<%BANNER%>

Contractor Issues Resulting from Green Building

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042170/00001

Material Information

Title: Contractor Issues Resulting from Green Building
Physical Description: 1 online resource (73 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Mcvinney, Michael
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: certification, construction, contractor, cost, estimate, green, issues, leed, money, schedule, sustainability, time
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: The green building movement has been around for generations, however, only recently has it gained world wide recognition. Regardless of the reasoning, whether because of the financial benefits or governmental regulation, over the last two decades it has grown at an exponential and record braking rate. Whether they truly want to or not, contractors are constructing green building projects. As a result, these contractors are experiencing problems specifically because of the green building factors that are involved. The intent of this research was to develop a set of green building factors that are found within a construction project. Furthermore, this research determined the relative importance of the green building factors in regard to negatively impacting the contractor s cost and schedule. From the perspective of People, Project, and Process, fourteen green building factors were created to describe the characteristics of a green building project. Based on this information, a survey was designed and subsequently distributed to contractors to obtain information about their personal experience with green building projects. The respondents recorded the importance of each factor s occurrence. The research yielded the following fourteen factors that describe the characteristics of a green building project: Upper Management, Project Manager, Superintendent, Craftsmen, Materials, Innovation, Design Complexity, Construction Complexity, Scheduling, Estimating, Scope Definition, Expectations, Plans and Specifications, and Operating Procedures. After analyzing the data from the survey, it was determined that the green building factors that most negatively impact the contractor s cost and schedule were the Project Manager, Materials, Estimating, and Operating Procedures.
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 Michael Mcvinney.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Flood, Ian.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042170:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042170/00001

Material Information

Title: Contractor Issues Resulting from Green Building
Physical Description: 1 online resource (73 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Mcvinney, Michael
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: certification, construction, contractor, cost, estimate, green, issues, leed, money, schedule, sustainability, time
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: The green building movement has been around for generations, however, only recently has it gained world wide recognition. Regardless of the reasoning, whether because of the financial benefits or governmental regulation, over the last two decades it has grown at an exponential and record braking rate. Whether they truly want to or not, contractors are constructing green building projects. As a result, these contractors are experiencing problems specifically because of the green building factors that are involved. The intent of this research was to develop a set of green building factors that are found within a construction project. Furthermore, this research determined the relative importance of the green building factors in regard to negatively impacting the contractor s cost and schedule. From the perspective of People, Project, and Process, fourteen green building factors were created to describe the characteristics of a green building project. Based on this information, a survey was designed and subsequently distributed to contractors to obtain information about their personal experience with green building projects. The respondents recorded the importance of each factor s occurrence. The research yielded the following fourteen factors that describe the characteristics of a green building project: Upper Management, Project Manager, Superintendent, Craftsmen, Materials, Innovation, Design Complexity, Construction Complexity, Scheduling, Estimating, Scope Definition, Expectations, Plans and Specifications, and Operating Procedures. After analyzing the data from the survey, it was determined that the green building factors that most negatively impact the contractor s cost and schedule were the Project Manager, Materials, Estimating, and Operating Procedures.
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 Michael Mcvinney.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Flood, Ian.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042170:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





CONTRACTOR ISSUES RESULTING FROM GREEN BUILDING


By

MICHAEL RYAN MCVINNEY




















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 Michael Ryan McVinney
































To my mom and dad









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First of all, my mom and dad played a fundamental role throughout my educational

achievements. Whenever I needed anything at all, my mom has always selflessly

dropped everything to make me her first priority. When in a pickle, my dad always gave

me the most valuable advice I could ever receive. If it wasn't for their support I wouldn't

have been able to complete my education. I thank both of them for being extremely

successful parents.

I thank my other parents, Scott and Keri Herring for always making me feel

welcome in their beautiful home and stocked kitchen. I am forever grateful for the

generosity and thoughtfulness they have shown me throughout my educational career. I

also thank Scott and Keri for producing such an equally beautiful and kindhearted

daughter. Kelly has been by my side since the very beginning of my educational

endeavor and if it were not for her patience and selflessness, I would have given up a

long time ago. I will always love her for who she is and how she made me who I am

today.

I thank my most recent best friend Murphy. Whether by means of thought or

presence, Murphy has never failed to bring a smile to my face. The same can be said

about most of my experiences with all my friends and family. The good times and good

memories I have experience with them is what has kept me pushing forward through

academia and life.

Lastly, I thank professors like Dr. Ries, Dr. Flood, and Dr. Lucas for having an

open-door teaching philosophy that encourages young minds to expand on an

educational and personal level. Students like me are lucky and should be grateful for

having the opportunity to interact with professors like you.









TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

A C KNOW LEDG M ENTS .......... ..................... ....... .. ......................................... 4

LIST O F TA B LES .......... ..... ..... .................. ............................................. ...... .. 7

LIS T O F F IG U R E S .................................................................. 8

A BSTRACT ........... ........ ............................................................. ..... 9

CHAPTER

1 INT R O D U C T IO N ............................................................................................. 11

Background of the Problem ......... ........ ......................... 11
Purpose of the Study ......................... .......... ....... ............... 12
A im .......................................................................................................................... 1 2
Hypothesis Statement........................................... ............... 12
Research Objectives ............. ............................... 13
S c o p e ........................................................................................ ... ...... .... 1 3
Research Methodology .................. ............................. 13
Lim stations .............. .................................................................................. 14

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................... ........................... 15

The Environmental Impacts of Buildings .......... ...... ......................... 15
Sustainable Construction and Green Building ...... ........................................ 16
Potential Benefits of Green Building ...................... ... .................. 16
History of the Green Building Movement ...................... ................... 17
Building Assessment Systems.............. ........ .................... 23
LE E D .................... ....................................................................... ...... 24
G reen G lobes ..................................................................... .......... ................ 25
Foreign Building Assessment Systems ................................................. 26
Green Legislation........................ ......... 27
W ashington D.C. .............. .. ....................... ............ ...... 28
New York City................................... ............... 28
Gainesville.................... .... ......... 30
LEED Investment Trends...................................................... 31
Characteristics of a Construction Project ......... ....... ................. 34
P eo p le ............... ............................................................................... 34
P roje ct .................................................................................................. 3 5
P ro ce ss ............... ................................................................... ...... 3 6









3 SURVEY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY................................................... 42

Sample Selection ............... ......... .................. 42
Survey Design ................ ......... ................... 42
P e o p le .............. ..... ............ ................. ............................................. 4 3
P ro je c t .............. ..... ............ ................. ............................................. 4 5
P process .................................................................... ................. 46
Pre-construction planning ............................ ............. 46
Construction contract ................... .... ..... ........................ 46
In itia l D ata A na lysis .......................... ........... ......... .......................... 4 8
Final Data Analysis ........................ ......... ........... 48

4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS .................... ....................... 51

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... ........ ...... .................. 55

A im and H hypothesis ....... .................................................... .............. 55
Research Objectives ...... ........................ .......... ........ 55
Recommendations for Future Study .................................................... 57
Sample Characteristics...................... ........ ......... 57
Survey Design ......................................... ........................... 57

APPENDIX

A SURVEY ............ ........................................................ 59

B SURVEY RESULTS ............. ............................. 65

LIST O F R EFER ENC ES ......... ...................... ............... ............... 71

BIO G RA PH ICAL SKETC H ....................................................... ............... 73









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Maximum points within each LEED category ................................................. 37

2-2 Points required for LEED-NC 2.2 certification level ....................................... 37

2-3 Maximum points within each green globe category................. .................. 37

2-4 Percentage required for green globe certification level.................................... 38

4-1 Frequency of occurrence of green building factors................. .............. ....... 52

4-2 Mean and standard deviation values of green building factors........................... 53

4-3 Contingency table: Importance rating by green building factor....................... 53

4-4 Chi-squared matrix worksheet: Importance rating by green building factor........ 54









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

2-1 Share of LEED rating systems in all registrations (as of March 2009) ............... 38

2-2 Achieved levels of LEED certification (as of March 2009) ............................ 39

2-3 Distribution of credits achieved and certification levels (as of March 2009)....... 39

2-4 Distribution of certification levels 2000-2008 ............... ........ ...... ............... 40

2-5 Number of certified LEED buildings (2008) ............... ......... ...... ............... 40

2-6 The changing composition of organizations and companies seeking LEED
ce rtificatio n ................................................. .................... 4 0

2-7 People aspect of construction project characteristics from Diekmann and
Girard .... ............. ............................. 41

2-8 Project branch of hierarchy from Diekmann and Girard.............................. 41

2-9 Process branch of hierarchy from Diekmann and Girard.............................. 41

3-1 Structure of the green building project characteristics ................... .............. 50

5-1 Structure of the green building project characteristics ................... .............. 58

5-2 Mean value of green building factor from highest to lowest in each category..... 58









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

CONTRACTOR ISSUES RESULTING FROM GREEN BUILDING

By

Michael Ryan McVinney

August 2010

Chair: lan Flood
Major: Building Construction

The green building movement has been around for generations, however, only

recently has it gained world wide recognition. Regardless of the reasoning, whether

because of the financial benefits or governmental regulation, over the last two decades

it has grown at an exponential and record breaking rate. Whether they truly want to or

not, contractors are constructing green building projects. As a result, these contractors

are experiencing problems specifically because of the green building factors that are

involved. The intent of this research was to develop a set of green building factors that

are found within a construction project. Furthermore, this research determined the

relative importance of the green building factors in regard to negatively impacting the

contractor's cost and schedule.

From the perspective of People, Project, and Process, fourteen green building

factors were created to describe the characteristics of a green building project. Based

on this information, a survey was designed and subsequently distributed to contractors

to obtain information about their personal experience with green building projects. The

respondents recorded the importance of each factor's occurrence.









The research yielded the following fourteen factors that describe the

characteristics of a green building project: Upper Management, Project Manager,

Superintendent, Craftsmen, Materials, Innovation, Design Complexity, Construction

Complexity, Scheduling, Estimating, Scope Definition, Expectations, Plans and

Specifications, and Operating Procedures. After analyzing the data from the survey, it

was determined that the green building factors that most negatively impact the

contractor's cost and schedule were the Project Manager, Materials, Estimating, and

Operating Procedures.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The building construction industry is responsible for consuming an enormous

amount of the world's natural resources. These natural resources are being consumed

at a much faster rate than they are being replenished. This situation has been identified

and people and businesses are starting to adopt a more sustainable way of life. One

example of sustainability within the building construction industry is green building.

Because there has been a shift towards green building, there are organizations that

have created certifications that identify, measure, and rate the success of a building's

sustainable strategies. As a result, more and more building contractors are

encountering projects that are implementing green building strategies as well as green

building certification.

Background of the Problem

The green building movement has grown a significant amount in a short period of

time. Given its exponential growth rate and its governmental adoption across the

county, the green building movement is upon us. For example, from 1998 to 2008, the

number of LEED certified buildings has nearly doubled each year in both number and

area (Kibert 2008). Furthermore, individual green strategies such as photovoltaics and

solar hot water heaters are being implemented at a growing rate also.

Given the combination of the inherent competitiveness of the bidding process and

the current state of the economy, building contractors are becoming involved in more

and more green building contracts. Regardless of whether or not they want to pursue

these green contracts, many companies are forced to bid, simply for the sake of staying

in business. In this type of situation, contractors must venture away from their traditional









and familiar markets and methods. During this period of survival and process of

adaptation, many risks are taken and many mistakes are made.

Purpose of the Study

Within the building construction industry, contractors are always taking risks; this is

simply the nature of the industry. A common type of risk occurs when a contractor

agrees to perform a specific job that requires materials or processes that are new or

unfamiliar to the contractor. In cases like this, mistakes are made and they must be

accounted for and corrected.

This study focused on the issues that arise due specifically to the implementation

of green building strategies in regard to the contractor. In order to classify the factors

involved, the contractor's entire construction endeavor was broken down into three

many categories: People, Project, and Process. Within these three categories, several

factors were established to determine their role in respect to the creation of issues

related to green building. The relative importance of each factor was determined from

the results of a survey. Lastly, suggestions were made for further study.

Aim

The objective of this study was to determine the relative importance of a set of

criterion that create issues and have a negative effect on the contractor's cost and

schedule, specifically because green building practices were involved.

Hypothesis Statement

The null hypothesis was defined as:

Ho = A common set of green building factors that have a negative impact on the

contractor's cost and schedule exist.









Research Objectives

* How can the contractor's entire construction endeavor be categorized in a manner
that will help identify the root cause of a green building related issue?

* What types of green building related issues does the contractor encounter?

* Who or what causes the contractor to experience a green building related issue?

* Which factors involved in the construction process deserve the most attention in
order to streamline the green building process for the contractor?

* What knowledge or experience is advantageous to a contractor that is entering
into a green building contract?

Scope

The study focused on the impacts of green building on the contractor specifically.

Currently there is material that aide some of the other parties involved in the

construction process, however there is a lack of information directed towards

contractors. Also, the individuals within the target audience were employees of large to

mid size general contractors and subcontractors. The targeted individuals and

companies were both experts and novices within the green building realm.

Research Methodology

As mentioned above, the construction project was analyzed from three different

aspects: People, Project, and Process. Within these three aspects, a total of fourteen

green building factors were created from a review of literature. Then, a survey was sent

out to general contractors and subcontractors to determine the importance of the

fourteen green building factors. The importance was rated according to the participants

past experience with issues related to each green building factor. An "issue" was

defined as any unplanned loss in time or money in regard to the contractor that directly

resulted from a green building practice.









Limitations

Limited range of sample. The questionnaires were sent to contractors with

varying degrees of green building experience. The reason for this approach was to gain

insight about different types of issues occurring with different types of contractors:

novices and experts.

Limited size of sample. The results of this study are based on a relatively small

portion of the construction industry. A much larger sample would produce varying

results.

Subjectivity of the topic. The information was collected from building contractors.

Within the scope of this study, the perception of the "issue" is seen through the

contractor's eyes. Therefore, some answers could be biased as the contractor may take

a defensive position. Likewise, a contractor may be hesitant to divulge the fact that an

issue could have been created internally.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

One of the goals of this review of literature was to give the reader a clear

understanding of the term green building and the concepts behind its practice. However,

before one can truly understand green building and its global movement, one must fully

understand the impacts that the building construction industry has on the environment.

In this review, as the history of the green building movement approaches the recent

past, there are separate sections that describe certain topics in more detail (e.g., green

legislation and building assessment systems). Also, speculations are made through a

comprehensive research about the future trends of LEED. Lastly, a study that was

influential on the development of this research is described.

The Environmental Impacts of Buildings

When dealing with the building construction industry and natural resources, the

quantitative effect can be broken down into three main categories: Energy, Water and

Materials.

Energy. Buildings consume 38.9% of the primary energy use (includes fuel input

for production) in the U.S. and 72% of the electricity consumption (USGBC 2010). Also,

buildings in the U.S. emit a significant portion of the climate changing greenhouse gas

emissions. To be specific, they are responsible for 38% of all CO2 emissions (USGBC

2010).

Water. Buildings represent 13.6% of the entire potable water consumption in this

country, which equates to fifteen trillion gallons of water every year (USGBC 2010).

Materials. Buildings and building components use six billion tons of basic material

for production each year (Kibert 2008). Also, it is estimated that in the year 2003, one









hundred and seventy million tons of building-related construction and demolition debris

was produced in the U.S. and 61% was created by nonresidential sources while the

remaining 39% came from residential sources (USGBC 2010). Lastly, it is estimated

that the U.S. produces almost two hundred and ten million tons of municipal solid waste

each year (USGBC 2010).

Sustainable Construction and Green Building

Often times the terms sustainable construction and green building are used

interchangeably. However, there is a distinct difference and relation between the two

terms. On one hand, the term sustainable construction is a broader term that applies

across the entire life cycle of construction, from planning, design and construction to

operation, maintenance and deconstruction, and how these processes interact with the

surrounding community. "Sustainable construction most comprehensively addresses the

ecological, social, and economic issues of a building in the context of its community"

(Kibert 2008, pg. 6). On the other hand, the term green building refers to the structure

that is created under the concept of sustainable construction. More specifically, it refers

to the actual quality and characteristics of the physical structure that was created using

the principles and methodologies of sustainable construction (Kibert 2008). Sustainable

construction is the system as a whole, while green building is a product of the system.

Potential Benefits of Green Building

The building construction industry is huge and therefore has an equally enormous

impact on the country's economy. According to the USGBC (2010), the construction

industry accounts for 13.4% of the thirteen trillion dollar U.S. GDP. Therefore, many of

the advantages of practicing green building involve financial benefits; however, many

health benefits also exist.









Green buildings save money, they consume less energy and fewer resources, and

they create a healthier and more productive environment for the occupants. On

average, an upfront investment of 2% towards design will yield a life cycle savings of

20% of the total construction costs (Kats 2003). Additionally, according to the GAS

Public Buildings Service (2008), when compared to the average commercial building,

green buildings consume 26% less energy while having 13% lower maintenance costs,

27% higher occupant satisfaction, and 33% less green house gas emissions.

Furthermore, numerous studies have proven that occupant productivity is greater

in a green building. One such study by the Heschong Mahone Group (1999) showed

that students with the most day-lighting in their class rooms progressed 20% faster on

math tests and 26% faster on reading tests in one year than those with less day-lighting.

According to Alder et al. (2006), this is a list of the potential benefits of green

building:

Reduced capital cost
Reduced operating costs
Marketing benefits (free press and product differentiation)
Valuation premiums and enhanced absorption rates
In some cities, streamlined approvals by building and zoning departments
Reduced liability risk
Health and productivity gains
Attracting and retaining employees
Staying ahead of regulations
New business opportunities
Satisfaction from doing the right thing

History of the Green Building Movement

Green building has gained a great deal of momentum in the last ten to fifteen

years. This sudden growth can cause some people to believe that green building is a

new concept. However, there is obvious evidence that proves green building has been









in existence for much longer than a couple decades. In fact, some recent evidence

dates back to the early eighteen hundreds where examples of passive systems such as

roof ventilators and under ground air-cooling chambers were utilized in London's Crystal

Palace and Milan's Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II (Cassidy 2003). These systems

passively moderated the indoor air temperature of their structures. Then, in the early

nineteen hundreds, New York City became home to several influential buildings that

implemented green building practices. For example, the Flatiron Building and the New

York Times Building were designed with deep set windows (Cassidy 2003). The depth

of these types of windows acted as a shading device to protect the building from

infiltration of the sun's rays through the building envelope. As the century went on, other

buildings continued to incorporate similar concepts. In 1932, Rockefeller Center

employed operable windows and sky gardens. Also, the Wainwright Building in St. Louis

and the Carson Pirie Scott Building in Chicago both featured retractable awnings

(Cassidy 2003).

In the early 1970s, in the wake of the OPEC oil embargo, the American Institute of

Architects formed an energy conservation task force. Eventually, in 1975 this task force

became the AIA Committee on Energy. The committee focused on two main areas:

passive systems and technological solutions (Cassidy 2003). In order to cover a much

broader spectrum of environmental concern, in 1989 the AIA division changed its name

to COTE, which stands for the Committee on the Environment (Cassidy 2003). In the

meantime, the practice of green building continued to grow.

By the late 1970s, architect Norman Foster designed the Willis-Faber and Dumas

head office building in Ipswich, England. This influential building was designed with a









grass roof, a day-lighted atrium, and a facade made entirely of bronze-tinted glass

(Watkin 2005). Among other things, these three green design strategies passively and

naturally insulated the building, lit the interior space, and reduced solar heat gain.

