted with three industry experts who were known to be familiar with the subject of this research. These experts were personally known by the author, but they were each employed by different general contractors. The experts were asked the same questions that appeared in the survey, but they were encouraged to elaborate more in their answers. E xpert # 1 (Management) was employed by a mid -sized general contractor with annual revenues around $100 million. The company is based in Gainesville, Florida. This interview was conducted in person. This expert had accumulated 15 years of construction ex perience and his primary position was Senior Project Manager. This expert is a LEED Accredited Professional under version 2.0 and has worked on four LEED certified projects. Expert # 2 (Safety) is the Safety Director for a mid-sized general contractor b ased in Gainesville, Florida. This interview was conducted in person. This contractor has annual revenues of around $100 million. Expert # 2 has over 20 years of

PAGE 18

18 construction experience and has worked on seven LEED certified projects. This expert is no t a LEED Accredited Professional. Expert # 3 (Field) is a Superintendent for a large general contractor with annual revenues of over $500 million and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. This expert is currently working on a hospital in New Hampshire and the in terview was conducted over the telephone. Expert # 3 has seven years of construction experience and has never worked on a LEED certified project. This expert is a LEED Accredited Professional under version 2.2 and is very familiar with the LEED process. Data analysis was conducted by using the analysis function of Survey Monkey. The data was then converted to an SPSS file for more detailed analysis.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 4 EXPECTED RESULTS The objective of this study was to assess the attitudes of construction prof essionals about the merits of adding safety into the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ( LE ED ) rating system. It was assumed that most construction professionals would place a high value on safety and also a high value on the merits of LEED. Fu rthermore, it was expected that the survey would show that professionals throughout the construction industry all feel that the LEED rating system should incorporate worker health and safety. This is a very current and important topic and it was assumed t hat there would be a high response rate for the survey.

PAGE 20

20 CHAPTER 5 SURVEY AND INTERVIEW RESULTS Company Profile The survey was sent out to general contractors and subcontractors. The majority of the respondents work ed for general contractor s The firs t questions in the survey solicited information about the companies that employed the respondents. One question asked about the type of company that employed the respondent. While the intended audience was employees of general contractors and subcontractors, some respondents worked in firms that were categorized as other. Most (63.9%) of the respondents were employed by a general contractor and 20.6% were employed by subcontractors (Figure 5 -1). To obtain information on the size of the employing compan y, a question was asked about the annual volume of work that was performed by the company. Most of the respondents reported that their employing companies performed an annual volume of business ranging from $25 million to $500 million. Respondent Profile Two questions were to solicit additional information about the respondents: the respondents primary position, and the amount of construction experience? The majority of the respondents worked in upper management, project management, or project engineering (Figure 53) Over 45% of the respondents have 15 or more years of construction experience (Figure 5-4). This means that the majority of the respondents were seasoned professionals in the construction industry. LEED Familiarity A series of questi ons were asked to provide information on the level of familiarity that the respondents had with the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

PAGE 21

21 (LEED ) process. The first question was simply asked, are you familiar with the United States Green Building C ouncil and the LEED process? The results show that a large majority (91.5%) of the respondents were familiar with LEED (Figure 5-5). To determine the extent of the respondents hands on knowledge of LEED, a question was asked about the number of LEED proj ects on which the respondents had worked. Most (68%) of the respondents have worked on one or more LEED projects (Figure 5 -6). The last question about the respondents familiarity with LEED asked if they were a LEED Accredited Professional? The survey sh owed that almost 40% of the respondents were LEED Accredited (Figure 5 -7). Supporting LEED Practices Survey participants were asked if they supported LEED practices for all projects. This question was asked to determine the respondents views about the v alue of the LEED practices. This question solicited a Likert -type response on a 1 to 5 scale with 1 being Least Important and 5 being Most Important. Slightly over 50% of the participants responded that the support of LEED practices was either import ant or most important (Figure 5-8). When the three expert interviewees were given this question, they all stated that supporting LEED practices on all projects was most important. Expert # 1 (management) stated that because the construction industry is responsible for such a large amount of waste following LEED practices can have a huge impact on the planet. Supporting LEED practices in construction can have a trickle down effect on almost all industries because of the amount of mater ials used in cons truction. F ollowing the LEED practices in construction can result in putting pressure on other industries that produce building materials to provide sustainable alternatives. He concluded that t he

