<%BANNER%>

ABC of Green Design

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042604/00001

Material Information

Title: ABC of Green Design Exploring the Influence of Parents' Pro-environmental Values, Beliefs, Behaviors, and Knowledge on Their Preferences Related to Green Childcare Design
Physical Description: 1 online resource (106 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Vatralova, Zuzana
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: childcare, design, green, sustainability
Interior Design -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interior Design thesis, M.I.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Green design is becoming increasingly popular in many sectors. One of the fastest growing service sectors in the United States today is childcare. Although green design and childcare should create the ultimate brace, they rarely merge in contemporary research and practice. Literature signals green design as crucial for healthy and safe environments, and the first years of children s lives as critical for their learning and proper neurological and social development. Some argue that the presence of green design in childcare is the most engaging way for children to learn about sustainability. However, green design is not the standard nor is it included among essential childcare quality variables. Why is there only a vague interest in green childcare design if its positive impact is apparent? Research identifies parents as ineffective evaluators of childcare quality, lacking the necessary appraisal knowledge and tending to evaluate childcare quality based on their own needs and preferences. This study thus has a twofold purpose: (1) to investigate parents pro-environmental knowledge, values, beliefs, and behaviors and (2) to analyze the influence of these variables on parents preferences related to green childcare design. The study explored these questions using two protocol-driven, sequential, self-administered electronic questionnaires with closed and open-ended questions. Framework for both instruments was derived from LEED assessment tools and Value-Belief-Norm theory, both adapted to address existing conditions of the two study sites. The study sample consisted of parents who utilize childcare services of two campus based child development and research centers located at the University of Florida. As a statistical treatment, the study used ordinary least squares method, which modeled a relationship between one dependent and three factored independent variables, with the help of control variables. Results determined that parents pro-environmental values, beliefs, behaviors, and knowledge positively influence their preferences. Findings suggested combined family income and education level as the demographic variables having the strongest effect on parents green design preferences, and higher levels of education inversely related to greater green design preference. Although parents pro-environmental behaviors and knowledge displayed as essential, it was their pro-environmental values and beliefs that tested as the largest influence on their preferences. The study findings substantiated the importance of parents general understanding of green design for their children s healthy and safe development. The study proposes further research in green childcare design and continuous environmental education of all design stakeholders in order to increase awareness at to the benefits of green design.
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 Zuzana Vatralova.
Thesis: Thesis (M.I.D.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Torres Antonini, Maruja A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042604:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042604/00001

Material Information

Title: ABC of Green Design Exploring the Influence of Parents' Pro-environmental Values, Beliefs, Behaviors, and Knowledge on Their Preferences Related to Green Childcare Design
Physical Description: 1 online resource (106 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Vatralova, Zuzana
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: childcare, design, green, sustainability
Interior Design -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interior Design thesis, M.I.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Green design is becoming increasingly popular in many sectors. One of the fastest growing service sectors in the United States today is childcare. Although green design and childcare should create the ultimate brace, they rarely merge in contemporary research and practice. Literature signals green design as crucial for healthy and safe environments, and the first years of children s lives as critical for their learning and proper neurological and social development. Some argue that the presence of green design in childcare is the most engaging way for children to learn about sustainability. However, green design is not the standard nor is it included among essential childcare quality variables. Why is there only a vague interest in green childcare design if its positive impact is apparent? Research identifies parents as ineffective evaluators of childcare quality, lacking the necessary appraisal knowledge and tending to evaluate childcare quality based on their own needs and preferences. This study thus has a twofold purpose: (1) to investigate parents pro-environmental knowledge, values, beliefs, and behaviors and (2) to analyze the influence of these variables on parents preferences related to green childcare design. The study explored these questions using two protocol-driven, sequential, self-administered electronic questionnaires with closed and open-ended questions. Framework for both instruments was derived from LEED assessment tools and Value-Belief-Norm theory, both adapted to address existing conditions of the two study sites. The study sample consisted of parents who utilize childcare services of two campus based child development and research centers located at the University of Florida. As a statistical treatment, the study used ordinary least squares method, which modeled a relationship between one dependent and three factored independent variables, with the help of control variables. Results determined that parents pro-environmental values, beliefs, behaviors, and knowledge positively influence their preferences. Findings suggested combined family income and education level as the demographic variables having the strongest effect on parents green design preferences, and higher levels of education inversely related to greater green design preference. Although parents pro-environmental behaviors and knowledge displayed as essential, it was their pro-environmental values and beliefs that tested as the largest influence on their preferences. The study findings substantiated the importance of parents general understanding of green design for their children s healthy and safe development. The study proposes further research in green childcare design and continuous environmental education of all design stakeholders in order to increase awareness at to the benefits of green design.
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 Zuzana Vatralova.
Thesis: Thesis (M.I.D.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Torres Antonini, Maruja A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042604:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 ABC OF GREEN DESIGN: EXPLORING THE INFLUENCE OF PARENTS PRO ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES, BELIEFS, BEHAVIORS, AND KN OWLEDGE ON THEIR PREFERENCES RELATED TO GREEN CHILDCARE DESIGN By ZUZANA VATRALOVA A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF INTERIOR DESIGN UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010

PAGE 2

2 2010 Zuzana Vatralova

PAGE 3

3 To my children, my husband, and all those who contributed their support to me

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many people who deserve my thanks for making this thesis possible. First, I would like to thank my committee chair advisor, and mentor Dr. Maruja Torres Antonini and my other committee members, Dr. Pamela Pallas and Professor Candy Carmel Gilfilen. Without their dedication, constant editing, and enthusiasm I would have not been able to do this. I would also like to thank the Department of Interior Design and all my teachers for their guidance and support throughout the years of my academic journey. My sincere gratitude goes to both childcare centers that served as my study settings, to the teachers and staff who patiently answered my questions and always acknowledged my presence, and to all the parents who participated in the study. I hope this study will be a starting point for fulfilling their green childcare preferences. Special thanks go to my friends Dr .A for her endless support and for believing in my capabilities from day one, and Ioannis, for hel ping me with statistics. Sincere thanks go to all my friends who st ood by me throughout the years of learning and struggling. They have made my academic life more bearable and enjoyable. Finally and most importantly, I would like to thank my big family My deepest thanks go to my parents for raising me with love and discipline which got me to where I am today. There are no words that could express my thanks to my husband, Brano. Life threw some unexpected curve balls at us and he stood by my side without hesitation, a lways ready to help me, hug me, and l ove me. With his strength and positive outlook he taught me the most valuable lessons of my life. My special thanks and lots of kisses go to my children. They are my inspiration and true reason for wanting to be a better person. For that and much more, I love them all very much.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 8 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... 11 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 14 Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................. 17 Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 18 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 18 Research Question and Hypothesis ........................................................................ 19 Definitions ............................................................................................................... 20 Summary ................................................................................................................ 20 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 22 Concepts and Factors of Childcare Quality ............................................................. 22 Necessity vs. Significance ................................................................................ 22 Quality .............................................................................................................. 23 Spatial Layout ................................................................................................... 25 Green Design ................................................................................................... 25 Childcare Trends .................................................................................................... 26 Conventional Childcare .................................................................................... 26 Green Childcare and Leadership in Energy and Env ironmental Design ........... 28 Sustainable sites. ....................................................................................... 30 Water efficiency. ........................................................................................ 31 Energy and atm osphere. ............................................................................ 31 Materials and resources. ............................................................................ 34 Indoor environmental quality ..................................................................... 35 Innovation in design and operations. ......................................................... 36 Eco healthy Childcare ...................................................................................... 36 Pro envi ronmental Behavior and Value Belief Norm Theory .................................. 38 Summary ................................................................................................................ 41 3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 43 Study Setting .......................................................................................................... 43

PAGE 6

6 Study Participants ................................................................................................... 45 Survey Instruments ................................................................................................. 45 Parent Questionnaire 1 ..................................................................................... 46 Demographic information. .......................................................................... 46 Pro envi ronmental values and beliefs. ....................................................... 47 Pro environmental behaviors. .................................................................... 47 Pro environmental knowledge. ................................................................... 47 Parent Questionnaire 2 ..................................................................................... 48 Survey Pro cedure ................................................................................................... 49 Methods of Analysis ................................................................................................ 50 Control Variables .............................................................................................. 51 Independent Variables ...................................................................................... 51 Dependent Variable .......................................................................................... 52 Expected Findi ngs .................................................................................................. 53 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 53 Summary ................................................................................................................ 54 4 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................... 55 Demographic Descriptiv e Statistics ......................................................................... 55 Linear Regression (OLS) Models ............................................................................ 57 Pro environmental Responses Review ................................................................... 60 Summary ................................................................................................................ 65 5 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 66 Discussion of Findings ............................................................................................ 66 Demographic Variables .................................................................................... 67 Pro environmental Values, Beliefs, Behaviors, and Knowledge ....................... 70 Preferences Related to Green Childcare D esign .............................................. 74 Qualitative Findings .......................................................................................... 76 Conclusions and Implications for Future Research ................................................. 79 APPENDIX A ECO HEALTHY CHILD CARE CHECKLIST ........................................................... 82 B INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD PERMISSION ................................................. 84 C INFORMED CONSENT FORM 1 ............................................................................ 85 D INFORMED CONSENT FORM 2 ............................................................................ 86 E PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 1 ................................................................................ 87 F PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 2 ................................................................................ 90 G STUDY SETTING DESCRIPTIONS ....................................................................... 92

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 101 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 106

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 LEED for Schools vs. LEED EB comparison of credits (Cr.) and prerequisites (Pr.). .............................................................................................. 31 4 1 Parents affiliation to the University. .................................................................... 55 4 2 Childcare facility location. ................................................................................... 55 4 3 Childcare attendance. ......................................................................................... 55 4 4 Combined family income. ................................................................................... 56 4 5 Last grade of school completed. ......................................................................... 56 4 6 Country of origin. ................................................................................................ 56 4 7 Religious affiliation. ............................................................................................. 57 4 8 Views on political matters. .................................................................................. 57 4 9 Ethnicity. ............................................................................................................. 57 4 10 Linear regression estimates on parents preferences related to green childcare design. ................................................................................................. 58

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 LEED certified buildings. .................................................................................... 29 2 2 LEED v3 rating systems general distribution of categories. .............................. 30 2 3 Schematic representation of variables in ValueBelief Norm Theory. ................. 40 4 1 Scatter plot matrix diagram of proenvironmental (independent and dependent) variables. ......................................................................................... 60 4 2 Pro environmental values and beliefs response review.. .................................... 61 4 3 Pro environmental behaviors response review. .................................................. 62 4 4 Pro environmental knowledge response review. ................................................ 63 4 5 Distribution of responses from the proenvironmental knowledge test. .............. 63 4 6 Preferences related to green childcare design response review. ....................... 64 5 1 Relationship between variables. ......................................................................... 67 G 1 Main building with classrooms, main kitchen, and offices. .................................. 93 G 2 Typical classroom 1.. .......................................................................................... 93 G 3 Ki tchenette in a typical classroom suite. ............................................................. 94 G 4 Personal storage area. Chairs are lifted for daily cleaning purposes. ................. 94 G 5 Multipurpose play space. .................................................................................... 95 G 6 Herb garden. ....................................................................................................... 95 G 7 Outdoor deck /play area. ..................................................................................... 96 G 8 Outdoor playground. ........................................................................................... 96 G 9 Main entrance. .................................................................................................... 98 G 10 Hallway and personal storage area. ................................................................... 98 G 11 Typical classroom 2. ........................................................................................... 98 G 12 Arts and craft preparation and cleaning area. ..................................................... 99

PAGE 10

10 G 13 Butterfly garden. It separates the childcare facility and the hospital. .................. 99 G 14 Outdoor asphalt play area. ............................................................................... 100 G 15 Outdoor playground area and herb garden. ..................................................... 100

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S AC Adverse consequences AR Ascription of responsibility CMU Concrete masonry unit EHCC Eco healthy childcare ESB Environmentally significant behavior ETS Environmental tobacco smoke HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design NAEYC National Association for Education of Young Children NEP New environmental paradigm NHSPS National Health and Safety Performance Standards OEC Oregon Environmental Council URL Uniform resource locator USDA United States Department of Agriculture USGBC United States Green Building Council VBN ValueBelief Norm theory VCT Vinyl composite tile VOCs Volatile organic compounds

PAGE 12

12 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 Interior Design ABC OF GREEN DESIGN: EXPLORING THE INFLUENCE OF PARENTS PRO ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES, BELIEFS, BEHAVIORS, AND KNO WLEDGE ON THEIR PREFERENCES RELATED TO GREEN CHILDCARE DESIGN By Zuzana Vatralova December 2010 Chair: Maruja Torres Antonini M ajor: Interior Design Green design is becoming increasingly popular in many sectors. One of the fastest growing service sectors in the United States today is childcare. Although green design and childcare should create the ultimate brace, they rarely mer ge in contemporary research and practice. Literature signals green design as crucial for healthy and safe environments, and the first years of childrens lives as critical for their learning and proper neurological and social development. Some argue that the presence of green design in childcare is the most engaging way for children to learn about sustainability. However, green design is not the standard nor is it included among essential childcare quality variables. Why is there only a vague interest in g reen childcare design if its positive impact is apparent? Research identifies parents as ineffective evaluators of childcare quality, lacking the necessary appraisal knowledge and tending to evaluate childcare quality based on their own needs and preferenc es. This study thus has a twofold purpose: (1) to investigate parents proenvironmental knowledge, values, beliefs, and behaviors and (2) to analyze

PAGE 13

13 the influence of these variables on parents preferences related to green childcare design. The study explored these questions using two protocol driven, sequential, self administered electronic questionnaires with closed and open ended questions. Framework for both instruments was derived from LEED assessment tools and Value Belief Norm theory, both adapted to address existing conditions of the two study sites. The study sample consisted of parents who utilize childcare services of two campus based child development and research centers located at the University of Florida. As a statistical treatment, the study used ordinary least squares method, which modeled a relationship between one dependent and three factored independent variables, with the help of control variables. Results determined that parents pro environmental v alues, beliefs, behaviors, and knowledge positively influence their preferences. Findings suggested combined family income and education level as the demographic variables having the strongest effect on parents green design preferences, and higher levels of education inversely related to greater green design preference. Although parents proenvironmental behaviors and knowledge displayed as essential, it was their proenvironmental values and beliefs that tested as the largest influence on their preferenc es. The study findings substantiated the importance of parents general understanding of green design for their childrens healthy and safe development. The study proposes further research in green childcare design and continuous environmental education of all design stakeholders in order to increase awareness at to the benefits of green design.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. Unknown Green. Pro environmental. Sustainable. These words represent very recent, even fashionable, and widespread concepts that are applied to our existence in multiple ways. Although each of the three adjectives has its own meaning and purpose, they are often m isguidedly interchanged with each other. Green, also called ecological, is a way of thinking and making decisions with environmental attributes as primary objectives, considering performance, quality, functionality, economics, and health benefits (Boise, 2 010) Green is often connected with commercial products, architecture, and design. Pro environmental, or environmentally significant, applies to human values, beliefs, behaviors, attitudes, and norms which ultimately have a positive influence on the envir onment. Sustainable encompasses both previous terms and even extends beyond them to include: economic viability, environmental health, and social responsibility (Boise, 2010; Winchip, 2007). Green, pro environmental, and sustainable as theoretical terms tr anslate into practical concepts that play important roles in formation of contemporary guidelines for many sectors and services, including childcare. The beginning of sustainable development initiatives is credited to the World Commission on Environment and Development and its 1987 Brundtland Report, originally entitled Our Common Future (Winchip, 2007) As a result, long term environmental strategies have become important to many industrialized nations and such issues have dominated the agenda on multiple international forums.