During this period, the U.S. government began to set an example for the rest of

the country. In California, eight state office buildings incorporated green building

concepts such as photovoltaics, under-floor rock-store cooling systems, and area

climate-control mechanisms (Cassidy 2003). Concurrently, many different organizations

with similar environmental concerns continued to form throughout the U.S. In 1977, the

Solar Energy Research Institute was founded in Golden, Colorado, while the

Department of Energy was founded by the U.S. government (Cassidy 2003). Eventually,

the Colorado organization later became known as the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory, whose research focused on energy technologies.

As the U.S. began to establish itself within the green building arena, other

countries were doing the same. Internationally, Germany, Malaysia and the U.K. were

revolutionizing the movement with prefabricated energy-efficient wall systems, water-

reclamation systems, and modular construction units that reduced construction waste

(Cassidy 2003). Also, the Scandinavian government passed legislation for workspaces

that set minimums for occupant access to daylight and operable windows (Cassidy

2003). Further international movement was coming from the UN World Commission on

Environment and Development. The commission formally defined the term sustainable

development as that which "meets the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs," (Cassidy 2003, pg. 5). The need

for this formal definition proves the growing importance of the green building movement.









Organizations began to publish material about the growing movement. In 1992, a

guide to building products based on life cycle analysis was published called the AIA

Environmental Resource Guide. Together, COTE and the AIA Scientific Advisory

Committee on the Environment received funding from the Environmental Protection

Agency to compile this list of product evaluations (Cassidy 2003). This was the first

assessment guide in the U.S. to be based on life cycle analysis. This new tool forced

product manufactures to at least consider more environmentally friendly practices. Later

that year, in Rio de Janeiro, the UN Conference on Environment and Development

attracted one hundred and seventy-two government representatives and two thousand

and four hundred representatives from other organizations (Cassidy 2003). Also known

as Earth Summit, this conference passed Agenda 21, which contained statements on

forest principals, climate change, biodiversity, and other topics regarding global

sustainability (Cassidy 2003). This document became known as the Rio Declaration on

Environment and Development. With the momentum from the Earth Summit,

sustainability was the chosen theme of the 1993 UIA/AIA World Congress of Architects

in Chicago. This resulted in the signing of the Declaration of Interdependence for a

Sustainable Future (Cassidy 2003). Dubbed the Architecture at the Crossroads

convention, this event and its declaration was a monumental milestone for the green

building movement.

The movement had garnered so much merit that the federal government began

participating in a major way. On Earth Day in 1993, the greening of the White House

was the first of many federal buildings to join in the movement. To begin, The

Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency conducted an energy









audit on the two hundred year old building. Also, almost one hundred environmentalists,

design professionals, engineers, and government officials participated in several design

charettes to come up with energy efficient alternatives by using off-the-shelf

technologies (Cassidy 2003). After three years of constructing, renovating, and

remodeling, the White House ended up saving three hundred thousand dollars worth of

energy and water savings, landscaping expenses, and solid waste costs annually

(Cassidy 2003). Furthermore, the residence reduced its atmospheric emissions by eight

hundred and forty-five tons of carbon per year (Cassidy 2003).

Many other government buildings and organizations followed suit after the

greening of the White House. Similar actions were taken in regard to the Pentagon, the

Presidio, and fittingly the U.S. Department of Energy Headquarters as well as the Grand

Canyon, Yellowstone, and Denali national parks (Cassidy 2003). Meanwhile, historical

green legislation was being passed by the current president.

As soon as the idea about greening the White House became a reality, President

Clinton issued Executive Order 12852, which established the President's Council on

Sustainable Development. This council consisted of twenty-five people, each of whom

was experienced in industrial, environmental, governmental, or not-for-profit

organizations, whose function was to advise the president on sustainable development

(Exec. Order No. 12852 1993). With the release of a final report in 1999, the council's

work was over. The report described one hundred and forty actions that would improve

the nation's environment; many of which were related to building sustainability (Cassidy

2003).









Right before the Council on Sustainable Development released its findings,

President Clinton was making plans to pass a series of green legislative proceedings.

Between 1998 and 2000, Clinton issued three executive orders that helped continue the

green movement. The first was entitled Executive Order 13101, Greening the

Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition. It stated

that every executive agency must incorporate a waste prevention and recycling plan

and help expand the market of environmentally preferred products, including building

materials (Exec. Order No. 13101 1998).

The second was entitled Executive Order 13123, Green the Government Through

Efficient Energy Management. It stated that it will promote energy efficiency, water

consumption, and the use of renewable energy products, and help foster markets for

emerging technologies through the design, construction, and operation of federal

buildings (Executive Order 13123 1999). Years later in 2007, the existing goals of this

order were strengthened and the scope was extended to include transportation

(Executive Order 13423 2007).

The third was entitled Executive Order 13148, Greening the Government Through

Leadership in Environmental Management. It stated that environmental accountability

must be incorporated into the daily decision making and long term planning processes

of all government agencies (Executive Order 13148 2000).

As time went on, many other government agencies continued to take on pilot

projects similar to what the White House underwent. The General Services

Administration greened a Federal Courthouse in Denver and the Environmental

Protection Agency greened Research Triangle Park in North Carolina. Also, the Navy









boldly took on eight greening projects, one of which included the Naval Facilities

Engineering Command headquarters at the Washington Navy Yard. The results

involved reducing energy consumption by 35% with an annual savings of fifty-eight

thousand dollars on a one hundred and fifty-six thousand square foot structure that was

one hundred and fifty years old (Cassidy 2003). As a result of the presidential orders

describe above, by 2005, organizations such as the Department of Health and Human

Services, Department of State, Environmental Protection Agency, National Park

Service, and the Army, Navy, and Air Force were all major participants in the green

building movement (Adler et al. 2005).

Internationally, the movement continued to grow. In 1998, the Green Building

Challenge held its first conference in Vancouver, British Columbia. The challenge was

to create an international assessment tool that addresses the Triple Bottom Line:

regional and national environmental, economic, and social equity conditions (Cassidy

2003). The first conference attracted representatives from fourteen countries: Austria,

Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway,

Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, the U.K., and the U.S. (Cassidy 2003).

As this narrative reaches the recent past, a more detailed examination of the

different areas of the green building movement is required. Therefore, separate sections

have been created to discuss building assessment systems and green building

legislation throughout the U.S.

Building Assessment Systems

Building assessment systems determine the sustainability of a building's design,

construction, and operation by rating it according to different criteria. All assessment

systems have differences among them; however, for the most part they are very similar.









Some of the general areas that are considered are environmental impacts, resource

consumption, and occupant health. The environmental effects can be evaluated at

several different scales: locally, regionally, nationally, and globally (Kibert 2008). The

resource consumption can be measured in several different units: mass, energy,

volume, parts per million, density, and area (Kibert 2008). The health of the building is

determined by the amount of chemicals and biological substances in relation to

circulating air. The anticipated health and well being of the occupants is also evaluated.

LEED

The first building assessment program to be developed and implemented in the

U.S. was founded by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) in 1998. The

USGBC is a non-profit, non-governmental organization whose members consist of

people from industry, academia, and government as well as other public and private

sector organizations (Kibert 2008). LEED's mission is to encourage and accelerate a

global adoption of sustainable green building and development practices through the

creation and implementation of universally understood and accepted tools and

performance criteria (USGBC 2010).

The first version of LEED, which is now called LEED-New Construction 3.0, was

originally developed for office buildings, but is now used for all types of buildings. In

response to its popularity, the USGBC has developed an entire suite of rating systems

that apply to specific types of projects:

LEED-EB: Existing Buildings Operations
LEED-CI: Commercial Interiors Projects
LEED-CS: Core and Shell Projects
LEED-H: Homes
LEED-ND: Neighborhood Development









Also, the USGBC has created application guides for use on specific building types

within each LEED product (e.g., healthcare facilities, lodging, volume building programs,

multifamily residences, campuses, retail stores, and laboratories) (Kibert 2008).

As of 2009, the majority of LEED certified projects are earned under LEED for

New Construction (LEED-NC), while LEED for Commercial Interiors (LEED-CI) holds

the second largest amount of registered projects (Fuerst 2009). Within the LEED-NC

2.2 product, there are six categories with sixty-nine total possible points. As shown in

Table 2-1, the categories are Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and

Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality, Innovation and

Design Process. Lastly, as shown in Table 2-2, the level of certification is dependent on

the number of points earned. The possible ratings are Certified, Silver, Gold, and

Platinum.

Green Globes

Created by the Green Building Initiative (GBI), it is a variation of the Canadian

certification called The Building Research Establishment Energy and Environmental

Assessment Method, which is abbreviated as BREEAM (Smith et al. 2006). According

to the same source, Green Globes aims to satisfy some of the criticisms of the LEED

process; meaning that it is more flexible, user friendly, and inexpensive. Also, in 2005,

the GBI was accredited as a standards developer by the American National Standards

Institute (ANSI). This made them the first green building organization to obtain an

accreditation of this type and the GBI subsequently began establishing Green Globes

as an official ANSI standard (Kibert 2008).

The rating levels range from one to four Green Globes, which is dependent on the

percentage of points that the project achieves out of a maximum of one thousand









possible points. The categories within the rating system are Energy, Indoor

Environment, Site, Water, Resources, Emissions, and Project/Environmental

Management. Both of these Green Globe characteristics are shown in Table 2-3 and

Table 2-4.

Foreign Building Assessment Systems

LEED and Green Globes are predominately used in North America. However,

throughout the world, other countries have developed their own rating system. Some of

the more popular ones are BREEAM, Green Star, CASBEE, and BCA Green Mark

Scheme.

Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)

was implemented in 1988 by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in the United

Kingdom. This building assessment system has been around the longest and according

to Kibert (2008), prior to the existence of LEED, BREEAM was the most successful

system. As stated on their website, BREEAM is available in the U.K., the Gulf, and

Europe. With over one hundred and ten thousand buildings certified and over five

hundred thousand registered, it is the most widely used green building assessment

method (BREEAM 2009).

Green Star was implemented in 2003 by the Green Building Council of Australia

(GBCA). It covers the same fundamental areas that LEED and BREEAM cover and

similarly, it has specific products for different types of projects. For example, there are

tools for education, healthcare, multi-unit residential, industrial, office, office interiors

and retail projects (BGCA 2010). Also, the GBCA is currently in the process of

developing different tools for each phase of the building's life cycle. Currently, office









design is in its second version while convention centre design is it its pilot stage (BGCA

2010).

Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency

(CASBEE) was implemented in 2001 by the Japan Green Build Council (JaGBC) and

the Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC). New Construction, Existing

Buildings, and Renovation are three assessment tools that are currently being

implemented on office, residential, academic, industrial, and governmental buildings

throughout Japan and Asia (CASBEE 2009). They also have a pre-design tool; however

it is still under development. Lastly, they have created areas of concentration that can

be applied to each of the tools. For instance, there are options that address heat island

effect and regional impact specifically (CASBEE 2009).

Green Mark Scheme was implemented in 2005 by the Building and Construction

Authority (BCA) of Singapore. The Green Mark Scheme offers many of the same tools

as the other assessment systems; however, it does explore some new areas. There are

tools for new and existing parks, infrastructure, and district projects (BCA 2006).

Green Legislation

Presently, more than fifty cities and several states across the country have

mandated standards based on the LEED rating system (Fuerst 2009). Some of the

major municipalities include Atlanta, Austin, Boston Boulder, Chicago, Dallas, Los

Angeles, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, and Seattle (City of New York

2005). Some of the states include California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts,

New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island (City of New York 2005).









Washington D.C.

The Green Building Act of 2006 made Washington D.C. the first major U.S. city to

require private projects to earn LEED certification. The act incorporated high-

performance building standards into the current local building codes by mandating

several LEED products and ENERGY STAR. The goals of this act were:

To establish high-performance building standards that require the planning,
design, construction, operation, and maintenance of building projects; to
establish a green building incentives program that includes an expedited
construction documents review program; to establish a Green Building
Fund, and to establish the Green Building Advisory Council; to amend the
Construction Codes Approval and Amendments Act of 1986 to provide for
the revision of the Construction Codes and to include green building
practices; and to amend the Office of Property Management Establishment
Act of 1998 to require priority leasing of buildings that meet certain green
building standards. (District of Columbia 2006, pg. 1)

In summary, this act aimed to create a comprehensive green building standard

that would alter the building codes and property management laws. It also includes the

establishment of an advisory council that, among other things, manages the process,

the funds, and the incentive program.

New York City

In 2005, New York City passed Local Law No. 86, which basically required all

projects that are paid for in whole or in part by the city treasury to be LEED certified.

Because most of their electricity is produced locally, the goal of this regulation was to

reduce local emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide, mercury, and

particulate matter as well as reduce their dependence on "dirty, inefficient power

plants... and foreign oil" (City of New York 2005, pg. 1).

This legislation was not New York's first step toward green building. Certain

government departments were already implementing green building practices prior to









the Local Law 86 (e.g., the Battery Park City Authority, the Department of Design and

Construction, the New York City Transit Authority, the Lower Manhattan Development

Corporation, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey). This involved green

building guidelines for all residential and commercial construction in Battery Park and all

new transit facilities and libraries throughout the city. "Environmental planning" was

even designated as one of the five general requirements for the World Trade Center site

(City of New York 2005).

Each capital project with an estimated construction cost of two million
dollars ($2,000,000) or more... shall be designed and constructed to comply
with green building standards not less stringent than the standards
prescribed for buildings in accordance with the LEED green building rating
system to achieve a LEED silver or higher rating, or, with respect to
buildings classified in occupancy groups G or H-2, to achieve a LEED
certified or higher rating. (City of New York 2005, pg. 4-5)

According to Kibert (2008), these are the goals of high-performance buildings

according to the City of New York Department of Design and Construction:

* Raise expectations for the facility's performance among the various participants.

* Ensure that capital budgeting design and construction practices result in
investments that make economic and environmental sense.

* Mainstream these improved practices through (1) comprehensive pilot high-
performance building efforts and (2) incremental use of individual high-
performance strategies on projects of limited scope.

* Create partnerships in the design and construction process around environmental
and economic performance goals.

* Save taxpayers money through reduced energy and material expenditures, waste
disposal costs, and utility bills.

* Improve the comfort, health, and well-being of building occupants and public
visitors.

* Design buildings with improved performance, which can be operated and
maintained within the limits of existing resources.









* Stimulate markets for sustainable technologies and products. (Kibert 2008)

Gainesville

In 2002, Florida adopted its first green building assessment tool via an ordinance

called the Gainesville Green Building (GGB) program. The GGB program utilizes LEED

on institutional and commercial buildings and it utilizes Green Home Designation

Standard from the Florida Green Building Coalition for residential buildings. The

program is required for all city-owned civic and office buildings; however, it is optional

for city-owned residential buildings. It is also optional for private sector commercial and

residential projects. However, as encouragement for voluntary participants, the

ordinance includes an incentive program.

For all projects participating, both mandatory and voluntary, building permits will

be fast tracked and the permitting fee will be reduced by 50% while funds are available

(City of Gainesville 2002). The money that is saved from the permitting fee is usually

enough to pay for the green building certification fee. Therefore, it does not have to

come out of the developer's original funds. However, in order to receive these

incentives, the project must be certified by an independent third party. The program also

offers incentives through website and press release marketing and by erecting

participation signage at the jobsite. Lastly, an annual award is issued to one participant

in each category that exemplifies commitment to the program (City of Gainesville 2002).

As mentioned above, this was the first green building assessment tool to be

adopted by Florida. It proved to be very influential because almost two and a half years

after Gainesville passed its GGB program, the city of Sarasota passed its own green

building code. Except for a few changes in declaration in order to meet the needs of the

city, the language of Sarasota's legislation was almost identical to Gainesville's.









LEED Investment Trends

As the green building movement continues to gain momentum throughout the

world and specifically in this country, it is receiving more and more media coverage.

However, despite the relatively fast growth rate and the general perception of the

publicity, buildings that have earned a green building certification actually hold an

insignificant portion of the overall commercial real estate market (Fuerst 2009). As

described above, more and more federal, state, and local governments continue to

mandate green standards into their building codes and legislation. Regardless of the

hype or the regulation, the current numbers prove that certified green buildings actually

make up much less than 1% of the overall market (Fuerst 2009). This section of the

research studies the recent history of LEED investment trends in an attempt to draw

clues about what to expect from future development.

As described earlier in this chapter, the USGBC has four different products within

the LEED program. Figure 2-1 shows the distribution of shares that each of these

products possess. By far, New Construction is the most popular with 67% of the LEED

market, followed by Commercial Interiors holding 21% of the shares. Lastly, Core and

Shell and Existing Buildings hold equal amounts of the remaining 12% of LEED certified

buildings. Fuerst (2009) points out that when one considers the amount of effort that is

devoted to climate change, it is interesting that existing building only make up about 6%

of all projects. However, Yudelson (2008) speculates that this is due to the investment

cost of the certification process combined with the potential for modifications.

Furthermore, when renovating or remodeling an existing building there is a relatively

limited scope when compared to new construction (Yudelson 2008).









Regardless of which LEED product is chosen, there are four different levels of

certification that a building can earn: Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Figure 2-2

shows that as of 2009, Certified, Silver, and Gold hold about the same percentage of

buildings, with only about 5% earning Platinum. Recently, an empirical study was

conducted to determine if there is a correlation between certification level and energy

consumption. After studying one hundred LEED certified buildings, Newsham et al.

(2009) discovered that there was in fact a correlation; however it was very weak. It was

also determined that about one-third of the LEED certified buildings used more energy

than comparable non-certified buildings (Newsham et al. 2009).

Additional observations can be made when studying the certification level

compared to the number of credits achieved. Figure 2-3 shows that there is not an even

distribution of credits across the levels of certification. In fact, there is tendency for

projects to earn fewer credits as they approach the upper limits of the certification level.

Fuerst (2009) made two assumptions about this data. One possible explanation is that

the organization seeking certification takes the easiest and most inexpensive route

possible in order to obtain the desired level. Another possible explanation is that at

some point during the certification process, the organization discovers that the next

level is achievable and therefore they invest additional funds so as not to "waste" any

points between certification levels. However, Fuerst (2009) admits that further research

between investment and certification level could yield other possibilities.

Over the years, LEED has been criticized for the reported lack of improvement that

the lower levels of certification actually have on environmental factors; especially in

relation to the level of certification (Fuerst 2009). In response to these criticisms, it has









been said that the USGBC has raised the bar in regard to the environmental

performance standards. With this in mind, the data in Figure 2-4 shows a steady

decrease in the number of LEED projects earning the Certified level from 2000 to 2008.

At the same time, the amount of Gold and Silver certified buildings increased while

Platinum has remained steady. Fuerst (2009) suggests this could indicate a lower public

acceptance of "barely green" buildings and/or organizations are showing more green

ambition.

The figure discussed in the previous paragraph describes the proportional

distribution of the levels of certification. A different appreciation can be gained when

absolute numbers are applied to same eight year time span. Based on the information

in Figure 2-5, Fuerst (2009) makes the following statement:

A possibly important clue for the future of development of eco-certification
for buildings is the fact that the current recession, which according to most
sources began around December 2007, has no visible impact on the
exponential growth of building certification. (Fuerst 2009, pg. 291)

However, due to the fact that some projects may have already been in progress

when the recession hit, he goes on to state that it may be too early to extrapolate this

data with a strong sense of confidence.

Some critics believe that the green building certification market could not survive

without the legislation and incentives from the private sector (Fuerst 2009). When

studying the clients seeking LEED certification in Figure 2-6, it is apparent that the

amount of private developers and corporate clients has been increasing a significant

amount in the last eight years. Fuerst (2009) believes this data indicates that an

increasing number of private organizations are viewing LEED as a valuable investment.