PAGE 22

22 construction industry is the biggest consumer of material s so following LEED practices on all projects is very important. Expert # 2 (safety) stated that LEED is a great thing when it works and that the good out weighs the bad. LEED is owner driven and comes with an addi tional cost. For contractors this is g ood from a revenue perspective because the added project costs can be billed to the owner LEED practices are also good for the planet and that is important. Expert # 3 (Field) mentioned that supporting LEED practices should be a company standard becaus e it is just good business. Recycling on a project will save money because it will cut back on sending debris to the landfill. This expert also stated that maintaining air quality is also a good practice that should always be done. One of the survey par ticipants felt compelled to send the author an email to clarify their feelings about supporting LEED practices. The respondent stated, The industry needs to do a better sales job on the value of LEED. Safety Concerns Several questions were asked about t he respondents views on different safety practices. The first question asked if safety concerns should be considered and designed for in the preconstruction phase. As for all the safety related questions, the Likert -type response being solicited answers from 1 to 5 with 1 being strongly disagree to 5 being strongly agree. O v er 80% of the respondents stated that they either agree or strongly agree that safety should be considered in the design phase (Figure 59) Expert #1 (management) felt neutr al about considering safety in the preconstruction phase. He stated that the means and methods should always be left for

PAGE 23

23 the contractor to decide. Safety concerns should be deferred to the contractor because it is too risky for the architect to take resp onsibility for safety issue s. He contended that a ccessibility and maintainability for the people who will occupy the building should be considered in the design phase, but the safety of the construction workers is rarely mentioned in preconstruction. Exp ert #2 (safety) and expert #3 (field) both stated that they strongly agree that safety should be considered and designed for in the preconstruction phase. Expert #2 (safety) contended that architects should always consider safety concerns in the design of a project. He stated that i nstead of designing parapet walls with a 24 height they should be designed with a 48 height and that will adequate for fall protection on the roof. Steel tieoffs for fall protection should be added for steel workers. Davits should be built into the structure as part of the design. Accessibility during construction and after construction should also be addressed in the design. This expert stated that these are examples of easy ways to incorporate safety into the LEED rating system. Expert #3 (field) agreed with Expert #2 and stated that designing for safety is a great way to add safety into LEED because it is easily documented and it would be very helpful to promote safety on-si te. T ag lines, eye hooks, rail systems, and anchors are all items that will help promote safety on-site and can be designed for in preconstruction. The second safety question in the survey asked is the respondents agreed that construction worker safety should be supported continuously on the job -site? None of the respondents disagree that safety should be continuously supported on the job-site.

PAGE 24

24 Over 97% of the respondents either agree or strongly agree that safety should always be supported on the job-site. The three experts were in agreement and strongly agreed that safety should be continuously supported on a project. The responses from the experts were that safety should always be the top priority on every project without quest ion. W eekly safety meetings with the project staff should be on every project. Getting every worker home safely is the most important goal everyday. One stated that h aving a great safety record wil l help a company to get jobs and h aving no lost time on a project will save money. He concluded by saying that i njur ies and fatalities are very expensive for a project so promoting safety will also save money. The third safety related question asked if a safety representative should continuously be in the job-site. Nearly half of the respondents agree or strongly agree that a safety representative should always be on the job-site (Figure 5-11). It is also noteworthy that 23.1% of the respondents stated that they either disagree or strongly disagree with the practice. The three experts either agreed or strongly agreed that a safety representative should be on the job-site at all times. They felt that having a safety representative continuously on-site is dependent on the size of the project based on a dollar amount. They felt that a full time safety representative sh ould be on-site once a project is in excess of $50 million They also stated that u nder special circumstances a project could have a full -time safety representative on a smaller job. Expert # 1 (management) and expert # 3 (field) stated that all field st aff working for the general contractor shoul d be OSHA 30 hour certified, continuously take safety classes, and be first aid certified