PAGE 15

15 The education arena is considered a major contributor to and initiator of sustainable development because education empowers individuals to become active participants in the transformation of their societies. Learning focuses on the principles, attitudes and behaviors that enable children and adults alike to learn to live together in a world distinguished by diversity and pluralism (UNESCO, 2009) However, a generation after the Report was published, the human race still does not know how to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs 1 Durrett and Torelli (2009) define sustainability as the art and science of leaving for future generations, which means understanding and respecting Earths limited natural resources According to the authors, there is no better place to employ the philosophy of sustainability and green design than in childcare facilities. Many studies identified the first years of childrens lives as critical for thei r neurological developm ent, language development, attention span, social skills, and problem solving capabilities (Butin, 2000; Fontaine et al., 2006 ). Exposing children at this stage to the ideas of sustainability and green design practices could be the m ost artful and scientific way of leaving for future generations because everything children learn at a young age effects their behaviors as they grow. (WCED, 1987) Although sustainability has been identified as holding potential, childcare facilities primary concerns are childrens health and safety practices along with educational and developmental services. The former are described in t he National 1 This is the definition of sustainable development that has been accepted and preferred by most participants of sustainability and green design movement. The Brundtland Report created a framework for protecting Earths ecosystems while considering social justice and economic concerns (Edwards, 2005).

PAGE 16

16 Health and Safety Performance Standards (NHSPS) which are predominantly derived from pedagogical curricula. These guidelines cover nine areas of childcare facility operations and include: (1) Staffing, (2) Program activities for healthy development, (3) Health promotion and protection, (4) Nutrition and food service, (5) Facilities, supplies, equipment, and transportation, (6) Infectious diseases, (7) Children who are eligible for services under IDEA, (8) Administration, and (9) Licensing and community action (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002; NRCKIDS, 2002) ). Educational and developmental services are primarily promoted by The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). It is the nations largest organization dedicated to improving the well being of c hildren by setting research standards and providing resources to enhance early childhood program quality, improve the professional growth and working conditions of program staff, and to help families learn about and understand the need for high quality ear ly childhood education (NAYEC, 2010). Both prime sources NAYEC and NHSPSpledge childcare quality and are widely accepted and followed. Nonetheless, more than 40% of current childcare centers have poor performance and only one in seven of the centers prov ides good quality care for children overall (Butin, 2000). More than two decades of research in early childhood education confirms the need for more rigorous studies concentrating on other factors besides educational program quality. There is a strong beli ef among some researchers that the program quality itself may not be the most important determinant of childrens general well being (Love, Schochet, & Meckstroth, 1996). According to Olds (2001), lack of consumers (parents) demands for excellence is a mong the main issues that prevent sustainable, quality childcare. The quality of

PAGE 17

17 childcare centers is a relative concept because of ongoing societal changes. It is a growing political, educational, and social concern that deserves our full attention and constant updates (Butin, 2000) A challenge to twenty first century education lies in the interconnectedness of previously applied but improved health and safety standards and educational and developmental services with new trends in sustainable development and green design. Yet, the paybacks of green schools go beyond the energy savings in comparison to conventionally designed schools (Kats, 2006) In the United States (U.S.), more than 55 million students and more than five million teachers and staff spend hours in poorly designed buildings that have health and environment related consequences. Therefore, it is no longer a question of whether sustainability and green design are essential for people, the economy, and the environment (Ford, 2007) The question we should be asking is why is there only a vague interest in green childcare design from all the stakeholders (including designers, teachers, parents, and the government) i f the negative impact of unsustainable design is apparent? Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to investigate the under studied and under researched concept of green design in childcare centers. This study considers green design as an import ant factor that influences childrens overall well being and development. Research substantiates the critical role of parents as informal monit ors of childcare quality; these studies typically focus on factors such as location, cost, and educational curric ula but have not investigated the impact of green design (Fontaine et al., 2006; Helburn et al., 1995). This study explores parents inclination to green design

PAGE 18

18 as a factor for quality childcare by assessing the extent to which parents preference s related to green childcare design transmit s their pro environmental knowledge, values, beliefs, and behaviors. Assumptions This study entails several assumptions. First, parents as major consumers of childcare services are the main focus of the study. Second, the study aims to investigate and analyze the influence of parents proenvironmental knowledge, values, beliefs, and behaviors on their preferences related to green childcare design. Any other knowledge, values, beliefs, and behaviors held by parents are not a direct part of this study and do not impact the findings. Significance of the Study In the past, childcare has predominantly been viewed as a domestic responsibility rather than parental choice of institutional care. Societal changes and the technol ogical revolution have created a growing need for care of preschool children (Olds, 2001). Today, childcare is more of a necess ity than a choice. More than 30% of children under the age of three and more than 50% of children between the ages three and five spend some part of their day in childcare facilities (Butin, 2000). According to statistics, children attending childcare spend an average of ten hours of every day inside, often within one room (Olds, 2001). Although many studies show positive long te rm developmental benefits of attending a preschool at an early age (Reynolds, Temple, Robertson, & Mann, 2001), strong evidence is building against the physical environment of childcare settings and their negative influences on childrens health, learning, and development (Boise, 2010). Simple things such as toys, carpets,

PAGE 19

19 furniture, and air expose children to chemicals and other contaminants that may have a serious impact on their overall well being (Boise, 2010). Parents, as decisive consumers of childca re services, are considered unsuccessful evaluators of childcare quality (Olds, 2001). Facilities that get poor or mediocre ratings from trained observers tend t o receive very good scores from 90 of parents (Olds, 2001). It appears parents do not have suf ficient information or the knowledge necessary to assess the level of quality and recognize its necessary components (Helburn et al., 1995; Olds, 2001) In most cases, parents r elate childcare quality only to those aspects of care they can recognize, monit or and value themselves, such as childcare cost and location (Helburn et al., 1995). Although the green boom enjoys popularity among customers in many sectors, it does not seem to be the case when it comes to childcare services. In order to create sustainable high quality learning environments for preschool children, it is essential first, to understand parents knowledge and attitudes about the status and effects of green design and then, to investigate and evaluate parents preferences related to green design in childcare facilities. Additionally, it is important to assess the level of influence parents proenvironmental knowledge and attitudes have on their green design preferences. Research Question and Hypothesis The main research question this study attempts to answer is: What is the influence of parents pro environmental knowledge, values, beliefs, and behaviors on their preferences related to green childcare design? Hence, the study tests the hypothesis that various levels of proenvironmental values, beliefs, behaviors, and knowledge lead parents to various preferences of green design for their children. The more the parents

PAGE 20

20 know about green design and its benefits and the stronger their proenvironmental attitudes are, the more likely they are to desire and prefer green childcare options. Should the findings be significant and preferences for green childcare practices start growing, this study can be the first step in further discussion and new research topics in the childcare innovative architecture and green design areas. Definitions Terms used in this study that require clarification are: (1) sustainability maintaining the quality of resources assuming economic viability, environmental health, and community responsibility (Boise, 2010), (2) green design safe, sustainable, and functional design which uses environmentally friendly products and practices (Boise, 2010), (3) proenvironmental hav ing a positive environmental impact or meaning, (4) values ideals of an individual, group, or society (Bechtel, 1997), (5) beliefs confidence in existence of something (Bechtel, 1997), (6) childcare center a facility that provides care and education to any number of children in a nonresidential setting, or 13 or more children in any setting, if the facility is open on a regular basis and care is provided for some children for more than 30 days per year per child (depending on the literature type, the term varies and might be interchanged for preschool, daycare, or kindergarten) (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002), (7) green school educational building that employs green design strategies such as abundant natural daylight, outdoor views, high indoor air quality, good acoustics, and a comfortable temperature (LPA, 2009). Summary Although green design is becoming increasingly popular and childcare services are seen as a necessity for parents and children alike, these two topics rarely merge in

PAGE 21

21 contemporary research. Early childhood studies focus on the importance of education on childrens learning and development; research substantiates the importance of quality childcare for positive educational outcomes. Green architecture explorations validate th e importance of the environment for occupants health and safety. Therefore, t he intention of this study is to provide a starting point for discussion and future resear ch focusing on the green design of childcare facilities.

PAGE 22

22 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW That which is not good for the beehive cannot be good for the bees. Marcus Aurelius This chapter presents a literature review pertaining to the purpose of the study. The first part of the chapter reviews the general information about childcare and childcare quality concepts together with childcare educational and architectural trends The second part of the review identifies current green design practices in the U. S. educational sector and illustrates the major features and differences between conventional, green (LEED certified), and eco healthy childcare centers. Finally, the chapter explains proenvironmental (environmentally significant) behavi ors and corresponding valuebelief norm theory. Concepts and Factors of Childcare Quality Necessity vs. Significance Nationwide, more than 60% of children under the age of five and over 40% of infants are enrolled in childcare for more than 30 hours a week (Fontaine et al., 2006 ). Starting at three weeks of age and before reaching the age of five, a child may have spent more than twelve thousand hours in a childcare center (Olds, 2001). Olds (2001) and Helburn et al. (1995) assume that childcare in the U. S. is a necessity which allows parents to have income opportunities and helps families to survive Bredekamp & Copple (1997) state that increased demand for childcare services is due to the increased recognition of the importance of learning in the earliest years of life. Research shows that childrens experiences during early childhood influence their later functioning in school and have effects throughout life (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).

PAGE 23

23 B utin (2000) argues that scientific research substantiates the critical role of the environment for optimal neurological development in early years. Fontaine et al. (2004) state that by the age of three, the childs brain reaches 90% of its full potential. This suggests that children learn the most at early stages of their development. However, many children for one reason or another are not able to reach their potential. According to Croan et al. (2000 ), 31 % of childcare students have at least one health or physical challenge, 20% lag behind in cognitive development, and a little over 30% are behind in social and emotional development. These figures partially result from poor childcare quality that undoubtedly, among other factors, is influenced by building design and performance (Croan et al 2000; Fontaine et al. 2006). Quality Moss (1994) defines quality as a dynamic and relative concept based on general values, beliefs, and preferences Love, Schochet, and Meckstroth (1996) claim that quality childcare involves environmental and experiential features that contribute to childrens overall comfort. However, no clear consensus exists on how to categorize the large number of environmental variables that bear upon childcare quality (Love, Schochet, & Meckstro th, 1996). Establishing quality definitions and characterizing decisive quality variables is an extensive process that has to be constantly monitored and redefined according to changing societal needs. The process should involve a range of stakeholders, wi th parents among the most important ones because they directly represent childrens needs (Moss, 1994). According to Helburn et al. (1995) the list of variables that influence childcare quality can be endless but the most common factors include: state and profit sector, teacher characteristics, wages of teaching staff, adult child ratio (classroom structure)

PAGE 24

24 total number of enrolled children (center structure), administrator characteristics, public support, and costs and fees. However, the authors claim that the single most important factor determining childcare quality is the classroom structure (Helburn et al, 1995). In contrast, Fontaine et al. (2006), who based their study of quality in early care and learning environments on The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale instrument, considered the following variables as most influential: space and furnish ings, personal care routines, language reasoning, activities, interaction, and program structure. N evertheless, in both studies, it is evident that none of the variables can be directly influenced and decided upon by parents. Additionally, no upto date research includes green design as one of the influential variables. Parents commonly thought of as caring t he most about the quality of their childrens care facility are considered ineffective evaluators of quality (Olds, 2001). The conditions that affect parents choice of childcare centers are the facility location, parents income, and their ability to acquire the information essential to make a good choice and to monitor the quality of childcare services (Helburn et al., 1995) Moreover, parents tend to evaluate childcare quality based on their own needs and preferences which, many times, are not those that mirror prescribed childcare quality requirements (Helburn et al., 1995) Bredekamp and Copple (1997) imply that the potential benefits of quality chi ldcare are well documented but they are not the norm only 15% of childcare programs provide care that supports childrens health and social and cognitive development. To support such an argument, Olds (2001) cites a study which concludes that 40% of

PAGE 25

25 childc are centers provide inadequate quality due to, among other issues, safety hazards and poor equipment. As research continues to redefine childcare quality and to stress the importance of first years of childrens lives, it is crucial to realize that childc are design is an important component of quality care (Butin, 2000). Dudek and Baumann (2007) as well as Kopec (2009) agree that a pedagogical vision is fundamental for a successful school design but so are childrens needs and parents perspectives. Howeve r, the inclusion of green design as a contributor to healthy and safe learning environments seems to be limited by, among other factors, parents perspectives and low demand. Spatial Layout As Kopec (2009) points out children have unique physical and biol ogical characteristics which make them vulnerable to environmental hazards that are present in many of th e childcare buildings. Butin (2000) in addition, considers childcare facility design a crucial constituent. According to Johnson et al. (1998) adequat e spatial zoning and materials within the spaces for children can encourage their proper behavior and have an influence on learning and development. Green Design Kopec (2009) agrees that proper layout is important for achieving a safe, healthy and enjoyable educational environment but he underlines the importance of such environmental factors such as proper ventilation, daylight and views, access to fresh air, minimal level of indoor pollutants, thermal comfort, green materials, and cleanliness. Currently, only a miniscule portion of literature and research concentrates on green childcare design and its influence on childrens health, safety, learning and development. However, a considerably larger amount of literature focuses on the use of