Characteristics of a Construction Project

This study identified several green building project characteristics that cause time

and money issues for the contractor. The overall structure of the characteristics was

adapted from James Diekmann and Matthew Girard (1995). Their work sought to

identify several project characteristics that were thought to have an effect on the

potential for disputes to arise. These project characteristics were used to determine if

some construction projects are more prone to contract disputes than others. Diekmann

and Girard's (1995) project characteristics are described below. The reason this

information is included in the literature review is because it was influential in the

development and design of this green building survey and research.

People

The people aspects are noted to be extremely important due to the number of

organizations, relationships, roles and responsibilities involved in the building process.

"Do the organizations involved have the personnel resources to manage the process

adequately and ... in a cooperative manner?" (Diekmann and Girard 1995, pg. 355).

The people aspect, which is divided into three sections, is illustrated in Figure 2-7.

Within the contractor and owner sections, Capable Management is the upper

management who are responsible for the success of the project via a home-office or

corporate level that they have long-term obligations. Effectiveness of Responsibility is

the internal structure of the people who are responsible for making decisions.

Experience with that Type of Project deals with the entire organization's experience with

similar projects' as oppose to the individuals experience. Success of Past Projects is

defined as the data from measurable project outcomes though analyzing schedules,

budgets, quality, and disputes on previous projects. Experience and Competence deals









with individuals that actually manage the construction of the project (e.g., project

managers, project engineers, superintendents). Motivation considers the individual's

reasoning behind being motivated to avoid and resolve disputes; whether it is direct,

tangible, and/or personal. Interpersonal Skills of the Individuals is described as the

training and the types of experiences that these skills have evolved from (Diekmann and

Girard 1995).

Within the business relationship section, Team Building deals with the effort put

forth by each party to approach the endeavor as a team. Working History is defines the

history of the two organizations. Power Balance considers the financial, experiential,

and technical power of one party over the other during a dispute. Expectations of

Further Work describes how organization can affect how disputes are actually handled

(Diekmann and Girard 1995).

Project

The project aspect considers the degree of technical complexity of the project.

Once the project is defined in the plans and specifications it cannot be substantially

changed. It is said by the authors that, because of this fact the project characteristics

provide lesser opportunities to improve dispute performance. This aspect is divided into

two categories, which is illustrated in Figure 2-8.

Within the internal variables, the Environmental Issues indicate the importance of

environmental regulations related to the project. Public Interference defines who will be

impacted by the project. Site Limitations measure the actual boundaries of the project

site. Remoteness of the Project is measured by the availability of adequate materials

and technical expertise. Lastly, Availability of Capable Craftsmen and Subcontractors

takes into account the ability of these local trades (Diekmann and Girard 1995).









As for the external variables, Pioneer Project measures the precedence of the

technology used in this project and the degree of innovation. On the other hand, Design

Complexity deals simply with the complexity of the design and the Construction

Complexity deals simply with the complexity of the construction. Lastly, the Size is

measured in terms of the estimated contractual amount (Diekmann and Girard 1995).

Process

The process issues include exactly how the project is executed. Some of the types

of activities that are involved in this phase of the project are planning, financing, scope,

obligations, risk allocation, administration procedures, quality of construction

documents, and dispute mitigation techniques. The process aspect is divided into two

branches, which is illustrated in Figure 2-9. Pre-construction planning identifies the

issues that are dealt with before the contract is actually signed. Construction contract

actually defines the signed agreement between the owner and the contractor.

The first factor under pre-construction planning is Input from all the Groups

Involved, which includes the information about planning activities that must be shared

with all parties. The next one is Financial Planning, which considers financial support

and planning in relation to anticipating cost growth, change orders, and contingency.

Permits and Regulations is a measure of the efficiency while executing the permit

process. Scope Definition indicates how well the owner defined the scope (Diekmann

and Girard 1995).

Within the construction contract, Realistic Obligations measure how practical and

achievable the requirements are for the project. Risk Identification and Allocation

decides if the risk was accurately identified and then allocated appropriately. Adequacy

of Technical Plans and Specifications measures the quality of the documents in regard









to completeness, clarity, errors, and omissions. Formal Dispute Resolution Process

measures how well the contract creates guidelines for resolution of disputes. Lastly,

Operating Procedures measure how well these procedures are outlined and described

in the contract documents (Diekmann and Girard 1995).

Table 2-1. Maximum Points within each LEED Category
LEED-NC 2.2 Category Maximum Points
1. Sustainable Sites 14
2. Water Efficiency 5
3. Energy and Atmosphere 17
4. Materials and Resources 13
5. Indoor Environmental Quality 15
6. Innovation and Design Process 5
Total Possible Points 69

Table 2-2. Points Required for LEED-NC 2.2 Certification Level
LEED-NC 2.2 Certification Level Points Required
Platinum 52-69
Gold 39-51
Silver 33-38
Certified 26-32
No Rating 25 or less

Table 2-3. Maximum Points within each Green Globe Category (Kibert 2008)
Green Globe Category Maximum Points
Project Management 50
Site 115
Energy 300
Water 100
Resources, Building Materials, and Solid Waste 100
Emissions and Effluents 75
Indoor Environment 200
Total Possible Points 1000










Table 2-4. Percentage Required for Green Globe Certification Level (Kibert 2008)

Percentage
Percentage Certification Level Description
Required

Reserved for select building designs which serve as
S 4 Gren Go national or world leaders in energy and
environmental performance. The project introduces
design practices that can be adopted and

Demonstrates leadership in energy and
70-84% 3 Green Globes environmental design practices and a commitment to
continuous improvement and industry leadership

Demonstrates excellent progress in achieving eco-
55-69% 2 Green Globes friendly results through current best practices in
energy and environmental design.

Demonstrates movement beyond awareness and
35-5% 1 Gren G e commitment to sound energy and environmental
35-54% 1 Green Globe
design practices by demonstrating good progress in
reducing environmental impacts


LEED CI
21%


LEED CS
6%

LEED EB
6%


LEED NC
67%


Figure 2-1. Share of LEED rating systems in all registrations (as of March 2009) (Fuerst
2009)









Platinum
5%




1


Certified
30%


Figure 2-2. Achieved levels

400--


Silver
34%

of LEED certification (as of March 2009) (Fuerst 2009)


350-
300-
250-
= 200-
L"
150-
100-
50
0-
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Figure 2-3. Distribution of credits achieved and certification levels (as of March 2009)
(Fuerst 2009)












1000/0
90%
800/0
700/6
60% U Platinum
50% 0 Gold
40% E] Silver
30% E Certified
20%
100/0
0%
0% ..-- i -- i -- i -- i -- i --

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008


Figure 2-4. Distribution of certification levels 2000-2008 (Fuerst 2009)


2500


2000


1500


1000


500


0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008


Figure 2-5. Number of certified LEED buildings (2008) (Fuerst 2008)


100% -
90% 18% 2%-
80%
70%- private developer
60%-4 M corporate
50%-
012% -14% -. school/university
40%
30% 17%- M non-profit
20% M government
10%
0%
2000-02 2003-05 2006-08


Figure 2-6. The changing composition of organizations and companies seeking LEED
certification (Fuerst 2009)










Contractor
Capable Management
Responsibility Structures
Experience w/type Project

Success of Past Projects


People
Business Relationship
Team Building
History Together
Power Balance
Expectations of
Further Work


Owner
Capable Management
Responsibility Structures
Experience w/type Project

Success of Past Projects


Experience/Com petence Experience/Com petence
Motivation Motivation
Interpersonal Skills Interpersonal Skills
Figure 2-7. People aspect of construction project characteristics from Diekmann and
Girard (1995)


Project


External
Environmental Issues
Public Interference
Site Limitation
Remoteness
Availability of Capable Craftsmen and
Subcontractors
Figure 2-8. Project branch of hierarchy from


Internal
Pioneer Project
Design Complexity
Construction Complexity
Size


Diekmann and Girard (1995)


Process
Pre-Construction Planning Construction Contract
Realistic Obligations Input from All Groups Involved
Risk Identification/Allocation Financial Planning
Adequacy of Technical
Permits and Regulations
Plans/Specifications
Formal Dispute Resolution Process Scope Definition
Operating Procedures
Figure 2-9. Process branch of hierarchy from Diekmann and Girard (1995)









CHAPTER 3
SURVEY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Sample Selection

The objective of this study was directed towards contractors and subcontractors;

therefore the sample population was contractors and subcontractors. To obtain

information from various perspectives, the sample selection consisted of small to large

companies and the targeted individuals ranged from upper management and project

managers to superintendents and craftsmen. Both the companies and the individuals

possessed varying degrees of green building experience. Therefore, the data was

collected from both novices and experts within the green building arena.

Survey Design

As stated in Chapter 2, a study conducted by Diekmann and Girard (1995) sought

to identify several project characteristics that were thought to have an effect on the

potential for disputes to arise. The overall structure of the project characteristics

(People, Project, Process) and the general design and development of the survey for

this green building research was adopted from the Diekmann and Girard research. The

overall structure of the green building factors is shown in Figure3-1.

Other than demographics, the survey contained three main sections: People,

Project and Process. Within these sections, a total fourteen green building factors were

defined; each of which was assigned a question that was designed to gather information

about the importance of each factor's occurrence in regard to issues. Within the realm

of this study, an "issue" was any unplanned loss of time and/or money that the

contractor suffered, specifically due to a green building practice. The instructions to the

survey read as follows:









The following 14 questions ask whether a specific green building factor
hindered the contractor in completing a project ON TIME and ON
SCHEDULE. Please answer the questions from the perspective of
individual projects, as opposed to your overall career experience in general.

For example, assume you have worked on 10 separate green building
projects. If, "Factor X" played a "very important" role in 2 projects, but in the
other 8 projects it had "no effect", then please answer accordingly.

In other words, each individual respondent was asked to account for every single green

building project he/she had ever been involved with. Therefore, the maximum amount of

information was gathered from each respondent. Some respondents represented a

single project while other respondents represented several projects.

A five point Likert Scale was used to rate each factor's importance. To avoid

forcing false information out of the respondent, a sixth option of "not sure" was added as

a choice. The six choices were: not sure, no effect, fairly important, important, very

important, and critically significant.

People

Considering the number of individuals that are involved in a construction project

and the fact that they must work together to manage and control the constantly

changing conditions of the project, people can be considered the foundation of the

entire endeavor. The people aspect of the survey considers the role of the contractor's

employees throughout the green building process.

Upper Management was defined as the group of individuals at the highest level of

management within the organization. This includes any personnel at a home office or

corporate level. The upper management does not focus on the daily activities of the

project. Instead they are responsible for major financial and managerial decisions.

Upper management can also be referred to as executive, corporate, or senior









management. How significant was the upper management's role in regard to green

building issues for the contractor?

Project Manager was defined as the person who provides the general

administrative direction for the project. This person is typically responsible for the overall

performance of the project, which includes cost, schedule, quality, and project status.

Among other things, this person oversees the operations of the superintendent and is

responsible for maintaining the relationship between the contractor and the other parties

involved in the project: owner, architect, engineer, subcontractors, and suppliers. How

significant was the project manager's role in regard to green building issues for the

contractor?

Superintendent was defined as the person responsible for all the field aspects of

the project, which includes budget, schedule, quality, and performance. Among other

things, this person plans and implements the construction means and methods, site

utilization, job site office operation, and project closeout. The superintendent is also

responsible for coordinating and supervising all trade and field personnel. How

significant was the superintendent's role in regard to green building issues for the

contractor?

Craftsman was defined as an employee of either the general contractor or

subcontractor that is involved in the physical construction of the project. Some

examples of this position include: plumber, electrician, carpenter, brick layer, painter,

equipment operator, et cetera. How significant was the craftsman's role in regard to

green building issues for the contractor?









Project

Another main aspect of this study is the project itself. This considers the variables

that are related to the surrounding area where the project is located and the

fundamental characteristics that are built into the project.

Green Building Materials was defined as any specified material that is used to

satisfy a green requirement. An example of this would be Forest Stewardship Council

(FSC) wood, low volatile organic compound (VOC) materials, solar panels, material

containing recycled content, or low emissivity (low E) glass. How much did the green

building materials contribute to issues for the contractor?

Before the next three factors are discussed, the difference between innovation and

complexity must be clearly defined. Innovation refers to the introduction of new

strategies and the precedence of that type of strategy. Complexity refers to the

intricacies of the interconnected parts of a strategy. For example, the facade of the

Notre Dame Cathedral is very complex; however, the design itself is several hundred

years old, therefore it is not innovative. Likewise, a new type of drywall, which is able to

be produced with 80% less energy than traditional drywall, is simply made of recycled

material. Therefore, this is an innovative yet simple product.

Innovativeness of the Green Building Strategies is defined as new and cutting

edge practices. This criterion does not consider the complexity of the project; it

considers the precedence of this type of strategy. How much did the innovativeness of

the green building strategies contribute to issues for the contractor?

Design Complexity of the green building strategies was defined as the intricacies

of the interconnected parts of the design while the construction complexity of the green

building strategies is defined as the intricacies of the construction process. The design









and construction are two different factors, both of which deal with complexity. How

much did the design complexity of the green building strategies contribute to issues for

the contractor? How much did the construction complexity of the green building

strategies contribute to issues for the contractor?

Process

This is the last main aspect of the study and it contains two sub-sections. Pre-

Construction considered the process that occurs before the contract between the owner

and the contractor is signed while Construction Contract considered the process after

the agreement is signed and how different factors are defined within it.

Pre-construction planning

Scheduling considered any issues that occur during the scheduling process or any

issues that arise during the construction process that result from decisions that were

made during the scheduling process. How much did the scheduling of the green

building strategies contribute to issues for the contractor?

Estimating considered any issues that occur during the estimating process or any

differences between the estimate and actual costs incurred due to a green building

factor. How much did the estimating of the green building strategies contribute to issues

for the contractor?

Construction contract

Scope Definition considered any ambiguity in the responsibilities of the parties

involved in the green building process. For example, if a building is expected to earn a

green building certification, and the contractor is solely responsible for energy

commissioning, then these responsibilities should be clearly stated and described.

Furthermore, in some cases a third party is responsible for energy commissioning. This









third party has no contractual relationship with the contractor; however, if they must

coordinate and perform tasks together, the scope should define the relationship. How

much did the scope definition of the green building strategies contribute to issues for the

contractor?

Expectations considered the green building requirements of the contract to

determine if these requirements are actually possible. An example can be illustrated by

using the Waste Management credit from LEED-NC. The contract states that the

existing structure must be demolished and 75% of the demolished material must be

diverted from the landfill. If 75% of the material is not actually recyclable or otherwise

divertible from the landfill, then this requirement is not realistic. How much did the

practicality of the green building obligations contribute to issues for the contractor?

Technical Plans and Specifications were defined as the drawings and documents

that describe what needs to be built. This factor deals with any errors or omissions in

regard to these drawings and documents. How much did the accuracy of the technical

plans and specifications of the green building strategies contribute to issues for the

contractor?

Operating Procedures considered the requirements of the submittal and

communication procedures that directly affect the green building certification. An

example would be any issues that arise due to sample and cut-sheet submittals or the

use of online up-loadable databases such as Project Management Information Systems

(PMIS) or LEED Online. How much did the operating procedures of the green building

strategies contribute to issues for the contractor?









Initial Data Analysis

In order to perform the initial analysis of the data, the mean of each factor was

calculated by converting the five point Likert Scale into numerical values in which:

"no effect" = 1
"fairly important" = 2
"important" = 3
"very important" = 4
"critically important" = 5

The "not sure" choice was eliminated from analysis because it carried no statistical

significance.

Once the mean was calculated, the green building factor with the largest mean

value within its respective category of People, Project, and Process: Pre-construction

and Process: Contract was selected for further analysis. The four green building factors

that meet the selection criteria were then entered into a contingency table to depict the

frequency and percentage of each occurrence. The data was organized as "Dependent

Variable by Independent Variable" or more specifically, "Importance Rating by Green

Building Factor". This created five rows down the side for the dependent variable and

four columns across the top for the independent variable. That is, the four green

building factors were entered across the top to create four columns and the five point

Likert Scale was entered down the side to create five rows. It also included a "Total"

column that depicts the sum of the columns and a "Total" row that depicts the sum of

the rows.

Final Data Analysis

Lastly, the data from the contingency table was used to create a chi-square matrix

work sheet, which was used to perform the chi-square test. This significance test was

performed to determine if the collected data from the sample population was genuine









and therefore could be applied to the full population. If the test proves that there are no

differences, then the null hypothesis can be accepted. However, if there are in fact

differences, this is the indication of a sampling error; therefore, the collected data

cannot be applied to the full population and the null hypothesis must be rejected.

Chi-squared formula:

X^2 = [(fo fe)A2/ fe]

where

XA2 = chi-squared calculated
fo = obtained frequencies
fe = expected frequencies

The number calculated from the chi-square formula is referred to as XA2

calculated. The number from the chi-square statistical tables is referred to as XA2 table,

which is determined from two pieces of information: the level of confidence and the

degrees of freedom. The level of confidence used in this analysis was 95% because this

is a commonly used value for statistical analysis. The degrees of freedom was

calculated from a formula.

Degrees of freedom formula:

df= (r- 1)(c- 1)

where

df = degrees of freedom
r = number of categories of the dependant variable
c = number of categories of the independent variable

If XA2 calculated is less than XA2 table, the null hypothesis is rejected, however, if XA2

calculated is greater than XA2 table, the null hypothesis is accepted and the results can

be applied to the full population.









People

Upper Mgmt
Project Manager
Superintendent
Craftsman


Project


Materials
Innovation
Design Complexity
Construct Complexity


Process


Pre Construction
Scheduling
Estimating


Figure 3-1. Structure of the green building project characteristics


Contract
Scope Definition
Expectations
Plans and Specs
Operating Procedures









CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

As stated in the methodology section, the five point Likert Scale was converted

from vocabulary terms into numerical values. Table 4-1 illustrates the frequency of

occurrences for each of the fourteen green building factors. Note the numerical value

assigned to each point of the Likert Scale. These values were used to calculate the

mean of each green building factor occurrence, which is illustrated in Table 4-2. Based

on the highest mean value within its respective category, four green building factors

were selected for further analysis. The four factors that meet the selection criteria were

Project Manager, Materials, Estimating, and Operating Procedures.

The four green building factors were entered into the contingency table depicted in

Table 4-3. This table was used to create the data in the chi-squared matrix worksheet

depicted in Table 4-4. The chi squared test yielded an XA2 calculated value of 110.554.

With a degrees of freedom of 12 and a level of confidence of 95%, the XA2 table value

was found to be 21.026. The XA2 calculated value was greater than the XA2 table,

therefore, there were no differences and the null hypothesis was accepted.

This is a summery of the data described in the previous paragraph:

XA2 calculated = 110.554
Level of confidence = 95%
Degrees of freedom = 12
XA2 table = 21.026
110.554 > 21.026

Therefore the null hypothesis was accepted.

Further analysis was conducted in order to determine the statistical significance of

each of the four green building factors on an individual basis. The chi-squared test was

performed four additional times, once for each of the four factors. The confidence level









remained 95%, however the degrees of freedom was 5 since the input data differed.

The XA2 calculated for Project Manager, Materials, Estimating, Operating Procedures

were 39.696, 31.270, 22.024, and 17.561 respectively.

This is a summery of the data described in the previous paragraph:

Level of confidence = 95%
Degrees of freedom = 5
XA2 table = 11.070
Project Manager XA2 calculated = 39.696
Materials XA2 calculated = 31.270
Estimating XA2 calculated = 22.024
Operating Procedures XA2 calculated = 17.561

Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted for each green building factor on an

individual basis.