PAGE 25

25 regardless of the job size The expert s recommended that this would be a good way to incorporate safety into the LEED rat ing system because it is effective and easy to document for the United States Green Building Council. An email response was received from one of the respondents that stated an opinion about having a safety representative on-site at all times, There are m ultiple factors that decide what safety measures are implemented. On some smaller sites a full time safety person is not required essentially safety is everyone's job not just one person. The fourth safety related question has to do with protecting the air on the job-site during construction. Specifically, it asked, Should p rotecting ducts and airways from moisture, dust, VOCs, particulates, and microbes that result from construction activities be considered on every job? Over 82% of the respon dents either agreed or strongly agreed that ducts and airways should be protected on every job. The three experts strongly agreed that ducts and airways should be protected at all times during construction. The experts stated that h anging drywall, cutt ing drywall, sanding, welding, and many other construction activities cause particulates to enter into the ductwork if it is not sealed properly. Protecting the ducts and airways should always be done for the health and safety of the construction workers and the people who will occupy the completed building. Workers are on-site when these systems get turned on so this practice should be implemented on LEED and non LEED jobs. Expert # 2 (safety) stated that t he building envelope is another hot point right now for safety and should be considered as well.

PAGE 26

26 One of the survey participants felt compelled to email the author regarding this question. The email stated, Regarding the HVAC duct There is a bit of a challenge to this. Once you lay carpet/paint/ ceiling tiles, it is imperative that the space be conditioned so as not to allow heat and humidity to ruin the products. Running HVAC units circulates debris in the air through the system and infiltrates the duct. We protect the return air diffusers and use high efficiency filters to minimize this, but it is impossible to prevent 100% of the particles. The fifth safety -related question asked, Should all projects have a job-site specific construction worker health and safety plan? Over 80% of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that each project should have a sitespecific construction worker health and safety plan. Expert # 1 (management) agreed that each project should have a site specific construction worker health and safety plan. H e stated that having a job-site specific construction worker health and safety plan should be dependant on the size of the job. The current project that the expert is working on is a 30,000 square foot project and he felt that it did not require a specifi c safety plan. The expert stated that large scale projects should always have a site specific construction worker health and safety plan for job -site layout, accessibility, and an evacuation plan. S ite s pecific safety plans should also be on projects of a complicated nature and projects with high worker density. Expert # 2 (safety) and expert # 3 (field) strongly agreed that every project should have a job-site specific construction worker health and safety plan. These experts stated that OSHA will ma ndate this soon. The expert stated that every project is

PAGE 27

27 different with different safety issues occurring on every project warranting that each should have its own health and safety plan. A ll projects should have a safety manual that is specific to that project because all projects are completely different ly Different materials are used on projects and some can be very hazardous. If a chemical or material is hazardous it needs to have a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). Evacuation plans will be diff erent on every project. During renovations or when a building is partially occupied during construction, an Interim Life Safety Measures (ISLM) plan needs to be in place. The ISLM plan is only geared toward the occupants and not for the construction work ers. Projects are constantly changing so the Life Safety Plan needs to be constantly updated and discussed with all of the workers onsite. T aking additional safety measures like this should be added into the LEED rating system so that more companies wil l follow through with it. Adding Safety into LEED The question was asked, Should construction worker health and safety be added into the LEED rating system? The majority (68.6%) of the respondents were either neutral or disagreed (at some level) that construction worker health and safety should be added into the LEED rating system (Figure 514). Expert # 1 (management) agreed that construction worker health and safety should be added into the LEED rating system. This expert stated that s afety is the most important aspect of a construction project and anything that will help promote saf ety should be done. He stated that in his opinion it will never be done because not all parties involved in the construction process will agree with this. Expert # 2 (safety) and expert # 3 (field) strongly agreed that construction worker health and safety should be added into the LEED rating system. They said anything