PAGE 26

26 green design in primary, secondary, and higher education facilities which, instead of discouragement, may serve as an inspiration. Ford (2007) emphasizes the benefits of green schools children are healthier and more productive, buildings have superior indoor air quality and thermal comfort and therefore expose children to fewer chemicals and environmental toxins. In addition, such buildings serve as living laboratories to engage children in science, art and environmental stewardship. Day and Midbjer (2007) add that the pr esence of green design practices in childcare environments is the most engaging way for children to learn about sustainability. Although the firm LPA (2009) argues that public awareness of green buildings has dramatically increased and as a result has posi tively influenced the architectural approach to sustainability in recent years, the number of green childcare facilities is still less than satisfactory (see Figure 2 1 LEED certified buildings ). Childcare Trends Conventional Childcare Since Homers time, Athenians believed that children were their future on both, the familial and the community levels (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). Already Plato saw a connection between the way children played and the way they thought and acted in their adulthood. He proposed the first type of childcare, a village temple, where childrens development and behaviors were closely monitored by nurses (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). Today, childcare is one of the fastest growing professions due to high demand from working parents (Olds, 2001). Childcare centers can be established as private for profit, private nonprofit, public, or mixture of these categories (Helburn et. al, 1995). Helburn et al. (1995) believe that the type of ownership can affect the objectives of

PAGE 27

27 childcare an d subsequently its quality and parents satisfaction. According to Olds (2001), the majority of over 100,000 existing centers were created under tight budgets and time frames in such spaces as churches, basements, and supermarkets. Only a few of these centers operate on the premise that children and parents are the real clients and consumers of childcare services. Further, even fewer of the centers realize the importance of the environment for childrens health, safety, learning, and development (Olds, 2001). Olds (2001) states that researchers consider the first three to five years of childrens lives crucial for foundation of their personalities, belief systems, and ways of perceiving the world. Additionally, the author writes that the design of a center is an important factor that can promote or hinder contact between the child and his caregiver. Therefore, designing environments that encourage movement, support comfort, foster competence, and promote sense of control should be the required necessity of all childcare centers (Olds, 2001). According to Dudek (2007), contemporary schools are built from a variety of floor plans with ideas that promote and integrate the use of technology, break out spaces and project rooms, specialized learning environments, and multi functional spaces. Childcare design, however, is many times unnecessarily strictly codified by room schedule, rules, and regulations (Dudek & Baumann, 2007). Contrary to adults who access their world through verbal and written communication, chil dren explore their surroundings through physical, emotional, and aesthetic self expression (Dudek, 1996). Therefore, design of the childcare center, including the division of its spaces and the form in which they are offered to children are

PAGE 28

28 among the most important criteria of successful, sustainable, and green ch ildcare facilities (Dudek, 1996; Olds, 2001). Green Childcare and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design In the U.S., the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) is considered a leader in green design and sustainability development. The USGBC created a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system that measures buildings environmental performance.1 Accordi ng to USGBC, its Education Sector is driven by the Green Campus Campaign and the Green Schools Campaign. Both initiatives aid in development of tools and resources specific for K 12 schools and higher education facilities, and assist their members in susta inability and green design goals achievement. These sources provide an introduction to LEED rating system and variety of green building project profiles that hold a LEED certification. Currently, there is not a specific rating system for childcare faciliti es. For the purposes of this study, however, two LEED documents play an important role: (1) LEED 2009 for Schools New Construction and Major Renovations (LEED for Schools) and (2) LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings Operations and Maintenance (LEED EB). Even though the USGBC is committed to green design in educational bu ildings, according to their 2009 statistics only 5,090 educational buildings out of over 49,600 registered projects hold one of four LEED certifications and merely 1.72% of all certified buildings represents childcare facilities (see Figure 2 1). 1 The USGBC is a committee-based, member -driven, and consensus -focused not for profit organization. Through LEED green building certification program, which is a standard for sustainable buildings across the U.S., the USGBC transforms the built environment. The LEED rating system provides definitive standards of green building design, construction, planning, and performance. The LEED evaluations are designed for rating new and existing commercial, institutional, and residential buildings on four levels: certified, silver, gold, and platinum.

PAGE 29

29 Figure 21. LEED certified buildings. The bar graph illustrates category and number of LEED certified buildings in the U. S (USGBC, 2009) Each rating system is divided into five environmental categories: (1) Sustainable sites, (2) Water efficiency, (3) Energy and atmosphere, (4) Materials and resources, (5) Indoor environmental quality, and one additional category (6) Innovation in design and operations. LEED EB and all new versions of LEED rating systems (called v3) add the category Regional priority credits (see Figure 22) LEED for Schools addresses design and construction of new school buildings and major renovations of existing school buildings. It tackles issues such as master planning, class acoustics mold prevention and environmental site assessment (USGBC, 2010). Whenever a project does not involve significant design and construction activities and focuses more on operation and maintenance activities, LEED EB is more appropriate (LEED for Schools 2009). LEED EB evaluates the sustainability of ongoing operations in existing buildings and provides

PAGE 30

30 the school with a report of the buildings performance, operation and maintenance policies, and green design update (USGBC 2010). While the underlying principle is the same in bot h documents, each rating system includes specific matters that can serve as a frame of reference for the studys survey instrument. Therefore a careful selection of criteria extracted from both rating systems can be used for understanding green design tren ds that can be applied in new or existing childcare facilities (see Table 2 1). The following section summarizes six LEED categories that presented as crucial for the purpose of this study. Figure 22. LEED v3 rating systems general distribution of ca tegories. Sustainable sites. This category highlights the importance of site selection, stormwater management, heat island effect reduction, and alternative transportation. Each building should be designed at minimal footprint to maximize surrounding open space and minimize disruptions to existing ecosystems. Site development should include all potential expansions and building design should consider additional community needs. During the design phase of the project, it is important to develop an erosion and

PAGE 31

31 sedimentation plan that would maintain natural stormwater flows by promoting infiltration. Existing buildings can improve their sites by reducing or replacing of concrete surfaces and landscaping techniques that reduce heat absorption of exterior mater ials and require little maintenance. Buildings should be located near mass transit and have minimum size parking lot with alternative fuel stations. The school curricula should support bicycling and the facility should provide bicycle racks and shower and changing facilities (LEED EB, 2009; LEED for Schools, 2009). Water efficiency. The second category emphasizes minimal indoor plumbing fixtures and fitting efficiency, water efficient landscaping, and cooling tower water management. Potential strategies i nclude usage of automatic water control systems, mainly water meters on visible places and water conserving plumbing fixtures such as low flow toilets, aerators, and shower timers. Both strategies, which can be controlled by all users, strengthen their env ironmental consciousness and might serve as powerful educational tools for children. School facilities should implement highefficiency irrigation technologies, water efficient and climatetolerant native or adapted landscaping, and alternative water sourc es such as rainwater, stormwater, and air conditioner condensate. Special water management strategy should address the appropriate chemical treatment of water (LEED EB, 2009; LEED for Schools 2009). Energy and atmosphere. Some of the major intentions of this category are to enhance commissioning and management, to optimize energy efficiency performance, to measure performance, and to create onsite renewable energy sources. Early in the design process, commissioning authority personnel should be designated to lead and

PAGE 32

32 Table 2 1. LEED for Schools vs. LEED EB comparison of credits (Cr.) and prerequisites (Pr.). Based on and retrieved from www.usgbc.org on May 16, 2010. LEED 2009 for Schools New Construction and Majo r Renovation LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance Category 1: Sustainable sites Pr. 1 Construction activity pollution prevention N/A Pr. 2 Environmental Site Assessment N/A Cr. 1 Site selection LEED certified design & construction Cr. 2 Development density & community connectivity Building exterior hardscape management Cr. 3 Brownfield redevelopment Integ. pest mngmnt., erosion control, & landscape mngmnt. Cr. 4 Alternative transportation Alternative commuting transportation Cr. 5 Site development Site development Cr. 6 Stormwater design Stormwater quality control Cr. 7 Heat island effect Heat island reduction Cr. 8 Light pollution reduction Light pollution reduction Cr. 9 Site master plan N/A Cr.10 Joint use of facilities N/A Category 2: Water efficiency Pr. 1 Water use reduction 20% reduction Minimum indoor plumbing fixture & fitting efficiency Cr. 1 Water efficient landscaping Water performance measurement Cr. 2 Innovative wastewater technologies Additional indoor plumbing fixture & fitting efficiency Cr. 3 Water use reduction/process water use reduction Water efficient landscaping reduce by 50% 100% Cr. 4 N/A Cooling tower water management Category 3: Energy & atmosphere Pr. 1 Fund. commissioning of building energy systems Energy efficiency best management practices Pr. 2 Minimum energy performance Minimum energy efficiency performance Pr. 3 Fundamental refrigerant management Fundamental refrigerant management Cr. 1 Optimize energy performance Optimize energy efficiency performance Cr. 2 On site renewable energy Existing building commissioning Cr. 3 Enhanced commissioning Performance measurement Cr. 4 Enhanced refrigerant management On site and off site renewable energy Cr. 5 Measurement & verification Enhanced refrigerant management Cr. 6 Green power Emissions reduction reporting Category 4: Materials and resources Pr. 1 Storage & collection of recyclables Sustainable purchasing policy Pr. 2 N/A Solid waste management policy Cr. 1 Building reuse Sustainable purchasing ongoing consumables Cr. 2 Construction waste management Sustainable purchasing durable goods Cr. 3 Materials reuse Sustainable purchasing facility alterations & additions Cr. 4 Recycled content Sustainable purchasing reduced mercury in lamps Cr. 5 Cr. 6 Cr. 7 Cr. 8 Cr. 9 Regional materials Rapidly renewable materials Certified wood N/A N/A Sustainable purchasing food Solid waste management waste stream audit Solid waste management ongoing consumables Solid waste management durable goods Solid waste management facility alterations & additions

PAGE 33

33 Table 2 1 Continued LEED 2009 for Schools New Construction and Major Renovation LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance Category 5: Indoor environmental quality Pr. 1 Minimum indoor air quality (IAQ) performance Minimum IAQ performance Pr. 2 Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) control ETS control Pr. 3 Minimum acoustical performance Green cleaning policy Cr. 1 Outdoor air delivery monitoring IAQ best management practices Cr. 2 Increased ventilation Occupant comfort Cr. 3 Construction IAQ management plan Green cleaning Cr. 4 Low emitting materials N/A Cr. 5 Indoor chemical and pollutant source control N/A Cr. 6 Controllability of systems N/A Cr. 7 Thermal comfort N/A Cr. 8 Daylight and views N/A Cr. 9 Enhanced acoustical performance N/A Cr.10 Mold prevention N/A Category 6: Innovation and design process/ Innovation in operations Cr. 1 Innovation in Design Innovation in operations Cr. 2 LEED accredited professional LEED accredited professional Cr. 3 The school as a teaching tool Documenting sustainable building cost impacts Category 7: Regional priority credits Cr. 1 Regional priority specific credit Regional priority specific credit overview the commissioning process activities. Building envelope and systems should be designed to meet baseline requirements and to reduce stratospheric ozone depletion which can be achieved by zero use of chlorofluorocarbonbased refrigerants. To increas e energy performance and to decrease environmental and economic impacts associated with excessive energy use, the facility should utilize energy efficient office and maintenance equipment and appliances. Use of meters on major mechanical systems and comput er based building automated systems provide ongoing accountability and optimization of building performance. Each project should be assessed for potential nonpolluting renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, low impact hydro, biomass and bio gas (LEED EB, 2009; LEED for Schools 2009 ).

PAGE 34

34 Materials and resources. Out of all LEED categories, this category might have the largest direct influence on occupants health. While LEED EB concentrates mostly on sustainable purchasing policies and solid waste management, LEED for Schools widens the category by building reuse, construction waste management, materials reuse, recycled content, regional and rapidly renewable mater ials, and certified wood. During the construction process and facility operation, it is important to designate an area for recyclable collection glass, plastic, metal, paper, cardboard, and organic waste and to identify local waste handlers. A construction waste management plan should address appropriate disposal and recycling of debris. To extend the life cycle of existing buildings, elements that pose contamination risk should be removed but other existing structures should be reused. Incorporating salvaged materials such as beams, posts, flooring, paneling, door panels, brick, and cabinetry in a new project lessens the impact on extraction and processing of virgin resources. Whenever it is economically feasible, the project should incorporate materials that are locally sourced, renewable, and of recycled content. Such materials as bamboo, wool, cotton insulation, agrifiber, linoleum, strawboard, wheatboard, and cork have positive environmental, economic, and performance attributes. Adhesives, sealants, pai nts, and coatings should have no or very low amount of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Carpets and cushions should meet the Carpet and Rug Institute Green Label Testing Program (LEED EB, 2009; LEED for Schools 2009 ). Volatile organic compounds such as benzene, formaldehyde, and ethylene glycol are chemicals commonly found in paints and coatings; they easily evaporate at room temperature and together with other cancer causing agents generated by combustion

PAGE 35

35 such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide be long to common sources of indoor air pollution (Kopec, 2006). Interior materials such as carpeting and plastic toys, piping, and wall coverings release dust and fibers that are detrimental to building occupants. Prolonged exposure to these chemicals and particles may trigger asthma attacks and can permanently damage the nervous system, liver, and kidneys, and can cause certain types of cancers (Kopec, 2006). Indoor environmental quality The fifth category addresses environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) contro l, ventilation, acoustics, artificial lighting, daylighting and views, thermal comfort and design, occupants comfort and green cleaning. To establish minimum indoor air quality, each childcare facility should have appropriate mechanically and naturally ventilated spaces and prohibit smoking. For naturally ventilated spaces, the following eight steps should be followed: development of design requirements, plan of airflow paths, identification of spaces that need special attention, determination of ventilation requirements, estimation of external driving pressures, selection of ventilation devices types and sizes, and analysis of design. To monitor air delivery and potentially hazardous contaminants, it is important to install carbon dioxide and airflow measu rement equipment and feed the information to the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. During construction, it is necessary to properly protect HVAC system, control pollutant sources and interrupt any contamination. Minimum acoustical p erformance in classrooms and core learning spaces can be achieved by reducing exterior noise and by installing sound absorbent materials that have a Noise Reduction Coefficient of 0.70 or higher. Each occupant should be able to control lighting and thermal comfort. Positive lighting strategies include lighting controls, task lighting,