Table 4-1. Frequency of occurrence of green building factors
1 2 3 4 5
no fairly very critically
Rating Green Building Factor no air important very criticant
effect important important significant
Q1 Upper Management 23 45 60 51 25
Q2 Project Manager 6 21 42 71 61
Q3 Superintendent 22 50 46 54 23
Q4 Craftsman 55 57 43 32 14
05 Materials 30 34 71 35 20
Q6 Innovation 43 44 55 48 11
Q7 Design Complexity 43 42 43 58 13
Q8 Construct Complexity 48 72 32 23 13
09 Scheduling 40 70 22 38 28
Q10 Estimating 4 56 47 53 40
Q11 Scope Definition 42 32 55 47 11
Q12 Expectations 26 44 67 22 25
Q13 Plans and Specs 22 51 60 29 25
Q14 Operating Procedures 26 32 52 61 15









Table 4-2. Mean and standard deviation values of green building factors
Rating Green Building Factor Mean Std Dev Chi-Sqrd
Q1 Upper Management 3.05 1.19
Q2 Project Manager 3.80 1.08 x
Q3 Superintendent 3.03 1.21
Q4 Craftsman 2.40 1.22
Q5 Materials 2.90 1.19 x
Q6 Innovation 2.71 1.20
Q7 Design Complexity 2.79 1.27
Q8 Construct Complexity 2.37 1.19
Q9 Scheduling 2.72 1.36
Q10 Estimating 3.35 1.15 x
Q11 Scope Definition 2.75 1.23
Q12 Expectations 2.87 1.21
Q13 Plans and Specs 2.91 1.20
Q14 Operating Procedures 3.04 1.18 x

Table 4-3. Contingency table: Importance rating by green building factor
Project Materials Estimating Ops Total
Manager
f % f % f % f % f %
1 6 3% 30 16% 4 2% 26 14% 66 8%
2 21 10% 34 18% 56 28% 32 17% 143 18%
3 42 21% 72 38% 47 24% 52 28% 213 27%
4 71 35% 35 18% 53 27% 61 33% 220 28%
5 61 30% 20 10% 40 20% 15 8% 136 17%
Total 201 100% 191 100% 200 100% 186 100% 778 100%








Table 4-4. Chi-squared matrix worksheet: Importance rating by green building factor

Project Manager Materials Estimating Ops Total

f fe f fe f fe f fe
1 6 (17.1) 30 (16.2) 4 (17.0) 26 (15.8) 66
2 21 (36.9) 34 (35.1) 56 (36.8) 32 (34.2) 143
3 42 (55.0) 72 (52.3) 47 (54.8) 52 (50.9) 213
4 71 (56.8) 35 (54.0) 53 (56.6) 61 (52.6) 220
5 61 (35.1) 20 (33.4) 40 (35.0) 15 (32.5) 136
Total 201 191 200 186 778









CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Aim and Hypothesis

The aim of this study was to determine the relative importance of a set of criterion

that create issues and have a negative effect on the contractor's cost and schedule,

specifically because green building practices were involved. Furthermore, the null

hypothesis stated that a common set of green building factors that have a negative

impact on the contractor's cost and schedule exist. After completing a comprehensive

literature review, conducting a survey on green building factors, and analyzing the data

from the survey, the null hypothesis was accepted; therefore, the common set of green

building factors does indeed exist: Project Manager, Materials, Estimating, and

Operating Procedures.

Research Objectives

The research objectives were completed in two different phases of the research

process. The first three objectives had to be satisfied before the survey design could be

considered complete. The last two objectives could only be satisfied after the survey

data was analyzed.

Pre Design Objectives:

* How can the contractor's entire construction endeavor be categorized in a manner
that will help identify the root cause of a green building related issue?

* What types of green building related issues does the contractor encounter?

* Who or what causes the contractor to experience a green building related issue?

Firstly, the Diekmann and Girard (1995) study served as a foundation for the first three

objectives and the overall structure of the survey. Their project characteristics were

either modified as much as possible in order to satisfy the conditions of this study or









they were simply eliminated. The characteristics that were eliminated were developed

from a combination of other sources encountered during the review of literature and

from the personal experience of the researcher.

The contractor's entire construction endeavor was categorized in a manner that

would determine the root cause of green building related issues. During this process,

different types of green building related issues were identified and described, which

includes the potential causes of these issues. The overall structure of the characteristics

is depicted in Figure 5-1 while the detailed descriptions of the terms can be found in

Chapter 3 and Appendix A of this document.

Post Analysis Objectives:

* Which factors involved in the construction process deserve the most attention in
order to streamline the green building process for the contractor?

* What knowledge or experience is advantageous to a contractor that is entering
into a green building contract?

After performing the statistical analysis described in Chapter 4, it was determined that

the four green building project characteristics that deserve the most attention are

Project Manager, Materials, Estimating, and Operating Procedures. All of the

information found in this research would be advantageous to a contractor entering into a

green building contract. However, the information that would be most valuable is the

structure and characteristics of a green building project combined with the data found in

Figure 5-2. With these two items combined, it would help the contractor think of the

project in an organized and simplified manner and plan and perform accordingly once

the data is applied.









Recommendations for Future Study

Under the circumstances of unlimited time and unlimited resources, this study

could have explored many other possibilities. Below are some recommendations for

future study on green building practices and the contractor.

Sample Characteristics

An increased sample size would obviously yield more accurate results when

compared to the true population. However, various demographic characteristics would

yield much more specific and thus valuable information. When considering the

demographics of projects, further research could study public, private, commercial,

and/or residential projects either individually or the differences and similarities among

them. The same could be done with project size in terms of price or area. Another area

that deserves more attention is the green building experience of individuals and/or

companies. Identifying issues encountered by expert green builders and comparing

them to novice mistakes on an individual and/or company wide basis would be

extremely valuable information to the construction industry.

Survey Design

The survey for this study was inspired mainly from a literature review combined

with a relatively small amount of real world experience with green building. A researcher

with more construction experience, specifically pertaining to green building, could

possibly design a much different approach to characterizing a green building project.









People

Upper Mgmt
Project Manager
Superintendent
Craftsman


Project


Materials
Innovation
Design Complexity
Construct Complexity


Figure 5-1. Structure of the green


Process


Pre Construction
Scheduling
Estimating


building project characteristics


Contract
Scope Definition
Expectations
Plans and Specs
Operating Procedures


Mean
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Project Manager 3 80
Upper Management 3.05
Superintendent 3.03
Craftsman 2.40
Materials ?.90
2 Design Complexity 2 79
o I I
Innovation 2.71
Construct Complexity 2.37
Estimating 3.35
Scheduling 2. 2
Operating Procedures 3.04
Plans and Specs 2.91
Expectations .87
Scope Definition 2.75

Figure 5-2. Mean value of green building factor from highest to lowest in each category









APPENDIX A
SURVEY


This survey is part of a thesis study that is required to earn the degree of Master of Science in Building Construction from
the M.E. Rinker, Sr., School of Building Construction at the University of Florida.
The objective of this survey is to determine the relative importance of a set of 14 criterion that create ISSUES and have a
negative effect on the contractor's COST and SCHEDULE, specifically because green building practices were involved.


1. What is you current job title?

O Upper O Estimator O Scheduler 0 Project
Management Manager


O Superintendent ) Craftsman


Other (please specify)


2. How many years have you been working in the construction industry?


O Less than 5 years


O 5-10 years


O Over 10 years


3. Years of experience working on green buildings? (LEED projects or projects that
incorporate green strategies)


You
Your employer


1 2
DO 0
D 0


4. How many green building projects have you worked on? (LEED projects or projects
that incorporate green strategies)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 +10
You0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
















The following 14 questions ask whether a specific green building project factor hindered the contractor in completing a
project ON TIME and UNDER BUDGET. Please answer the questions from the perspective of individual projects, as
opposed to your overall career experience in general.


For example, assume you have worked on 10 separate green builcing projects. If, 'Factor X" played a "very important"
role in 2 projects, but in the other 8 projects it had "no effect", then please answer accordingly.








5. Upper Management: group of individuals at the highest level of management within
the organization; also referred to as executive, corporate or senior management.


How significant was the upper management's role in regard to green building issues for
the contractor?
critically
not sure no effect fairly important important very important
significant



6. Project Manager: person who provides the overall administrative direction for the
project.


How significant was the project manager's role in regard to green building issues for the
contractor?
critically
not sure no effect fairly important important very important
significant



7. Superintendent: person responsible for all field aspects of the project.


How significant was the superintendent's role in regard to green building issues for the
contractor?
critically
not sure no effect fairly important important very important
significant

E =II I lI II Ii













8. Craftsman: person involved in the physical construction of the project.


How significant was the craftsman's role in regard to green building issues for the
contractor?
critically
not sure no effect fairly important important very important
significant

E7 II I1 IE! E!
















9. Green building materials: any specified material that is used to satisfy a green
requirement; For example: FSC wood, Low VOC, recycled content, solar panels, Low E
glass.


How much did the green building materials contribute to issues for the contractor?
critically
not sure no effect fairly important important very important
significant



10. Innovation: introduction of new green building strategies and the precedence of this
type of strategy. Not complex, rather cutting-edge.


How much did the innovativeness of the green building strategies contribute to issues
for the contractor?
critically
not sure no effect fairly important important very important
significant
III I I I I II I II

11. Design complexity: intricacies of the interconnected parts of the design of the green
building strategies.


How much did the design complexity of the green building strategies contribute to
issues for the contractor?
critically
not sure no effect fairly important important very important
significant

S~ 1 I 1 Il~^ l~^

12. Construction Complexity: intricacies of the interconnected parts of the construction
of the green building strategies.


How much did the construction complexity of the green building strategies contribute to
issues for the contractor?
critically
not sure no effect fairly important important very important
significant

E7 I E I EU El E















Thank you for participating, only 6 questions left.

13. Scheduling: any decisions that were made during the scheduling process regarding
the green building strategies; For example, time.


How much did the scheduling of the green building strategies contribute to issues for
the contractor?
critically
not sure no effect fairly important important very important
significant
II I II II II II II

14. Estimating: any decisions that were made during the estimating process regarding
the green building strategies; For example: costs.


How much did the estimating of the green building strategies contribute to issues for
the contractor?
critically
not sure no effect fairly important important very important
significant
SI I 7il ~ ii 7i! ii!















15. Scope Definition of Responsibilities: description of the green building
responsibilities of the parties involved; For example: gaps or overlaps in
responsibilities.


How much did the scope definition of the green building strategies contribute to issues
for the contractor?
critically
not sure no effect fairly important important very important i ica
significant

I II II II II I

16. Expectations: requirements of the contract; For example: practicality/feasibility of
obligations.


How much did the expectations of the green building obligations contribute to issues
for the contractor?
critically
not sure no effect fairly important important very important
significant

I II II II II Il

17. Technical plans and specifications: drawings and documents that describe what
needs to be built; For Example: errors, omissions, changes.


How much did the technical plans and specifications of the green building strategies
contribute to issues for the contractor?
critically
not sure no effect fairly important important very important
significant


18. Operating procedures: requirements of the submittal and communication
procedures; For example: Samples, Cut-Sheets, Project Management Information
Systems (PMIS), LEED Online.


How much did the operating procedures of the green building strategies contribute to
issues for the contractor?
critically
not sure no effect fairly important important very important
significant
I II I I I II II I II











APPENDIX B
SURVEY RESULTS


What is you current job title?


Answer Options Response
Upper- 75.0%
Estimator 0.0%
Scheduler 2.8%
Project Manager 22.2%
Superintendent 0.0%
Craftsman 0.0%
Other (please specify)
answered question
skipped question


Response
Count
27
0
1
8
0
0
2


How many years have you been

Answer Options Response Response
Percent Count
Less than 5 years 5.3% 2
5-10 years 7.9% 3
Over 10 years 86.8% 33
answered question 38
skipped question 0


Years of experience working on green buildings? (LEED projects or projects that incorporate green strategies)
Answer Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 +10 Rsponse


You
Your employer


2 6
0 2


1 1 2
5 0 3


1 5
1 13
answered question
skipped question


How many green building projects have you worked on? (LEED projects or projects that incorporate green


Answer Options
You


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 +10 Reonse
Count
7 4 2 4 5 3 1 0 0 12 38
answered question 38
skipped question 0


38
34
38
0

















Upper Management
not sure
Answer Options 1 project 2 projects 3 projects 4 projects 5 projects 6 projects 7ojects projects projects 10 projects Response 20
Count
2 2 0 1 0 0 C 10 1 6

no effect
Answer Options 1 project 2 projects 3 projects 4 projects 5 projects 6 projects 7 projects 8 projects 9 projects 10 projects on 23
Count
5 2 0 1 2 0 0 C 0 0 10

fairly important
Answer Options 1 project 2 projects 3 projects 4 projects 5 projects 6 projects 7 projects 8 projects 9 projects *10 projects Response 45
Count
4 2 2 1 2 0 1 C 0 1 13

important
Answer Options 1 project 2 projects 3 projects 4 projects 5 projects 6 projects 7 projects B projects 9 projects +10 projects Respose 60
Count
1 1 1 3 1 0 1 C ) 3 11

very important
Answer Options 1 project 2 projects 3 projects 4 projectroject objects projeprojectrojects rje pojecjects 7 parts cts +10 projects espouse 51
Count
3 0 3 1 C 0 1 C 2 1 11

critically significant
Answer Options 1 project 2 projects 3 projects 4 projects 5 projects 6 projects 7 projects projects e cts oects +10 projects Response 25
Count
3 0 0 0 C 2 0 C 0 1 6

Question 224
Totals
answered question 38
skipped question 0

Project Manager
not sure
Answer Options 1 project 2 projects 3 projects 4 projects 5 projects B projects 7 projects a projects 9 projects +10 projects Responte
2 0 0 0 C 0 0 C a 2 4

no effect
Response
Answer Options 1 project 2 projects 3 projects 4 projects 5 projects 6 projects 7 projects a projects 9 projects +10 projects Cunt 6
3 0 1 0 C 0 0 GC 0 4

fairly important
Answer Options 1 project 2 proj 3proects 3 projects 4 proje cts s projects 7 projects 8 projects 9 projects +10 projects Response 21
Count
4 1 0 0 3 0 0 C 3 0 8

important
Answer Options 1 project 2 projects 3 projects projects 4 projects 5 projects 7 projects 7 projects 9 projects +10 projects Respnse 42
Count
3 1 1 1 C 0 0 C 3 3 9

very important
Answer Options 1 project 2 projects 3 projects 4 projects 5 projects 5 projects 7 projects a projects 9 projects +10 projects Pu 71
Count
4 2 0 2 C 2 2 C 1 2 15

critically significant
Response 81
Answer Options 1 project 2 projects 3 projects 4 projects 5 projects 6 projects 7 projects projects a projects +10 projects unt 61
3 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 2 13

Question 223
Totals
answered question 38
skipped question 0

Superintendent
not sure
Answer Options 1 project 2 projects 3 projects 4 projects 5 projects 6 projects 7 projects a projects 9 projects +10 projects Respont
2 O 0 1 C 0 0 1)C 2 5

no effect
Answer Options 1 project 2 pj projects 3 projects 4 projects s 6 projects 7 projects 0 projects 9 projects 10 projects Response 22
Count
2 2 2 0 C 0 0 C a 1 7

fairly important
Answer Options 1 project 2 projects 3 projects 4 projects 5 projects 6 projects 7 projects 8 projects 9 projects +10 projects Response 5
Count
4 1 1 0 3 1 0 C 2 12

important
Answer Options 1 project 2 projects 3 projects 4 projects 6 projects 6 projects 7 projects a projects 9 projects projects Response 46
Count
3 1 0 0 1 0 1 C 1 2 9

very important
Answer Options 1 project 2 projects 3 projects 4 projects 5 projects 6 projects 7 projects 0 projects 9 projects .10 projects Re ns 54
Count
2 2 1 1 2 2 0 C 1 1 12

critically significant
Answer Options 1 project 2 proj 3proects 3 projects 4 projects 5 projects projects 7 projects 8 projects 9 projects +10 projects Resonse 23
Count
3 2 1 2 1 0 0 C D 0 9