PAGE 28

28 that mandates safety should be implemented. If construction worker health and safety were added in to LEED it would get the owner invested in safety. Money controls the construction business and anything that will get the owner invested in safety will help. If the owner gets involved that will then get the architect involved with safety in the desig n phase. Also, if the owner is invested in safety through LEED the contractor will have an incentive to select subcontractors with strong safety record s and this will enhance project safety. He further stated that adding safety into LEED would add more incentive to have a safe job-site which is great because most companies will not take the initiative to be safe Most companies will only do what is asked of them because of time and money. Several survey participants sent the author their thoughts abou t this particular question. There was one positive or supporting response regarding this issue. I applaud your study and I am always one to share my opinion. I am a tree hugger and a green guy; 3.0 is an improvement, but I believe that the LEED movement is not directed in the correct direction. I work for a company that recycles whether there are points involved or not, tries to utilize indigenous materials, sustainable materials are always thought of as paramount, and beyond our mantra of Integrity, Qu ality and Partnership we sell SAFETY! With over 1,000,000 manhours worked and an EMR of .61, that speaks volumes. This is all just good smart business. All of the elements that you noted being considered should be mentioned and embedded in the p recons truction process; its just good responsible spec writing and an admirable construction practice. Five negative responses about adding safety into the LEED rating system were received from the participants. Please let Safety Education on the jobsite be handled without adding further restrictive requirements. Specific safety measures for key systems in the LEED ratings might be worth considering but for general construction this is probably impractical.

PAGE 29

29 Honestly, I dont think adding construction worker health and safety to the LEED rating system is necessary. Its already part of the rating system when you look at the low emitting materials credits. It is aimed not only at the well being of the building occupants but also the material installers. Outside of this, worker safety is already mandated by the construction industry. To me, being green is going above and beyond whats already required by law/code. How can you go above and beyond the existing requirements of keeping everyone safe? Couple of th ings to consider. OSHA already requires safety oversight; in addition, most workers compensation insurance providers either require additional safety measures, or encourage it with incentives they frequently spot check jobsites and contractors do not w ant their rates to go up so they abide by their rules. Adding LEED to the mix unnecessarily increases the layers of bureaucracy that contractors contend with and also deflects the original purpose of LEED, which is to build in an environmentally sustainable manne r, and focus on energy consumption. Safety requirements (OSHA) can be such a complex process that my early opinion is that putting it in the LEED process may lead to confusion, conflicts, and be impractical to implement. In the survey the quest ion was asked, If safety were added into LEED should it be a required prerequisite or an optional credit? Over 42% of the respondents did not feel that safety should be added into the LEED rating system. The remainder of the respondents slightly favored safety being included as an optional credit. Of the respondents that felt safety should be added into LEED as an optional credit, the majority suggested that the safety inclusion should be worth 1 to 3 points. The three experts were unanimous in thei r opinions that safety should be added as a required prerequisite. They stated that safety should be a mandatory requirement and not something to be regarded as a bonus or reward. Safety should not carry any weight in the LEED rating system ; it should just be required. Also, safety should be a prerequisite because it will put pressure on the owners to get buy in from their contractors. This will result in the owner s getting better quality subcontractors.