PAGE 36

36 usage of compact fluorescent lighting, and designing for considerable amount of daylighting. Design strategies that maximize daylight and views include building orientation, s hallow floor plates, exterior and interior permanent shading devices, highceiling reflectance values, and lower partition heights. Occupants should be able to adjust the amount of heat in the space according to individual or group needs by incorporating operable windows, automatic building mechanical systems, thermostat controls, or local diffusers at floor, desk, and overhead levels. To reduce potential presence and recurrence of mold in a facility, it is important to follow the Environment and Protection Agencys Mold Remediation for Schools and Commercial Buildings. Finally to reduce exposure of building occupants to potentially hazardous chemicals, biological and particulate contaminants, the childcare facility should utilize only environmentally safe cleaning and personal hygiene products (LEED EB, 2009; LEED for Schools 2009) Innovation in design and operations The intent of this category is to provide design teams and projects with the opportunity to achieve exceptional building performance. To support sustainability and green design solution among all the users, it is important to educate all childcare users and encourage ongoing relationship between high performance features of the building and the students. Tracking building operation cost can help to document building economical impact and highlight possibilities of additional improvements (LEED EB, 2009; LEED for Schools, 2009). Eco healthy Childcare Eco healthy childcare (EHCC) is an emerging standard created by the Oregon Environmental Council (OEC) in 2007. As opposed to LEED, the certification is free of

PAGE 37

37 charge and consists in attaining positive marks on all steps of the endorsement form ( see Appendix A). The form consists of 30 questions divided into 12 categories and includes three requirements: (1) use of nontoxic techniques for inside and outside pest management, (2) no smoking during childcare operation hours (with a note that smoking should be prohi bited permanently), and (3) lead exposure control (OEC, 2010). According to OEC (2010), the checklist requires childcare centers to use nontoxic pesticides and control air quality by preventing and treating mold, adequate ventilation, and limited number of unoccupied cars at the parking lot. Cleanliness practices such as daily vacuuming of rugs, limited use of chlorine bleach, and use of non toxic cleaning products and least toxic disinfecting and sanitizing products are among the top priorities on the ch ecklist. Furthermore, the checklist suggests for childcare facilities to incorporate only solid wood furniture and polyvinylchloride free plastic toys. The checklist prohibits the use of scented and unscented candles, manufactured air fresheners, aerosol s prays, mercurycontaining thermometers and thermostats, and wall to wall carpeting in children areas. The childcare facility also has to perform a radon check and provide recycling for paper, cardboard, glass, aluminum, plastic bottles and mercury batteries. To avoid lead exposure from water lines, childcare center s should use only cold water and let it run 10 to 30 seconds until it feels noticeably colder (OEC, 2010). Although most of these 30 steps represent low cost solutions that have positive impact on occupants health, not all of them are necessarily environmentally friendly. Besides other negative impacts for the environment and sustainable development, fulfillment of these steps does not consider energy and water efficiency. However, up to

PAGE 38

38 date, EH CC has 23 partner organizations and more than thousand certified members in 44 states across the nation (OEC, 2010). Pro environmental Behavior and Value Belief Norm Theory In 1997, Bechtel stated that despite rising publicity, only a few people were aware of all the growing environmental threats or of the attempts that have been made in order to improve the already undermined environmental status. Ten years later, according to Evans et al (2007), only some people would dispute that human behavior has the potential to dramatically influence Earths health and environment. Within a decade, the outlook on environmental protection and associated human behaviors changed drastically. According to Stern (2000), the negative environmental impact is largely a by pr oduct of individuals desires to achieve overall human comfort which leads to selfish and unsustainable behavior patterns. Therefore, evaluating, understanding and improving peoples environmentally significant behaviors is an essential step in providing o urselves with a healthier planet and our children with a better future (Evans et. al, 2007). Stern (2000) defines environmentally significant behavior (ESB) as one that is undertaken with the intention to positively change or benefit the environment. Such behavior can be (1) direct (i.e. proper disposing of household waste) or (2) indirect individuals behaviors adapts to the context that constantly changes (Stern, 2000). Furthermore, Stern (2000) clarifies four types of ESB: (1) environmental activism, (2) nonactivist behavior in the public sphere, (3) private sphere environmentalism, and (4) other environmentally significant behaviors. The first type of behavior is represented by committed environmental activism and recruitment. Behaviors in the public s phere affect the environment indirectly by

PAGE 39

39 influencing public policies. Private sphere environmentalism focuses on behaviors linked to the individuals purchase, use, and disposal of household products that have an environmental impact. Additionally, each individual may affect the environment through other behaviors such as influencing the actions of organizations to which they belong. Such behaviors can have an immense environmental impact because organizational actions are the largest direct causes of env ironmental harms (Stern, 2000). Corraliza & Berenguer (2000) write that relationships between individual s and the environment have been characterized by different studies of cultural (values) and psychological (beliefs) factors that stem from the study of environmental attitudes. According to the authors, environmental attitudes are defined as individuals relatively durable and organized predispositions to act in the nam e of environmental protection. Poortinga, Steg, & Vlek (2004) define values as important culture related life standards that provide guidelines for formation of attitudes and behaviors. Values are ordered in two dimensions. While one dimension extends from the self interest pole to altruism (value theory), the second contrasts liberal and co nservative values (Corraliza & Berenguer, 2000). In contrast to values, beliefs are more a matter of fact; they can be questioned and challenged (Bechtel, 1997). According to Corraliza & Berenguer (2000), environmental beliefs are characterized as results of rational cost benefit analysis derived from an individuals environmental behavior. To clarify the relationship between environmental values and beliefs, Stern and his colleagues developed a value belief norm theory (VBN) of environmentalism. Stern sta tes (2000) that this theory is based on existing studies and links value theory, norm -

PAGE 40

40 activation theory and the new environmental paradigm (NEP) perspective through a chain of variables that affect each other as they progress down the chain (Stern, 2000). According to Schwartz (1973, 1977) the norm activation theory establishes that proenvironmental behavior arises in response to personal moral norms activated in individuals who believe that certain conditions may pose threats to others (awareness of adver se consequences AC) and that actions they could take may avoid the consequences (ascription of responsibility to self AR). The NEP, as defined by Bechtel, Verdugo, & Pinheiro (1999), symbolizes belief that humans are part of nature and must consider this r eality in the use of resources. Figure 23 Schematic representation of variables in ValueBelief Norm Theory. Arrows represent direct effects. Based on and published with permission of Paul C. Stern. Stern (1999) summarizes VBN theory illustrated in Figure 2 3, as one holding the premise that proenvironmental actions occur in response to personal moral norms about such actions and that these are activated in individuals who believe that environmental conditions pose threats to other people, other sp ecies, or the biosphere (p. 85). In general, VBN theory proposes that environmentally significant behavior depends on a wide range of causal factors. Although this theory is not useful for promoting change in specific behaviors (Stern, 2000), it might be influential and

PAGE 41

41 inspiring in exploring the influence of parents proenvironmental knowledge, values, beliefs, and behaviors on their preferences of green childcare design. Summary First, the literature review explain ed the concepts and factors of childcar e quality. Second, it identifie d childcare trends from the educational and architectural points of view. Third, it discussed main elements and ideas of proenvironmental behavior. Th e reading evaluation aid ed in the recognition of current green design practices in the U.S. educational sector formed predominantly by the USGBC and illustrated the main features and differences between conventional, green (LEED certified), and ecohealthy childcare centers. Although early childhood educational and architectura l research substantiates the importance of the environment for childrens learning, development, health, and safety; however, green design practices were not considered as important variables of th e se studies. In addition, parents as main consumers of chil dcare services do not have a direct influence on the quality variables. Further, they are considered poor evaluators of childcare quality mainly because they do not have the knowledge that is necessary for accurate assessment. Instead, parents build their evaluations on existing and accessible personal preferences. These facts l e d the researcher to the assumption that parents insufficient knowledge and various levels of personal proenvironmental habits and behaviors may be important ones among the many c auses of green design absence in childcare facilities. Therefore, the literature review also defined the main features of proenvironmental behavior and associated VBN theory which together with LEED assessment tools serve d as the framework in exploring parents pro environmental

PAGE 42

42 knowledge and behaviors and their subsequent preferences related to childcare green design practices

PAGE 43

43 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The world will not evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same think ing that created the situation. Albert Einstein The objectives of this study are (1) to investigate parents proenvironmental knowledge, values, beliefs, and behaviors and (2) to analyze the influence of these variables on parents preferences related to green childcare design As the title of the thesis suggests, exploratory research played a major role in the investigation. The first step in the exploration process consisted of an extensive literature review. Because the study topic concentrates on a very curr ent issue, primary investigation was conducted not only from published materials such as books and articles, but also from web sites that track the dynamic progress of sustainable development and green design. A subsequent and chief step in the exploration consisted of surveying parents pro environmental knowledge, values, beliefs, behaviors, and green design preferences. This chapter presents the research methods by specifically addressing the study setting, study participants, survey instruments, survey procedures methods of analysis, expected findings, and limitations Study Setting Two child development and research centers operated by a large public university in the State of Florida represented the context and the site for the collection of data. Bo th facilities are located on the university campus. They are managed by the same director and offer childcare to children ages six weeks to five years. Observation of existing conditions in both centers aided in the development of an additional framework f or both survey instruments (besides two LEED rating systems and VBN theory). For

PAGE 44

44 reference, both childcare centers are described in greater detail and depicted in Appendix G. The first center (referred to hereafter as Childcare 1) was established 40 years ago. This center serves children who have at least one parent or guardian associated with the university. The center consists of three buildings and is located in the northwest part of the university campus. The building has been remodeled several times, w ith the latest reconstruction being over 10 years ago. The second center (referred to hereafter as Childcare 2) is adjacent to the university hospital located in the southeast part of the campus. This center was established as a partnership with the Colleg es of Medicine and Public Health & Health Professions. The building is more than 30 years old and has been remodeled several times for different purposes. Originally, the building housed patient rooms. Later, it served as an adolescent psychiatric in patie nt department and then as an office space. The last renovation in 2008 created space for a childcare center. Being located on the university campus that values and promotes sustainability, both centers implement several sustainable and green design practi ces. Both facilities prefer using solid wood and pressed wood furniture. Whenever possible, the centers practice natural ventilation and turn off the lights when the classrooms are not in use. In addition, both childcares feature their own butterfly and vegetable gardens, and serve the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved meals In order to minimize waste, Childcare 1 has two compost piles for the leftover food. Finally, both centers have their own recycling programs for cans, bottles, and cardboard.

PAGE 45

45 Study Participants Non probability purposive sample was generated by contacting 184 families that utilize childcare services in either of the two child development centers; only one parent per family was asked to complete the questionnaires. P urposive sample design was chosen because of its assumption that every subject in the study population had the required information and would be willing to share it (Kumar, 2005). The participants for this study included two groups of parents. The first g roup, Childcare 1, was composed of parents who are full time undergraduate or graduate students, staff, or faculty in any of the universitys units The second group, Childcare 2, comprised of parents who are undergraduate and graduate students, interns, r esidents, post doc toral students fellows, and faculty of the two hosting colleges (Medicine, and Public Health & Health Professions) Prior to contacting participants, the researcher applied for and was granted permission to engage in research with human subjects by the U niversitys Institutional Review Board (IRB) (see Appendix B). Before the participants could complete each of the two questionnaires, they were asked to read and agree to the Informed Consent Forms that explained the purpose of the study and the participation regulations (see Appendices C & D). Survey Instruments The data collection instrument s for this study consisted of two self administered electronic questionnaires with closed and openended questions ( see Appendices E & F). Both questionnaires were designed according to a mixed methodology approach, which is beneficial in many different settings and can be applied in various phases of the research project (Tashakori & Teddlie, 1998). Although the focus of the study was

PAGE 46

46 on the quantitative data, additional qualitative questions were incorporated in order to explore participants own views on the study topic. Quantitative research methods inten d to make generalizations about social phenomena with the purpose to create associate d predictions and provide causal explanations (Glesne, 2006). Qualitative research methods, in contrast, help to clarify a social phenomena from the perspectives of those involved and to contextualize issues in their particular sociocultural political mi lieu (Glesne, 2006). Parent Questionnaire 1 The first questionnaire was intended to obtain general demographic information of the sample. Additionally, a series of questions was designed to determine the level of parents proenvironmental (1) values and beliefs, (2) behaviors, and (3) knowledge. The questionnaire consisted of 28 questions that were divided into four categories. Demographic information. Several authors state that variables such as cultural background and religious preference might be influential in determining the individuals behaviors and views of the environment (Bechtel, 1997; Bechtel, Verdugo, & Pinheiro, 1999). A few studies indicate strong relationships between environmental concern and variables such as income, occupational sec tor, and political affiliation (Olofsson & Ohman, 2006; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980). Therefore, in addition to other demographic information, this questionnaire incorporated the following items: (1) combined family income, (2) level of education, (3) country of origin, (4) religious preference, (5) political views, and (6) race. Questions were designed either as multiplechoice items with single response or as fill in types of responses.

PAGE 47

47 Pro environmental values and beliefs. While some authors recognize va lues and beliefs as strong determinants of individuals pro environmental behavior (Bechtel, 1997; Stern, 1999), other authors consider these attitudinal variables to be important but not sufficient in explaining all types of behaviors (Corraliza & Berenguer, 2000). For the purposes of this study, however, some questions about proenvironmental values and beliefs were included in the questionnaire. The questions were selected from Bechtel (1997) and Stern (1999) and were modified by the author to better add ress the focus of this study. Parents values and beliefs were measured using a fivepoint Likert scale, with values ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. An optional answer (DK/NA) was included for respondents who did not know the answer or preferred not to answer the question. Pro environmental behaviors. Questions related to parents proenvironmental behaviors were chosen from Stern (1999) and Bechtel, Verdugo, and Pinheiro (1999) and again were modified by the researcher to better addr ess the focus of this study. Families behaviors were measured using a five point verbal frequency scale with values ranging from 1=never to 5=always, including an optional answer (DK/NA). Pro environmental knowledge. Seven multiple choice questions and three true or false questions were derived from the LEED EB and the LEED for Schools rating systems as well as from the existing conditions in both child development centers In accordance with both rating systems, the questions were ordered into the foll owing categories:

PAGE 48

48 sustainable sites (question 19) water efficiency (question 20) energy and atmosphere (question 21) materials and resources (questions 22 24, 27) indoor environmental quality (questions 25 and 26). Completed proenvironmental knowledge tests received numerical scores, which were then decoupled with the parents preferences for green childcare design that were assessed in the second questionnaire This process was performed in order to better ascertain the level of influence of parents pro environmental knowledge on green design preferences. Parent Questionnaire 2 The second questionnaire entailed a series of 16 questions to ascertain parents preferences related to green childcare design. In order to create a stronger correlation betw een parents proenvironmental knowledge (independent variable) and their preferences (dependent variable), the questions were arranged into six categories corresponding with the study setting, the LEED EB and LEED for Schools rating systems as follows: su stainable sites (questions 1 and 2) water efficiency (question 3) energy and atmosphere (question 4) materials and resources (questions 5 through 7) indoor environmental quality (questions 8 through 10) innovation in operations (questions 11 and 12). Parents preferences were measured using a five point Likert scale, with values ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. An optional answer (DK/NA) was included for respondents who did not know the answer or preferred not to answer the question. Furthermore, the second questionnaire included four open ended questions ( questions 1316).