uestin 221
Totals
answered question 38
skipped question 0

















Craftsman
notsure
Answer Options


no effect
Answer Options



fairly important
Answer Options



important
Answer Options



very important
Answer Options



critically significant
Answer Options








Green building materials
not sure
Answer Options



no effect
Answer Options



fairly important
Answer Options



important
Answer Options



very important
Answer Options



critically significant
Answer Options








Innovation
not sire
Answer Options



no efect
Answer Options



fairly important
Answer Options



important
Answer Options



very important
Answer Options



critically significant
Answer Options


Project
2



project
1



project
2



project
3



project
3



1 project
4









1 project
3



1 project
2



1 project
4



1 project
2



project
3



project
1









1 project
2



project
4



1 project
3



project
3



project
2



project
1


2 projects
0



2 projects
0



2 projects
2



2 projects
1



2 projects
2



2 projects
1









2 projects




2 projects
1







2 projects




2 projects
1








2 projects
1








2 projects
1











2 projects
0



2 projects
1














2 projects




2 projects
1



2 projects
3



2 projects






2
2


3 projects
0



3 projects
2



3 projects
1



3 projects
1




0



3 projects
I









3 projects
0



3 projects
1



3 projects
0



3 projects
2



3 projects
1



3 projects
2









3 projects
0



3 projects
1



3 projects
1



3 projects
1



3 projects
4



3 projects
2


4 projects
1



4 projects
2



4 projects
1



4 projects
1



4 projects
0



4 projects
0









4 projects
0



4 projects
2



4 projects
0



4 projects
1



4 projects
0



4 projects
0









4 projects
0



4 projects
2



4 projects
1



4 projects
1



4 projects
0



4 projects
0


5 projects
0



5 projects
2



5 projects
3



5 projects
1



5 projects
0



5 projects
1









5 projects
1



5 projects
1



5 projects
1



5 projects
0



5 projects
1



5 projects
1









5 projects
1



5 projects
2



5 projects
0



5 projects
0



5 projects
1



5 projects
0


6 projects
C



6 projects
C



6 projects
2



6 projects
1



6 projects
I
1



6 projects
C









6 projects
C



6 projects




6 projects
1



6 projects
2



6 projects
C


0 projects
6 projects
1









6 projects




6 projects
1



6 projects
2



6 projects
1







6 projects

C


7 projects
0



7 projects
0



7 projects
1



7 projects
0



7 projects
0



7 projects
0









7 projects
0





7 projects
0



7 projects


1



7 projects

2



7 projects
0









7 projects
0



7 projects
0



7 projects
1



7 projects
1



7 projects
1



7 projects
0


8 projects
0



8 projects
0



8 projects
0



8 projects
0



8 projects
0



8 projects
0









8 projects
0



Projects
0



8 projects
0



8 projects
0



8 projects
0



8 projects
0









8 projects
0



Projects
0



8 projects
0



8 projects
1



8 projects
0



8 projects
0


Response 26
9 projects +10 projects Cou 26
0 2 5


Response
9 projects +10 projects ponse 5
Count
0 3 10


Response
9 projects +10 projects RCnt 57
0 1 13



9 projects +10 projects Response 43
Count
0 2 10



9 projects +10 projects Respose 23
Count
0 1 7

Response 14
9 projects +10 projects "Cun 14
0 0 7

Question 218
Totals
answered question 3
skipped question 0




9 projects *10 projects Reson 2s
0 1 6

Response
9 projects +10 projects Cn
0 1 8



9 projects +10 projects Respo 34
Count
0 1 9



9 projects 10 projects Re pon e
Count
1 3 13



9 projects 10 projects Resonse 35
Count
0 1 8


Respone 2
9 projects .10 projects CRepon
0 0 6

Question 28
Totals
answered question 38
skipped question 0




9 projects +10 projects Reons 17
0 1 4



9 projects +10 projects Respose 43
0 1 12



9 projects .10 projects Respose
Count
I D 12



9 projects 10 projects Repone 55
0 2 12



9 projects 10 projects Respons 48
0 1 13



9 projects +10 projects Response
0 0 5

Question 210
Totals
answered question 38
skipped question 0

















Design complexity
not sure
Answer Options


no effect
Answer Options



fairly important
Answer Options



important
Answer Options



very important
Answer Options



critically significant
Answer Options








Construction Complexity
notsure
Answer Options



no effect
Answer Options



fairly important
Answer Options



important
Answer Options



very important
Answer Options



critically signilicart
Answer Options








Scheduling
not sure
Answer Options



no effect
Answer Options



fairly important
Answer Options



important
Answer Options



very important
Answer Options



critically significant
Answer Options


1 project
3



1 project
1



1 project
4



1 project
2



1 project
3



1 project
2









1 project
2



1 project
2



1 project
4



1 project
4



1 project
4



1 project
2









1 project
2



1 project
3



1 project
3



1 project
3



1 project
3



1 project
3


2 projects
0



2 projects
3



2 projects
2



2 projects
1



2 projects
3



2 projects
1









2 projects
0



2 projects
1



2 projects
3



2 projects
0



2 projects
1



2 projects
0









2 projects
0



2 projects
1



2 projects
3



2 projects
3



2 projects
0



2 projects
0


3 projects
0



3 projects
1



3 projects
2



3 projects
2



3 projects
2



3 projects
3









3 projects
0



3 projects
1



3 projects




3 projects
2



3 projects
0



3 projects
2









3 projects
0



3 projects




3 projects
2



3 projects
1



3 projects
0



3 projects
1


4 projects
0



4 projects
2



4 projects
1



4 projects
0



4 projects
0



4 projects
0









4 projects
0
O



4 projects
1



4 projects
0



4 projects
0



4 projects
1



4 projects
0
O









4 projects
0



4 projects
1



4 projects
0



4 projects
0



4 projects
2



4 projects
0


5 projects
1



5 projects
3



5 projects
1



5 projects
1



5 projects
0



5 projects
0









5 projects
1



5 projects
4



5 projects
1



5 projects
0



5 projects
0



5 projects
0









5 projects
1



5 projects
2



5 projects
3



5 projects
2



5 projects
0



5 projects
0


6 projects




6 projects
0



6 projects
2



6 projects
2



6 projects
1



6 projects
0









6 projects
0



6 projects
0



6 projects
0



6 projects
2



6 projects
1



6 projects
1









6 projects
0



6 projects
0



6 projects
0



6 projects
0



6 projects
1



6 projects
2


7 projects
C



7 projects




7 projects
1



7 projects
C



Projects




7 projects
1









7 projects















2
7 projects









C



Projects
7 projects
C






7 projects
2

















7 projects



c



7 projects












C
7 projects








C



7 projects














C
7 projects




7 projects
3



7 projects
C


8 projects
C



8 projects
C



a projects
C



8 projects
2



8 projects
C



s projects
C









B projects
C



B projects
C



8 projects
C



B projects
C



8 projects






C
B projects






C









a projects
8 projects
C



a projects
C



a projects



C
a projects



0
B projects






0


Response
9 projects +10 projects ReCounse
0 1 5


Response
9 projects +10 projects Respose
0 1 11



9 projects +10 s Roupro
a t 13



9 projects ts R+eonpro
Count
0 0 10



projects +10 projects Reon
Count
0 3 13

Response
9 projects +10 projects RCoun
0 0 6

Question
Totals
answered qoesnon 38
skipped question 0



Response
9 projects +10 projects Couet
0 2 5


Response
9 projects 0 projects
a 1 11



9 projects 10 projects
Count
0 4 15



9 projects +10 projects Reon
Count
0 1 9



9 projects +10 projects Respon
Count
a 0 a

Response
9 projects +10 projects Couns
count
a0 5

Question
Totals
answered question 38
skipped question 0



Response
9 projects l0 projects Coun
a 1 4


Response
9 projects +10 projects Coun
0 1 10



9 projects +10 projects Reon
Count
0 4 15



9 projects +10 projects Respon
Count
a 0 9


Response
9 projects +10 projects eponse



Response
9 projects 10 projects Count
0 1 7

Question
Totals
answered question 38
skipped question

















Estimating
not sure
Answer Options


no effect
Answer Options



fairly important
Answer Options



important
Answer Options



very important
Answer Options



critically significant
Answer Options


1 project
2



1 project
1



1 project
0



1 project
1



1 project
4



1 project
4


Scope Definition of Responsibilities
not sure
Answer Options 1 project
2

no effect
Answer Options 1 project
1

fairly important
Answer Options 1 project
3

important
Answer Options 1 project
3

very important
Answer Options 1 project
3

critically significant
Answer Options 1 project


Expectations
not sure
Answer Options



no effect
Answer Options



fairly important
Answer Options



important
Answer Options



very important
Answer Options



critically significant
Answer Options


1 project
2



1 project
2



1 project
5



1 project
4



1 project
2



1 project
2


2 projects
0



2 projects
0



2 projects
2



2 projects
2



2 projects
3



2 projects











2 projects
0



2 projects
3



2 projects
1



2 projects
2



2 projects
2



2 projects
0









2 projects
0



2 projects
3



2 projects
2



2 projects
2



2 projects
1



2 projects
0


3 projects
0



3 projects
1



3 projects
1



3 projects
I



3 projects
3



3 projects
0









3 projects
0



3 projects
1



3 projects
1



3 projects
2



3 projects
2



3 projects
0









3 projects
0



3 projects
0



3 projects
2



3 projects
2



3 projects
1



3 projects
0


4 projects
0



4 projects
0



4 projects
1



4 projects
1



4 projects
1



4 projects
0









4 projects
0



4 projects
3



4 projects
1



4 projects
0



4 projects
1


4 projects
1









4 projects
0



4 projects
2



4 projects
1



4 projects
2



4 projects
0



4 projects
1


5 projects
1



5 projects
C



5 projects
1



5 projects
3



5 projects
C



5 projects











5 projects
1



5 projects
C



5 projects
2



5 projects
1



5 projects
C



5 projects
C









5 projects
1



5 projects




5 projects
1



5 projects
1



5 projects
1



5 projects
C


5 projects
0



6 projects
0



6 projects
1



6 projects
0



5 projects
0



6 projects
2









6 projects
0



6 projects
0



6 projects




6 projects
0



6 projects
1



B projects
1









6 projects
0



6 projects
0



6 projects
0



5 projects
0



6 projects




6 projects
2


7 projects
0



7 projects
0



7 projects
2



7 projects
0



7 projects
0



7 projects
2









7 projects
0



7 projects
0



7 projects
0



7 projects
1



7 projects
2



7 projects
0









7 projects
0



7 projects
0



7 projects
0



7 projects
0



7 projects
0



7 projects
1


8 projects




a projects
C



8 projects
C



8 projects
C



8 projects
C



8 projects











a projects
C



8 projects
C



8 projects



C
8 projects
C





8 projects
C





8 projects
C































9 projects
8 projects








C
8 projects




C
B prjects








B roecs


Respnrse
9 projects *10 projects Respont
D 1 4



9 projects +10 projects Repon
) a 2



9 projects +10 projects ou




9 projects +10 projects Response
Count



0 2 10



9 projects +10 projects Response
Count

9 projects *10 protects Count
0 3 14



9 projects +10 projects Resount
S0 10

Question
nttals
answered question 38
skipped question 0




9 projects 10 projects Resount
0 2 5


Response
9 projects +10 projects Coun
0 2 10



9 projects +10 projects Response
Count
0 1 9



9 projects l10 projects Response
Count
a 3 12



Count
B) 1 12



9 projects +10 projects Response
0 3

Question
Totals
answered question 3
skipped question 0




9 projects +10 projects Respone
Count
1 2 5


Response
9 projects -10 projects Count
B 1 8



9 projects +10 projects Respoe
Count
B 2 13



9 projects .10 projects Resp e
Count
0 4 15


Response
9 projects +10 projects Count
0 1 6



9 projects +10 projects Count
0 0 6

Question
Totals
answered question 38
skipped question 0

















Tecniical plans and specifications
not sure
Answer Options 1 project
2

no effect
Answer Options 1 project
1

fairly important
Answer Options 1 project
2

important
Answer Options 1 project
1

very important
Answer Options 1 project
6

critically significant
Answer Options 1 project
3


Operating procedures
not sure
Answer Options



no etfect
Answer Options



fairly important
Answer Options



important
Answer Options



very important
Answer Options



critically significant
Answer Options


1 project
2



1 project
2



1 project
4



1 project
1



1 project
5



1 project
3


2 projects
O



2 projects
4



2 projects
4



2 projects
2



2 projects
0



2 projects
O









2 projects
0



2 projects
2



2 projects
3



2 projects
0



2 projects
1



2 projects
0


3 projects
0



3 projects
1



3 projects
0



3 projects
2



3 projects
1



3 projects
2









3 projects
0



3 projects
0



3 projects
1



3 projects
2



3 projects
3



3 projects
0


4 projects
0



4 projects
0



4 projects
O



4 projects



1





4 projects
0



4 projects









0






4 projects
1





4 projects
1





4 projects



2
0





































4 projects
0
4 projects
0
4 projects

2









D


5 projects
1



5 projects
0



5 projects
0



5 projects
a protects
3



5 projects
0



5 projects
2









5 projects
1



5 projects
0



5 projects
1



5 projects
0



5 projects
1



5 projects
0


6 projects
0



6 projects
0



6 projects
0



6 projects
0



6 projects
1



6 projects
1









6 projects
0



6 projects
1



6 projects
0



6 projects
2



6 projects
0



6 projects
2


7 projects
c



7 projects
c



7 projects
1



7 projects
C



7 projects
2



7 projects
C









7 projects
C



7 projects
C




C


7 projects




7 projects

C



7 projects
C


B projects
C



a projects
S



8 projects









8 projects
C



a projects
C








8 projects
C









8 projects
C


















a projects
C
8 projects






1



B projects
C



Projects
C
C


Response
9 projects +10 projects RCou
0 2 5



9 projects +10 projects Rouat
0 1 7



9 projects 10 projects Response
Count
0 3 11



9 projects -10 projects Reon
Count
0 3 12



9 projects +10 projects Response
Count
0o 10

Response


0 0 1 8
9 projects +10 projects Response



Question
Totals
answered quesson 38
skipped quesnon 0






9 projects 10 projects Response







9 projects 10 projects Response
9 projects -i projects Count
0 1 10



9 projects +10 projects Response




Response
9 projects -10 projects Repnt
o 4 14






question
Totals
answered questn R 38
skipped question 0









LIST OF REFERENCES


Adler, A., Armstrong, J., Azerbegi, R., Guy, G., Fuller, S., Kalin, M., Karolides, A., Lelek,
M., Lippiatt, B., Macalusa, J., Spencer, E., Waier, P., and Walker, A. (2006).
Green building: Project planning and cost estimating; A practical guide to:
Materials, systems & standards; green products- specifying & assessing cost
verse value; resource efficiencies, health, comfort & productivity; commissioning,
2nd Ed., R.S. Means, Kingston, MA.

Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE). (2009). "An
overview of CASBEE," Japan GreenBuild Council and Japan Sustainable
Building Consortium, (March
2010).

Building and Construction Authority (BCA). (2006). "About Green Mark Scheme."
Building and Construction Authority,
(March 2010).

Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM).
(2009). "BREEAM around the world." BRE Global Ltd.,
(March 2010).

Cassidy, R. (2003). White paper on sustainability: A report on the green building
movement, Reed Business Information, Building Design & Construction,
Oakbrook, IL.

Diekmann, J., and Girard, M., (1995). "Are Contract Disputes Predictable?" Journal
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 121(4), 335-363.

District of Columbia. (2006). Green building act of 2006, Council of the District of
Columbia, West Group Publisher, Washington, D.C.,
(April 2010)

Exec. Order No. 12852, 58 Fed. Reg. 124 (July 2, 1993)

Exec. Order No. 13101, 63 Fed. Reg. 179 (Sept. 16, 1998)

Exec. Order No. 13123, 64 Fed. Reg. 109 (June 8, 1999)

Exec. Order No. 13148, 65 Fed. Reg. 81 (April 26, 2000)

Exec. Order No. 13423, 72 Fed. Reg. 17 (Jan. 26, 2007)

Fuerst, F. (2009). "Building momentum: An analysis of investment trends in LEED and
Energy Star-certified properties," Journal of Retail & Leisure Property, Palgrave
Macmillian, 8(4), 285-297.









Gainesville, Florida. (2002). Code of ordinances: Chapter 6/Article 1.5/Section 6-5
through 6-15; Gainesville green building program, City of Gainesville, Gainesville,
FL, %20greenbuildingprogram.pdf> (April, 2010)

GAS Public Buildings Service (2008). Assessing green building performance: A post
occupancy evaluation of 12 GSA buildings, GSA Public Buildings Service,
n_white_paper_R2-p-q5Q_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf> (October 2009).

Green Building Council of Australia. (2010). "Green star rating tools." Green Building
Council of Australia, (May
2010).

Heschong Mahone Group. (1999). Daylighting in schools: An investigation into the
relationship between daylighting and human performance, Heschong Mahone
Group, Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
(October 2009).

Kats, G. (2003). The costs and financial benefits of green buildings: A report to
California's sustainable building task force, Massachusetts Technology
Collaborative, Westborough, MA.

Kibert, C. (2008). Sustainable Construction: Green building design and delivery, 2nd Ed.,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ.

New York, New York. (2005). Local Law No. 86: To amend the New York city charter, in
relation to green building standards for certain capital projects, City of New York,
New York, NY.
(April 2010)

Newsham, G., Mancini, S. and Birt, B. (2009). Do LEED-certified buildings save
energy? Yes, but.... Energy and Buildings, Elsevier B.V., 14(8) 897-905.

United States Green Building Council (USGBC). (2010). "Welcome to USGBC." U.S.
Green Building Council, (November 2009).

Watkin, D. (2005). A history of western architecture, 4th Ed., Watson-Guptill
Publications, New York, NY.

Yudelson, J. (2008). Green building through integrated design, GreenSource Books,
McGraw Hill, New York, NY.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Michael Ryan McVinney graduated from Seabreeze High School in 2003 and

immediately enrolled in classes at Daytona Beach Community College (DBCC). After

his first semester, Michael was asked to be a member of the Mu Rho Chapter of the Phi

Theta Kappa (PTK) Honor Society as he continued his education in advanced

educational courses. In the summer of 2005 he began his first semester at the

University of Florida's College of Design, Construction, and Planning School of

Architecture. Michael eventually became obsessed with the notion of controlling

people's thoughts, emotions, and functionality through properly designed occupiable

space. This became his obsession until the summer of 2007 when he reached a

moment of clarity in Tequila Valley during a study abroad program in Mexico. Directly

after, he applied to the University of Florida's College of Design, Construction, and

Planning's M. E. Rinker, Sr., School of Building Construction to embark on a much more

practical and fulfilling career and way of life. Promptly after being accepted, the Rinker

School extended him an invention to join the Epsilon Chapter of Sigma Lambda Chi

(SLX), an international construction honor society. He made his impression on SLX and

Rinker alike when he accepted the role of project designer and manager of the 2009

Homecoming Float. Upon graduation, Michael moved back to Ormond Beach.





PAGE 1

1 CONTRACTOR ISSUES RESULTING FROM GREEN BUILDING By MICHAEL RYAN MCVINNEY A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIEN CE IN BUILDING CONSTUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010

PAGE 2

2 2010 Michael Ryan McVinney

PAGE 3

3 To my mom and d ad

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First of all my mom and dad played a fundamental role throughout my educational achievements Whenever I needed anything at all, m y mom has always selflessly dropped everything to make me her first priority When in a pickle, my dad always gave me the most valuable advice I could ever receive. have been able to complete my education I thank both of them for being extremely successful parents. I thank my other parents, Scott and Keri Herring for always making me feel welcome in their beautiful home and stocked kitchen. I am forever grateful for the generosity and thoughtfulness they have shown me throughout my educational career I also thank Scott and Keri for prod ucing such a n equally b eautiful and kind hearted daughter. Kelly has been by my side since the very beginning of my educational endeavor and if it were not for her patience and selflessness I would have given up a long time ago. I will always love her for who she is and how she made me who I am today. I thank my most recent best friend Murphy. Whether by means of thought or presence, Murphy has never failed to bring a smile to m y face. The same can be said about most of my experiences with all my friends and family. The g ood times and good memories I have experience with them is what has kept me pushing forward through academia and life Lastly, I thank professors like Dr. Ries, Dr. Flood, and Dr. Lucas for having an open door teaching philosophy that encourages young minds to expand on an educational and personal level. Students like me are lucky and should be grateful for having the opportunity to interact with professors like y ou.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 Background of the Problem ................................ ................................ .................... 11 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 12 Aim ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 12 Hypothesis Statement ................................ ................................ ............................. 12 Research Objectives ................................ ................................ ............................... 13 Scope ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 13 Research Methodology ................................ ................................ ........................... 13 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 14 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 15 The Environmental Impacts of Buildings ................................ ................................ 15 Sustainable Construction and Green Building ................................ ........................ 16 Potential Benefits of Green Building ................................ ................................ ....... 16 History of the Green Building Movement ................................ ................................ 17 Building Assessment Systems ................................ ................................ ................ 23 LEED ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 24 Green Globes ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 25 Foreign Building Assessment Systems ................................ ............................ 26 Green Legislation ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 27 Washington D.C. ................................ ................................ .............................. 28 New York City ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 28 Gainesville ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 30 LEED Investment Trends ................................ ................................ ........................ 31 Characteristics of a Construction Project ................................ ................................ 34 People ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 34 Project ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 35 Process ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 36

PAGE 6

6 3 SURVEY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................................ ............................. 42 Sample Selection ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 42 Survey Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 42 People ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 43 Project ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4 5 Process ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 46 Pre construction planning ................................ ................................ .......... 46 Construction contract ................................ ................................ ................. 46 Initial Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ 48 Final Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ 48 4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ................................ ................................ .................... 51 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ....................... 55 Aim and Hypothesis ................................ ................................ ................................ 55 Research Objectives ................................ ................................ ............................... 55 Recommendations for Future Study ................................ ................................ ....... 57 Sample Characteristics ................................ ................................ ..................... 57 Survey Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 57 APPENDIX A SURVEY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 59 B SURVEY RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ 65 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 71 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 73

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Maximum points within each LEED c ategory ................................ ..................... 37 2 2 P oints required for LEED NC 2.2 certification l evel ................................ ............ 37 2 3 Maximum points within each green globe c ategory ................................ ............ 37 2 4 Perce ntage required for green globe certification l evel ................................ ....... 38 4 1 Frequency of occurrence of green building factors ................................ ............. 52 4 2 Mean and standard deviation values of green building factors ........................... 53 4 3 Contingency table: Importance rating by green building factor ........................... 53 4 4 Chi squared matrix worksheet: Importance rating by green building factor ........ 54

PAGE 8

8 LIS T OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Share of LEED rating systems in all registrations (as of March 2009) ................ 38 2 2 Achieved leve ls of LEED certification (as of March 2009) ................................ .. 39 2 3 Distribution of credits achieved and certification levels (as of March 2009) ........ 39 2 4 Distribution of certification levels 2000 2008 ................................ ...................... 40 2 5 Number of certified LEED buildings (2008) ................................ ........................ 40 2 6 The changing compo sition of organizations and companies seeking LEED certification ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 40 2 7 People aspect of construction project characteristics from Diekmann and Girard ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 41 2 8 Project branch of hierarchy from Diekmann and Girard ................................ ...... 41 2 9 Process branch of hierarchy from Diekmann and Girard ................................ .... 41 3 1 Structure of the green building project characteristics ................................ ........ 50 5 1 Structure of the green building project characteristics ................................ ........ 58 5 2 Mean value of green building factor from highest to lowest in each category ..... 58