PAGE 30

30 The question was asked, If safety was added into the LEED rating system, should it be a new category or added into an existing category? Of the respondents that felt safety should be added into LEED, the majority felt that safety should be added as a new category (Figure 517). The three experts felt that safety should be added into LEED as a new category. The reason the experts gave for adding safety as a new category was that if safety were added into the LEED rating system it should be done thoroughly. Safety is a big topic with lots of issues to cover and it require s an entire new category to cover it adequately S afety should have a new category so that it does not get left off. Expert # 2 (safety) stated that sustainability should be for the work force and not just for the bui lding. S afety best practices are anything that goes above and beyond OSHA regulations and that is how safety should be incorporated into LEED. LEED practices are on a higher standard, and that is how safety should be added, namely by doing things that are not mandated but that go beyond the regulations to enhance safety. An example would be to require safety glasses to always be worn on -site, or that seat bests should always be worn on all equipment regardless of exceptions in the regulations Further Analysis: In this further analysis section, the intent is to show key relationships that were identified between the responses for different questions. The responses related to safety are compared with the response regarding adding construction worker safety to LEED. Also, the levels of understanding of the LEED requirements are compared with the responses regarding adding construction worker safety to LEED. Out of the sev enteen questions in the survey, four were specifically targeted toward safety in construction. T hese questions consisted of the following:

PAGE 31

31 Safety concerns should be considered and designed for in the preconstruction phase? Promoting construction worker safety should be continuously supported on the job -site? A safety representative should be continuously on-site? All projects should have a job-site specific construction worker health and safety plan? These questions solicited answers ranging from 1 to 5 for strongly disagree to strongly agree. From these four questions a new variable, called SafetyScore, was created that was an aggregate of the four responses This new variable was assumed to reflect the overall commitment of each respondent to safety. Since there are 4 questions each with possible answers ranging from 1 to 5, the poss ible range of the values of the SafetyScore was from a low value of 4 (if all answers were rated as 1) to 20 ( if all answers were rated as 5). The actual sums or values of SafetyScore ranged from 6 to 20. Since SafetyScore consisted of the aggregate sum s of four safety -related questions, those respondents with the highest values were assumed to be those with the strongest commitment to safety while those with the lowest scores were assumed to have the least commitment to safety. SafetyScore was examined in terms of the responses given to the question, Construction worker health and safety should be added to the LEED rating system ? This latter question also solicited answers from 1 to 5 for strongly disagree to strongly agree. Of the respondents 93 had a S afety Score of less than 15 and their mean score to th e question about adding safety to the LEED rating was below average at 2. 27. This shows that the respondents that did not feel strongly about safety also did not feel that safety should not be adde d to the LEED rating system. On the other extreme, a total of

PAGE 32

32 110 respondents had a SafetyS core of 19 or 20 and their mean score to this question was above average at 3.32 (Figure 5 -18) This shows that the respondents who felt strongly about safety also fe lt more strongly about adding safe ty to LEED. A test of these 2 means was conducted and the z value was computed to be 6.27 revealing that the differences of the two means are statistically significant at the level of less than .001. A closer examinat ion was conducted of the responses given for the two questions Rate the importance of supporting LEED practices for all projects, and Construction worker health and safety should be added to the LEED rating system? The analysis showed that the more s upportive the respondents were of the LEED practices the higher the mean value of the responses for adding safety into LEED. Of the respondents 231 felt supportive of the LEED practices and they had an above average mean score of 3.08 for adding safety into LEED. Of the respondents 60 did not support LEED practices and they had a below average mean score of 2.08 for adding safety into LEED. A test of these 2 means was conducted and the z value was computed to be 6.13. Based on the z value the result s showed a statistically significant difference between the two means. Further analysis was conducted with the responses to the question, Are you familiar with the United States Green Building Council and the LEED process? The responses were compared wi th those regarding the addition of construction worker health and safety into the LEED rating system. Of the respondents 422 were familiar with the LEED process and they had a below average mean score of 2.79 for adding safety to the LEED rating system. A total of 34 respondents were not familiar with the