PAGE 49

4 9 S urvey Procedure The questionnaires were created using a commercial survey server. In an effort to preserve the privacy of the respondents, all communication was handled through the childcare centers director. Parents first received an e mail message from the childcare centers director with the study description and her support for participation in the surveys. Then, a message written by the researcher was sim ilarly forwarded; the mail contained the researchers introduction, purpose of the study, the URL addresses of the surveys, and an attachment with significant study terms. Such mails were sent to the parents by the director on four separate occasions The study was conducted over a period of 13 days. A message with t he first survey was sent to the parents on July 6, 2010. An additional reminder to complete this questionnaire was sent on July 9, 2010. The second questionnaire, with the additional remi nder to complete the first questionnaire, was distributed on July 12, 2010 A r eminder to complete the second questionnaire w as sent on July 16 2010. Due dates for each survey were specified in the accompanied emails; the last acceptable day for submitti ng both questionnaires was July 1 9 2010. Participants who had submitted the questionnaires on the first instance were asked to ignore the reminders. Because the submitted surveys had no identifying information, it was not possible to send reminders only t o those who had not already responded. Before completing each questionnaire, participants were asked to read the I nform ed C onsent F orm located on the first page of each survey. Only after reading the consent form and agreeing to participate could parents complete and submit the questionnaire. At the beginning of the first questionnaire, the participants were asked to create a six character alphanumeric combination, which was used as their password in

PAGE 50

50 the second questionnaire and as the pairing code for dat a collection. In order to have a valid data set, each parent had to complete both questionnaires. The approximate time for completing the first questionnaire was 20 minutes; completing the second questionnaire was estimated to last 15 minutes. After submis sion, results were sent directly to the researcher. Participation in the study did not grant any benefits and posed no more than the minimal risks to the subjects Furthermore, participation in the study was voluntary, confidential, and granted no compensa tion. No pilot test was administered i n this study. Instead, b efore distribution, surveys were carefully reviewed by the thesis committee and the statistician to detect any ambiguities and uncertainties, such as issues with wording or terminology, and to check the approximate timing and sequencing of questionnaires completion. Methods of Analysis To evaluate the influence of parents proenvironmental knowledge, values, beliefs, and behaviors on their preferences related to green childcare design, a li near regression model approach (referred to as OLS or Ordinary Least Squares) was utilized. In general, this statistical treatment attempts to model the relationship between one dependent and one or more independent variables. The dependent variable, which was created from the responses of parents preferences, is quantitative and (theoretically) continuous. Additional tests regarding collinearity and heteroskedasticity were performed in order to ensure the validity of the results but were not included in t he data analysis. This study consisted of three sets of variables:

PAGE 51

51 Control Variables Demographic information Because of the diversity of the variables, each question from the first section of the first questionnaire (questions 19) was individually coded and accounted for. The majority of answers in the demographic section were coded using a numerical scale as fo llows: Q uestion 2 (1=child development center at Newell Drive, 2=child development center at Village Drive) Q uestion 3 (1=one child, 2=two children, and 3=more than two children) Q uestion 4 (1=$20,000$40,000, 2=$40,000$60,000, 3=$60,000$80,000, 4=$80,000 $100,000, and 5=more than $100,000 of combined family income) Q uestion 5 (1=some college, 2=college graduate, and 3=post graduate grade of school) Q uestion 8 (1=very liberal, 2=somewhat liberal, 3=moderate, 4=somewhat conservative, and 5=very conservative). Answer options that were not chosen by any of the participants were not utilized in the coding process ; therefore, each control variable had a di fferent range of scale. Binary variables were created from answers to questions 6 and 7 and were coded as follows: Question 6 (1=US citizens and 0=all other countries of origin and 2) Question 7 (1=all religions combined and 0=no religious affiliation). Due to their complex nature and variety of responses that did not appear to be significant, answers to questions 1 3, and 9 were not utilized in the statistical analysis. In dependent Variables Pro environmental values and beliefs. First, answers to ques tions 10 through 13 in the first questionnaire were transformed into numerical scores ranging from

PAGE 52

52 1=weakest proenvironmental values and beliefs, to 5=strongest pro environmental values and beliefs. To unify all the responses, question 13 was coded in rev erse. Then, the numerical scores were factored into a single independent variable measuring parents proenvironmental values and beliefs by creating a mean score. Pro environmental behaviors. Answers to questions 14 through 18 in the first questionnaire were transformed into numerical scores ranging from 1=weakest proenvironmental behaviors to 5=strongest proenvironmental behaviors. Again, by creating a mean score from all the responses in this section, a second combined independent variable was created that measured parents proenvironmental behaviors. Pro environmental knowledge. From the test on pro environmental knowledge (questions 1829 in the first questionnaire), each participant was assigned a numerical score which was first transformed into a 5 point scale and then factored into a single independent variable measuring parents proenvironmental knowledge by creating a mean score. Dependent Variable Parents preferences related to green childcare design. Answers to twelve questions from the s econd survey (questions 112) were transformed into numerical scores ranging from 1=weakest preference to 5=strongest preference. To ensure that all responses were in the corresponding scales, answers for reversed questions (5 & 10) were coded in reverse. In order to account for the plausible effect of the set of independent variables on parents preferences, the twelve numerical scores were combined into one variable by creating a mean score, which was utilized as the primary dependent variable.

PAGE 53

53 The quali tative responses obtained from the second survey (questions 13 16) were manually coded and sorted in four groups that addressed: (1) the main reasons for choosing a particular childcare facility, (2) understanding of the term green design, (3) the most desired green design features, and (4) childcareenvironment related health and developmental problems. Expected Findings The expected findings were derived from the main objectives of the study. First, it was probable to assume that the evaluation of parents proenvironmental knowledge, values, beliefs, and behaviors would yield various results among individual participants and an average or somewhat advanced level among all participants combined. The study participants do not represent a typical group of parents; besides their possibly advanced levels of general and proenvironmental knowledge, the participants might be influenced by some proenvironmental practices that are already employed in both study settings. Second, the relationship between major variables of this study was anticipated to be strong and positivewith the rising levels of parents pro environmental knowledge, values, beliefs, and behaviors increase parents preferences related to green childcare design. Limitations The study entailed several limitations. First, data collected from only two childcare centers in central Florida limited the sample size and demographics. The chosen childcare facilities focus on high quality care in multi cultural, multilingual, university based environm ent which enables programs and support systems not generally available to other centers. Although neither of the facilities is LEED or Eco Healthy

PAGE 54

54 certified, they both encourage and attempt a number of proenvironmental practices (i.e. emphasizing natural views and ventilation, using wood furniture, recycling, etc.). Second, electronic questionnaires require clear instructions and careful wording of items which are necessary for successful distribution and scoring. The most difficult aspects were the const ruction and interpretation of surveys and accompanied e mail messages. Given the diversity of the population sample, it is conceivable that some potential participants may have chosen not to complete the surveys due to cultural or language barriers. Altho ugh the results of this study may be inadequate due to other variables beyond the researchers control (i.e. collecting the data during summer time when people tend to travel more, the centers status and parents demographics), the researcher believes the final results accurately reflect the influence of parents proenvironmental knowledge and attitudes on their preferences for green childcare design. Summary E xploratory surveydriven research played a major part in the investigation of this study and was used to answer the research question posed in the first chapter. All study participants signed the appropriate informed consent forms before completing the surveys. Some limitations to the study that could influence the data collection and analysis were anticipated and introduced, along with the description of the stud y setting, study participants, survey instruments and variables, sampling procedures and methods of analysis.

PAGE 55

55 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS Our deeds determine us as much as we determine our deeds. George Elliott This chapter presents data analysis of the major study variables. First, the chapter evaluates demographic descriptive statistics. The second part of the chapter analyses the findings of the linear regression (OLS) models and in greater detail reviews the pro environmental responses. Demographic Descriptive Statistics From the overall number of 184 contacted families, 66 parents decided to participate in the study; the sample size n=66 yielded a response rate of almost 36%. A slight majority of the partici pants were the faculty members (see Table 4 1). Almost two thirds of the participants utilized the childcare services of Childcare 2 (see Table 42). Further, over 70% of the participants claimed a single child attendance to the centers (see Table 43). Fi fty percent of the participants exhibited a year ly combined family Table 4 1. Parents affiliation to the University. Number of Parents Percentage Affiliation to University Student 12 18.2 Faculty 25 37.8 Staff 17 25.8 Other 12 18.2 Table 4 2. Childcare facility location. Number of Parents Percentage Childcare Facility Childcare 1 24 36.4 Childcare 2 42 63.6 Table 4 3. Childcare attendance. Number of Parents Percentage Childcare attendance One Child 47 71.2 Two Children 16 24.2 More than 2 children 3 4.6

PAGE 56

56 Income higher than $100,000 (see Table 44). The vast majority of the participants declared post doctoral level of education and country of origin being the U.S. (see Tables 4 5 and 46). Although the study sample represented a variety of religions, almost half of the participants self identified as nonreligious (see Table 47). Close to 90% of the participants expressed their political affiliation as ranging from moderate to very liberal (see Table 48). Finally, the vast major ity of the participants declared Caucasian race (see Table 49). Table 4 4. Combined family income. Table 4 5. Last grade of school completed. Number of Parents Percentage Completed Not a high school graduate 0 0.0 Education High school graduate 0 0.0 Some college 1 1.5 College graduate 11 16.6 Post doctoral students 54 81.9 Table 4 6. Country of origin. Number of Parents Percentage Country of Origin Australia 1 1.5 Brazil 1 1.5 Canada 2 3.0 China 4 6.0 Hong Kong 1 1.5 India 3 4.5 Iran 1 1.5 Philippines 1 1.5 Romania 1 1.5 United Kingdom 1 1.5 United States 50 76.0 Number of Parents Percentage Family Income Under $20,000 0 0.0 $20,000 $40,000 3 4.6 $40,000 $60,000 9 13.6 $60,000 $80,000 11 16.6 $80,000 $100,000 10 15.2 More than $100,000 33 50.0

PAGE 57

57 Table 4 7. Religious affiliation. Number of Parents Percentage Religious Affiliation Catholic 7 10.6 Jewish 2 3.0 Protestant 16 24.2 Muslim 0 0.0 None 31 47.0 Other 10 15.2 Table 4 8. Views on political matters. Number of Parents Percentage Political Views Very Liberal 12 18.2 Somewhat Liberal 27 41.0 Moderate 19 28.8 Somewhat Conservative 7 10.5 Very Conservative 1 1.5 Table 4 9. Ethnicity. Number of Parents Percentage Ethnicity White 50 75.8 Black 0 0.0 Hispanic 3 4.5 Asian 10 15.2 Other 3 4.5 Linear Regression (OLS) Models Although the thesis title proposed parents pro environmental values, beliefs, behaviors, and knowledge as primary variables having an influence on parents preferences related to green childcare design, many authors suggested that previously discussed dem ographic variables may as well influence parents preferences (Bechtel, 1997; Bechtel, Verdugo, & Pinheiro, 1999; Olofsson & Ohman, 2006; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980) In order to determine the relevance of all the variables, the statistical analysis consisted of three OLS models which tested for a plausible overall effect of the selected independent and control (demographic) variables on parents preferences related to green childcare design (dependent variable). Three demographic variables

PAGE 58

58 parents affiliati on to the University, childcare attendance and parents ethnicity were excluded from the statistical analysis since their respective distributions were extremely skewed and the validity of results including these variables would be compromised. Table 4 10. Linear regression estimates on parents preferences related to green childcare design. Model 1 (Nine variables) Model 2 (Eight variables) Model 3 (Seven variables) Childcare facility .093 (.089) ----Combined income .080** (.036) .064* (.033) .062** (.031) Education (last grade of school completed) .199** (.094) .207** (.093) .202** (.091) Country of Origin .121 (.090) .120 (.090) .119 (.089) Views on political matters .051 (.046) .050 (.046) .049 (.045) Religious affiliation .021 (.082) .018 (.083) --Pro environmental Values & beliefs .206*** (.069) .221*** (.067) .220*** (.067) Pro environmental Behaviors .193** (.076) .182** (.076) .179** (.074) Pro environmental Knowledge .068** (.033) .071** (.033) .071** (.033) Constant 2.062*** (.556) 2.234*** (.532) 2.250*** (.523) N 66 66 66 F 5.27*** 5.78*** 6.71*** .4584 .4478 .4473 Note: Cell entries report coefficients and robust standardized errors (in parentheses). Asterisks denote confidence levels as follows: *p<0.10 two tailed, **p<0.05 two tailed, ***p<0.01 two tailed.

PAGE 59

59 The results of the first linear regression model (Model 1) indicated a strong relationship (99% and 95% confidence level) between the three factored independent variables (proenvironmental values and beliefs, behaviors, and knowledge) and the dependent variable (parents preferences related to green childcare design). Specifically, pro environmental values and beliefs demonstrated having a profound effect on the participants preferences for green childcare design (99% confidence level). Apart from confirming the hypothesis stated in Chapter 1, Table 410 indi cated that both combined family income and education level affect parents preferences. While with the rising education level of parents their green design preferences decrease, with their rising income level their green design preferences increase. The ov erall strength of Model 1 was confirmed by a high R squared; with this set of predictors it was probable to explain almost 46% of the green design preferences variance. Because the first model indicated the childcare facility variable as insignificant, the second linear regression model (Model 2) tested only eight parameters. With an extreme confidence level (99% and 95% ), the three proenvironmental variables (values and beliefs, behaviors, and knowledge) confirmed their strong influence on parents prefer ences for green childcare design. While the negative effect of parents education became a bit more profound (but with confidence level still at 95% ), the confidence level of combined family income influence on parents green design preferences dropped to 90% Additionally, Model 2 indicated the religious affiliation variable as irrelevant; therefore it was not considered for further testing. The third model (Model 3), which tested seven variables, affirmed a significant negative effect of education and a strong positive effect of combined family income on

PAGE 60

60 parents green design preferences for childcare centers. In both cases, the variables tested on the 95% confidence levels. Country of origin and views on political matters did not prove as intensely signi ficant parameters in any of the three models. Once again, even with the alterations in control variables, Model 3 confirmed extreme confidence levels (99 % and 95% ) in the positive influence of parents proenvironmental values, beliefs, behaviors, and know ledge on their preferences related to green childcare design. Particularly proenvironmental values and beliefs demonstrated a 99% confidence level in the profound effect on the respondents green design preferences. With the given set of predictors, it wa s probable to explain almost 45% of the green design preferences variance. A prominent relationship of the three factored independent variables and the dependent variable is depicted in F igure 4 1. Preferences Values & Beliefs Behaviors Knowledge 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 5 10 Figure 41. Scatter plot matrix diagram of proenvironmental (independent and dependent) variables. Pro environmental Responses Review Figure 42 illustrates the distribution of responses for the pro environmental values and beliefs section (Parent Questionnaire 1; questions 10 through 13). An

PAGE 61

61 over whelming m ajority of the participants (78% ) strongly agreed that toxic substances in air, water, and soil could cause serious health problems to adults and children. Approximately the same proportion of the participants (81% ) claimed they would be willing to pay higher taxes in order to better protect the environment. More than half of the participants (56% ) strongly agreed that climate change affects our future. Half of the participants believed that humans should live in harmony with nature without excess ive exploitation of natural resources. Fig ure 4 2. Pro environmental values and beliefs response review. Sample size n=66. The d ivision of responses for the pro environmental behaviors section (Parent Questionnaire 1; questions 14 through 18) is depicted in F igure 43. The vast majority of the participants (almost 94%) declared engaging in strong recycling activities, natural ventilation, and use of energy saving appliances and light bulbs in their households. Approximately 85% of the participants admitted to efficient water use on rare and irregular basis. A slightly smaller proportion of the participants declared that they purchase and use green cleaning products sometimes, often, or always.