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of T hesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of S cience in Building C onstruction CONTRACTOR ISSUES RESULTING FROM GREEN BUILDING By Michael Ryan McVinney August 2010 Chair: Ian Flood Major: Building Construction The green building movement has been around for generations, however, only recently has it gained world wide recognition. Regardless of the reasoning, whether because of the financial benefits or governmental regulation, over the last two decades i t has grown at a n exponential and record br e aking r ate. Whether they truly want to or not, contractors are constructing green building projects. As a result, these contractors are experiencing problems specifically because of the green building factors that are involved The intent of this research was to develop a set of green building factors that are found within a construction project. Furthermore, this research determined the relative importance of the green building factors in regard to negative ly impact ing the From the perspective of People, Project, and Process, fourteen green building factors were created to describe the characteristics of a green building project. Based on this information, a survey was designed and subsequently distributed to contractors to obtain i nformatio n about their personal experience with green building projects. The respondents record ed the

PAGE 10

10 The research yielded the following fourteen factors that describe the characteristics of a green building project: Upper Management Project Manager, Superintendent, Craftsmen, Materials, Innovation, Design Complexity, Construction Complexity, Scheduling, Estimating, Scope Definition, Expectations, Plans and Specifications, and Operating Procedures After analyzing th e data from the survey, it was determined that the green building factors that most negatively impact the contractor s cost and schedule were the Project Manager, Mate rials, Estimating and Operating Procedures

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The building const ruction industry is responsible for consuming an enormous at a much faster rate than they are being replenished. This situation has been identified and people and businesse s are starting to adopt a more sustainable way of life. One example of sustainability within the building construction industry is green building. Because there has been a shift towards green building, there are organizations that have created certificatio sustainable strategies. As a result, more and more building contractors are encountering projects that are implementing green building strategies as well as green building certification. Backg round of t he Problem The green building movement has grown a significant amount in a short period of time. Give n its exponential growth rate and its governmental adoption across the county, the green building movement is upon us. For example, f rom 1998 to 2008, the number of LEED certified buildings has nearly doubled each year in both number and area (Kibert 2008). Furthermore, individual green strategies such as photovoltaics and solar hot water heaters are being implemented at a growing rate also. Given the combination of the inherent competitiveness of the bidding process and the current state of the economy, building contractors are becoming involved in more and more green building contracts. Regardless of whether or not they want to pursue these green contracts, many companies are forced to bid, simply for the sake of staying in business. In this type of situation, contractors must venture away from their traditional

PAGE 12

12 and familiar markets and methods. During this period of survival and process of adaptat ion, many risks are taken and many mistakes are made. Purpose of t he Study Within the building construction industry, contra ctors are always taking risks; t his is simply the nature of the industry. A common type of risk occurs when a contractor agrees to perform a specific job that requires materials or processes that are new or unfamiliar to the contractor. In cases like this, mistakes are made and they must be accounted for and corrected. This study focused on the issues that arise due specifically to the implementation of green building strategies in regard to the contractor. In order to classify the factors involved, t endeavor was broken do wn into three many categories: People, Project, and Process. Within these thr ee categories, several factors were established to determine their role in respect to the creation of issues related to green building. T he relative importance of each factor was determined from the results of a survey Lastly, suggestions were made for fu rther study. Aim The object ive of this study was t o determine the relative importance of a set of schedule, specifically because green building practices were involved. Hy pothesis Statement The null h ypothesis was defined as: H O = A common set of green building factors that have a negative impact on the contra

PAGE 13

13 Research Objectives ized in a manner that will help identify the root cause of a green building related issue? What types of green building related issues does the contractor encounter? Who or what causes the contractor to experience a green building related issue? Which fact ors involved in the construction process deserve the most attention in order to streamline the green building process for the contractor? What knowledge or experience is advantageous to a contractor that is entering into a green building contract? Scope Th e study focused on the impacts of green building on the contractor specifically. Currently there is material that aide some of the other parties involved in the construction process, however there is a lack of information directed towards contactors. Also, the individuals within the target audience were employees of large to mid size general contractors and subcontractors. The targeted individuals and companies were both experts and novices within the green building realm. Research Methodology As mentioned above, t he construction project w as analyzed from three different aspects: People, Project, and Process. Within these three aspects, a total of fourteen green building factors were created from a review of literature. Then, a survey was sent out to genera l contractors and subcontractors to determine the importance of the fourteen green building factors. The importance was rated according to the participants past experience with issues related to each green building factor. An defined as any unp lanned loss in time or money in regard to the contractor that directly resulted from a green building practice.

PAGE 14

14 Limitations Limited range of sample The questionnaires were sent to contractors with varying degrees of green building experience. The reason f or this approach was to gain insight about different types of issues occurring with different types of contractors: novices and experts. Limited size of sample The results of this study are based on a relatively small portion of the construction industr y. A much larger sample would produce varying results. Subjectivity of the t opic The information was collected from building contractors. answers could be biased as the contractor may take a defensive position. Likewise, a contractor may be hesitant to divulge the fact that an issue could have been created internally.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW One of the goals of this review of literat ure was to give the reader a clear understanding of the term green building and the concepts behind its practice. However, before one can truly understand green building and its global movement, one must fully understand the impacts that the building const ruction industry has on the environment. In this review, as the history of the green building movement approaches the recent past, there are separate sections that describe certain topics in more detail (e.g., green legislation and building assessment syst ems). Also, speculations are made through a comprehensive research about the future trends of LEED. Lastly, a study that was influential on the development of this research is described. The Environmental Impacts of Buildings When dealing with the building construction industry and natural resources, the quantitative effect can be broken down into three main categorie s: Energy, Water and Materials. Energy Buildings consume 38.9% of the primary energy use (includes fuel input for production) in the U. S. and 72% of the electricity consumption (USGBC 2010 ) Also, buildings in the U. S. emit a significant portion of the climate changing greenhouse gas emissions. To be specific, they are responsible for 38% of all CO2 emissions (USGBC 2010 ) Water B uildings repr esent 13.6% of the entire potable water consumption in this country, which equates to fifteen trillion gallons of water every year (USGBC 2010 ) Materials Buildings and building components use six billion tons of basic material for production each year (K ibert 2008 ) Also, it is estimated that in the year 2003, one

PAGE 16

16 hundred and seventy million tons of building related construction and demolitio n debris was produced in the U. S. and 61% was created by nonresidential sources while the remaining 39% came fr om r esidential sources (USGBC 2010 ) Last ly, it is estimated that the U. S. produces almost two hundred and ten million tons of municipal solid waste each year (USGBC 2010 ) Sustainable Construction and Green Building Often times the terms sustainable construct ion and green building are used interchangeably. However, there is a distinct difference and relation between the two terms. On one hand, the term sustainable construction is a broader term that applies across the entire life cycle of construction, from pl anning, design and construction to operation, maintenance and deconstruction, and how these processes interact with the ecological, social, and economic issues of a buildin (Kibert 2008 pg. 6 ). On the other hand, the term green building refers to the structure that is created under the concept of sustainable construction. More specifically, it refers to the actual quality and characteristic s of the physical structure that was created using the principles and methodologies of sustainable construction (Kibert 2008). Sustainable construction is the system as a whole, while green building is a product of the system. Potential Benefits of Green B uilding The building construction industry is huge and therefore has an equally enormous impact on the country's economy. According to the USGBC (2010), the construction industry accounts for 13.4% of the thirteen trillion dollar U.S. GDP Therefore, many of the advantages of practicing green buil ding involve financial benefits; however, many health benefits also exist

PAGE 17

17 Green buildings save money, they consume less energy and fewer resources, and they create a healthier and more productive environment for t he oc cupants. On average, an upfront investment of 2% towards design will yield a life cycle savings of 20% of the total construction costs (Kats 2003). Additionally, according to the GAS Public Buildings Service (2008), when compared to the average commer cial building, green buildings consume 26% less energy while having 13% lower maintenance costs, 27% higher occupant satisfaction, and 33% less green house gas emissions. Furthermore, numerous studies have proven that occupant productivity is greater in a gree n building. One such study by the Heschong Mahone Group (1999) showed that students with the most day lighting in their class rooms progressed 20% faster on math tests and 26% faster on reading tests in one year than those with less day lighting. Accor ding to Alder et al. (2006) t his is a list of the potential benefits of green building : Reduced capital cost Reduced operating costs Marketing benefits (free press and product differentiation) Valuation premiums and enhanced absorption rates In some citie s, streamlined approvals by building and zoning departments Reduced liability risk Health and productivity gains Attracting and retaining employees Staying ahead of regulations New business opportunities Satisfaction from doin g the right thing History of the Green Building Movement Green building has gained a great deal of momentum in the last ten to fifteen years. This sudden growth can cause some people to believe that green building is a new concept. However, there is obvious evidence that proves green building has been

PAGE 18

18 in existence for much longer than a couple decades. In fact, some recent evidence dates back to the early eighteen hundreds where examples of passive systems such as roof ventilators and under ground air cooling chambers were utilized in passively moderated the indoor air temperature of their structures. Then, in the early nineteen hundreds, New York City became home to several influential build ings that implemented green building practices. For example, the Flatiron Building and the New York Times Building were designed with deep set windows (Cassidy 2003). The depth of these types of windows acted as a shading device to protect the building fro m buildings continued to incorporate similar concepts. In 1932, Rockefeller Center employed operable windows and sky gardens. Also, the Wainwright Building in St. L ouis and the Carson Pirie Scott Building in Chicago both featured retractable awnings (Cassidy 2003). In the early 1970 s, in the wake of the OPEC oil embargo, the American Institute of Architects formed an energy conservation task force. Eventually, in 197 5 this task force became the AIA Committee on Energy. The committee focused on two main areas: passive systems and technological solutions (Cassidy 2003). In order to cover a much broader spectrum of environmental concern, in 1989 the AIA divis ion changed its name to COTE, which stands for the Committee on the Environment (Cassidy 2003). In the meantime, the practice of green building continued to grow. By the late 1970 s, architect Norman Foster designed the Willis Faber and Dumas head office building in I pswich, England. This influential building was designed with a

PAGE 19

19 grass roof, a day lighted atrium, and a faade made entirely of bronze tinted glass (Watkin 2005). Among other things, these three green design strategies passively and naturally insulated the building, lit the interior spac e, and reduced solar heat gain. During this period, the U.S. government began to set an example for the rest of the country. In California, eight state office buildings incorporated green building concepts such as photovoltai cs, under floor rock store cooling systems, and area climate control mechanisms (Cassidy 2003). Concurrently, many different organizations with similar environmental concerns continued to form throughout the U.S. In 1977, the Solar Energy Research Institut e was founded in Golden, Colorado, while the Department of Energy was founded by the U. S. government (Cassidy 2003). Eventually, the Colorado organization later became known as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, whose research focused on energy tech nologies. As the U. S. began to establish itself within the green building arena, other countries were doing the same. Internationally, Germany, Malaysia and the U.K. were revolutionizing the movement with prefabricated energy efficient wall systems, water reclamation systems, and modular construction units that reduced construction waste (Cassidy 2003). Also, the Scandinavian government passed legislation for workspaces that set minimums for occupant access to daylight and operable windows (Cassidy 2003). F urther international movement was coming from the UN World Commission on Environment and Development. The commis sion formally defined the term susta inable development ability of future generations to meet their own needs pg. 5 ). The need for this formal definition proves the growing importance of the green building movement.

PAGE 20

20 Organizations began to publish material about the growing movement. In 1992, a guide to building products based on life cycle analysis was published called the AIA Environmental Resource Guide. Together, COTE and the AIA Scientific Advisory Committee on the Environment received funding from the Environmental Protection Agency to compile this list of p roduct evaluations (Cassidy 2003). This was the first assessment guide in the U.S. to be based on life cycle analysis. This new tool forced product manufactures to at least consider more environmentally friendly practices. Later that year, in Rio de Janeir o, the UN Conference on Environment and Development attracted one hundred and seventy two gove rnment representatives and two thousand and four hundred representatives from other organizations (Cassidy 2003). Also known as Earth Summit, this conference pass ed Agenda 21, which contained statements on forest principals, climate change, biodiversity, and other topics regarding global sustainability (Cassidy 2003). This document became known as the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. With the momentu m from the Earth Summit, sustainability was the chosen theme of the 1993 UIA/AIA World Congress of Architects in Chicago. This resulted in the signing of the Declaration of Interdependence for a Sustainable Future (Cassidy 2003). Dubbed the Architecture at the Crossroads convention, this event and its declaration was a monumental milestone for the green building movement. The movement had garnered so much merit that the federal government began participating in a major way. On Earth Day in 1993, the g reenin g of the White House was the first of many federal buildings to join in the movement. To begin, The Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency conducted an energy

PAGE 21

21 audit on the two hundred year old building. Also, almost one hundred enviro nmentalists, design professionals, engineers, and government officials participated in several design charettes to come up with energy efficient alternatives by using off the shelf technologies (Cassidy 2003). After three years of constructing, renovating, and remodeling, the White House ended up saving three hundred thousand dollars worth of energy and water savings, landscaping expenses, and solid waste costs annually (Cassidy 2003). Furthermore, the residence reduced its atmospheric emissions by eight hu ndred and forty five tons of carbon per year (Cassidy 2003). Many other government buildings and organizations followed suit after the greening of the White House. Similar actions were taken in regard to the Pentagon, the Presidio, and fittingly the U.S. D epartment of Energy Headquarters as well as the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Denali national parks (Cassidy 2003). Meanwhile, historical green legislation was being passed by the current president. As soon as the idea about greening the White House becam e a reality, President Sustainable Development. This council consisted of twenty five people, each of whom was experienced in industrial, environmental, governmental, or not for profit organizations, whose function was to advise the president on sustainable development work was over. The report described one hundred and forty actions that would improve 2003).

PAGE 22

22 Right before the Council on Sustainable Development released its findings, President Clinton was making p lans to pass a series of green legislati ve proceedings. Between 1998 and 2000, Clinton issued three executive orders that helped continue the green movement. The first was entitled Executive Order 13 101, Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recy cling, and Federal Acquisition It sta ted that every executive agency must incorporate a waste prevention and recycling plan and help expand the market of environmentally preferred products, including building materials (Exec. Order No. 13101 1998). The second was entitled Executive Order 1312 3, Green the Government Throu gh Efficient Energy Management It stated that it will promote energy efficiency, water consumption, and the use of renewable energy products, and help foster markets for emerging technologies through the design, construction, and operation of federal building s (Executive Order 13123 1999). Years later in 2007, the existing goals of this order were strengthened and the scope was extended to include transportation (Executive Order 13423 2007). The third was entitled Executive Ord er 13148, Greening the Government Through Leadersh ip in Environmental Management It stated that environmental accountability must be incorporated into the daily decision making and long term planning processes of all government agencies (Executive Order 1 3148 2000). As time went on, many other government agencies continued to take on pilot projects similar to what the White House underwent. The General Services Administration greened a Federal Courthouse in Denver and the Environmental Protection Agency gr eened Research Triangle Park in North Carolina. Also, the Navy

PAGE 23

23 boldly took on eight greening projects, one of which included the Naval Facilities Engineering Command headquarters at the Washington Navy Yard. The results involved reducing energy consumption by 35% with an annual savings of fifty eight thousand dollars on a one hundred and fifty six thousand sq uare foot structure that was one hundred and fifty years old (Cassidy 2003). As a result of the presidential orders describe above, by 2005 organizati ons such as the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of State, Environmental Protection Agency, National Park Service, and the Army, Navy, and Air Force were all major participants in the green building movement (Adler et al. 2005). Internat ional ly, the movement continued to grow. In 1998, the Green Building Challenge held its first conference in Vancouver, British Columbia. The challenge was to create an international assessment tool that addresses the Triple Bottom Line: regional and nation al environmental, economic, and social equity conditions (Cassidy 2003). The first conference attracted representatives from fourteen countries: Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Pola nd, Sweden, Switzerland the U. K., a nd the U. S. (Cassidy 2003). As this narrative reaches the recent past, a more detailed examination of the different areas of the green building movement is required. Therefore, se parate sections have been created to discuss building assessment systems and green building legislation throughout the U.S. Building Assessment Systems construction, and operation by rating it according to different criteria. All assessmen t systems have differences among them; however, for the most part they are very similar.

PAGE 24

24 Some of the general areas that are considered are environmental impacts, resource consumption, and occupant health. The environmental effects can be evaluated at sever al different scales: locally, regionally, nationally, and globally (Kibert 2008). The resource consumption can be measured in several different units: mass, energy, volume, parts per million, density, and area (Kibert 2008). The health of the building is d etermined by the amount of chemicals and biological substances in relation to circulating air. The anticipated health and well being of the occupants is also evaluated. LEED The first building assessment program to be developed and implemented in the U.S. was founded by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) in 1998. The USGBC is a non profit, non governmental organization whose members consist of people from industry, academia, and government as well as other public and private sector organizatio global adoption of sustainable green building and development practices through the creation and implementation of universally understood and accepted tools and performance criteria ( USGBC 2 010 ). The first version of LEED, which is now called LEED New Construction 3.0, was originally developed for office buildings, but is now used for all types of buildings. In response to its popularity, the USGBC has developed an entire suite of rating syst ems that appl y to specific types of projects: LEED EB: Existing Buildings Operations LEED CI: Commercial Interiors Projects LEED CS: Core and Shell Projects LEED H: Homes LEED ND: Neighborhood Development

PAGE 25

25 Also, the USGBC has created application guides for use on specific building types within each LEED product (e.g., healthcare facilities, lodging, volume building programs, multifamily residences, campuses, retail stores, and laboratories) (Kibert 2008). As of 2009, the majority of LEED certified projects are earned under LEED for New Construction (LEED NC), while LEED for Commercial Interiors (LEED CI) holds the second largest amount of registered projects (Fuerst 2009). Within the LEED NC 2.2 product, there are six cat egories with sixty nine total possibl e points. As shown in Table 2 1, t he categories are Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality, Innovation and Design Process. Lastly, as shown in Table 2 2, t he level of certification is dependent on the number of points earned. The possible ratings are Certifi ed, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Green Globes Created by the Green Building Initiative (GBI), it is a variation of the Canadian certification called The Building Research Establish ment Energy and Environmental Assess ment Method, which is abbreviated as BREEAM (Smith et al. 2006). According to the same source, Green Globes aims to satisfy some of the criticisms of the LEED process; meaning that it is more flexible, user friendly, and inexpensive. Also, in 2005, the GBI was accredited as a standards developer by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). This made them the first green buil ding organization to obtain an accreditation of this type and the GBI subsequently began es tablishing Green Globes as an official ANSI standard (Kibert 2008). The rating levels range from one to four Green Globes, which is dependent on the percentage of points tha t the project achieves out of a maximum of one thousand

PAGE 26

26 possible points. The catego ries within the rating system are Energy, Indoor Environment, Site, Water, Resources, Emissions, and Pr oject/Environmental Management. Both of these Green Globe characteristics are shown in Table 2 3 and Table 2 4. Foreign Building Assessment S ystems LEED and Green Globes are predominately used in North America. However, t hroughout the world, other countries have developed their own rating system. Some of the more popular ones are BREEAM, Green Star, CASBEE, and BCA Green Mark Scheme. Building Research Est ablishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) was implemented in 1988 by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in the United Kingdom. This building assessment system has been around the longest and according to Kibert (2008) pr ior to the existen ce of LEED, BREEAM was the most successful sys tem. As stated on their website, BREEAM is available in the U K the Gulf, and Europe. W ith over one hundred and ten thousand buildings certified and over five hundred thousand registered, it is the most widel y used green building assessment method (BREEAM 2009). Green Star was implemented in 2003 by the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA). It covers the same fundamental areas that LEED and BREEAM cover and similarly, it has specific products for differe nt types of projects. For example, there are tools f or education, healthcare, multi unit residential, industrial, office, office interiors and retail projects (BGCA 2010). Also, t he GBCA is currently in the process of developing different tools for each ph office

PAGE 27

2 7 design is in its second version while convention centre design is it its pilot stage (BGCA 2010). Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE) was implemented in 2001 by the Japan Green Build Council (JaGBC) and the Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC). New Construction, Existing Buildings, and Renovation are three assessment tools that are currently being implemented on office, residential, academic, industrial, a nd governmental buildings throughout Japan and Asia (CASBEE 2009). T hey also have a p re design tool; however it is still under development. Lastly, they have created area s of concentration that can be applied to each of the tools. For instance, there are o ptions that address heat island effect and regional impact specifically (CASBEE 2009). Green Mark Scheme was implemented in 2005 by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) of Singapore. The Green Mark Scheme offers many of the same tools as the other assessment systems; however, it does explore some new areas. There are tools for new and existing parks, infrastructure, and district projects (BCA 2006). Green Legislation Presently, more than fifty cities and several states across the country have manda ted standards based on the LEED rating system (Fuerst 2009). Some of the major municipalities include Atlanta, Austin, Boston Boulder, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, and Seattle (City of New York 2005). Some of the states include California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island (City of New York 2005).