PAGE 33

33 LEED rating system and they had an above average mean score of 3 .44 for adding safety to LEED. A test of the difference of these two means revealed that the difference was statistically significant, wit h a z value of 3.129. A further evaluation was conducted with the responses to the question, Are you a LEED Accredited Professional? These responses were examined in comparison with the responses to questions concerning the support for adding constructi on worker health and safety into the LEED rating system. Of the respondents, 181 were LEED Accredited Professionals and they had a below average mean score of 2.56 for adding safety into LEED. A total of 271 respondents were not LEED Accredited and they had an above average mean score of 3.02 in favor of adding safety into LEED. A test of the difference of these two means revealed that the difference was statistically significant, with a z value of 3.95. Additional analysis of three LEED -related question s was conducted by creat ing a new variable that was an aggregate of the responses from three LEED questions This new variable represented the level of familiar ity that the respondents had with LEED. The questions were, Are you familiar with the United States Green Building Council and the LEED process?, Number of LEED projects you have worked on and Are you a LEED Accredited Professional The response to the second question about the number of LEED projects was recoded to simply indicate whether LEED projects had been worked on or not. Thus, the lowest LEED familiarity variable scores represented respondents who were most familiar with LEED and higher scores represented a lower level of familiarity with LEED. The results show ed that 138 respondents were very familiar with LEED and they had a below average mean score of 2.54 for adding safety

PAGE 34

34 to LEED. A total of 27 respondents were considered to not be familiar with LEED and they had an above average mean score of 3.62 for adding safety into LEED. A test of the difference of these two means revealed that the difference was statistically significant, with a z value of 4.359.

PAGE 35

35 Figure 51. Respondents by type of company

PAGE 36

36 Figure 52. Respondents by annual volume of their firms

PAGE 37

37 Figure 53. Prim ary position

PAGE 38

38 Figure 54. Years of personal construction experience

PAGE 39

39 Figure 55. Familiarity with the USGBC and the LEED process

PAGE 40

40 Figure 56. Number of LEED projects worked on

PAGE 41

41 Figure 57. LEED Accredited Professional status

PAGE 42

42 Figure 58. Suppor ting LEED practices for all projects

PAGE 43

43 Figure 59. Safety concerns in the preconstruction phase

PAGE 44

44 Figure 510. Promoting construction worker safety on the job-site

PAGE 45

45 Figure 511. Safety representative continuously on-site

PAGE 46

46 Figure 512. Protecting ducts an d airways on every job

PAGE 47

47 Figure 513. Job-site specific construction worker health and safety plan

PAGE 48

48 Figure 514. Adding worker health and safety to the LEED rating system

PAGE 49

49 Figure 515. Safety should be a Required Prerequisite or Optional Credit

PAGE 50

50 Figure 5 16. How many points for worker health and safety

PAGE 51

51 Figure 517. Existing category or new category Figure 518. SafetyScore vs. Adding Safety into LEED

PAGE 52

52 Figure 519. Comparison of the importance of LEED vs. adding safety to the LEED rating system Figure 520. Comparison of familiarity with LEED vs. adding safety to the LEED rating system

PAGE 53

53 Figure 521. Comparison of LEED Accredited Professionals vs. adding safety to the LEED rating system Figure 522. LEED Familiarity vs. Adding Safety into LEED

PAGE 54

54 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS The results of the interviews with experts would indicat e that there is support for adding construction worker health and safety into the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ( LEED ) rating system. The results from th e survey show that most respondents do not favor adding safety into LEED. When professionals in the construction industry that support LEED practices are singled out in the survey, the results show that they agree with adding worker health and safety into LEED. Note that it is not intuitive because individuals who are familiar with LEED tend to oppose including safety and health in the LEED rating. It is concluded that individuals who have studied the LEED requirements and have become familiar with them are reluctant to see the rating system change. Individuals who are the most knowledgeable with LEED do not support adding safety to the LEED rating. It is assumed that individuals who work on LEED projects do not want the added burden of factoring in saf ety and having to learn a new process. Those individuals who are not very familiar with LEED are more likely to support the incorporation of safety in LEED. It is concluded that this opinion is based on a more philosophical viewpoint. Construction profes sionals who are the most safety conscious are more supportive of adding construction worker health and safety into the LEED rating system than people who are less safety conscious. This is probably because the professionals who are very safety oriented want to promote safety in any way that they can, i.e., including safety in the LEED rating system further promotes their objective of promoting safety. Of the respondents that felt that construction worker health and safety should be added to the LEED rati ng system, the majority felt that safety should be for optional