PAGE 62

62 Fig ure 4 3. Pro environmental behaviors response review. Sample size n=66. Figure 44 presents the distribution of responses from the proenvironmental knowledge test (Parent Questionnaire 1; questions 19 through 28). Out of ten questions, only the last statement discussing the interior contaminants which may trigger asthma and allergic reactions was answered correctly by all 66 participants. Other questions, answered predominantly correctly, included problems of water efficiency, energy performance, prevention of indoor air pollution, and interior materials and furniture. However, a detailed question about antimicrobial, antistatic, and easy to clean flooring suitable for a childcare facility was answered incorrectly by the majority of the participants (62% ). In addition, the vast majority of the participants did not seem to have appropriate knowledge in regard to indoor environmental quality (75% ). Finally, more than half of the participants (54% ) marked an incorrect response for the daily amount of waste generated by an average American. The overall distribution of correct responses with the numerical amount and percentage proportion is depicted in F igure 45.

PAGE 63

63 20 5 3 3 41 6 8 50 30 0 46 61 63 63 25 60 58 16 36 66 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Location Water use Energy Materials 1 Materials 2 Materials 3 Indoor air IEQ 1 Waste IEQ 2 Number of Respondents Incorrect answer Correct answer Fig ure 4 4. Pro environmental knowledge response review. Sample size n=66. Fig ure 4 5. Distribution of responses from the proenvironmental knowledge test. Sample size n=66. Figure 46 illustrates parents pro environmental preferences related to green childcare design (Parent Questionnaire 2; questions 1 through 12). All partic ipants declared strong preferences for daylight and views of nature and for a recycling program. The v ast majority of the participants would prefer their childcare facility to practice environmental education and protection (almost 94% of the participants) energy efficiency (almost 88% of the participants), water efficiency (almost 85%

PAGE 64

64 Fig ure 4 6. Preferences related to green childcare design response review. Sample size n=66. of the participants), abundance of outdoor natural environment (83% of the participants), occupant controlled HVAC and lighting (80% of the participants), and locally obtained renewable interior materials (almost 73% of the participants). A large

PAGE 65

65 proportion of the participants (62% ) would prefer to pay highe r tuition in order for their children to attend a childcare facility that implements green design practices. More than half of the participants were unsure about preferring the location of childcare facility in close proximity to public transportation. Rev ersed questions discussing the interior materials offered a variety of responses. Over half of the participants (51% ) w ere undecided about the use of plastic and pressed wood furniture. Only 13 participants (not even 20% ) displayed strong disagreement with the use of paints and coatings with high levels of VOCs. Summary In conclusion, demographic descriptive statistics aimed to depict major characteristics of the study sample by showing the representation of parents affiliation to the University, childcar e facility, childcare attendance, combined family income, completed level of education, country of origin, religious affiliation, views on political matters, and ethnicity. Three OLS models determined the level of significance of six demographic variables and four factored proenvironmental variables. While linear regression tests determined the irrelevance of childcare facility and religion variables, they affirmed a significant negative effect of parents education and a strong positive effect of combined family income on the parents green design preferences related to the childcare facilities. The scatter plot matrix diagram illustrated the strong relationship between the pro environmental variables and the degree of influence they have on each other. Bar graphs depicted and in greater detail illustrated the participants responses for the proenvironmental values, beliefs, and behaviors, knowledge, and preferences sections.

PAGE 66

66 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Dont let us forget that the causes of human actions are usually immeasurably more complex than our subsequent explanations of them. Fyodor Dostoevsky The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent to which parents preference s associated with green childcare design relate to the ir pro environmental values, beliefs, behaviors and knowledge. A review of literature indicated that parents carry an important role as informal evaluators of childcare quality and, at the same time, lack the necessary appraisal knowledge. Furthermore, the review highlighted that although sustainability and green design are crucial for healthy and safe environments, they are not included among important childcare quality variables. Contemporary educational and architectural studies seem to miss the connect ion between the green design phenomenon, childcare environments, and parents (or consumers) pro environmental inclinations. This chapter discusses the study findings framed by the research question stated in Chapter 1 and by the theories presented in the literature review. Additionally, the chapter includes conclusions and implications for future research. Discussion of Findings Even though several authors emphasize the benefits of sustainability and green designto name a few, Boise, 2010; Durrett & Tor elli, 2009; Ford, 2007; Kopec, 2009 neither concept is considered a driver in most existing childcare environments. Some authors state that parents as main consumers of childcare services are considered poor evaluators of their quality (Fontaine et al., 20 06; Helburn et al., 1995; Olds, 2001), which could contribute to their lack of demand for green design, and therefore for green design not being included among the commonly cited childcare quality variables and practices.

PAGE 67

67 However, contrary to Olds (2001) and Helburn et al. (1995) who state that parents do not have sufficient information and knowledge necessary to assess the level of childcare quality, this study sample demonstrated significant awareness of sustainability concepts and strong preferences related to green childcare design. Findings discussed here are organized according to the three groups of study variables: (1) demographics, (2) proenvironmental values, beliefs, behaviors and knowledge, and (3) preferences related to green childcare design (see Figure 51). Finally, this part of the chapter discusses major qualitative findings. Figure 51. Relationship between variables. Demographic Variables In this study, demographic questions were used to create a group of control variables. Although s ome of these variables demonstrated strong influence on parents preferences related to green childcare design, their role was to remain constant

PAGE 68

68 throughout each of the three linear regression tests and allow for observation and profound evaluation of the relationships between the independent and dependent variables. Most demographic variables were included in the study given the prevalence of suggestions that they could have a strong influence on the individuals views of the environment. While Bechtel, Verdugo, and Pinheiro (1999) believe that cultural background and religious affiliation might influence individuals behaviors and views of the environment, Olofsson and Ohman ( 2006) together with Van Liere & Dunlap ( 1980) believe that individuals income, occupation, and political affiliation may dictate their environmental concerns. Contrary to the literature, study findings suggested that occupation, affiliation to the University, country of origin, religious affiliation, views on political matters, and ethnicity did not test as significant influences on parents preferences related to green childcare design. One reason for the low level of influence of these variables could be their rather skewed distributions. More than 75% of the participants declared professional affiliation to the University (faculty, staff, or other), country of origin being the U.S., and white ethnicity. Almost 60% of the parents stated liberal political views and nearly 50% of the parents declared no religious affiliation. Universi ties in general are multicultural environments, with professionals, students, faculty and staff members who offer occupational, cultural, religious, political, and even ethnic diversity, the study sample size was probably not large enough to demonstrate a greater demographic variety that would prevent disproportions of some demographic variables. Out of nine control variables, however, two demonstrated strong influence on the parents preferences related to green childcare design. Even with their skewed

PAGE 69

69 di stributions, combined family income and level of education tested as highly significant. According to the studys findings, combined family income demonstrated to have a strong positive influence on parents preferences. Fifty percent of the participants d eclared having acombined family income larger than $100,000, which could be attributed to their faculty and staff positions within the University. In addition, 63% of the participants stated their affiliation with the Colleges of Medicine and Public Health & Health Professions The majority of healthcarerelated professions tend to have higher salaries than many other occupations in different sectors (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010) P revious studies cited by Olofsson and Ohman (2006) indicate that indivi duals with higher family incomes tend to support and commit to environmental organizations, although their financial ability to pay fees for environmental improvement is often stronger than their true concern about the environment. The most counterintuiti ve finding of the study was the negative effect of completed education level on the parents preferences related to green childcare design. Literature indicates there is a positive relationship between educational attainment and environmental concerns (Olofsson and Ohman, 2006) This study, however, did not support Olofssons and Ohmans (2006) findings. Although 82% of the participant pool declared post doctoral education and 16% declared a college level education, their preferences related to green childc are design were negatively influenced and detected as weaker than expected. Some research findings state that active college students play an important role in environmental and ecological debates (Olofsson & Ohman, 2006) suggesting that as parents, colle ge graduates might have already accrued a degree of, and perhaps continue pursuing further, environmental knowledge. Indeed,

PAGE 70

70 according to the study settings director, parents with advanced degrees (PhD. and medical) frequently ask for research based docum entation to support childcare practices (P. Pallas, personal communication, August 11, 2010). Parents concerns range from the skills they should expect their child to exhibit at various developmental stages, to what type of play equipment is safe and age appropriate. These parents are more likely to complete internet searches and research reviews to educate themselves on a topic before discussing their concerns or recommendations with the director. Even though the results of this study exhibited parents strong preferences related to green childcare design, the negative effect of education still displayed as essential; parent initiated investigation into the topic may be a crucial influence on findings. Parents interest in scientific inquiry may translate into higher expectations related to the proenvironmental character of the childcare facility and services. However, such expectations may not be easily met because (1) parents may think there is not enough evidence to support the claims made by the childcare center or (2) childcare center is lagging behind in its efforts. Pro environmental Values, Beliefs, Behaviors, and Knowledge In this study, pro environmental values, beliefs, behaviors and knowledge represented a set of independent variables. Some authors suggest that proenvironmental knowledge and attitudes, although related to the individuals behaviors, have a weak or nonexistent influence on peoples actions (McKenzieMohr & Smith, 2006). As already discussed in the literature review, the VBN theory of environmentalism developed by Stern and his colleagues (1999) challenges this position and emphasizes that pro environmental behaviors occur in response to

PAGE 71

71 personal moral norms in individuals who believe that environmental conditions pose threats to other people and to the biosphere. The results of this study supported the findings of VBN theory and identified an influential relationship between the parents proenvironmental values, beliefs, behaviors, knowledge and their preferences related to gr een childcare design. Corraliza and Berenguer (2000) consider values and beliefs as important culture related life standards and psychological factors that provide guidelines for formation of peoples behaviors. However, both authors also state that the sa me values do not influence the same types of behaviors in the same ways. According to numerous studies, preferences are an expression of underlying aspects of human functioning (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1995). Therefore, preferences are intimately related to an individuals values, beliefs, and behaviors, which consequently play an important role in the formation of those preferences. In fact, the findings of this study detected such a relationship and mutual influence of pro environmental values, beliefs, behavior s, and preferences with 99% and 95% confidence levels for the pro environmental values and beliefs on parents preferences and for the proenvironmental behaviors and knowledge on parents preferences respectively. The values and beliefs survey section consisted of four questions that aimed to ascertain parents general attitudes about the environment. More than 80% of the participants confirmed their agreement with each of the statements and affirmed that problems of climate change, toxic substances, and exploitation of the natural environment are part of their personal concerns. To protect the environment, the same percentage of the parents would be willing to pay higher taxes, which could be related

PAGE 72

72 again to the higher income potential or could be considered as an expression of willingness to engage in activist pro environmental behavior (Stern, 2000). Pro environmental behaviors questions were designed to determine the participants personal environmental actions, which may eventually be important i n shaping the development of their childrens proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors (Evans, 2005). Overall, approximately 80% of the participants stated they practice listed proenvironmental behaviors sometimes, often, or always. While most of the ans wers may have been based on the parents personal routines, some theories suggest that a number of green design features could have been chosen because of their convenience (McKenzie Mohr & Smith, 2006). One such example is recycling. According to McKenzie Mohr and Smith (2006), recycling is a popular option of proenvironmental behavior, because it alleviates guilt for not making more difficult and inconvenient changes toward sustainable living. Therefore it is the green behavior of choice for many people. The same explanation could apply to the use of energy efficient lighting and appliances. Almost 94% of the participants declared the use of energy saving appliances and light bulbs in their households on regular basis. To support this theory even further, it is important to highlight the finding that only 8 out of 66 parents economize the water used for shower and washing on daily basis (always). Short showers seem to be one of the biggest personal discomforts; therefore might not be practiced as often as recycling. The proenvironmental knowledge test was administered to determine the participants general understanding of green design practices. The structure of this test was framed by two LEED rating systems (LEED EB and LEED for Schools) and by the

PAGE 73

73 exis ting conditions in both study settings. As already mentioned in Chapter 3, the selected centers are located in a university based environment, which enables programs, support systems, and sustainability practices not generally available to other childcare facilities (see Appendix G). Although more than 56% of the parents received very good scores (at least eight correct responses out of ten) on the pro environmental knowledge test, there was a number of participants who did not recognize some green design practices in their entirety. Two answers with the lowest scores addressed issues of interior material selection and indoor environmental quality. First, although almost 95% of the participants were able to recognize positive environmental attributes in int erior materials and furniture, 62% of the participants were not able to properly choose a specific flooring type. Out of four possibilities (carpet, linoleum, tiles, and concrete), 47% of the participants chose tiles instead of linoleum as the best antimic robial, antistatic, and easy to clean flooring suitable for a childcare facility. It was quite apparent that many parents did not consider issues of safety, acoustics, and maintenance when making their choice. According to Bowers (2005), linoleum used to be very popular choice but after a decade it came to be viewed as cheap and boring. However, with a wide range of colors and patterns now available and with production that is environmentally conscious, linoleum is becoming widely specified again. It has an integral finish that requires minimal maintenance, resists scratches, and contributes to better acoustical performance (Bowers, 2005). Although there are some concerns about emissions from the linseed oil, which is an integral component of linoleum, VOCs emitted from the vinyl flooring or from the tile adhesives are regarded as a greater threat (Green Resource Center, 2010).