PAGE 28

28 Washington D. C. The Green Building Act of 2006 made Washington D. C. the first major U. S. city to require priv ate projects to earn LEED certification. The act incorporated high performance building standards into the current local building codes by mandating several LEED products and ENERGY STAR. The goals of this act were : To establish high performance building s tandards that require the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of building projects; to establish a green building incentives program that includes an expedited construction documents review program; to establish a Green Building Fund and to establish the Green Building Advisory Council; to amend the Construction Codes Approval and Amendments Act of 1986 to provide for the revision of the Construction Codes and to include green building practices; and to amend the Office of Property M anagement Establishment Act of 1998 to require priority leasing of buildings that meet certain green building standards (District of Columbia 2006 pg. 1) In summary, this act aimed to create a comprehensive green building standard that would alter the bu ilding codes and property management laws. It also includes the establishment of an advisory council that among other things, manages the process, the funds and the incentive program. New York City In 2005, New York City passed Local Law No. 86, which b asically required all projects that are paid for in whole or in part by the city treasury to be LEED certified. Because most of their electricity is produced locally, the goal of this regulation was to reduce local emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxi de, carbon dioxide, mercury, and pg 1). govern ment departments were already implementing green building practices prior to

PAGE 29

29 the Local Law 86 (e.g., the Battery Park City Authority, the Department of Design and Construction, the New York City Transit Authority, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporatio n, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey). This involved green building guidelines for all residential and commercial constru ction in Battery Park and all ev en designated as one of the five general requirements for the World Trade Center site (City of New York 2005). Each capital project with an estimated construction cost of two million with green building standards not less stringent than the standards prescribed for buildings in accordance with the LEED green building rating system to achieve a LEED silver or higher rating, or, with respect to buildings classified in occupancy groups G or H 2, to achieve a LEED certified or higher rating. (City of New York 2005 pg. 4 5 ) According to Kiber t (2008), these are the goals of high p erforma nce buildings a ccording to the City of New York Department of Design and Construction : Raise expectations Ensure that capital budgeting design and construction practices result in investments that make economic and environmental sense. Mainstream these improved practices through (1) comprehensive pilot high performance building efforts and (2) incremental use of individual high performance strategies on projects of limited scope. Create partnerships in the design and construction process around environmental and economic performance goals. Save tax payers money through reduced energy and material expenditures, waste disposal costs, and utility bills. Improve the comfort, health, and well being of building occupants and public visitors. Design buildings with improved performance, which can be operated and maintained within the limits of existing resources.

PAGE 30

30 Stimulate markets for sustainable technologies and products. (Kibert 2008) Gainesville In 2002, Florida adopted its first green building assessment tool via an ordinance called the Gainesville Green Building (GGB) program. The GGB program utilizes LEED on institutional and commercial buildings and it utilizes Green Home Designation Standard from the Florida Green Building Coalition for residential buildings. The program is required for all city owne d civic and office buildings; however it is optional for city owned residential buildings It is also optional for private sector commercial and residential projects. However, as encouragement for voluntary participants, the ordinance includes an incentive program. For all projects participating, both mandatory and voluntary, building permits will be fast tracked and the permitting fee will be reduced by 50% while funds are available (City of Gainesville 2002). The money that is saved from the permitting fe e is usually enough to pay for the green building certification fee. Therefore it does not have to incentives, the project must be certified by an independent third party. The program also offers incentives through website and press release marketing and by erecting participation signage at the jobsite. Lastly, an annual award is issued to one participant in each category that exemplifies commitment to the program (City of Gaine sville 2002). As mentioned above, this was the first green building assessment tool to be adopted by Florida It proved to be very influential because almost two and a half years after Gainesville passed its GGB p rogram, the city of Sarasota passed its own green building code. Except for a few changes in declaration in order to meet the needs of the

PAGE 31

31 LEED Investment Trends As the green building movement continues to gain mome ntum throughout the world and specifically in this country, it is receiving more and more media coverage. However, despite the relatively fast growth rate and the general perception of the publicity buildings that have earned a green building certificatio n actually hold an insignificant portion of the overall commercial real estate market (Fuerst 2009). As described above, more and more federal, state, and local governments continue to mandate green standards into their building codes and legislation. Rega rdless of the hype or the regulation, the current numbers prove that certified green buildings ac tually make up much less than 1 % of the overall market (Fuerst 2009). This section of the research studies the recent history of LEED investment trends in an a ttempt to draw clues about what to e xpect from future development. As described earlier in this chapter the USGBC has four different products within the LEED program. Figure 2 1 shows the distribution of shares that each of these product s possess By far, New Construction is the most popular with 67% of the LEED market, followed by Commercial Interiors holding 21% of the shares. Lastly, Core and Shell and Existing Buildings hold equal amounts of the remaining 12% of LEED certified buildings. Fuerst (2009) points out that when one considers the amount of effort that is devoted to climate change, it is interesting that existing building only make up about 6% of all projects. However, Yudelson (2008) speculates that this is due to the investment cost of the ce rtification process combined with the potential for modifications. Furthermore, when renovating or remodeling an existing building there is a relatively limited scope when compared to new construction (Yudelson 2008).

PAGE 32

32 Regardless of which LEED product is c hosen, there are four different levels of certifica tion that a building can earn: Certified, S i lver, Gold, and P latinum. Figure 2 2 shows that as of 2009, Certified, Silver, and G old hold about the same percentage of buildin gs, with only about 5% earning P latinum. Recently, an empirical study was conducted to determine if there is a correlation between certification level and energy consumption. After studying one hundred LEED certified buildings, Newsham et al. (2009) discovered that there was in fact a co rrelation; however it was very weak. It was also determined th at about one third of the LEED certified buildings used more energy than comparable non certified b uildings (Newsham et al. 2009). Additional observations can be made when studying the certifica tion level compared to the number of credits achieved. Figure 2 3 shows that there is not an even distribution of credits across the levels of certification. In fact, there is tendency for projects to earn fewer credits as they approach the upper limits of the certification level. Fuerst (2009) made two assumptions about this data. One possible explanation is that the organization seeking certification takes the easiest and most inexpensive route possible in order to obtain the desired level. Another possib le explanation is that at some point during the certification process, the organization discovers that the next level is achievable and therefore they invest any points between certification levels. However, Fuerst (20 09) admits that further research between investment and certification level could yield other possibilities. Over the years, LEED has been criticized for the reported lack of improvement that the lower levels of certification actually have on environmenta l factors; especially in relation to the level of certification (Fuerst 2009). In response to these criticisms, it has

PAGE 33

33 been said that the USGBC has raised the bar in regard to the environmental performance standards. With this in mind, the data in Figure 2 4 shows a steady decrease in the numbe r of LEED projects earning the C ertified level from 2000 to 2008. At the sam e time, the amount of Gold and S ilver certified bui ldings increased while P latinum has remained steady. Fuerst (2009) suggests this could ind icate a lower pub lic buildings and/or organizations a re showing more green ambition. The figure discussed in the previous paragraph describes the proportional distribution of the levels of certification. A different appreciatio n can be gained when absolu te numbers are applied to same eight year time span. Based on the information in Figure 2 5, Fuerst (2009) makes the following statement: A possibly important clue for the future of development of eco certification for buildings is the fact that the current recession, which according to most sources began around December 2007, has no visible impact on the exponential gro wth of building certification. (Fuerst 2009 pg. 291 ) However, due to the fact that some projects may have alre ady been in progress when the recession hit, he goes on to state that it may be too early to extrapolate this data with a strong sense of confidence. Some critics believe that the green building certification market could not survive without the legislatio n and incentives from the private sector (Fuerst 2009). When studying the clients seeking LEED certification in Figure 2 6, it is apparent that the amount of private developers and corporate clients has been increasing a significant amo unt in the last eigh t years. Fuerst (2009) believes this data indicates that an increasing number of private organizations are viewing LEED as a valuable investment.

PAGE 34

34 Characteristics of a Construction Project This study identified several green building project characteristic s that cause time and money issues for the contractor. The overall structure of the characteristics was adapted from James Diekmann and Matthew Girard (1995) Their work sought to identify several project characteristics that were thought to have an effect on the potential for disputes to arise These project characteristics were used to determine if some construction projects are more prone to contract d isputes than others Diekmann The reaso n this information is included in the literature review is because it was influential in the development and design of this green building survey and research People The people aspects are noted to be extremely important due to the number of organizations relationships, roles and responsibilities involved i n the building process. "Do the organizations involved have the personnel resources to manage the process ann and Girard 1995, pg. 355). The people aspec t, which is divided into three sections is illustrated in Figure 2 7. Within the contractor and owner sections, Capable M anagement is the upper management who are responsible for the success of the project via a home office or corporate level that they ha ve long term obligations. Effectiveness of R esponsibility is the internal structure of the people who are responsible for making decisions. Experience with that Type of P roject ience with e to the individuals experience. Success of Past P rojects is defined as the data from measurable project outcomes though analyzing schedules, budgets, quality, and disputes on previous projects. Experience and C ompetence deals

PAGE 35

35 with individuals that actuall y manage the construction of the project (e.g., project managers, proje ct engineers, superintendents). Motivation reasoning behind being motivated to avoid and resolve disputes; whether it is dir ect, tangible, and/or personal. In terpersonal Skills of the I ndividuals is described as the training and the types of experiences that these skills have evolved from (Diekmann and Girard 1995). Within the business relationship section, Team B uilding deals with the effort put forth by each party to ap proach the endeavor as a team. W orking H istory is defines the history of the two organizati ons. Power B alance considers the financial, experiential, and technical power of one party o ver the other during a dispute. Expectations of Further W ork d escribes how organization can affect how disputes are actually handled (Diekmann and Girard 1995). Project The project aspect considers the degree of techn ical complexity of the project. Once the project is defined in the plans and specifications it ca nnot be substantially changed. It is said by the aut hors that, because of this fact the project characteristics provide lesser opportunities t o improve dispute performance. This aspect is divided into two categories, which is illustrated in Figure 2 8 Within the internal variables, the E nvironmental I ssues indicate the importance of environmental regu lations related to the project. Public In terference defines who will be impacted by the project. Site L imitations measure the actual boundaries of the proje ct sit e. Remoteness of the P roject is measured by the availability of adequate mat erials and technical expertise. Lastly, A vailability of Capable Craftsmen and S ubcontractors takes into account th e ability of these local trades (Diekmann and Girard 1995).

PAGE 36

36 As for the external variables, Pioneer P roject measures the precedence of the technology used in this project and the degree of innovation. On the other hand, Design C omplexity deals simply with the co mplexity of the design and the Construction C omplexity deals simply with the complexity of the construction. Lastly, the S ize is measured in terms of the estimated contractual amount (Diekmann and Girard 1995). Process The process issues include exactl y how the project is executed. Some of the types of activities th at are involved in this phase of the project are planning, financing, scope, obligations, risk allocation, administration procedures, quality of construction documents, and dispute mitigation techniques. The process aspec t is divided into two branches whi ch is illustrated in Figure 2 9. P re construction planning identifies the issues that are dealt with before the contract is actually signed C onstruction contract actually defines the signed agreement betwe en the owner and the contractor. The first factor unde r pre construction planning is Input from all the Groups I nvolved which includes the information about planning activities that m ust be shared with all parties. The next one is Financial P lanning which considers financial support and planning in rel ation to anticipating cost growth, change orders, and contingency. Permits and R egulations is a measure of the efficiency while executi ng the permit process. S cope D efinition indicates how well the owner defined the scope (Diekmann and Girard 1995). Within the construction contract, Realistic O bligations measure how practical and achievable the requirements are for the project. Risk Identification and A llocation decides if the risk was accurately identified and then allocated appropriately. A dequacy of Tech nical Plans and S pecifications measures the quality of the documents in regard

PAGE 37

37 to completeness, clarity, errors, and omissions. Formal D ispute Resolution P rocess measures how well the contract creates guidelin es for resolution of disputes. Lastly, Operatin g P rocedures measure how well these procedures are outlined and described in the contract documents (Diekmann and Girard 1995). Table 2 1. Maximum Points within each LEED Category LEED NC 2.2 Category Maximum Points 1. Sustainable Sites 14 2. Water Effic iency 5 3. Energy and Atmosphere 17 4. Materials and Resources 13 5. Indoor Environmental Quality 15 6. Innovation and Design Process 5 Total Possible Points 69 Table 2 2. Points Required for LEED NC 2.2 Certification Level LEED NC 2.2 Certificati on Level Points Required Platinum 52 69 Gold 39 51 Silver 33 38 Certified 26 32 No Rating 25 or less Table 2 3. Maximum Points within each Green Globe Category (Kibert 2008) Green Globe Category Maximum Points Project Management 50 Site 115 Energ y 300 Water 100 Resources, Building Materials, and Solid Waste 100 Emissions and Effluents 75 Indoor Environment 200 Total Possible Points 1000

PAGE 38

38 Table 2 4. Percentage Required for Green Globe Certification Level (Kibert 2008) Percentage Required Ce rtification Level Description 85 100% 4 Green Globes Reserved for select building designs which serve as national or world leaders in energy and environmental performance. The project introduces design practices that can be adopted and implemented by othe r. 70 84% 3 Green Globes Demonstrates leadership in energy and environmental design practices and a commitment to continuous improvement and industry leadership 55 69% 2 Green Globes Demonstrates excellent progress in achieving eco friendly results throu gh current best practices in energy and environmental design. 35 54% 1 Green Globe Demonstrates movement beyond awareness and commitment to sound energy and environmental design practices by demonstrating good progress in reducing environmental impacts Figure 2 1 Share of LEED rating systems in all r egistrations (as of March 2009) (Fuerst 2009)

PAGE 39

39 Figure 2 2. Achieved levels of LEED certification (as of March 2009) (Fuerst 2009) Figure 2 3. Distribution of credits achieved and certification levels (a s of March 2009) (Fuerst 2009)

PAGE 40

40 Figure 2 4. Distribution of certification levels 2000 2008 (Fuerst 2009) Figure 2 5. Number of certified LEED buildings (2008) (Fuerst 2008) Figure 2 6. The changing composition of organizations and compan ies seeking LE ED certification (Fuerst 2009)

PAGE 41

41 People Contractor Business Relationship Owner Capable Management Team Building Capable Management Responsibility Structures History Together Responsibility Structures Experience w/type Project Power Balance Experience w /type Project Success of Past Projects Expectations of Further Work Success of Past Projects Experience/Competence Experience/Competence Motivation Motivation Interpersonal Skills Interpersonal Skills Figure 2 7. People aspect of construction proj ect characteristics from Diekmann and Girard (1995) Project External Internal Environmental Issues Pioneer Project Public Interference Design Complexity Site Limitation Construction Comple xity Remoteness Size Availability of Capable Craftsmen and Subcontractors Figure 2 8. Project branch of hierarchy from Diekmann and Girard (1995) Process Pre Construction Planning Construct ion Contract Realistic Obligations Input from All Groups Involved Risk Identification/Allocation Financial Planning Adequacy of Technical Plans/Specifications Permits and Regulations Formal Dispute Resolution Process Scope Definition Operating Pro cedures Figure 2 9. Process branch of hierarchy from Diekmann and Girard (1995)

PAGE 42

42 CHAPTER 3 SURVEY DESIGN AND METHODOLO GY Sample Selection T he objective of this study was directed towards contractors and subcontractors ; therefore the sample population w as contractors and subcontractors To obtain information from various perspectives, t he sample selection consisted of small to large companies and the targeted individuals ranged from upper management and project managers t o superintendents and craftsmen. Both t he companies and the individuals possessed varying degrees of green building experience. Therefore, the data was collected from both novices and experts within the green building arena. Survey Design As stated in Chapter 2, a study conducted by Diekm ann and Girard (1995) sought to identify several project characteristics that were thought to have an effect on the potential for disputes to arise T he overall structure of the project characteristics (People, Project, Process) and the general design and development of the survey for this green building research was ado pt ed from the Diekmann and Girard research. The overall structure of the green building factors is shown in Figure3 1. Other than demographics, t he survey contained three main sections : Peop le, Project and P rocess. Within these sections a total fourteen green building factors were defined; each of which was assigned a question that was designed to gather information about the Within the realm was any unplanned loss of time and/or money that the contractor suffered, specifically due to a green building practice The instruction s to the survey read as follows:

PAGE 43

43 The following 14 questions ask whether a specific green building factor hindered the contractor in completing a project ON TIME and ON SCHEDULE. Please answer the questions from the perspective of individual projects, as opposed to your overal l career experience in general. For example, assume you have w orked on 10 separate green building projects. If, "Factor X" played a "very important" role in 2 projects, but in the other 8 projects it had "no effect then please answer accordingly. In other words, each individual respondent was asked to account for e very single green building project he/she had ever been involved with. Therefore, the maximum amount of information was gathered from each respondent. Some respondents represented a single project while other respondents represented several projects. A fiv e point Likert Scale was used to rate each factor To avoid a choice. The six choices were: not sure, no effect, fairly important, important, very impor tant, and critically significant. People Considering the number of individuals that are involved in a construction project and the fact that they must work together to manage and control the constantly changing conditions of the project, people can be cons idered the foundation of the entire endeavor. Th e people aspect of the survey considers the role of the contractor s employees throughout the green building process. Upper M anagement was defined as the group of individuals at the highest level of manag emen t within the organization. This includes any personnel at a home office or corporate level. The upper management does not focus on the d aily activities of the project. Instead they are responsible for major finan cial and managerial decisions. Upper managem ent can also be referred to as executive, corporate, or senior

PAGE 44

44 management. building issues for the contractor? Project M anager was defined as the person who provides the general administrat ive direction for the project. This person is typically responsible for the overall performance of the project, which includes cost, schedule, quality, and project status. Among other things, this person oversees the operations of the superintendent and is responsible for maintaining the relationship between the contractor and the other parties invo lved in the project: owner, architect, engineer, subcontractors, and suppliers. How for the contractor? Superintendent was defined as the person responsible for all the field aspects of the project, which includes budget, sched ule, quality, and performance. Among other things, this person plans and implements the construction means and m ethods, site utilization, job site office operation, and project closeout. The superintendent is also responsible for coordinating and supervising all trade and field personnel. How es for the contractor? Craftsman was defined as an employee of either the general contractor or subcontractor that is involved in the physica l construction of the project. Some examp les of this position include: plumber, electrician, carpenter, brick layer painter, equipment operator, et cetera. green building issues for the contractor?