PAGE 55

55 credits and that is should not be a required prerequisite. The same individuals who felt that safety should be added as optional credits felt that safety should only be worth 1 to 3 points. The individuals who were more neutral about adding worker safety into LEED do not want to see safety as something required in the LEED scorecard. The respondents that strongly agreed that safety should be added into LEED also felt strongly that safety sho uld be a required prerequisite. This is because the safety oriented construction professionals want to make sure that safety would be required and not just something optional for points. Of the respondents that felt safety should be added to LEED the maj ority felt that safety should be a new category and not added into an existing category. Apparently, respondents feel that safety does not belong in an existing category: it should have a new category. Also, the respondents who felt safety should be added to LEED are those who are less familiar with the LEED system. This means that the respondents may not have been fully knowledgeable about what they were answering. The results of the survey were not as expected, as it was assumed that most respondents would favor adding safety in the LEED rating. The majority of the respondents feel strongly about safety and they feel strongly about LEED, but do not want to see the two objectives merged in a common measure. From the results of the survey, it can be c oncluded that professionals in the construction industry do not want to be burdened by adding worker health and safety into the LEED rating system.

PAGE 56

56 CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDATIONS To continue with this study further research will need to be done with other pa rties in the construction process. Additional surveys should be conducted with architects, engineers, safety professionals and owners to find out if they have any motivation to add construction worker health and safety into the Leadership in Energy and En vironmental Design ( L EED ) rating system. It is recommended that the first step is to conduct an owners survey since the owner is the primary party who chooses to pursue LEED certific ation for their projects. A similar survey could be conducted with empl oyees of different development companies. The results of the owners survey should determine if they are willing to spend extra money to support safety in construction. If the research shows that there is more support among owners to add worker health an d safet y into LEED, then the architects, engineers, contractors, and subcontractors would also support it because it will be mandated. Another suggestion is to devise a LEED rating scheme with safety integrated into the final number. This could be implemented as a pilot study on a construction project to assess the pros and cons of adding safety to the rating. An additional study could also be done with individuals in the construction industry who are familiar with the Green Globes System. Green Globe s is a building environmental design and management tool very similar to LEED. Professionals in the construction industry that follow Green Globes practices might have a different outlook about adding construction worker health and safety into their ratin g system.

PAGE 57

57 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT M.E. Rinker, Sr., School of Building Construction P.O. Box 115703, Gainesville, FL 32601 Informed Consent Dear Construction Expert I am a graduate student at the University of Florida pursuing my Masters of Building Construction. As part of my thesis resea rch I am conducting an interview, the purpose of which is to show that there is a need and demand to add construction worker health and safety to the LEED rating system. I am asking you to participate i n this interview because you have been identified as an expert in the construction industry. Interviewees will be asked to participate in an interview lasting no longer than 30 minutes. The structure of the interview is enclosed with this letter. You will not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. Your interview will be conducted by phone or at your office after I have received a copy of this signed consent from you in the mail or signed inperson. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law and your identity will not be revealed in the final manuscript. There are no anticipated risks, compensation or other direct benefits to you as a participant in this interview. You are free to withdraw your consent to participat e and may discontinue your participation in the interview at any time without consequence. If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me at (678) 6429686 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Jimmie Hinze, at (352) 273-1167. Questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant rights may be directed to the IRB02 office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611; (352) 392 0433. Please sign and return this copy of the letter in the enclosed envelope. A secon d copy is provided for your records. By signing this letter, you give me permission to report your responses anonymously in the final manuscript to be submitted to my faculty supervisor as part of my thesis. Kyle Frandsen _________________________________ __________________ I have read the procedure described above for the Thesis Research Interview. I voluntarily agree to participate in the interview and I have received a copy of this description. ____________________________ ___________ Signature of part icipant Date