PAGE 74

74 Second, 75% of the participants presented misinterpretation of the indoor environmental quality (IEQ) concept. Although more than 65% of parents understand IEQ consists of components such as daylight, views and artificial lighting, only 24% of the participants recognized that heating and occupants control of the environment are just as important. The fact that 63% of the participants are associated with the field of medical sciences may also have contributed to such test results; while indoor air quality issues such as daylight, natural ventilation, and nontoxic materials are a part of the participants everyday professional lives, ot her components of IEQ may not be apparent to them on such a regular basis. Both of these problematic areas, interior material selection and IEQ, represent basic yet complex green design issues that might require better education of consumers and all design stakeholders. Despite minor ambiguities and only few results that point to the differences in preferences attributable to knowledge about the environment (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1995), the study findings detected that the achieved level of proenvironmental knowledge had a strong positive influence on parents preferences related to green childcare design. However, it is possible to assume that the level of proenvironmental knowledge does not always have to be influenced by values, beliefs, and behaviors, or v ice versa. Preferences Related to Green Childcare Design Parents preferences related to green childcare design represented a group of dependent study variables. These consisted of 12 statements, with their framework based on two LEED rating systems and two study settings. Based on the results of the study, all participants prefer their childcare facility to have strong recycling programs and an abundance of daylight and views. Almost 80% of the participants prefer their childcare facility to use energy efficient appliances, water efficient plumbing fixtures,

PAGE 75

75 HVAC and lighting controlled by occupants, environmental education, and plenty of natural environments surrounding the childcare center. In order to achieve green childcare design, over 60% of the par ticipants would be willing to pay higher tuition. Again, this finding might be related to the high combined family income levels claimed by the study participants. More than 50% of the participants indicated in the survey they had no preference in the loca tion of their childcare facility in regards to its proximity to public transportation. However, the qualitative results of the survey revealed that more than 70% of the parents enjoy the centers locations because of the closeness to their work sites. LEED rating systems include the use of alternative transportation, including mass transportation, as one of the credits. The city, the university, and even the hospital, to which one of the centers is attached, offer public and alternative modes of transportat ion. Yet, the study participants seem to prefer personal transportation. The existing transportation system has limited reach and frequency, which are great constraints in humid subtropical climate. It is probable, that study participants find the use of personal vehicles more convenient for their job and family schedules. Out of 12 statements in the preferences section, two of them were presented as reversed questions; these in turn offered responses that did not strongly correlate with the results of the pro environmental knowledge test. First, although parents proved their understanding of low toxic and renewable materials in the knowledge test and stated their strong preferences for them in the following statement, 50% of the participants were unsure ab out the use of plastic and pressed wood furniture. Second, 65% of the participants would agree for their childcare facilities to use paints and coatings with high levels of VOCs, even though they exhibited a very good understanding of toxic

PAGE 76

76 substances and indoor air pollution in the previously administered proenvironmental knowledge test. This finding only supports many research theories that although reversed questions help to break a boring survey routine, thus increasing the likelihood that questions wi ll be answered accurately, they have to be administered with extra caution (Kumar, 2005). Overall, it is safe to conclude that both observations and study findings suggest that parents preferences related to green childcare design are closely related to their proenvironmental values, beliefs, behaviors, and knowledge. Areas of uncertainty identified through reversed questions and/or questions about the location of the childcare centers proximity to public transportation might stem from the participants own inconvenience or lack of attention to the questions. The inclusion of additional questions about parents proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors, and their green design preferences might have generated even more insightful results. An example of such a question would be: If you had a choice, would you sel ect a green childcare facility instead of the current one? However, it is important to acknowledge that there is a considerable difference between answering a survey and making real life choices, where additional factors might weigh in. Furthermore, it is known that many respondents tend to answer more cautiously when their names are published and their commitments are written down (McKenzieMohr & Smith, 2006). This studys surveys were anonymous, which may have contributed to obtaining these inconsistent findings. Qualitative Findings Although they were not required of the participants, qualitative responses about their childcare facilities and desired green design features were elicited through the

PAGE 77

77 second questionnaire, questions13 through 16. As mentioned previously, in addition to two LEED rating systems and VBN theory, the structures of both surveys (especially the proenvironmental knowledge test and parents preferences related to green childcare design) were partially based on the two existing study settings. Qualitative results of this study not only verified findings stated in the literature review but also appeared to confirm the researchers premise that the study setting might have influenced parents proenvironmental attitudes and green design knowledge and preferences. The research of Helburn et al. (1995) as well as the results of this study concur that the three most common reasons for choosing a particular childcare facility include childcare center location, educational curriculum taught by experienced teachers and staff, and the facilitys reputation. Approximately one sixth of the participants also noted the importance of the childcares cleanliness, cost, and hours of operations. Parents green design desires seemed to be largely derived from what their childcare centers cannot or do not currently offer. More than 25% of the participants declared their wishes for each of the following green design features: occupant controlled high efficient HVAC energy efficient lighting and appliances recycled and low toxic/nontoxic interior materials and furniture natural ventilation and views of nature Additionally, some parents would like their childcare facilities to incorporate solar power, bigger outdoor play areas, green educational curriculum with strong recycling activities, and locally grown produce. While most of the answers are likely based on the parents observations of their present childcare facilities, McKenzie Mohrs and Smiths (2006) theory of convenience might still apply, especial ly in the case of recycling activities. Twelve parents also commented on their childrens health problems; they

PAGE 78

78 listed allergies, recurring ear infections, and communicable diseases as the major health and developmental problems that could be traced to the childcare environment. Finally, all parents attempted to define the term green design; almost all explanations concluded that such design should be environmentally friendly and safe for children. In summary, the results of this study concluded profound influence of parents pro environmental values, beliefs, behaviors, and knowledge on their preferences related to green childcare design. Study findings suggested that combined family income and completed education level belong to the demographic variables that have the strongest effect on parents green design preferences. Furthermore, although participants proenvironmental behaviors and knowledge displayed as essential, parents proenvironmental values and beliefs tested as the variables with the biggest influence on their preferences. The study findings clearly substantiated parents general understanding of green design importance for childrens healthy and safe development. However, the results of the study also contradicted several findings stated in the literature. Most importantly, higher levels of parents completed education displayed as inversely related to greater green design preferences. Also, despite being identified as childcare evaluators with limited knowledge, parents demonstrated sign ificant proenvironmental knowledge. What is more, study participants displayed strong preferences related to green childcare design, even though both study settings currently offer more green design and sustainability practices than the majority of other childcare facilities within the state of Florida. These facts only enforce the question : Should parents still be considered ineffective evaluators of childcare quality, predominantly

PAGE 79

79 because of their high demands? Although the study sample was limited in size and demographics, this question might be worthy of further discovery. Conclusions and Implications for Future Research The positive impact of sustainable development and green design in any environment, including those for early childcare, has been c onfirmed by a number of studies (Butin, 2000; Fontaine et al., 2006; Kopec, 2009). As Fontaine et al. (2006) write, a high quality care setting is essential for the optimal development of young children; a complete assessment of the spaces, curriculum and activities, materials, equipment, nutrition and health factors can uncover critical information for parents, center administrators, teachers and staff. This thesis demonstrated that one of the crucial stakeholders of childcare design parents have strong p ro environmental values, beliefs, behaviors, and knowledge that positively influence their preferences for green childcare facilities. Although parents interest in green childcare design is far from vague, there are a number of barriers that prevent green design development in early childhood environments. First, although parents are considered major consumers of childcare services, in general they seem to have limited decisive power on their elements of quality. Although the study settings director clai ms parents preferences influence everything from hours of operation to meals served (Pallas, P. Personal communication, September 20, 2010) such parental influence might not be present in all childcare facilities, especially not when it comes to includin g green design practices as one of the quality variables. Requirements of childcare quality variables need to be monitored and updated according to changing societal needs (Butin, 2000) ; if green design is important for the overall development of children and if parents have st rong preferences for it, then

PAGE 80

80 parents should be given more power to include green design among key childcare quality variables. Additional research should assess the role of parents in green design decisionmaking and evaluate their preferences according t o shifting societal needs. Education for sustainability is a lifelong process and must begin at the earliest stages of individuals lives (Evans, 2005). Second, although parents are interested in green childcare design, there are not enough options for them to make a choice between conventional and green childcare. According to LEED statistics (2009), the number of existing green childcare facilities in the United States is under 2%. There are more than 480 green childcare centers in the U.S. (USGBC, 2010) ; additional green childcare facilities might exist but not be officially certified and therefore are excluded from the list of LEED certified buildings. Some of these centers might oppose the certification because it is too complex, expensive, or does not fulfill their green design visions and approaches. Further investigation of green childcare centers existence, types, and other statistics is strongly recommended. Third, it is important to realize there are two ways of building a green childcare facility which might have an effect on the clients, consumers, and users preferences and decisions. While one way is to construct a new green childcare, which on average costs 5% more than a conventional building (Durrett & Torelli, 2009), another option is to reuse and recycle an existing construction at a comparable or even lower cost than new construction. However, even though most of the green design features would improve every childcare environment, they often have higher initial costs and tend to save energy and environment over the life cycle (Durrett & Torelli, 2009; Ford, 2007). Additionally, the efficacy of green building rests on the correct use by its occupants.

PAGE 81

81 Therefore, whether the facility is new or reused, it is necessary to provide the building and all design stakeholders with the tools, knowledge, and resources to make green vision a reality (Ford, 2007); merely talking about the benefits of green design is not sufficient. These facts strongly encourage additional research in the areas of green design education and predesign programming. Fourth, this study concentrated solely on parents. However, teachers, staff, and the government could also contribute to the presence of green design in early childcare environments. Currently, teachers and st aff generally concentrate on educational and operational services of childcare facilities. The government carries an important role as childcare cost and quality regulator. Some authors claim that government, business and private philanthropies need to inc rease their financial support for childcare services, which, in addition, could improve the levels of childcare quality (Helburn et al., 1995). Although legislation enforcement is not always popular (such as regulation of auto emissions), it has been prove n to work in some circumstances (McKenzieMohr & Smith, 2006); perhaps greener governmental policies would lead to greener childcare designs. Additional studies examining teachers, staffs, and governments green design knowledge and preferences might rev eal important data that could have a strong impact on green childcare design presence and future. Now I know my ABCs (of green design) Next time wont you sing with me?

PAGE 82

82 APPENDIX A ECO HEALTHY CHILD CARE CHECKLIST

PAGE 83

83

PAGE 84

84 APPENDIX B INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD PERMISSION

PAGE 85

85 APPENDIX C INFORMED CONSENT FORM 1

PAGE 86

86 APPENDIX D INFORMED CONSENT FORM 2

PAGE 87

87 APPENDIX E PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 1 For identification purposes only, please write a six -character alphanumeric combination with your first and last initial and month and day of birth (e.g. ZV0916). You will be asked to use this password again in a follow -up PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 2. __ __ __ __ __ __ [FI, LI, MM, MM, DD, DD] For each of the questions 1-8 select the most appropriate answer. 1. What is your affiliation with the University of Florida (UF)? of _______________________________________________ 2. Which childcare facility does your child/do your children attend? 3. How many of your children attend this facility? 4. What was your combined family income in 2009? $20,000 -$40,000 -$60,000 -$80,000 -$100,000 5. What was the last grade of school you completed? college grad 6. What country are you originally from? 7. What is your religious affiliation? 8. How would you describe your views on most political matters? 9. What is your ethnicity? ic For each of the questions 10-13, select only one number on a scale 1=strongly disagree through 5=strongly agree. If you choose not to answer a question or you do not know the answer, select DK/NA. 10. Climate change is aff ecting the future of our children. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA S trongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

PAGE 88

88 11. Toxic substances in air, water, and soil can cause serious health problems to adults and children. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA S trongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree 12. Our family would be willing to pay higher taxes in order to protect the environment. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree 13. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA S trongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree For each of the questions 14-18, select only one number on a scale 1=never through 5=always. If you choose not to answer a question or you do not know the answer, select DK/NA 14. Our family recycles. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always 15. Our family economizes water used for showers and washing. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always 16. Our family uses energy saving appliances and light bulbs. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always 17. Our family opens windows for natural ventilation. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always 18. Our family b uys green/environmentally friendly cleaning products. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always For each statement 19-28, choose the item you believe is the best ans wer: 19. Childcare facilities located in urban areas face the following challenge(s): a. ___ indoor pollution from materials such as plywood, paint, and carpet b. ___ deficiency in learning from the natural environment c. ___ outdoor air pollution from factories and traffic d. ___ all of the above e. ___ a and c only 20. Plumbing fixtures that help to reduce the water use are: a. ___ water meters b. ___ low flow toilets c. ___ aerators d. ___ shower timers e. ___ all of the above

PAGE 89

89 21. The best way to increase energy performance and decrease energy cost in buildings is by: a. ___ the use of energy -efficient appliances b. ___ the proper door and window sealing c. ___ the use of control meters on major mechanical systems d. ___ the use of non-renewable energy sources e. ___ all but d 22. Interior furniture, fabrics, and carpets may contain toxic materials such as formaldehyde and various flame retardants which are known human carcinogens and asthma triggers. a. ___ true b. ___ false 23. T he best antimicrobial, antistatic, and easy to clean floorings suitable for childcare facility is: a. ___ carpet b. ___ linoleum c. ___ tiles d. ___ concrete e. ___ all of the above 24. Bamboo, linoleum, wool, cotton, and cork are the materials that have the worst environmental and performance attributes. a. ___ true b. ___ false 25. The best way to prevent indoor air pollution in a building is by: a. ___ testing for nitrogen b. ___ use of least -toxic biodegradable cleaning products c. ___ use of low or no VOC (volatile organic compound=toxic substance) paints d. ___ natural ventilation e. ___ all but a 26. The best way to improve indoor environmental quality is by: a. ___ maximizing daylight and views b. ___ having heating and lighting controlled by occupants c. ___ using compact fluorescent lighting d. ___ all of the above e. ___ a and c only 27. Every day, an average American generates: a. ___ one pound of waste b. ___ two pounds of waste c. ___ four pounds of waste d. ___ ten pounds of waste 28. Presence of dirt, moisture, and warmth encourages the growth of mold and other contaminants which may trigger asthma and allergic reactions. a. ___ true b. ___ false