PAGE 45

45 Project Another main aspect of this study is the project itself This consider s the variables that are related to the surrounding area where the project is located and the fundamental characteristics that are built into the project. Green Building M aterials was defined as any specified material that is used to satisfy a green requirement An example of this would be Fores t Stewardship Council (FSC) wood, low volatile organic compound (VOC) materials, solar panels, material containing recycled content, or low emissivity (low E) glass. How much did the green building materials contribute to issues for the contractor? Before the next three factors are discussed, the difference between innovation and complexity must be clearly defined. Innovation refers to the introduction of new strategies and the precedence of that type of strategy. Complexity refers to the intricacies of the interconnected parts of a strategy. For example, the faade of the Notre Dame Cathedral is very complex; however, the design itself is several hundred years old, therefore it is not innovative. Likewise, a new type of drywall, which is able to be produced with 80% less energy than traditional drywall is sim ply made of recycled material Therefore, t his is an innovative yet simple product Innovativeness of the Green Building S trategies is defined as new and cutting edge practices. This criterion does not consider the complexity of the project; it considers the precedence of this type of strategy. How much did the innovativeness of the green building strategies contribute to issues for the contractor? Design C omplexity of the g reen b uilding strategies was d efined as the intricacies of the interconnected parts of the design while the construction complexity of the green building strategies is defined as the intricacies of the construction process. The design

PAGE 46

46 and construction are two different factors, both of which deal with complexity. How much did the design complexity of the green building strategies contribute to issues for the contractor? How much did the construction complexity of the green building strategies contribute to issues for the contractor? Pro cess This is the last main aspect of the study and it contains two sub sections P re C onstruction considered the process that occurs before the cont ract between the owner and the contractor is signed while Construction C ontract considered the process after the agreement is signed and how different factors are defined within it Pre construction p lanning Scheduling considered any issues that occur during the scheduling process or any issues that arise during the construction process that result from decision s that were made during the scheduling process. How much did the scheduling of the green building strategies contribute to issues for the contractor? Estimating considered any issues that occur during the estimating process or any differences between the e stimate and actual costs incurred due to a green building factor. How much did the estimating of the green building strategies contribute to issues for the contractor? Construction c ontract Scope D efinition considered any ambiguity in the responsibilities of the parties involved in the green building process. For example, if a building is expected to earn a green building certification, and the contractor is solely responsible for energy commissioning, then these responsibilities should be clear ly stated an d described Furthermore, in some cases a third party is responsible for energy commissioning. This

PAGE 47

47 third party has no contractual r elationship with the contractor; h owever, if they must coordinate and perform tasks together, the scope should define the re lationship How much did the scope definition of the green building strategies contribute to issues for the contractor? Expectations consider ed the green building requirements of the contract to determine if these requirements are actually possible. An exa mple can be illustrated by using the Waste Management credit from LEED NC The contract states that the existing structure must be demolished and 75% of the demolished material must be diverted from the landfill. If 75% of the material is not actually recy clable or otherwise divertible from the landfill, then this requirement is not realistic. How much did the practicality of the green building obligations contribute to issues for the contractor? Technical Plans and S pecifications were defined as the drawin gs and documents that describe what needs to be built. This factor deals with any errors or omissions in regard to these drawings and documents. How much did the accuracy of the technical plans and specifications of the green building strategies contribute to issues for the contractor? Operating P rocedures consider ed the requirements of the submittal and communication procedures that directly affect the green building certification. An example would be any issues that arise due to sample and cut sheet submi ttals or the use of online up loadable databases such as Project Management Information Systems (PMIS) or LEED Online How much did the operating procedures of the green building strategies contribute to issues for the contractor?

PAGE 48

48 Initial Data Analysis In order to perform the initial analysis of the data, the mean of each factor was calculated by converting the five point Likert Scale into numerical values in which: = 1 = 3 4 = 5 choice was eliminated from analysis because it carried no statistical significance. Once the mean was calculated, t he green building factor with the largest mean value w ithin its respective category of People Project and Proces s : Pre construction and Process : Contract wa s selected for further analysis. The four green building factors that meet the selection criteria were then entered into a contingency table to depict the frequency and percentage of each occurrence. The data was organized as or more specifically, This create d five rows down the side for the dependent variable and four columns across the top for the independent variable Tha t is, the four green building factors were en tered across the top to create four columns and the five point Likert Scale was e ntered down the side to create five rows. that depicts the sum of the rows. Final Data Analysis Lastly, the data from the contingency table was used to create a chi square matrix work sheet, which was used to perform the chi square test This significance test was performed to determine if the col lected data from the sample population was genuine

PAGE 49

49 and therefore could be applied to the full population. If the test proves that there are no difference s, then the null hypothesis can be accepted However, if there are in fact differences, this is the ind ication of a sampling error; therefore, the collected data cannot be applied to the full population and the n ull hypothesis must be rejected. C hi squared formula : X^2 = [( f o f e )^2/ f e ] where X^2 = chi squared calculated f o = obtained frequencies f e = expected frequencies The number calculated from the chi square formula is referred to as X^2 calculated. The number from the chi square statistical tables is referred t o as X^2 table which is determined from two pieces of information : the level of confidence and the degrees of freedom. T he level of confidence used in this analysis was 95% because this is a commonly used value for stati sti cal analysis. The degrees of fre edom was calculated from a formula. Degrees of freedom formula : df = ( r 1)( c 1) w here d f = degrees of freedom r = number of categories of the dependant variable c = number of categor ies of the independent variable If X^2 calculated is less than X^2 t able, the null hypothesis is rejected, however, if X^2 calculated is greater than X^2 table, the null hypothesis is accepted and the results can be applied to the full population.

PAGE 50

50 People Project Process Upper M gmt Materials Pre Construction Contract Project Manager Innovation Scheduling Scope Definition Superintendent Design Complexity Estimating Expectations Craftsman Construct Complexity Plans and Specs Operating Procedures Figure 3 1. Structure of the green building project characteristics

PAGE 51

51 CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS As stated in the methodology section, the five point Likert Scale was converted from vocabulary terms into numerical values Table 4 1 illustrates the frequency of occurrences for each of the fourteen green building factor s. Note the numerical value assigned to each point of the Likert Scale These values were used to calculate the mean of each green building factor occurrence which is illustrated in Table 4 2. Based on the highest mean value within its respective category four green building fact or s were selected for further analysis. The four factors that meet the selection criteria were Project Manager, Materials, Estimating, and Operating Procedures T he four green building factors were entered into the contingency tab le depicted in Table 4 3. This table was used to create the data in the chi squared matrix worksheet depicted in Table 4 4. The chi squared test yielded an X^2 calculated value of 110.554. With a degrees of freedom of 12 and a level of confidence of 95%, t he X^2 table value was found to be 21.026. The X^2 calculated value was greater than the X^2 table, therefore, there were no differences and the null hypothesis was accepted. This is a summery of the data described in the previous paragraph: X^2 calculate d = 110.554 Level of confidence = 95% Degrees of freedom = 12 X^2 table = 21.026 110.554 > 21.026 T herefore the null h ypothesis was accepted. Further analysis was conducted in order to determine the statistical significance of each of the four green build ing factors on an individual basis. The chi squared test was performed four additional times, once for each of the four factors. The confidence level

PAGE 52

52 remained 95%, however the degrees of freedom was 5 since the input data differed The X^2 calculated for P roj ect Manager, Materials, Estimating Operating Procedures were 39.696, 31.270, 22.024, and 17.561 respectively. This is a summery of the data described in the previous paragraph: Level of confidence = 95% Degrees of freedom = 5 X^2 table = 11.070 Projec t Manager X^2 calculated = 39.696 Materials X^2 calculated = 31.270 Estimating X^2 calculated = 22.024 Operating Procedures X^2 calculated = 17.561 Therefore, the null h ypothesis was accepted for each green building factor on an individual basis Table 4 1. Frequency of occurrence of green building factors 1 2 3 4 5 Rating Green Building Factor no effect fairly important important very important critically significant Q1 Upper Management 23 45 60 51 25 Q2 Project Manager 6 21 42 71 61 Q3 Superintend ent 22 50 46 54 23 Q4 Craftsman 55 57 43 32 14 Q5 Materials 30 34 71 35 20 Q6 Innovation 43 44 55 48 11 Q7 Design Complexity 43 42 43 58 13 Q8 Construct Complexity 48 72 32 23 13 Q9 Scheduling 40 70 22 38 28 Q10 Estimating 4 56 47 53 40 Q11 Scope D efinition 42 32 55 47 11 Q12 Expectations 26 44 67 22 25 Q13 Plans and Specs 22 51 60 29 25 Q14 Operating Procedures 26 32 52 61 15

PAGE 53

53 Table 4 2. Mean and standard deviation values of green building factors Rating Green Building Factor Mean Std Dev Chi S qrd Q1 Upper Management 3.05 1.19 Q2 Project Manager 3.80 1.08 x Q3 Superintendent 3.03 1.21 Q4 Craftsman 2.40 1.22 Q5 Materials 2.90 1.19 x Q6 Innovation 2.71 1.20 Q7 Design Complexity 2.79 1.27 Q8 Construct Complexity 2.37 1.19 Q9 Scheduli ng 2.72 1.36 Q10 Estimating 3.35 1.15 x Q11 Scope Definition 2.75 1.23 Q12 Expectations 2.87 1.21 Q13 Plans and Specs 2.91 1.20 Q14 Operating Procedures 3.04 1.18 x Table 4 3. Contingency table: Importance rating by green building factor Projec t Manager Materials Estimating Ops Total f % f % f % f % f % 1 6 3% 30 16% 4 2% 26 14% 66 8% 2 21 10% 34 18% 56 28% 32 17% 143 18% 3 42 21% 72 38% 47 24% 52 28% 213 27% 4 71 35% 35 18% 53 27% 61 33% 220 28% 5 61 30% 20 10% 40 20% 15 8% 136 17% Tota l 201 100% 191 100% 200 100% 186 100% 778 100%

PAGE 54

54 Table 4 4. Chi squared matrix worksheet: Importance rating by green building factor Project Manager Materials Estimating Ops Total f f e f f e f f e f f e 1 6 (17.1) 30 (16.2) 4 (17.0) 26 (15.8) 66 2 21 ( 36.9) 34 (35.1) 56 (36.8) 32 (34.2) 143 3 42 (55.0) 72 (52.3) 47 (54.8) 52 (50.9) 213 4 71 (56.8) 35 (54.0) 53 (56.6) 61 (52.6) 220 5 61 (35.1) 20 (33.4) 40 (35.0) 15 (32.5) 136 Total 201 191 200 186 778

PAGE 55

55 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND R ECOMMEN DAT IONS Aim and Hypothesis The aim of this study was t o determine the relative importance of a set of criterion specifically because green building practices were involved. Furth ermore, t he null h ypothesis stated that a common set of green building factors that have a negative After completing a comprehensive literature review, conducting a survey on green building factors and a nalyzing the data from the survey the null h ypothesis was accepted; therefore, the common set of green buil ding factors does indeed exist: Project Manager, Materials, Estimating, and Operating Procedures Research Objectives The research ob jectives were c ompleted in two different phases of the research process. The first three objectives had to be satisfied before the survey design could be considered complete. The last two objectives could only be satisfied after the survey data was analyzed. Pre Design Objectives: that will help identify the root cause of a green building related issue? What types of green building related issues does the contractor encounter? Who or what ca uses the contractor to experience a green building related issue? Firstly, t he Diekmann and Girard (1995) study served as a foundation for the first three objectives and the overall structure of the survey. T heir project characteristics were either modifie d as much as possible in order to satisf y the conditions of this study or

PAGE 56

56 they were simply eliminated The characteristics that were eliminated were developed from a combination of other sources encountered during the review of literature and from the pers onal experience of the researcher. a manner that would determine the root cause of green building related issues. During this process, different types of green building related issues were id entified and described, which includes the potential causes of these issues. The overall structure of the characteristics is depicted in Figure 5 1 while the detailed descriptions of the terms can be found in Chapter 3 and Appendix A of this document Pos t Analysis Objectives : Which factors involved in the construction process deserve the most attention in order to streamline the green building process for the contractor? What knowledge or experience is advantageous to a contractor that is entering into a green building contract? After performing the statistical analysis described in Chapter 4, it was determined that the four green building project characteristics that deserve the most attention are Project Manager, Materials, Estimating, and Operating Pro cedures All of the information found in this research would be advantageous to a contractor entering into a green building contract. However, the information that would be most valuable is the structure and characteristics of a green building project comb ined with the data found in Figure 5 2. With these two items combined, it would help the contractor think of the project in an organized and simplified manner and plan and perform accordingly once the data is applied.

PAGE 57

57 Recommendations for Future Study Unde r the circumstances of unlimited time and unlimited resources, this study cou ld have explore d many other possibilities. Below are some recommendations for future study on green building practices and the contractor. Sample Characteristics An increased samp le size would obviously yield more accurate results when compared to the true population. However, various demographic characteristics would yield much more specific and thus valuable information. When considering the demographics of projects, further rese arch could study public, private, commercial, and/or residential projects either individually or the differences and similarities among them. The same could be done with project size in terms of price or area. Another area that deserves more attention is t he green building experience of individuals and/or companies. Identifying issues encountered by expert green builders and comparing them to novice mistakes on an individual and /or company wide basis would be extremely valuable information to the constructi on industry. Survey Design The survey for this study was inspired mainly from a literature review combined with a relatively small amount of real world experience with green building A researcher with more construction experience, specifically pertaining to green building, could possibly design a much different approach to characterizing a green building project.

PAGE 58

58 People Project Process Upper M gmt Materials Pre Construction Contract Project Manager Innovation Scheduling Scope Definition Superint endent Design Complexity Estimating Expectations Craftsman Construct Complexity Plans and Specs Operating Procedures Figure 5 1. Structure of the green building project characteristics Figure 5 2. Mean value of green building factor from highest t o lowest in each category

PAGE 59

59 APPENDIX A SURVEY

PAGE 60

60

PAGE 61

61

PAGE 62

62

PAGE 63

63

PAGE 64

64

PAGE 65

65 APPENDIX B SURVEY RESULTS

PAGE 66

66

PAGE 67

67

PAGE 68

68

PAGE 69

69

PAGE 70

70

PAGE 71

71 LIST OF REFERENCES Adler, A., Armstrong, J., Azerbegi, R., Guy, G., Fuller, S., Kalin, M., Karolides, A., Lelek, M., Lippiatt, B., Macalusa, J., Spencer, E., Waier, P., and Walker, A. (2006). Green building: Project planning and cost estimating; A practical guide to: Materials, systems & standards; green products specifying & assessing cost verse value; resource efficiencies, health, comfort & productivity ; commissioning 2 nd Ed., R.S. Means, Kingston, MA. Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency ( CASBEE ) (2009). overview of CASBEE, Japan GreenBuild Council and Japan Sustainable Building Consortium, < http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/englis h/index.htm > (March 2010). Building and Construction Authority (BCA). (2006) About Green Mark Scheme Building and Construction Authority, < http://www.bca.gov.sg/greenmark/green_mark_buildings.html > (March 2010). Building Research Establishment Enviro nmental Assessment Method ( BREEAM ) (2009). BREEAM around the world < http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=135 > (March 2010) Cassidy, R. (2003). White paper on sustainability: A report on the green building movement Reed Business Informa tion Building Design & Construction, Oakbrook, IL. J ournal C onstruction Engineering and Management ASCE, 121(4), 335 363. District of Columbia. (2006). Green building act of 200 6 Council of the District of Columbia, West Group Publisher, Washington, D.C. < http://rrc.dc.gov/green/lib/green/pdfs/GreenBuilding_act06.pdf > ( April 2010 ) Exec. Order No. 12852, 58 Fed. Reg. 124 (July 2, 1993) Exec. Order No. 13101, 63 Fed. Reg. 179 ( Sept. 16, 1998) Exec. Order No. 13123, 64 Fed. Reg. 109 (June 8, 1999) Exec. Order No. 13148, 65 Fed. Reg. 81 (April 26, 2000) Exec. Order No. 13423, 72 Fed. Reg. 17 (Jan. 26, 2007) Fuerst, F. (2009). Building momentum: An analysis of investment trend s in LEED and Energy Star certified properties, Journal of Retail & Leisure Property Palgrave Macmillian, 8(4), 285 297.

PAGE 72

72 Gainesville, Florida. (2002). Code of ordinances: Chapter 6 / Article 1.5 / Section 6 5 through 6 15; Gainesville green building pro gram City of Gainesville, G ainesville, FL, < http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/materials/gainesville%20 %20greenbuildingprogram.pdf > ( April 2010) GAS Public Buildings Service (2008). Assessing g reen b uilding p erformance: A p ost o ccupancy e valuation of 12 GSA b uild ings GSA Public Buildings Service, < http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachments/GSA_DOCUMENT/GSA_AssessGree n_white_paper_R2 p q5Q_0Z5RDZ i34K pR.pdf > (October 2009). Green Building Council of Australia (2010) Green star rating tools Green Building Council of Australia < http://www.gbca.org.au/green star/rating tools/ > (May 2010) Heschong Mahone Group (1999). Daylighting in s chools: An i nvestigation into the r elationship b etween d aylighting and h uman p erformance Heschong Mahone Group Pacific Gas and El ectric Company, < http://www.coe.uga.edu/sdpl/research/daylightingstudy.pdf > (Oct ober 2009) Kats, G. (2003). The c osts and f inancial b enefits of g reen b uildings: A r eport to C s ustainable b uilding t ask f orce Massachusetts Technology Collaborat ive, Westborough, MA. Kibert, C. (2008). Sustainable Construction: Green building design and delivery 2 nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ. New York, New York. (2005). Local Law No. 86: To amend the New York city charter, in relation to green bu ilding standards for certain capital projects City of New York, New York, NY. < http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/ll_86of2005.pdf > (April 2010) Newsham, G., Mancini, S. and Birt, B. (2009). Do LEED certified buildings save Energ y and Buildings Elsevier B.V., 14(8) 897 905. United States Green Building Council (USGBC). ( 2010). Welcome to USGBC Green Building Council, < http://www.usgbc.org > ( November 20 09 ). Watkin, D. (2005). A history of western architecture 4 th Ed., W atson Guptill Publications, New York, NY. Yudelson, J. (2008). Green building through integrated design GreenSource Books, McGraw Hill, New York, N Y

PAGE 73

73 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Michael Ryan McVinney graduated from Seabreeze High School in 2003 and immediately enrolled in classes a t Daytona Beach Community College (DBCC) After his first semester, Michael was asked to be a member of the Mu Rho Chapter of the Phi Theta Kappa (PTK) Honor Society as he continued his education in advanced educational courses. In th e summer of 2005 he began his first semester at the College of Design Construction and Planning School of Arc hitecture. Michael eventually became obsessed w ith the notion of controlling thoughts, emotions, and functionali ty t h rough properly designed occupiable space This became his obsession until the summer of 2007 when he reached a moment of clarity in Tequila Valley during a study abroad program in Mexico. Directly ge of Design, Construction, and Construction to embark on a m uch more practical and fulfilling career and way of life P romptly after being accepted, the Rinker School extended him an invention to join the E psilon Chapter of Sigma Lambda Chi (SLX) an international construction honor society. He made his impression on SLX and Rinker alike when he accepted the role of project designer and manager of the 2009 Homecoming F loat. Upon graduation, Michael moved bac k to Ormond Beach.