PAGE 58

58 I would like to receive a copy of the final "interview" manuscript submitted to the instructor. YES / NO

PAGE 59

59 APPENDIX B SURVEY CONSENT & SUR VEY The purpose of this study is to prove that there is a demand to add worker health and safety to the LEED rating system. Thank you very much for taking the time to fill out this survey. The survey will only take five minutes at most. Please answer the questions to the best of your knowledge. There will be no direct risk or benefit involved in p articipating in this study. No compensation will be provided if you participate. Your identity will be kept completely confidential. You will have the right to withdraw from this study at anytime without consequence. By filling out this survey you ar e giving your voluntary consent to participate in this study. If you have any questions you may contact: Kyle Frandsen, LEED AP (Graduate Student), Rinker School of Building Construction, kylefrandsen@yahoo.c om I you have any questions about your rights as a research participant please contact: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 -2250; phone 352-3920433. Please circle your answers 1. Company type General Contractor Subcontractor Other 2. Volume of work Less than $5 million $5 million to $25 million $25 million to $500 million $500 million + 3. What is your primary position? Management (Upper Management, Project Manager, Project Engineer) Safety Operations Preconstruct ion Field Supervision (Foreman, Field Engineer, Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents)

PAGE 60

60 General Labor Skilled Labor Other 4. Years of personal construction experience 0 5 6 10 11 15 15 + 5. Are you familiar with the United States Green Building Council and the LEED process? Yes No 6. Number of LEED projects you have worked on None 1 3 4 6 7 + 7. Are you a LEED Accredited Professional Yes No 8. Rate the importance of supporting LEED practices for all projects. Least Important 1 2 3 4 5 Mos t Important 9. Safety concerns should be considered and designed for in the preconstruction phase. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree 10. Promoting construction worker safety should be continuously supported on the jobsite. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree 11. A safety representative should continuously be on-site. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree 12. Protecting ducts and airways from moisture, dust, VOCs, particulates, and microbes that result from construction activities s hould be considered on every job. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree 13. All projects should have a job-site specific construction worker health and safety plan. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

PAGE 61

61 14. Construction worker health and safety should be added to the LEED rating system. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree 15. If safety were added to the LEED rating system should it be a: Required Prerequisite Optional Credit Safety should not be added to the LEED rating system 16. If you chose Optional Credit in the previous question then how many total points should worker health and safety have? The new LEED rating system has 110 possible points. 1 3 4 6 7 10 I did not choose Credit for question 15 17. If construction work er health and safety were added to the LEED rating system it should be: Added to an existing category (Indoor Environmental Quality or Innovation and Design) Create a new Worker Health and Safety category It should not be added into the LEED rating system

PAGE 62

62 LIST OF REFERENCES Gambatese, J. A., Rajendran, S., and Behm, M. G. (2007). "Green Design & Construction." Prof.Saf., 52(5), 2835. Hinze, J., Godfrey, R., and Sullivan, J. (2010). Integration of Construction Worker Safety and Health in the Assessment of Sustainable Construction. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 1 -24. Ivanovich, M. (2008). "LEEDing construction safety a Natural Step." Consult.Specif., 43(6), 7-7. Kibert, C., (2008). Sustainable Construction Green Building Des ign and Delivery 2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. Silins, N. (2009). "LEED & the Safety Profession: Green Has Come of Age." Prof.Saf., 54(3), 4649.

PAGE 63

63 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kyle Gregory Frandsen was born in Charleston, South Carolina in 1983. He graduated from Harrison High School in 2001. He then went on to graduate from the University of Georgia with a degree in Consumer Economics in fall of 2005. After graduation Kyle worked for two and a half years and then decided to pursue hi s masters d egree at the University of Florida. In the fall of 2008 Kyle started his m asters at the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction. Kyle Interned at PPI Construction Management for the entire duration of his time at Rinker. Kyle will graduate from the prestigious M.E. Rinker Sr. School of Building Construction with a 3. 8 GPA. Upon completion of his masters d egree, Kyle plans to start his career in construction at Bechtel working in Colorado as a Quality Assurance Engineer.