PAGE 90

90 APPENDIX F PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 2 For identification purposes only, please write a six -character alphanumeric combination with your first and last initial and month and day of birth (e.g. ZV0916). You were asked to use this password in PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 1. __ __ __ __ __ __ [FI, LI, MM, MM, DD, DD] The first part of this questionnaire deals with preferences related to green childcare design. For each of the questions 1-12, circle only one number on the scale 1=strongly disagree through 5=strongly agree. If you do not wish to answer a question or you do not kno w the answer, choose an option DK/NA. 1. I prefer our childcare facility be located near public transportation. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA S trongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree 2. I prefer our childcare facility be in a small building, surrounded by the natural environment. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree 3. I prefer our childcare faci lity use water efficient plumbing fixtures. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA S trongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree 4. I prefer our childcare facility use energy efficient appliances. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA S trongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree 5. I prefer our childcare facility use plastic and pressed wood furniture. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA S trongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree 6. I prefer our childcare facility incorporate locally obtained, renewable interior materials with recycled content as often as possible. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree 7. I prefer our childcare facility have recycling program. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA S trongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagr ee Agree Strongly agree 8. In each childcare classroom, I prefer occupants be able to adjust the amount of heat and light according to their needs. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA S trongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disa gree Agree Strongly agree 9. I prefer our childcare facility maximize daylight and views of nature. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA S trongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

PAGE 91

91 10. I prefer our childcare facility use paints and coating with high levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA S trongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree 11. I prefer en vironmental education and protection be included in our childcare facilitys educational curriculum. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA S trongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree 12. I prefer to pay higher childcare tuition in order to have a green/environmentally friendly childcare facility. 1 2 3 4 5 DK/NA S trongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree Please provide the appropriate answers to questions 13-16. 13. What are the three main reasons you chose the childcare facility your child attends/your children attend? 14. What do you understand under the term green design to encompass or to mean? ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ______ 15. What are the three environmental/green design features you would like to see in your childcare facility, if any? 16. Has your child/have your children experienced any health or developmental problems that could be traced to the childcare environment? If yes, please specify: ________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 92

92 APPENDIX G STUDY SETTING DESCRIPTIONS Childcare 1 is surrounded by a 3.3 acre large conservation area from the north side, family and graduate campus housing from the south side, a twolane road from the east and a quiet neighborhood buffering the campus golf course from the west side. The center is located near public transportation and has designated parking spaces for a limited number of vehicles. The main exterior and interior building materials include concrete masonry units (CMU), gypsum board, and wood siding. Each of the three buildings features large operable windows which serve as a plentiful source of daylight and natural ventilation. Whenever weather permits, windows are open. The thermostat is set by the university to stay at 74F for air conditioning in the summer and 70F for heat in the winter. Ceilings in all spaces are composed of acoustic al tiles; lighting consists of recessed luminaires with fluorescent tubes. Several classrooms are located in large open spaces, which allow groups of children to perform activities simultaneously, but may contribute to acoustical privacy issues. The f loori ng materials in the majority of spaces consist of vinyl composite tiles (VCT) and area rugs demarcating different activity zones. The i nfant room features nylon carpet; the flooring in the administrative offices consists of ceramic tile and area rugs. Mos t of the furniture utilized in the classrooms is made from solid wood and pressed wood materials, only a few toddler chairs are plastic. In addition to the facilitys central kitchen, in which a cook prepares the USDA approved meals, each building featur es its own kitchenette for heating food, food storage, cleaning, and learning purposes. In order to minimize waste the facility has two compost piles for the leftover food. Composting products are used as nutritional support

PAGE 93

93 for vegetable and butterfly gar dens located in the facilitys yard. Fenced playground areas located around the buildings are large and feature zones for various activities. Finally, the center has its own recycling program for cans, bottles, and cardboard. The following images (Figure 4 1 through Figure 4 8) depict Childcare 2. Figure G 1. Main building with classrooms, main kitchen, and offices. Photograph taken by Zuzana Vatralova. Figure G 2. Typical classroo m 1. Chairs are lifted for daily cleaning purposes. Photograph taken by Zuzana Vatralova.

PAGE 94

94 Figure G 3 Kitchenette in a typical classroom suite. Photograph taken by Zuzana Vatralova. Figure G 4. Personal storage area. Chairs are lifted for daily cleaning purposes. Photograph taken by Zuzana Vatralova.

PAGE 95

95 Figure G 5. Multipurpose play space. Photograph taken by Zuzana Vatralova. Figure G 6. Herb garden. Photograph taken by Zuzana Vatralova.

PAGE 96

96 Figure G 7. Outdoor deck/play area. Photograph taken by Zuzana Vatralova. Figure G 8. Outdoor playground. Photograph taken by Zuzana Vatralova. Childcare 2 is located in close proximity to the northe rn part of the University hospital situated in the south east campus corner In contrast to the other structures in the immediate neighborhood, the center is onl y one story tall. It creates the impression of being located in a valley, with a green park like area on the north west side and a busy two lane road sloping down on the east side. The childcare facility is located in close proximity to busy streets and public transportation; therefore, the center is fenced from all sides. There is abundant parking in the immediate area, including a five story parking garage across the street for hospital employees, a large surface lot for residents

PAGE 97

97 of university housing, and a small surface lot for parents dropping off or picking up children at the center. The building is concrete block construction with exterior brick veneer. Although all windows in the facility are operable, they are rarely opened for natural ventilation. Most of the day, windows serve as a source of natural daylight, the blinds are closed only during nap time. The thermostat is controlled by the hospital and set at 70F. The ceiling in most spaces consists of painted gypsum board and acoustical tiles. Recessed cans and recessed troffer luminaires with fluorescent tubes are the only source of artificial lighting. Each age group has its own classroom suite separated from the other spaces by a door with a glass insert. The majority of spaces feature VCT flooring and area rugs, except the infant room which has nylon wall to wall carpet in the largest classroom All classroom and hallway furniture is made of solid wood. The meals for children are prepared by the hospital according to USDA requirements. However, each classroom suite features its own kitchenette and restroom areas. Similar to Childcare 1, Chil dcare 2 has its own butterfly park and small vegetable garden and a recycling program for bottles, cans, and cardboard. The outside play area attached to the northwest side of the building is comprised of three large zones: an asphalt bicycle track, a gre en area with swings and sandboxes, and an additional asphalt area with a climbing structure, slides and a storage shed. The following images (Figure 4 9 through Figure 4 15) depict Childcare 2.

PAGE 98

98 Figure G 9. Main entrance Photograph taken by Zuzana Vatral ova. Figure G 10. Hallway and personal storage area. Photograph taken by Zuzana Vatralova. Figure G 11. Typical classroom 2. Photograph taken by Zuzana Vatralova.

PAGE 99

99 Figure G 12. Arts and craft preparation and cleaning area. Photograph taken by Zuzana Vatralova. Figure G 13. Butterfly garden. It separates the childcare facility and the hospital. Photograph taken by Zuzana Vatralova.

PAGE 100

100 Figure G 14. Outdoor asphalt play area. Photograph taken by Zuzana Vatralova. Figure G 15. Outdoor playground area and herb garden. Photograph taken by Zuzana Vatralova.

PAGE 101

101 LIST OF REFERENCES American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association, National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care (U.S.), & United States Maternal and Child Health Bureau. (2002). Caring for our Children. National Health and Safety Performance Standards: Guidelines for Out of Home Child Care Programs (2ndBechtel, R. B. (1997). Environment and Behavior. An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. ed.). Elk Grove Village, IL American Academy of Pediatrics. Bechtel, R. B., Verdugo, V.C., & Pinheiro, J. (1999). Environmental belief system: United States, Brazil, and Mexico. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 30 122 128. Boise, P. (2010). Go green rating scale for early childhood settings St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press. Bowers, H. 2005. Interior Materials and Surfaces. The Complete Guide. Richmond Hills, Canada: Firefly Books Ltd. Bredekamp, S., Copple, C., & National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs (Rev ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010. Occupa tional Employment Statistics. May 2009 National Industry Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Retrieved September 18, 2010 from http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics 4_621300.htm#000000 Butin, D. (2000). Early Childhood Centers National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 1090 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005. Corraliza, J. A. & Berenguer, J. (2000). Environmental values, beliefs, and actions: a situational approach. Environment and Behavior 32, 832848. Croan, J., Long, M., OHare, W., Reynolds, M., & Wertheimer, R. (2000). The Right Start for Americas Newborns: a Decade of City and State Trends. Baltimore, MD: Annie E Casey Foundation. Day, C. & Midbjer, A. (2007). Environment and children: Passive lessons from the everyday environment (1stDudek, M. (1996). Kindergarten architecture. London; New York: E & FN SPON. ed.). Amsterdam; London: Architectural.

PAGE 102

102 Dudek, M., & Baumann, D. (2007). Schools and kindergartens: A design manual Basel: Birkhuser. Durrett, C., & Torreli, L. (2009). Deconstructing "Green: A Holistic Approach to Designing Sustainable Child Development Centers. Exchange: The Early Childhood Leaders' Magazine since 1978, 18 7, 2025. Edwards, A. R. (2005). The sustainability revolution: Portrait of a paradigm shift Gabriola, BC: New Society Publishers. Evans, W.G., Brauchle, G., Haq A., Stecker, R., Wong, K., Shapiro, E. (2007). Young childrens environmental attitudes and behaviors. Environment and Behavior 39 (5), 635659. Fontaine, N. S., Torre, L. D., Grafwallner, R., & Underhill, B. (2006). Increasing quality in early care and learning environments. Early Child Development and Care, 2 (176), 157169. Ford, A. (2007). Designing the Sustainable School Australia: The Images Publishing Group Pty. Ltd. Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming Qualitative Researchers. An Introduction. (3rdGreen Resource Center. 2010. Natural Linoleum Flooring. Retrieved September 20, 2010 from ed.). Pearson Education, Inc. http://www.greenresourcecenter.org/MaterialSheetsWord/NaturalLinoleum.pdf Helburn, S. W. (1995). Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care C enters. Technical Report, Public Report, & Executive Summary. Denver, CO: University of Colorado at Denver. Johnson, L. J., LaMontagne, M.J., Elgas, P. M., & Bauer, A. M. (1998). Early childhood education: Blending theory, blending practice. Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc. Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1995). The experience of nature: a psychological perspective Ann Arbor, MI: Ulrichs Bookstore. Kats, G. (2006). Greening America's Schools: Costs and Benefits Retrieved September 9, 2009 f rom http://www.cap e.com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F9819.pdf Kopec, D. A. (2006). Environmental psychology for design. New York: Fairchild Publications, Inc.

PAGE 103

103 Kopec, D. A. (2009). Health, sustainability, and the built environment New York: Fairchild Books. Kumar, R. (1999). Research methodology : A stepby step guide for beginners London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Lascarides V.C. & Hinitz B.F. ( 2000 LEED EB.(2009). LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings Operations and Maintenance. Retrieved March 10, 2010 from ). History of Early Childhood Education. New York: Falmer Press, Taylor and Francis Group. http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=5545 LEED for Schools. (2009). LEED 2009 for Schools New Construction and Major Renovations. Retrieved March 10, 2010 from http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=5547 Love, J.M., Schochet, P.Z., & Meckstroth, A.L. (1996). Are they in any real danger? What research does and doesnt tell us about child care quality and childrens well being. Plansboro, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research. LPA. (2009). Green School Primer : Lessons in Sustainability (1stMcKenzie Mohr, D. & Smith, W. 2006. Fostering Sustainable Behavior. An Introduction to Community Based Social Marketing. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers. ed.). Australia: The Images Publishing Group Pty. Ltd. Moss, P. (1994). Defining quality: values, stakeholders, and processes, in: P. Moss & A. Pence. Valuying quality in early childhood services. New approaches to defining quality. London: Paul Chapman. NAYEC. (2010). National Association for the Education of Young Children. Our History. Retrieved March 10, 2010 from http://www.naeyc.org/about/history OEC. (2009). Oregon Environmental Council. Eco Healthy Child Care Retrieved December 2, 2009 from http://www.oeconline.org/our work/kidshealth/ehcc OEC. (2010). Oregon Environmental Council. Eco Healthy Child Care. Retrieved March 21, 2010 from http://www.oeconline.org/resources/publications/kitsandtipsarchive/2007E HCCChecklist OEC. (2010). Oregon Environmental Council. Eco Healthy Child Care Retrieved March 21, 2010 from http://ecohealthychildcare.org/

PAGE 104

104 Olds, A. R. (2001). Child Care Design Guide (1stOlofsson, A. & Ohman, S. 2006. General Beliefs and Environmental Concern: Transatlantic Comparison. Environment and Behavior 38 (6), 768 790. ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Poortinga, W., Steg, L. & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concerns and environmental behavior: a study into household energy use. Environment and behavior 36 (1), 70 93. Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Robertson, D. L. & Mann, Emily. A. (2001). Long term effects of an early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15 year follow up of low in come children in public schools. Journal of American Medical Association, 285 (18), 2339 2346. Schwartz, S. H. (1973). Normative explanations of helping behavior: A critique, proposal, and empirical test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9, 349 364. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology 10, 221 279. New York: Academic Press. Stern, P. C. (1999). A value belief norm theory of support for social movements: t he case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review 6 (2), 81 97. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56 (3), 407 424. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology : Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. UNESCO. (2009). Role of Education. Retrieved October 12, 2009 from http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php URL_ID=2466&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html USGBC. (2009). [LEED Project List Public 12.08.09]. Unpublished raw data. USGBC. (2010). The United States Green Building Council. Retrieved April 21, 2010 from http://www.u sgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1586#gsb USGBC. (2010). Green School Buildings. Retrieved April 21, 2010 from http://www.greenschoolbuildings.org/leed/existing.aspx Van Liere, K.D & Dunlap, E. R. (1980). The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly 44 (2), 181197.

PAGE 105

105 WCED. (1987). Bruntland Report : World Commission on Environment and Development. Winchip, S. M. (2007). Sustainable Design for Interior Environments (1st ed.). New York, NY: Fairchild Publications.

PAGE 106

106 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Zuzana Vatralova was born and raised in Stara Lubovna, Slovakia. She received her first bachelor s d egr ee in Legal Studies at the Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia. She moved to the United States in 2002 to accompany her husband during his graduate studies. Zuzanas English language skills were limited to the point of nonexistent at the time. She, however, worked hard on improving her English to pursue a degree in interior design at the University of Florida. Z uzana completed her Bachelor of Design degree in interior design, with highest honors, in 2009 and immediately embarked upon her Master of I nterior Design degree. Zuzana finds passion and inspiration in her family; her research interest is the design of learning and educational environments. It is from these sources that her research topic evolved. Zuzana is open to constant learning from all available sources and likes to teach others. She appreciates sustainable, contemporary, and functional design. After the completion of her masters degree, she plans to return to her native Slovakia where she would like to open her own graphic and design s tudio, and pursue an academic career